Political Crossfire Forums

[CursedLemon]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Why would you object to Aquinas who in addition to being one of the great Catholic theologian, nearly single handedly revived Aristotle at a critical time in the history of thought and education, is he too logical to employ?

As I said the fact that you don't find an argument or a set of documents(the Gospels of the New Testament) pursuasive does not make them either less empirical or rational.

Whether you come to a self realization or have a revelation of some kind, I fail to see how yours being self generated is somehow more true or valid than someone elses from some other source?

That was my point and what I found ironic about your statement belief in what represented God to YOU, which is purely SELF realization.

I have disagreed with everything Aquinas ever said. Like, almost literally EVERYTHING.

And at any rate, I don't consider rational thought to be "personal revelation" in the sense of the original post where I essentially meant "God talked to me".

Also, I would like it to be clear that Christianity was not on my mind when I made the original post.

[mODULAR mAN]

CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Why would you object to Aquinas who in addition to being one of the great Catholic theologian, nearly single handedly revived Aristotle at a critical time in the history of thought and education, is he too logical to employ?

As I said the fact that you don't find an argument or a set of documents(the Gospels of the New Testament) pursuasive does not make them either less empirical or rational.

Whether you come to a self realization or have a revelation of some kind, I fail to see how yours being self generated is somehow more true or valid than someone elses from some other source?

That was my point and what I found ironic about your statement belief in what represented God to YOU, which is purely SELF realization.

I have disagreed with everything Aquinas ever said. Like, almost literally EVERYTHING.

And at any rate, I don't consider rational thought to be "personal revelation" in the sense of the original post where I essentially meant "God talked to me".

Yeah, Aquinas on the whole "masturbation is worse than rape" thing was pretty freaky. (Of course, he did add the caveat that rape is worses than masturbation because of the violence part, but ONLY because of that - otherwise, it's better because the guy is actually TRYING to use his sperm for something...)

Yicky.

[LetsGetReal]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: You also cannot prove that other conscious entities even exist...in rationalist thinking, you are the only conscious entity in the universe.

That is solipsism, not rationalism. In fact, it is extremely irrational, even psychopathic, to believe you are the only conscious entity in existence. Actually thats a deconstructionist method developed by Descartes to prove the existence of God, but I digress. Thought you guys should both know since both I believe were incorrect...

[CursedLemon]

LetsGetReal wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: You also cannot prove that other conscious entities even exist...in rationalist thinking, you are the only conscious entity in the universe.

That is solipsism, not rationalism. In fact, it is extremely irrational, even psychopathic, to believe you are the only conscious entity in existence. Actually thats a deconstructionist method developed by Descartes to prove the existence of God, but I digress. Thought you guys should both know since both I believe were incorrect...

Of course Descartes never did prove the existence of God, because Descartes fails miserably at the internet.

:B

[BigGee]

All arguments that attempt to prove a negative (trying to prove that something exists without any shred of any REAL EVIDANCE whatsoever leaving everyone without any REAL substance to work with) must by its very nature work on faith. Circular in motion alright... like wiping your ass with a hoola-hoop!

What a mega waste of time that we could otherwise use to work with what evidance that we actually have, that would otherwise begin real and rational communications, that would otherwise rightfully obsolete the destructiveness of such faith in the stupidity of MIND CREATED REALITIES, such as all religions are! How can one even begin to think such an argument has any value, except to point out the complete and utter ignorance of trying to wipe your ass with a hoola-hoop. Which is exactly the problem, that a theist must employ to stave of the doom they can never face. That is no argument whatsoever and can never be won by anyone, period! The only accomplishment, is to keep everyone confused and subserviant to "hucksters". Clearly, "snake oil" has more observable and redeemable qualities, as you can at least see and test it, with less self-deception, dishonesty and lazy acceptance of higher reality.