• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you REALLY care about the next Pope?

How much do you care about who the next Pope is?


  • Total voters
    106
I have heard St. Thomas Aquinas called many things. Irrational isn't one of them.:roll:

You should look at his Quinque Viae, the arguments are simply laughable.
 
Accomodationists. Yes, we know. Stand up for reality or be buried under the inevitable flood of irrationality.

Personally, I'm agnostic. Strident atheists irritate me as much as fanatic believers.:catapult:
 
You should look at his Quinque Viae, the arguments are simply laughable.

Hardly laughable, and very rational.
The Quinque viæ, Five Ways, or Five Proofs are Five arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book, Summa Theologica. They are not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient “proofs” of God’s existence; as worded, they propose only to explain what it is “all men mean” when they speak of “God”. Many scholars point out that St. Thomas’s actual arguments regarding the existence and nature of God are to be found liberally scattered throughout his major treatises, and that the five ways are little more than an introductory sketch of how the word “God” can be defined without reference to special revelation (i.e., religious experience).

The five ways are; the argument of the unmoved mover, the argument of the first cause, the argument from contingency, the argument from degree and the teleological argument. The first way is greatly expanded in the Summa Contra Gentiles.[1] Aquinas left out from his list several arguments that were already in existence at the time, such as the ontological argument of Saint Anselm, because he did not believe that they worked. In the 20th century, the Roman Catholic priest and philosopher Frederick Copleston, devoted much of his works to fully explaining and expanding on Aquinas’ five ways.

The arguments are designed to prove the existence of a monotheistic God, namely the Abrahamic God (though they could also support notions of God in other faiths that believe in a monotheistic God such as Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism), but as a set they do not work when used to provide evidence for the existence of polytheistic,[citation needed] pantheistic, panentheistic or pandeistic deities.
:cool:
 
Personally, I'm agnostic. Strident atheists irritate me as much as fanatic believers.:catapult:

And half-ass "live and let live" accomodationists piss me off more than any of them.
 
Hardly laughable, and very rational.
The Quinque viæ, Five Ways, or Five Proofs are Five arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book, Summa Theologica. They are not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient “proofs” of God’s existence; as worded, they propose only to explain what it is “all men mean” when they speak of “God”. Many scholars point out that St. Thomas’s actual arguments regarding the existence and nature of God are to be found liberally scattered throughout his major treatises, and that the five ways are little more than an introductory sketch of how the word “God” can be defined without reference to special revelation (i.e., religious experience).

The five ways are; the argument of the unmoved mover, the argument of the first cause, the argument from contingency, the argument from degree and the teleological argument. The first way is greatly expanded in the Summa Contra Gentiles.[1] Aquinas left out from his list several arguments that were already in existence at the time, such as the ontological argument of Saint Anselm, because he did not believe that they worked. In the 20th century, the Roman Catholic priest and philosopher Frederick Copleston, devoted much of his works to fully explaining and expanding on Aquinas’ five ways.

The arguments are designed to prove the existence of a monotheistic God, namely the Abrahamic God (though they could also support notions of God in other faiths that believe in a monotheistic God such as Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism), but as a set they do not work when used to provide evidence for the existence of polytheistic,[citation needed] pantheistic, panentheistic or pandeistic deities.
:cool:

Yes, I understand what they are, that's why I mentioned it. They're laughably and easily refutable, yet brainless Catholics to this day think they're valid.
 
And half-ass "live and let live" accomodationists piss me off more than any of them.

Well then, go through your life pissed off. We "live and let live" types don't care, although we occasionally enjoy spinning you up to max rpm's. You're amusing that way.:laughat:
 
Yes, I understand what they are, that's why I mentioned it. They're laughably and easily refutable, yet brainless Catholics to this day think they're valid.

Odd you should say that, since Catholics generally say they are not meant to be proofs and are not defended as such.:roll:
 
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church elected another idiot who is going to keep pushing Catholic hate. Good choice, morons.

They elected a Conservative......God Bless him.
 
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church elected another idiot who is going to keep pushing Catholic hate. Good choice, morons.

We hate no one......We hate sins that people commit.....We love the sinner.
 
Well then, go through your life pissed off. We "live and let live" types don't care, although we occasionally enjoy spinning you up to max rpm's. You're amusing that way.:laughat:

It's not going through life pissed, it's going through life actually giving a damn about what goes on in the world around you. I'm glad you think being a troll is funny. Just says something about your character.
 
They elected a Conservative......God Bless him.

He'll continue to chase people away from the Catholic Church then, which is fine by me. There's a reason the church is failing much faster than any other religion on the planet and it's sitting in the Vatican.
 
No, I'm really not. Do they believe in something for which they have no objective evidence?

Do you? Do I? I presume you do believe that the reality is real (and not some kind of "Matrix"-style dirty trick). And that your mind is minimally adequate as a tool for naviagting this reality. So do I. Why, exactly, do we believe that? Do we have any objective evidence?



You cannot find a single quote from any of those people who said that they are killing anyone because their atheism commands them to do so.

Not their "atheism", but their irrational beliefs in a whole bunch of crap that had nothing to do with religion. As Chesterton said, "Take away the faith in God, and people will not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything".

religion was responsible for things like the Dark Ages

The Hellenistic civilization had flourished for a dozen of centuries, among a plethora of religions waxing and waning in its lap - along with free-thinking "atheistic" philosophers. The Great Collapse and the following Dark Ages did not arrive because the Christianity made its debut - but (in part) because the Roman State had adopted Christianity as the One and Only religion. Of course, debasement of currency, overtaxing, eventual failure to support infrastructures in the provinces, etc all were just as important.


But as soon as you're using cult-like behavior, you're no longer being rational and irrationality is at the core of many of man's problems.

I am hard-pressed to agree that Copernicus, or Newton, or Ivan Pavlov ( all deeply religious people) were "irrational".

Humanity, unlike all the other animals on the planet, has the ability to override their impulses

Yes, of course. But ask yourself, impassionately (your impulses successfully overriden): Should I treat the (apparently quite normal and well-meaning) other person's religion as a curious phenomenon worth studying and understanding, or should I scream, apriori, "barabaric superstition!" and shut my own enlightened mind tight as a clam?!

I cannot speak for you - maybe you are the most intelligent sapient being in the whole Universe. I know I am not - not even close. Much dumber than Copernicus, Newton, or even Ivan Pavlov (OK, that is debatable - a Russian smarter than a Pole? - that goes against my most cherished beliefs...;) But I hope it is not too controversial to suggest that true intelligence is humble, observant, and patient?
 
We hate no one......We hate sins that people commit.....We love the sinner.

Alright fine. I love the believers, I just hate the idiotic things they believe. :roll:
 
It's not going through life pissed, it's going through life actually giving a damn about what goes on in the world around you. I'm glad you think being a troll is funny. Just says something about your character.

Troll? I think not. I was drawn to this thread by a display of silly intolerance. I am, as you might say, doing what I can to make the world around me a better place.:peace
 
Do you? Do I? I presume you do believe that the reality is real (and not some kind of "Matrix"-style dirty trick). And that your mind is minimally adequate as a tool for naviagting this reality. So do I. Why, exactly, do we believe that? Do we have any objective evidence?

The whole solipsistic nonsense is actually very easy to disprove, but this isn't the forum for such things. Try Philosophy.

Not their "atheism", but their irrational beliefs in a whole bunch of crap that had nothing to do with religion. As Chesterton said, "Take away the faith in God, and people will not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything".

Which is why scientists, which are overwhelmingly atheist, are so irrational, right? :roll:

I am hard-pressed to agree that Copernicus, or Newton, or Ivan Pavlov ( all deeply religious people) were "irrational".

I find it funny how many people can only imagine a single label must apply to a person. Someone can be rational for some aspects of their life and irrational for others. You can stop with the logical fallacies any time, you know.

Yes, of course. But ask yourself, impassionately (your impulses successfully overriden): Should I treat the (apparently quite normal and well-meaning) other person's religion as a curious phenomenon worth studying and understanding, or should I scream, apriori, "barabaric superstition!" and shut my own enlightened mind tight as a clam?!

I think we've studied it long enough, it's very rare when there is anything new under the sun, especially when it comes to the classic and commonplace religions. What is it that you think you're going to learn that we don't already know?
 
Troll? I think not. I was drawn to this thread by a display of silly intolerance. I am, as you might say, doing what I can to make the world around me a better place.:peace

As am I, I'm pointing out the absurdities of religion, the elimination of which will, while not making the world a paradise, certainly will do something to improve the situation.
 
As am I, I'm pointing out the absurdities of religion, the elimination of which will, while not making the world a paradise, certainly will do something to improve the situation.

Really? In what way?
 
As am I, I'm pointing out the absurdities of religion, the elimination of which will, while not making the world a paradise, certainly will do something to improve the situation.
After they get rid of guns there will be nothing anyone can do to stop the church from encroaching on the constitution.
 
As am I, I'm pointing out the absurdities of religion, the elimination of which will, while not making the world a paradise, certainly will do something to improve the situation.

I don't think adding to the sum total of hate helps anything.:cool:
 
I don't think adding to the sum total of hate helps anything.:cool:

Churches do so much good in this and other countries. It's beyond my understanding why some despise those actions so much. Good afternoon 2m...
 
After they get rid of guns there will be nothing anyone can do to stop the church from encroaching on the constitution.

They're not going to get rid of the guns and frankly, the church is failing so miserably these days, I don't expect to see it remain a force for much of anything, except child molestation, for much longer.
 
Churches do so much good in this and other countries. It's beyond my understanding why some despise those actions so much. Good afternoon 2m...

Like what? Tell me one demonstrably true thing that religion can do that cannot be done just as well or better through secularism.
 
The only true religion is paganism. When they elect a pagan pope I will go to church.
More than literally anything else in the human experience, that's what religion is... the belief that your's is right and that all the others are wrong. Otherwaise, what's the point?

Goes for non-beliefs as well.
 
I don't think adding to the sum total of hate helps anything.:cool:

Nor does pretending hate doesn't already exist and doing everything in your power to stop it. You'd rather just be lazy.
 
Back
Top Bottom