The average high school/college atheist is smarter than Thomas Aquinas

Sounds pretty logical to me you fucking faggot.

I'm gonna be honest I've been shitposting. Anime is good. Im not a fan of moe tho

>catholics nitpick his views
>proceeds to nitpick his views
It's like clockwork

Replied to the wrong post in the wrong threadSorry bout that

That's a shame. was the perfect response to that post.

I actually wanna know what this is responding to now

>summa
>five volumes
I know this is bait, but c'mon. Why Aquianas? I'd have taken Augustine but you literally had to pick the best guy out there. Like I'm a fucking Atheist and I'll admit Aquinas is in the top ten greatest philosophers no matter how you slice it.

His attempted proof of the existence of God is pathetic

As is your attempted disproof of god *tips fedora*

What do you have to lose?

Dignity. Rationality. Freedom. Hedonism. Etc.

>Pascal
Ya gotta be kiddin' me, right?

I've literally read the entire Summa Theologica in Latin.
OP hasn't read a single page of Aquinas.

lost

Paradise lost?

>bigger rational thinker?
explain this

Atheists are inherently unintelligent. muh worthless knowledge isn't 'intelligence'
He says so too, because there is no replacement for faith.

*tips fedora*

This nigger is the deffinition of cuckstianity

He says theres proof of god, just not any knowledge of his traits

He even "ptoofs it" on multiple texts

He's literally so smart he could levitate.

Think up every reason not to be Christian.
Then look up the reply in Summa Theologica

>Also didnt he say rape was better than gay sex because at least the rape was hetero?
Yes and?

I bet nobody here understands Aristotle as Thomas did

m8, stuff exists! AND IT MOVES! hence Yahweh must exist and must be worshipped. Are you stupid or something?

Go to church and talk to a priest that is known to be a good spiritual guide, instead of asking on Veeky Forums.

How aestetic was that?

>atheist
>alquinas is one of the best philosophers
Cant tell if ur trolling m8

My best mate's a Christian but he always just garbles a load of shit about how God is there when a child suffers alone and how something something quantum physics.

I've read a few things and the common thread seems to be it's a great set of ideas and morals and there's definitely a lot there I agree with. But, on the other hand the thing people actually call God is at best a pretty abstract generative force and I can't really see the connection between whatever metaphysical thingy'bob that thing is and Christianity itself.

>nobody reads anything besides the Summa
>ignoring the vast amounts of non-theological works Thomas wrote that are fascinating to read and demonstrate his genius

Fuck off. Take a few courses on Aquinas and then try to spout shit. He's an extremely complex thinker that attempted to synthesize all of philosophy before him, and dealt with a huge amount of questions.

>WAAH HE WAS A CATHOLIC MY IDEOLOGY CAN'T DEAL WITH IT
Literally only reason retards dismiss scholastics

He's significant role enough that he has important followers in the community still, which cannot be said for a lot of them.

Theology and philosophy is the history of pseudo-schizophrenic neurotics who "knew" they were right, from Aquinas to Schopenhauer.

Fuck off with that bullshit.

Not quite. He said considered purely as a sin against chastity, that gay sex is worse than rape since gay sex inherently frustrates the procreative end of sex (this is what Catholics mean when they say that masturbation and gay sex are "unnatural"). However, rape is also a grave sin against charity, which gay sex isn't necessarily, and charity is the most important virtue, so rape is definitely worse. I'd recommend reading the actual Summa instead of picking out pieces of it.

>Thinks the first way is about Newtonian mechanics and not the reduction of potency to act.
How about you read some metaphysics?

>charity is the most important virtue
Yeah man bet your in group of choice will give you a huge THUMBS UP for that lol God doesn't that just make the social animal in you BEAM with joy?

You've got any evidence for that son?

>charity is the most important virtue

Spelled compassion wrong.

Man, doesn't anyone get their religion right anymore.

He wrote right, charity, unlike compassion, is in Aquinas' vocabulary. Compassion in general is not a particularly common theological term in Catholicism since compassion is a feeling and charity a virtue.

Can you point me to a zip file or a collection of this guy's paintings?

Random pic sorry.

I'm not sure what this means, but Thomas makes an argument for this, it's not just an assertion of his in-group. The argument being that charity is the form of the virtues, since charity is what guides all other virtues towards the last end. For instance, the prudence of a miser who devises plans for monetary gain is no virtue at all, since it isn't guided by charity towards a true good but only an apparent good. See question 23 in the secunda secundae of the Summa for the entire argument.

>For instance, the prudence of a miser who devises plans for monetary gain is no virtue at all, since it isn't guided by charity towards a true good but only an apparent good. See question 23 in the secunda secundae of the Summa for the entire argument.

Pure ideology. Time to take the red pill my dude. Jesus, Aquinas and the rest were social monkeys and their reasoning was based on just that, see pic related for the entire argument. Or just reread your post and question the unspoken premises of your little "hero". Cheers.

Way to totally avoid engaging with one of the most brilliant thinkers ever. At least that's preferable to the usual atheist yahoos who try to but stumble over basic metaphysics and make asses out of themselves.

>metaphysics
Did you mean: Your imagination?

>Jesus was about feels, not virtue.

Blasphemous.

>what is Pascal's Wager

Was I not clear on the fact that charity is virtue and compassion feels?

But that's not necessarily a reference to Pascal's wager - he's simply stating that the belief in God (not necessarily an attempt at avoidance of damnation) would not detract from his life in any way.

*pats your head, gently*

why should i?

you should seek your onw answers. no answer i give you will convice you as much as the answer you discover yourself.

Are you drunk.

quite.

opinion discarded.

He is smart but wrong on almost everything

What I personally find most objectionable about Aquinas was his attempt to use reason to prove the existence of god. This is a mistake no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

If, like me, you deny the existence of god, then using reason to prove that something that doesn't exist is real, is simply an exercise in idiocy. And many Catholics (as well as others) believe he was successful in proving that god exists via rational arguments, which in my mind says that reason has its limits because it can allegedly be used to prove that which is not true.

And if, on the other hand, you are a believer, then it is blasphemy to sully your faith with reason. You should believe in Jesus because you have faith, NOT because it is reasonable to do so.

Either way, I am definitely NOT a fan of St. Thomas. As far as I'm concerned, all he illustrated was a catastrophic failure of human reason (by proving that false is true) and human imagination (by failing to obtain the correct answer via his reasoning).

>What I personally find most objectionable about Aquinas was his attempt to use reason to prove the existence of god.
Yes, like Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes and a bunch of others.
>If, like me, you deny the existence of god, then using reason to prove that something that doesn't exist is real, is simply an exercise in idiocy.
You do know that he does in fact believe in God? It's idiotic to use reason to prove what you yourself deny?
>And if, on the other hand, you are a believer, then it is blasphemy to sully your faith with reason.
No, it's not. Fideism is a heresy to a Catholic. To assert that one believes without it would to one be blasphemy.
>You should believe in Jesus because you have faith, NOT because it is reasonable to do so.
Who are you to say why should one believe in Jesus? But aside from that, Aquinas does not in fact prove, or even attempt to prove Christ in the five ways. He sets out to prove a theistic God.
>Either way, I am definitely NOT a fan of St. Thomas. As far as I'm concerned, all he illustrated was a catastrophic failure of human reason (by proving that false is true) and human imagination (by failing to obtain the correct answer via his reasoning).
You didn't read him. You never touched him, not by a stick.
I think this must be the most retarded comment on Aquinas I've ever read.

MYTHICAL CITY ON THE HILLS

Catholicism is one of the biggest religious memes of all fucking time, it's just shittier regurgitation of the Christianity joke.

There is literally no excuse. You can believe in god but if you take this shit seriously you are an ultimate pleb.

I wish Nietzscheposters would leave.

I don't even necessarily subscribe to his beliefs, but I at least took the time to read his shit. It's intellectually dishonest to not to.

>would not detract from his life in any way.
That depends on the exact list of requirements that you need to do to appease whatever God is supposed to exist. Add to that the problem of finding out which is the real God and what he has in his list.

Here's a nice comedy sketch to drive the point home, it's Portuguese from Brazil, but you can add English subtitles to get the point:
youtube.com/watch?v=t11JYaJcpxg

Aquinas is a strange mixture of early gnostic mysticism, roman protestantism and 4th century greek systems of roman thought. None of this traits, in my view, consolidate him as a solid thinker.

He has no gnostic views.
What roman protestantism is supposed to be or if it exists, I don't think anyone past you knows.
His mysticism is a later part of his life in which he did not write.
His thought system is strictly aristotelian and medieval, with a synthesis of other philosophies' correct, in his view elements.

Does anyone have a link to download for the book on Aquinas by Peter Geach?

Aquinas gnosticism is very blatant, and in fact it is thought he red from direct gnostic sources in his travels to the east. By roman protestantism i mean the Jainist currents at the time that opposed the Empire, from which, if you actually read what he says, he took most of his thoughts.

His five ways were akin to the 7 ways of the Jainists, he just synthesized them and fit them within aristotelian thought.

>Aquinas gnosticism is very blatant, and in fact it is thought he red from direct gnostic sources in his travels to the east.
He never traveled "east" at all and his Gnosticism is so obvious that every major Aquinas scholar fails to mention it in the overview of both his life and his philosophy
>By roman protestantism i mean the Jainist currents at the time that opposed the Empire, from which, if you actually read what he says, he took most of his thoughts.
I'm guessing you never touched him, you are talking out of your ass. Aquinas himself always explicitly quoted whatever he was taking as a source or authority.
>His five ways were akin to the 7 ways of the Jainists, he just synthesized them and fit them within aristotelian thought.
His five ways are strictly aristotelian. They are summaries of larger metaphysics that in his opinion prove God.

>If, like me, you deny the existence of god, then using reason to prove that something that doesn't exist is real, is simply an exercise in idiocy

Almost took the bad. Good one.

>claimed to understand Aristotle
>couldn't read Ancient Greek or had access to Plato aside from timaeus

"Aquinas was a better aristotelian than Aristotle"
-Alasdair MacIntyre

If nothing else convinces you there's always Pascal's Wager

>mfw Camus is alive & well & in this thread

Like?