St. Aquinas has never been refuted...but you're still an atheist?

St. Aquinas has never been refuted...but you're still an atheist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'm not an atheist, but there's no reason to think God is your best friend or even cares about you specifically. I believe in more of a Plotinus type All-Is-One God.

Even Aristotle realized this

Aristotle got a lot wrong.

Consistent logic != truth

It is impossible to reconcile the idea of a eternal, unchanging being with the idea that this being cares about individual persons.

This! Populism festers in the gap between logic and reality. Here's an example.

P1: OP is a fag.
P2: Fags likes penises, ever wich way.
C1: We should bukkakke OP.

Even if P1 is true, then P2 doesn't follow. And P2 doesn't have to be true. There are actually fags that are monogamous. There are glory hole queens that doesn't like surprise dicks. Therefore this is correct logic, but it has nothing to do with reality.

>Populism festers in the gap between logic and reality.

Pretty good user, pretty good.

Savage post, op

Do you care or is it just a shitpost?

Yes he has. The only issue is that religious people are contrarian morons.

Provide one of the refutations please.
If anything Godel just reinforced Aquinas

I think Aquinas's Third Way is quite convincing, although it must be reiterated that he was not the one who originally came up with the argument (see Aristotle and al-Ghazali). Not sure about his other arguments.

The only issue is I'd only agree with Aquinas if I'd admit the figure of the Christ is first and foremost symbolic, he isn't more materially the son of God than any of us is. God has no intents for us, he'd just be causality and the "great cosmic plan" that unfolds everywhere through the laws of physics.

Surely you can't be this retarded, this is bait, right?

>Being a Moralistic therapeutic deist
wew

Aquinas is a spook

Dont see why not.

moralfag

>there's no such thing as an immoral or moral book, only well-written or badly written.

Every important european figure in history is a spook, white boi. Get woke.

I've always been fine with making leaps of faith, it's nothing to be shy about. Catholic here.

Conditioning makes people unable to realize they're taking a dogma for granted one way or another, and that there's nothing inherently bad to our respective biases.

>there's no reason to think
>divine revelation
literally refuted in question 1 article 1 of the summa

That's what immoral people keep saying.....

So where do miracles come from?

I beg to differ
youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA

Hahaha "I'm smarter than Thomas Aquinas" I literally laughed out loud

I just went down a whole rabbit whole of watching his videos and in his latest one, he is like a scruffy internet degenerate with one of those tourist tassel hats talking about how "You think people judge you just because you're a woman?" I was cracking up. God Youtube culture is amazing.

rainbows

Compared to the video of him fucking his own ass with a banana that's not all that bad.

The backlash against "populism" as something pejorative is nothing but a divide and conquer by the powers that be. Nothing showcases this better than Clinton-Trump election.

this hurts me. many ways to explain the world, can resonate deeply with some need, can have startling verisimilitude - but be unprov'd

>fucking his own ass with a banana

Compared to the video of him pouring hot oil over his micropenis that's not all that bad.

terrible example
idiot

>St. Aquinas has never been refuted
God doesn't exist.

Refuted.

wrong.

Or with him having sex with a mentally challenged transsexual. Love is love bro what two people do in their own bedroom is none of your concern.

circular logic does not prove truths

fuck off common shilth..

reminder to follow sodomite orders

Not sure if this is bait but this is basically New Atheism in a nutshell.

Not sure if retarded or stupid.

Why did C.S. Lewis attempt shitty apologetics when Aquinas's work still stands?

It seems like such a stupid way to make oneself seem.. stupid

Actually, modern philosophy from Bacon onwards refutes scholasticism pretty thoroughly, it just wasn't done in a systematic manner, but every proper intellectual realized that the old paradigm just wasn't working anymore. For instance, natural law ethics and aristotelian teleology are a joke in light of evolutionary biology.

and look where that took us! Europe imploding right now. How amazing!

Apparently Aquinas was concerned that one argument wasn't gonna do it so he figured that out of five one was bound to stick.

>Contemporary social issues exist because we abandoned medieval worldviews
Absolute genius analysis, 10/10, have you written a book yet?
kys

you fuckers really love to cast yourselves as prophets of the apocalypse

Britain is literally a paki-muslim battleground with weekly terror attacks. God bless Scientism.

If everything needs a cause then what caused god? BOOM

>natural law ethics and aristotelian teleology are a joke in light of evolutionary biology.
replacing spooks by other spooks is being smart

>natural law ethics and aristotelian teleology are a joke in light of evolutionary biology.

I didn't know evolution dealt with oughts. Hume BTFO

Believing in some kind of God is justifiable and understandable
But how does any justify believing in a specific doctrine like Christianity?
Can I have a quick rundown?

>we should cling to false beliefs of the past because countries "implode" without them
No, Europe is not OH MY FUCKING GOD IMPLODING!!!!11 you fucking American.

C.S. Lewis has nice human-level wisdom. I know his arguments aren't very sturdy, but his writing has a real charm and verisimilitude. Can't help but be glad he wrote what he did.

Well, the best arguments are those by historical traditions, mainly Catholicism. The doctrinal persistence and sheer unlikeliness of Church Christianity lends credence to some kind of intervention that kept it alive through so many years.
Not extremely convincing desu, but when I was attracted to Catholicism for a while it's the only strand that makes any sense. In order to be a Protestant, you have to believe the very earliest Church Fathers were wrong about fundamental doctrines like the eucharist and papal primacy.

European Union is literally in a crisis because they keep importing biologically equal shitskins and mudslimes on the basis that we are all humans lmao

They literally cannot and refuse to allow any other metaphysical argument here that would talk about culture or heritage.

Its all going down the drain

I can understand being drawn to Christianity from a cultural standpoint, understanding it brings communities together and helps create some semblance of a communal moral standard, one we are seeing eroding today etc.
But literally believing that in the resurrection story, that a piece of bread is the literal body of Christ or that the Pope is anything but a political figure-head(especially now that we have historical records to look back on shitty/degenerate popes) etc.
Is there any intelligent or compelling reason to believe any of this?
I used to be a "le skydaddy" atheist but I've come to admire Christianity from a cultural standpoint seeing how things are going but I still can't bring myself to believe any of the stuff even if I'd like to participate in it all.

Yeah I'll just sum everything up in two or three sentences and then we can have a discussion.

Also divorce, confession, authority, nature of tradition, salvation, justification and just about everything else.

>But literally believing that in the resurrection story, that a piece of bread is the literal body of Christ or that the Pope is anything but a political figure-head(especially now that we have historical records to look back on shitty/degenerate popes) etc.
Not really that hard to believe if the basic premises are in place desu user
t. nonbeliever

>Is there any intelligent or compelling reason to believe any of this?
Is there any intelligent or compelling reason not to?

Huh?
English is not my first language, try explain again please.

It's imploding because neoliberal capitalism brought about precisely those effects that were foreseen by its critics for decades. Conservatives as a whole have been living in a Tatcherite illusion that radical market deregulation is somehow consistent with conservative family values, which is ridiculous. If you believe a reactionary surge of ethno-nationalism is going to fix deep-rooted problems in the economic structure that underpins the global order, you are an idiot.

But then again, we're posting on a website where people genuinely believe that the emigration of cheap labour that keeps productivity going in the rapidly de-industrializing western countries, is actually all masterminded by a jewish plot going back to ancient times, so... fuck it.

Is there an intelligent or compelling reason not to believe that a piece of bread is the literal body of a man that died 2000 years ago?
Yes?

>
So where do miracles come from?

>Science can't still explain something about the world
>It's a miracle
Be patient my dude

I was not even first to mention ethno-nationalism. I'm just saying this believe in Scientisim and liberalism has generated a fucking shitshow and Christianity, culture and heritage aren't allowed as viable arguments in Europarlament or national parliaments as counter-arguments towards this straight up economic, destructive, scientific thinking (which it is, since hard econ is maths, so liberals think its the ultimate truth).

What are the conservative family values that market deregulation is inconsistent with?

If your basic premise is that an omnipotent God exists and (insert lots of elements from Plato and Aristotle) it's not hard at all. You just have a problem pretending to accept the premises for the sake of the discussion.

Before we continue with this discussion I've got to ask If your conflating intelligent or compelling with scientific and rational.

Basically this In the Gospels Jesus even acknowledges the superficial absurdity of the Eucharistic teaching. The entire New Testament is filled with unintuitive ironies meant to illuminate some deeper idea of God's transcendent nature. The idea of God as a small, crying child, or a piece of bread, or a lamb directly parallels Jesus' sayings about the first will be last and the last will be first etc. The more I think about it the way the Gospels' Jesus turns the entire order of the world on its head and inside out is pretty genius. God is not so limited in his power as to need to be a mighty king or conqueror - he achieves his eternal victory dying a whipped and tortured criminal on the cross.

>Ancient times

Not really, nor do people believe that ALL or even most Jews are involved in any "plot".

But Jews, similar to Africans in America self-segregated, networked, built their own communities, had their own cultures as a result of historical oppression in their respective states. etc

Many Jews are still angry, and detest anything to do with European/White nationalism or identity and seek to erode it.
And as a result of Jews above-average intelligence and networking capabilities, many are in positions of extreme power and you see them act out their anti-white identity politics in either high positions of academia, as financiers who engage in "philanthropy" on the side or in media.

There really isn't anything conspiratorial or crazy about it.

/thread desu senpai

Cont: It's also why Jews found the radical-egalitarianism of Communism so appealing and as a result, near monolithically supported it.(similar to how African Americans near monolithically support Leftism/Democrats) This of course gained the Ire of social-conservatives/traditionalists and ultimately Hitler in Germany.

>Jews monolithically supported Communism
what did he mean by this?
I would say that many disaffected secular Jews did, but still most Jews were secluded religious/bourgeois Germans, not to mention being financiers

Yes I find the idea of an omnipotent being not an idea to be easily discarded.
But I see the bible as just ancient mans attempt at understanding the nature of that being
In my opinion, that is the only reasonable position.
Seeing people who believe literally in Bible stories just seems indefensible and at that point and is only a matter of "faith".
You either believe it or you don't, you can't really argue for it from any basis or foundation like natural science and there is no real debate or discussion to be had.

The whole structure of the traditional family is inconsistent with a neoliberal market economy. You can extract significantly more surplus if every member of the family has to be a wage worker and barely able to support their children. With a proper materialist analysis, it's obvious that capitalism brings about only those radical changes which are supportive of its continual reproduction. Therefore, you have the whole feminist revolution and the involvement of women in public life on equal footing - which, to be clear, are obviously positive things which have destroyed long-standing forms of domination. But, think about it, if you have a working father who earns enough to support the whole family on a wage, and a family where both spouses have to work for a similar amount, which is better for the profit motive?
Traditional religious structures are also less and less needed for the proper functioning of the system and are easily replaced with more compatible forms, like the pseudo-buddhism that Žižek has talked so much about.
This kind of perspective is exactly what the retarded reactionaries here lack, and have to invent crazy conspiracy theories instead of looking at class interests.

Yes and most (actual) White-Nationalists have no problem with right-wing socially conservative Israeli Jews, they feel apathetic towards them.
It's the secular western Jews that tend to be massively over-represented in extreme leftist politics and SJWism/Anti-whiteness that are the issue.
They make up 2% of the population in the U.S but virtually every article(that isn't written by a P.O.C) regarding SJWism is Jewish.

Even Sweden has the most Jews compared to any other European nation per-capita, and it is no coincidence that they are the most fucked.
They invite the hated upon themselves and always have.

Again you look at African Americans today, everything they've been put through, they are angry, but because of their average 85 IQ they express that anger in tantrums and sucker punches.

When Jews get angry they infiltrate and take over institutions of power from Entertainment, Media and Academia, and openly admired to doing such in the 60's, especially regarding Academia.

>like the pseudo-buddhism that Žižek has talked so much about.

Funnily enough Zizek falls for his own boomer bias here, pseudo-Buddhism is fucking dead in the west, the average age of ethnically-Western buddhists is well over 50 and Asian sanghas are pulling out of the west.

I have no idea what you're saying because I'm not a Marxist and I've never studied Marx. I'm only assuming you're Marxist because in my experience they're the only ones that are incapable of speaking in a conversational manner.

>That pic
I thought communists liked economic systems that lead to mass starvation.

Savage

He obviously isn't talking about actual Buddhist practitioners dude. Much the same as you don't have to be a Christian for your society to operate on paradigms inherited from Christian ethics, there is certainly an increasing influence of a kind of eastern metaphysics today. The idea that there are no stable identities you should attach yourself to, that you should live in a permanent state of flux and de-sensitise yourself from major ambitions and passions is the kind of worldview he is talking about.

>that you should live in a permanent state of flux and de-sensitise yourself from major ambitions and passions
I'm not convinced that's a commonly expressed worldview.

You're obviously a retard then because I put my point extremely simply. Please read some economics texts before you attempt to talk about politics on the internet again, if everyone did this I am sure we would live in a more pleasant world.
Also, the admission that you are completely ignorant regarding Marx isn't commendable, it shows that you are uncapable of understanding one of the most important intellectual traditions in the modern world. Being a Marxist hasn't stopped me from appreciating thinkers in the conservative camp, now only if the reverse was the case.

Only Marxists consider Marx's works worth reading. He's not respected by any non-Marxist economists.

If you knew what you were talking about you shouldn't have any problems explaining it to somebody that wasn't born with Das Kapital in his hands. What is this "proper materialist analysis?" It's not obvious to me "that capitalism brings about only those radical changes which are supportive of its continual reproduction" so I can't follow the inferences you draw from that. I could go on but it's clear from your reply that you're not really interested in conversation, but you're only interested in shutting people down. In other words you're a piece of shit.

not him but being proudly ignorant is not doing you a favor if your goal is pure strength-based cultural domination

Yeah you should totally ignore one of the most influential writers of all time on the basis of what economists say. Just forget the whole commie revolutions things and dont even try to understand their context and history

ok

I don't see why I should have to explain basic concepts that you should already know if, like most people here, you have firm opinions regarding Marx. Also, no you don't have to read the whole Das Kapital to understand these concepts, most of the great works of Marx and Engels are pretty damn short.

Here, I'll spoonfeed you with a list.

Is asking for explanations proud ignorance? If anything admitting ignorance of a subject is the exact opposite. What's more humble than that?

Do you have to be autistic to be a Marxist?

>economics
>a respectable field

Aristotle's ideas about physics were very influential for a long time. We now know they're wrong, though, so nobody brings them up in serious discussions about physics.
Similarly, Marx's economic theories have been thoroughly debunked, so they have fallen out of relevance in serious economics.

No, just economically illiterate.

Marx wrote more than pure economics, do not backtrack.

>Only Marxists consider Marx's works worth reading.

You do not differentiate between his works here.

>on Veeky Forums
>throwing the "respectable field" stone
I don't feel like this is a good idea.

Is the actuality/potentiality divide reification?

The discussion was about economics.

I'm sorry if it gets in the way of your ideology.

The perceived paradigms in economics change with the wind, it's very naive to think that they progress on the basis of some objective advancement. Few decades ago, all these neoclassicals would have been convinced keynesians. You don't have to be a genius to see that the fundamental assumptions of neoclassical economics stand very shakily and are regularly criticised. Here, I'll give you someone who isn't even on the fringes of the field: Stiglitz. This guy has thoroughly debunked theories about market efficiency, but everyone still acts like Adam Smith basically had everything right.

Yes he has stop talking nonsense

this