Why do you assume the author is Catholic just because he is an Aquinas scholar?
"This was some time before I became an atheist, which was some time before I became the observant Roman Catholic I am now"
So you didn't read your link thoroughly either? ^^
what does this mean? That God was a dude and he died for some reason? I think there's probably some room for interpretation there. What has humanity discovered?
I see nothing wrong with the author's arguments against Dawkins. I think it's weird the author would take any proof of God from any philosopher seriously. I think it's hilarious Dawkins actually tried to disprove Aquinas' proof as if that would mean he won or something.
"Sorry, but you’re simply not going to get an adequate understanding of the arguments of a Aquinas or a Leibniz—any more than of Darwin’s ideas, or Einstein’s—from an op-ed piece."
Again from the same author, he actually never gets into what Aquinas says , but only bitches about how Dawkins doesn't care to read and that's why he doesn't see the obvious truth. Plus he advertizes his book on Aquinas.
I'm not sure if you really don't understand what I mean with the death of Christian god since you seem like a person who has probably read this sentence more than a couple of times. Humanity has discovered that we come from apes (eg), a pretty big nuisance for the churches and those who respect the Christian doctrine too much,don't you think? Tbh a few great minds had rejected the Christian without even ever having heard about evolution.
I'm gonna stay away from this thread now cuz anything else I post is just gonna sound more and more condescending and douche because every time this topic is brought up anywhere on LP or TL the amount of like, lack of basic reading, supreme self-confidence in empty opinions, and general idiocy is disconcerting.
First of all this last sentence shows supreme self confidence in an opinion, which is not necessarily a bad thing if the opinion can be backed up successfully. Getting past trivialities like writing style is important if you are genuinely trying to put ideas to a test or even prove someone wrong in a legit way. One liners and a condescending attitude resemble cheap argument winning/avoiding tricks.
You kind of burned yourself with the lack of basic reading part, because you did the same thing (see first quote) heh
I've noticed that you don't get into much detail about the things you support in similar threads in LP and TL and I'm interested in what you have to say. I'm sure it's based off the works of the really great scholars but you could try and put it in your own words for those who are genuinely trying to figure out where they could be wrong? Otherwise what's even the point of simply stating an opinion in a forum?
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit
how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 14 2012 10:03. Posts 1929
On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote:
Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it.
There isn't one definition of religion that says that it has to be what you say it is (entirely negative) for all religions. In the context of his religion, it is entirely correct that this is the end goal. Gandhi was not motivated to do what he did because of cheese, but because of his religion, which was entirely peaceful and altruistic. Are you going to deny that Gandhi brought more peace and freedom to India and the world? I don't think so. Gandhi said that his whole life was an effort to bring into actions the ideas of Vivekananda. So what that "retarded Swami thinks" apparently mattered more than what you think.
On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote:
Also a quick Wikipedia shows that Swami believes in levitation, mind reading, living without breathing and other ridiculous shit so he is just another delusional religious nutjob
What are you talking about? Did you even read the previous paragraph to that? "Vivekananda did not advocate the emerging area of parapsychology and astrology."
The thing you're quoting only said that he is exploring these claims in his book, i.e., what he has observed and heard of about them, not that he blindly believes in any of it. In fact, he says it right after: "It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practise, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study."
And even if he DID believe in those things, he would still be a great man, and according to his approach to it he would've had reason to believe. How many great men had your Randi skepticism thorough out the ages? Not very many, and certainly no visionaries. You probably think that William James is a delusional retard too, and Carl Jung as well, while ignoring how influential they were. The thing that you are quick to ignore is that if someone's beliefs lead him to lead a truly virtuous life they are justified. I see him just like I see Marcus Aurelius. Can I believe what they believed knowing what I know? No. But can I see how it served them to discipline themselves and make them great human beings? Yes. And Vivekananda studied Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Darwin, Spinoza and many others. No one who studied these thinkers seriously is a 'delusional retard'; and few Hindus did, so he is exceptional.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world.
And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be?
What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker.
On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote:
lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit
how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time
this is an even funnier comment coming from you =)
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Jan 14 2012 10:51. Posts 8649
On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote:
lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit
how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time
maybe the first time i've agreed with anything tutz has said =p religion is the most boring topic ever imo
On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote:
lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit
how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time
this is an even funnier comment coming from you =)
I didnt mean to be funny, are you trying to offend me?
did I offend you in any way? are you implying that somehow I like to join pointless discussions?
On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world.
And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be?
What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker.
I don't get it. The blogger is saying scientists can't be poetic? Or that acknowledging that pain and suffering exist while praising life is some sort of contradiction?
Last edit: 14/01/2012 13:18
1
NMcNasty United States. Jan 14 2012 13:20. Posts 2041
On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote:
lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit
how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time
this is an even funnier comment coming from you =)
I didnt mean to be funny, are you trying to offend me?
did I offend you in any way? are you implying that somehow I like to join pointless discussions?
You're here aren't you.
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 14 2012 13:26. Posts 1929
the blog's making fun of richard dawkins for being an optimistic guy while acknowledging the world sucks, the blogger is like an extreme pessimist or something and likes to write about suffering. I actually respect Dawkins a little more now having read that passage.
On January 13 2012 21:00 Baalim wrote:
look what yo did Dsmart your stupid posts woke up Loco from his slumber.
What you call spirituality is just bullshit same as religion why because its based on the same random assumptions based on "faith" lacking the slightest shred of evidence of logical thinking, there is no reason to believe in a thing you call "soul", there is no reason to believe that our consciosness is something beyond the simple biological process of the brain, in fact all evidence points that our conciosness doesnt trascend it in any form, damage the brain and your consciousness will be damaged, so yeah no matter how much your ego struggles to be great, we are just semi-smart animals meaningless to the cosmos.
There is a difference between "there is no evidence" and "I haven't seen and don't want to see any evidence". I have posted on numerous occasions that there is proof of the existence of the soul but you have to research several different deep topics that I am sure you will not since you are very egocentric and wouldn't want to come here stating "hey d_smart I think you are onto something". Also, the existence of the soul would most probably falsely incline to you that there is God which means that religion is not completely bullshit which means you were dead wrong which would lead to cognitive dissonance and you would be an even more hardcore atheist. This is just human psychology and your brain would try to protect its beliefs in order not to change which would cause lots of stress and thinking. Here are the topics that combined prove the existence of the soul (which has nothing to do with God): Quantum Physics, Kirlian Photography, Near Death Experience, Afterlife research, Entheogens, Out of Body experience.
To most people science is mostly what they see on TV - microchipping animals to understand their behavior, putting substance A into substance B to see what happens and developing the new iPhone. But Science is, in fact, everything which gives us understanding of the Universe which we live in through experimentation and result analyzes even if it sounds out of this world and is something that we can't see with our eyes. So if you want PROOF, please go on and spend a day researching Quantum Physics and a few of the other topics of your liking and pleaaaaaase shy away of government sites and wikipedia. Find some interviews, documentaries, challenge your belief system.
You are absolutely wrong, i dont say there cant be a soul or that i wouldnt be interested in looking at evidence, I am absolutely willing to accept new ides if there is evidence for them thats the process how science and knowledge grow.
I wouldnt jump into religion if you somehow proved the existence of a "soul", as i said i take the scientific approach, if you prove there is a soul then thats all you did, proved there is a Soul, i dont see how that would prove white bearded invisible men.
Now that we stablished that im willing to acept evidence please show it to me and dont tell me "oh go read this book and this book", show me clear empirical evidence because so far:
- Quantum Physics: it doesnt prove anything spiritual]its the study of sub atomic particles thats it, the thing is that its so fucking complex and mind blowing that scammers always mention it to give a pseudo scientific value to their bullshit, you DONT understand quantum physics, neither do i or almost anybody in this forum, the rule of thumb is, if you dont have a PhD in Physics or better, you are not qualified to talk about quantum physics
- KIrlian Photography :that has been proven to be a hoax, a very shitty one and actually, its perfectly know how these cameras work and why they are obvious hoaxes, crazy that you mention it
- Near death experiences: The Body releases DMT just before death, if you know anything about DMT you would easily understand all the testimonials of these experiences... DMT is whacky as fuck when lucid
- Out of Body experiences: This are just anecdotal evidence, that is just as valid as ppl claiming that aliens kidnapped them, if they can have them and actually see things they wouldnt be able to they would pass a controlled test... which nobody has done so far, otherwise James Randy would shit his pants
Well you just proved me right that you are unwilling to learn. You just told me what you already knew without researching further. And how can you say such bullshit abut Quantum Physics - "only a PhD or better would know anything and you don't know." How do you know how much I know and how do you know that only a PhD can know shit when you have not put the slightest effort in researching (prolly you just remember the complex unimportant shit from school). It's like saying "you don't know anything about biology and nobody can know anything unless he is a PhD" - that's retarded and you just said it cause you don't want to spend time. So yeah, stating what you already know from hearing different things here and there without much research and saying it as FACTS only proves to me that you are closed-minded.
And about the soul thing - I never said you should jump into religion if I prove the existence of a soul. In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that it is not related neither to God nor religion. That only shows to me that you have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and spirituality and just mix it up. Everybody here knows that you are not open to new ideas and your post proves it very well.
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world.
And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be?
What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker.
I don't get it. The blogger is saying scientists can't be poetic? Or that acknowledging that pain and suffering exist while praising life is some sort of contradiction?
It's pretty straightforward... he's "exposing" Dawkin's pollyannism. An honest enough atheist with Dawkins' education should quickly come to realize that this life thing is a pretty grim enterprise, and that there is nothing to be optimistic about. You have to be pretty self-absorbed to know about the world's suffering, the selfish gene stuff, life being arbitrary, etc. and still being cheerful about it all.
He's an antinatalist like this guy:
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote:
Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it.
There isn't one definition of religion that says that it has to be what you say it is (entirely negative) for all religions. In the context of his religion, it is entirely correct that this is the end goal. Gandhi was not motivated to do what he did because of cheese, but because of his religion, which was entirely peaceful and altruistic. Are you going to deny that Gandhi brought more peace and freedom to India and the world? I don't think so. Gandhi said that his whole life was an effort to bring into actions the ideas of Vivekananda. So what that "retarded Swami thinks" apparently mattered more than what you think.
On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote:
Also a quick Wikipedia shows that Swami believes in levitation, mind reading, living without breathing and other ridiculous shit so he is just another delusional religious nutjob
What are you talking about? Did you even read the previous paragraph to that? "Vivekananda did not advocate the emerging area of parapsychology and astrology."
The thing you're quoting only said that he is exploring these claims in his book, i.e., what he has observed and heard of about them, not that he blindly believes in any of it. In fact, he says it right after: "It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practise, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study."
And even if he DID believe in those things, he would still be a great man, and according to his approach to it he would've had reason to believe. How many great men had your Randi skepticism thorough out the ages? Not very many, and certainly no visionaries. You probably think that William James is a delusional retard too, and Carl Jung as well, while ignoring how influential they were. The thing that you are quick to ignore is that if someone's beliefs lead him to lead a truly virtuous life they are justified. I see him just like I see Marcus Aurelius. Can I believe what they believed knowing what I know? No. But can I see how it served them to discipline themselves and make them great human beings? Yes. And Vivekananda studied Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Darwin, Spinoza and many others. No one who studied these thinkers seriously is a 'delusional retard'; and few Hindus did, so he is exceptional.
No, you cant define the word religion you cant say "religion is this and not that", religion has a meaning, his beliefs might have lead him to a virtuous life but he doesnt get to say that anything that is not like that is not religion, im duscussing the semantic and the fact of using that word not his beliefs.
The difference between Marcus Aurelius and him is that one did have irrational beliefs but his beliefs just as the other stoics were quite based on reason and logic, and not on the mystic but dont worry i dont disqulify people because of a irrational belief especially in the context of the time they were living in, i just did it to take a quick shit on your heros that is always fun
He said that he observed some of those phenomenoms which we know are not true, so that makes him dishonest, in a way that he will make up shit that accomodates his beliefs rather than seek the truth
On January 14 2012 13:06 D_smart_S wrote:
Well you just proved me right that you are unwilling to learn. You just told me what you already knew without researching further. And how can you say such bullshit abut Quantum Physics - "only a PhD or better would know anything and you don't know." How do you know how much I know and how do you know that only a PhD can know shit when you have not put the slightest effort in researching (prolly you just remember the complex unimportant shit from school). It's like saying "you don't know anything about biology and nobody can know anything unless he is a PhD" - that's retarded and you just said it cause you don't want to spend time. So yeah, stating what you already know from hearing different things here and there without much research and saying it as FACTS only proves to me that you are closed-minded.
And about the soul thing - I never said you should jump into religion if I prove the existence of a soul. In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that it is not related neither to God nor religion. That only shows to me that you have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and spirituality and just mix it up. Everybody here knows that you are not open to new ideas and your post proves it very well.
For you to think that everyone on here would ever expect you to grasp even the most basic concepts of quantum physics (mechanics) let alone gain enough insight as to make a prediction regarding the existence of the soul is flat out fucking insane. Your "research" (a word of which you make a complete mockery) has only ever consisted of a spew of youtube videos posted by other gimp loons.
It probably shouldn't of even been "almost anyone" as I suspect no one is qualified to talk about quantum mechanics at any length (ie/ past a "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies" level) on this forum. At least I don't recall seeing any evidence (hopefully there is someone here and you can engage them with your drivel and they can promptly shut you down for us all to enjoy).
Edit: And feel free to elaborate on "afterlife research" surely any thing else past this topic is pretty redundant in proving a sould exists.
On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world.
And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be?
What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker.
I don't get it. The blogger is saying scientists can't be poetic? Or that acknowledging that pain and suffering exist while praising life is some sort of contradiction?
It's pretty straightforward... he's "exposing" Dawkin's pollyannism. An honest enough atheist with Dawkins' education should quickly come to realize that this life thing is a pretty grim enterprise, and that there is nothing to be optimistic about. You have to be pretty self-absorbed to know about the world's suffering, the selfish gene stuff, life being arbitrary, etc. and still being cheerful about it all.
He's an antinatalist like this guy:
You are derailing this thread man, even if Dawkins were too self absorbed that doesnt change the fact that what he says about religion are totally true
On January 14 2012 13:06 D_smart_S wrote:
Well you just proved me right that you are unwilling to learn. You just told me what you already knew without researching further. And how can you say such bullshit abut Quantum Physics - "only a PhD or better would know anything and you don't know." How do you know how much I know and how do you know that only a PhD can know shit when you have not put the slightest effort in researching (prolly you just remember the complex unimportant shit from school). It's like saying "you don't know anything about biology and nobody can know anything unless he is a PhD" - that's retarded and you just said it cause you don't want to spend time. So yeah, stating what you already know from hearing different things here and there without much research and saying it as FACTS only proves to me that you are closed-minded.
And about the soul thing - I never said you should jump into religion if I prove the existence of a soul. In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that it is not related neither to God nor religion. That only shows to me that you have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and spirituality and just mix it up. Everybody here knows that you are not open to new ideas and your post proves it very well.
For you to think that everyone on here would ever expect you to grasp even the most basic concepts of quantum physics (mechanics) let alone gain enough insight as to make a prediction regarding the existence of the soul is flat out fucking insane. Your "research" (a word of which you make a complete mockery) has only ever consisted of a spew of youtube videos posted by other gimp loons.
It probably shouldn't of even been "almost anyone" as I suspect no one is qualified to talk about quantum mechanics at any length (ie/ past a "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies" level) on this forum. At least I don't recall seeing any evidence (hopefully there is someone here and you can engage them with your drivel and they can promptly shut you down for us all to enjoy).
Edit: And feel free to elaborate on "afterlife research" surely any thing else past this topic is pretty redundant in proving a sould exists.
Lets put it this way, to understand Quantum Physics you require extremely advanced knowledge in math and physics, so with your shitty highschool physics and math courses you simply cannot comprehen quantum physics, you can just regurgitate what you hear.
I would be delighted if you showed me videos (because im sure your supposed knokwledge on Quantum Physics comes form videos) where yo ushow a reputable scientist talking about spirituality and quantum physics that supports your hypotesis.
Instead of sayign im not open to new ideas just prove me wrong, because as i said, im totally open to any new idea if you present evidence for it, so far you havent presented any, so there is no reason for me or anyone to believe or take serious any claim you make.
Contact Users: 604 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 08:13
United States. Jan 14 2012 13:16. Posts 2041
,
,
,
,
,
,
