Religion

zipplewrath

(16,688 posts)

1. St. Thomas Aquinus would disagree

Thu Nov 15, 2018, 11:15 AM

Nov 2018

He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology and the father of Thomism; of which he argued that reason is found in God.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

128 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Most religion is faith-based, rather than logic-based. [View all] MineralMan Nov 2018 OP

St. Thomas Aquinus would disagree zipplewrath Nov 2018 #1

If MOST religion was based in logic, Act_of_Reparation Nov 2018 #4

He was incorrect. The original premise is still not supported by evidence. MineralMan Nov 2018 #5

Link doesn't work marylandblue Nov 2018 #10

Sorry. I fixed it. MineralMan Nov 2018 #21

And the discussion, argument or debate can go dozens of different directions. Permanut Nov 2018 #2

Yes. There is no shortage of "proofs" of the existence of god. MineralMan Nov 2018 #6

And that's why they're not being greedy. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #26

I think the word "faith" is misused marylandblue Nov 2018 #3

I'd class faith as one of the emotions, really. MineralMan Nov 2018 #7

I agree, but faith is treated as a magic elixir marylandblue Nov 2018 #9

There is no logic that leads anyone to atheism. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #8

IMHO, It's actually empirical rather than logical marylandblue Nov 2018 #11

The bottom line is that neither position is provable. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #12

I can't prove that elephants exist and God or unicorns don't? marylandblue Nov 2018 #13

Prove that God does not exist. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #14

I'll prove that neither God nor unicorns exist marylandblue Nov 2018 #16

There is no need, nor possibility of proving a negative proposition. MineralMan Nov 2018 #24

#13 made a claim. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #25

Did I write #13? MineralMan Nov 2018 #27

You inserted yourself into the sub-thread. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #28

I can insert a post anywhere I wish on this discussion forum. MineralMan Nov 2018 #29

And you already know my answer. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #30

You say many things. Many of them are incorrect. MineralMan Nov 2018 #32

Allow me to correct you: guillaumeb Nov 2018 #33

That is one definition from one source. It divides atheism into MineralMan Nov 2018 #38

Yes, it is a definition. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #40

One person cannot establish definitions for commonly-used words. MineralMan Nov 2018 #42

Dueling dictionaries: guillaumeb Nov 2018 #46

More importantly, you should allow people room for their own self definition marylandblue Nov 2018 #51

So what? Major Nikon Nov 2018 #105

This is also why I regret it every time I take him off ignore to see if he's showing integrity. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #45

#46 guillaumeb Nov 2018 #47

Great. You've finally found one old dictionary which agrees with you. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #57

Don't forget that Gil's posts are a performance Mariana Nov 2018 #84

I hate that. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #104

Yes. I just posted the same content in a reply to Guy. MineralMan Nov 2018 #48

He's never been what I'd consider a reality-based poster. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #58

Most atheists are weak atheists, including most on this site marylandblue Nov 2018 #39

And the definition defines atheism as a belief. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #41

Your definition is not an objective one. It has a blatant theistic bias. MineralMan Nov 2018 #50

I repeat: guillaumeb Nov 2018 #53

What's wrong with picking a valid definition that corresponds to what you believe? marylandblue Nov 2018 #60

Has more to do with the definition of belief than anything else, and belief is a problematic word marylandblue Nov 2018 #77

See my citation from that link, below. MineralMan Nov 2018 #49

I did see that, but the distinction between strong and weak atheism marylandblue Nov 2018 #52

Here is some information from your link: MineralMan Nov 2018 #44

#46 guillaumeb Nov 2018 #54

Dude, You're the one who used that source for your definition. MineralMan Nov 2018 #55

Wiki and a dictionary. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #56

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, and MineralMan Nov 2018 #59

And you are the one who decides what constitutes an authoritative source? guillaumeb Nov 2018 #64

Well, if he's an atheist, I'd say he's pretty well-qualified to say what he believes. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #67

And what atheism is, and is not? guillaumeb Nov 2018 #72

He simultaneously claims to be a deist and a theist Major Nikon Nov 2018 #106

Of course not. I decide for myself, though. MineralMan Nov 2018 #75

The definition has also changed over time Major Nikon Nov 2018 #107

Yes. Further, dictionaries changed from being prescriptive MineralMan Nov 2018 #111

I'm not sure if any negative connotation was intended Major Nikon Nov 2018 #112

Thanks for that information about the Collins Dictionary. MineralMan Nov 2018 #113

Translation errors happen with even the very best translators Major Nikon Nov 2018 #114

Indeed they do. I learned my lesson. MineralMan Nov 2018 #115

It doesn't really matter what it means Major Nikon Nov 2018 #116

"the absence of belief " Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #61

Leave him alone, people insert themselves in threads all the time marylandblue Nov 2018 #35

A weak analogy. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #37

Your first paragraph contradicts the third marylandblue Nov 2018 #43

An agnostic analogy, then? Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #65

Everyone defines their own beliefs. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #70

You don't let atheists define their own positions marylandblue Nov 2018 #82

But I do. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #92

It's not illogical marylandblue Nov 2018 #94

Scientists define proof one way. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #95

Yes, scientists define proof one way, marylandblue Nov 2018 #101

Except it's not that simple Major Nikon Nov 2018 #108

Occasionally, Gil has told us some specific things Mariana Nov 2018 #117

So Guy's god is nothing more than a bit of quantum instability? MineralMan Nov 2018 #119

I asked once Mariana Nov 2018 #120

But, see, I don't believe a word of that. MineralMan Nov 2018 #121

I don't think anyone believes a word of that. Mariana Nov 2018 #122

No worries. MineralMan Nov 2018 #124

What God? tonedevil Nov 2018 #118

Agree/Disagree TlalocW Nov 2018 #15

My belief is unprovable.And I accept that. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #17

I have a jar of jellybeans TlalocW Nov 2018 #18

You are mixing up the ideas. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #20

Prove that both positions are unprovable marylandblue Nov 2018 #90

Neither positions have been proven to date. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #93

What is your definition and standard of proof? marylandblue Nov 2018 #96

Agreed, heretofore unproven sounds better. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #97

Point is, "heretofore unproven" and unprovable are two different things marylandblue Nov 2018 #100

Ah, but what if there are no jellybeans? Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #62

Crap! Now I've got a craving for jellybeans. LastLiberal in PalmSprings Nov 2018 #69

It's the more reasoned position Major Nikon Nov 2018 #109

Atheists make a counter claim. eom guillaumeb Nov 2018 #123

I suppose someone who insists on a subliterate definition might think so Major Nikon Nov 2018 #125

Oh great, bothsidesism. trotsky Nov 2018 #19

I am not defining atheism. I never have defined atheism, except pointing out the definition. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #23

Utter and total bullshit. trotsky Nov 2018 #63

My response refutes what you claim that I said. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #66

Your response refutes only courtesy and reality. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #68

By what definition of reality can you ignore what I said? guillaumeb Nov 2018 #73

That's also utter and total bullshit. trotsky Nov 2018 #91

I could define a cat as a dog marylandblue Nov 2018 #88

Strawman bullshit Major Nikon Nov 2018 #103

No, there is no belief that there are no gods. MineralMan Nov 2018 #22

Your definition of atheism is subliterate Major Nikon Nov 2018 #102

I agree w/ your statement that religion is faith based, not logic based. That's fine. Folks are... SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #31

Most religions have a set of ethics. So do most societies and cultures. MineralMan Nov 2018 #34

Absolutely. And if one goes back into history, you'll find that most religions all have the ... SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #36

Yes, exactly. MineralMan Nov 2018 #81

Actually, you find a huge variety of beliefs that have gigantic consequences. marylandblue Nov 2018 #83

I know this. We all know this, that there are exceptions to everything. ... SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #85

Well, you said, "you'll find that most religions all have the exact same beliefs, marylandblue Nov 2018 #87

Now I know its the religion group. I avoid the religion group rather ironically, religiously. I SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #98

Ok, no problem , see you in GD. marylandblue Nov 2018 #99

This is the Religion Group, in which we discuss religion. Mariana Nov 2018 #89

A religion isn't a set of rules.or desired traits. Mariana Nov 2018 #86

you might find this interesting... handmade34 Nov 2018 #71

Thanks for the link. I'll visit it when I have some time. MineralMan Nov 2018 #74

in the context of living in handmade34 Nov 2018 #76

We have codified a wide range of ethical rules in our laws. MineralMan Nov 2018 #79

IF you consider Ethical Culture to be a "religion", then it's an exception to that rule. no_hypocrisy Nov 2018 #78

No, I don't see it as a religion. MineralMan Nov 2018 #80

Des Cartes proved by logic that God exists and the Church rejected it because it negated the need fo keithbvadu2 Nov 2018 #110

And Desi Arnaz said, MineralMan Nov 2018 #128

Sorry, I am late to the discussion. saidsimplesimon Nov 2018 #126

And so, man did invent Gods, which MineralMan Nov 2018 #127