Militant Atheists Punching at the Air

Or so they think.

Master Paul could use some assistance.  Not that he isn’t handling himself well, quite the contrary.  He is a bit outnumbered.

15 thoughts on “Militant Atheists Punching at the Air

  1. I hate to sound pessimistic, but these debates go around in circles and I always wonder if they ever actually go anywhere at all! I do hope that a seed in all of this gets planted for just one of these people … I do hope. I give you credit, Paul. These people are so angry … you can just read it in their tone.

  2. I’m reposting this here… but I added this to Paul’s blog because the resources I found were pretty useful:

    Fide et Ratio (Faith and Reason)

    Serious readers enquire here:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

    Paul: Sorry this took so long to get through… I was hoping to comment on this last week. But it took me that long to read ALL THESE COMMENTS!

    Friends:
    St. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest medieval philosopher. He is respected by any serious and well read atheist and theist alike.

    Thomas successfully shows us the harmony between faith and reason, and between Christianity and philosophy. Aquinas’s views have been very effective, because they apply cohesive scientific methodology to things which are theologically considered.

    For a simple look into his very extensive writings, he gives us the FIVE PROOFS of the existence of God. Most armchair (amateur) atheists and agnostics will not like to ponder these mysteries. But just like the mystery of gravity or magnetism or electromagnetism, or any of the other AMAZING things we have in nature which can never be directly seen… these proofs must be pondered. This reliance that schence must have on the unseen and unprovable is most dramatically seen in the athematics of chaotic systems and in particle physics. If we wish to arrive at the truth of a thing we must ponder and apply logic, not feelings to the matter at hand.

    As a simple example, consider the mathematic duality of light. Physicists are hard pressed to explain the duality of light without inventing a vocabulary (based upon other natural phenomena) to describe it. Since intuition is the highest form of intelligence, the scientist must use intuition to postulate structures of theories. Scientists must make assertions based upon theories (not all of which can be proven directly, unfortunately).

    This is true in theology also. As in hard science, a vocabulary must be built up by man to describe what he thinks he sees. But like modern science, it is an inexact thing really.

    The fascinating thing about science and the physical universe is that every time man obtains an answer through experimentation… he unearths a hundred other questions about the universe… questions that we did not even know existed until the one single mystery was solved.

    What this means is that the more man unravels through the great gift & mystery of science, the more questions he has about how the universe operates.

    Now for those 5 PROOFS:
    Aquinas’s Proofs 1 to 3

    1 – FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.

    2 – FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. There must be a first cause (a cause that isn’t itself caused by another). This is God.

    3 – NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing — and so there would be nothing now — which is clearly false. Thus not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

    Aquinas’s Proofs 4 and 5

    4 – GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

    5 – INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

    Thomas only scratches the surface here. But the point is that one must shut off reason in order to state emphatically that God does not exist.

    IN FACT, I ASSERT THAT TRUE ATHEISM IS A RELIGION OF EMOTION. I say this because atheism makes the assertion that God does not exist. This assertion can not be proven, yet it’s proponents argue most emotionally for it… and yet Thomas’s 5 Proofs still stand. Thus, atheism must be a superstition as opposed to a theological religion.

    Paul, I really think that the FIVE PROOFS should be added to the “Magnificent Seven” to make the list “The Great Eight”!

    Whaddyasay?

  3. Again aquina in another thread while we already proved those proof being wrong? And why do you keep only with aquina there are so many other philosophic currents , and you should know that the middle age was a rather “void” time for reason thats why its called “middle” an the following era is called “rebirth” because people (in europe) began to think again ….and no atheist does not say that god doesnt exists but rather that the known religions are fake at least thats for me .You should understand that atheism isnt an organised movement even is now because of multiple religious organisation trying to take control of the official political system a counter is needed. Now i feel really tired to come back to this site afte being unable to post or having my posts checked and deleted on a whim….see where you guys are going. If you are really intereted be my answer on those “proof” its somewhere on this site oh And next time you want to stop one from posting be honest and say you are blocking people because you are afraid of what they may say really i was disapointed at you .

  4. IIz0,

    You underestimate the Middle Ages. To say it was not an age of “reason,” is to be ignorant of the period–just another prejudice of the Enlightenment against religion and Christianity.

    There is only one reason to stick with Aquinas. . . he was right.

  5. “You underestimate the Middle Ages.” and you are understimating all other philosophic currents be sticking to aquina wich was more a theologist than a philosopher…

    Ok the 5 proof again :

    1 – FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.
    So no one moved god?Thats also not explainable and why there can’t be an infinite series of movers when God must be himeself an infinite series of mover…..so that means neither the too possibilities are understandable but the “infinite series of mover” (even if now physician are ok to say that matter =energy)is simpler.

    2 – FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. There must be a first cause (a cause that isn’t itself caused by another). This is God.
    Same as 1 just replace “cause” by “mover”

    3 – NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing — and so there would be nothing now — which is clearly false. Thus not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
    From what i have observed and from the shallow “wantobe” knowledge i have from physics nothing is created nothing is destroyed everything just change , and u can “exists” without the need of conscioussness.

    4 – GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
    Again “things” dont need be conscious to exists so the greatest “being” (wich is in fact the sum of everything that “exists” i think we call it “Universe” and not “god” a bunch of living being living together in a rather stable state is called an ecosystem and we dont give ecosystems a conscioussness.

    5 – INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
    That you need to explain better ,but its okay ive done some research on the subject since it was worth it :
    First you must identify what you consider as an “end” if you are talking of biology then you can continue the search for convincing answers here “http://www.evcforum.net/” if you meant simple physical/chemical interaction then it would be like saying that legs exists because of shoes…And another funny thing is that you say that a catholic god exists but there are many other creationist from many other religions and bielief so…..why yours?

    “IN FACT, I ASSERT THAT TRUE ATHEISM IS A RELIGION OF EMOTION. I say this because atheism makes the assertion that God does not exist. This assertion can not be proven, yet it’s proponents argue most emotionally for it… and yet Thomas’s 5 Proofs still stand. Thus, atheism must be a superstition as opposed to a theological religion.” hey hey there are many different reasons that lead to atheism many like you say dont bielieve because they simply dont want true , other simply think they have no reasons to bielieve since 1st the books and moral contradicts themselves makes claims that should be moral but dont seem moral for that person etc etc And i discovered that i was actually an atheist because i simply dont bieleve in something i dont know and i prefer observe the world trough my eyes rather than make hasty conclusion on everything just because i was told to.

  6. IIz0v3,

    Master Paul has spoken. You are banished.

    I will, though, make one relatively short comment.

    And i discovered that i was actually an atheist because i simply dont bieleve in something i dont know and i prefer observe the world trough my eyes rather than make hasty conclusion on everything just because i was told to.

    Chesterton, that great man, again says it best: “A man who won’t believe in God will believe in anything.”

    Examples of believing anything: attributing common sense to purely environmental factors; believing that the mind cannot reach conclusions; believing that Sarah Palin just might be a robot.

    Another example is that you believe that men of faith are mindless robots that just do what they are told. I don’t believe in God because I was told to. Religious people are not devoid of intellectual curiosity. What planet are you living on?

    For your sake IIz0v3–if that doesn’t sound like a robot name I don’t know what does; are you a robot?–for your sake, I will give a brief explanation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument.

    The five ways are really five parts of one argument that is based on universally observable facts, philosophically analyzed. The basic observable fact is that all that exists belongs to the category of “contingent being,” that is, entities that exist but need not. In other words, they exist, but do not have to exist.

    To be contingent, besides meaning to be unnecessary, also means to be dependent and finite. Every contingent being receives it existence in some fashion from another contingent being, whether we consider that reception under the aspect of motion, causality and so forth. Every contingent being, therefore, is also finite, that is, limited and determined to be what it is and not something else precisely because it is dependent.

    So a tree exists, but no tree needs to exist and its existence is dependent on the seed, and on the water, nutrition and sunlight it receives. This dependency manifests also the tree’s limited nature. A tree is not a dog or a rock or the water it drinks, but all these things are in a way interdependent and, therefore, finite, that is, limited. This is true of everything we observe without exception.

    Before I proceed further, I would point out, that for St. Thomas, Catholics, and men of common sense in general, the world is rational and the mind is capable of reaching conclusions. Certainly we may philosophically examine and delineate the reach of knowledge, but if we doubt at the outset that the world is rational and the mind capable of comprehending it, then human discourse is meaningless. If such were the case, then this and every discussion would be a vain exercise in futility.

    To proceed then, Aquinas shows that contingent being cannot exist without a necessary being, that is, a being that must exist in order for anything to exist at all. That being must exist in and of itself without any dependence on anything else and without any limit whatsoever. The five ways demonstrate this.

    Your objections rest on empiricism, or at least the implicit assumption of it, namely, that only that which can be reduced to sense experience can be understandable. You are inclined to imagine St. Thomas’ First Mover as though he must be like any other being of our experience, only bigger and better perhaps. Necessary and Infinite being is not a thing, but the source of existence. He is necessary because without Him nothing would exist and infinite because not dependent on anything else.

    You may not like this idea, because it does not fit into the box of empirical science, but it is no less rational for that reason. Science observes phenomena, but can say nothing about existence itself. The contrary belief or faith is the superstition of atheism.

  7. “Master Paul has spoken. You are banished.

    I will, though, make one relatively short comment.” <- so because i disagree i must not speak ? oh oh interesting view of discussion by people that say to love wisdom

    anyway:
    “Chesterton, that great man, again says it best: “A man who won’t believe in God will believe in anything.”

    Examples of believing anything: attributing common sense to purely environmental factors; believing that the mind cannot reach conclusions; believing that Sarah Palin just might be a robot.” So “chesterton is a good man so bieleve what he says” <- fallacious argument i observe the content not the reputation. Common sense DEPENDS of environmental factors and humans cognition interacting as i already said on other post you seem to be mistaken on what common sense is , and i never said that the mind cannot reach conclusion you are again bein delusional or maybe you just dont understand that humans cant be omnicient and have to conclude of ignorance on many things maybe you have problems admitting your ignorance , what a lack of honesty from a church man.
    About Sarah Palin……WOW DO U KNOW WHAT A JOKE IS?I mean u made a joke making the proposition i made a joke on it …and now you are trying to use that as a serious argument?I say lack of honesty and narrow mind.

    “I don’t believe in God because I was told to. Religious people are not devoid of intellectual curiosity. What planet are you living on?” Well you undubitably bielieve in catholic god because someone told you about it are you trying to deny that?After all i was saying it that you dont apply the degree of doubt upon you faith and its mechanism ,the evidence being that you dont doubt (from what i have seen at least) anything about the bible . Some that bieleve that the laws of the rational world can be bent by a supreme being making those laws not absolute is the one that think everything is possible and you failed to notice that by lack of honesty again.
    About aquina.
    “The basic observable fact is that all that exists belongs to the category of “contingent being,” that is, entities that exist but need not. In other words, they exist, but do not have to exist.” This is the major flaw of aquina’s phylosophy , its to bielieve that things exists because they need too , but thats fallacious intepretation , existance is not bound by “necessity” there is no “meaning” to the simple fact of existing.By the way what does “Do not have to exists” means uh?this the supreme stupid assertion what exists exits nothing more nothing less deciding upon our limited mind what should exists and what shouldnt is impossible and sound totally delusional to me.So all the metaphysic of aquina is fallacious because it comes from the bible only not the observation of the world he was rather trying to apply the book to the world than the contrary and its sad you cant see this.

    “Your objections rest on empiricism, or at least the implicit assumption of it, namely, that only that which can be reduced to sense experience can be understandable.” No? Understanding and labelling as true are two different things . I can understand something explained to me , but not automatically label it as knowledge of my own , empiricism is just the fact of gaining “knowledge” instead of simple bielief coming from peers thats why experimentation is always needed while teaching to kids.
    Hum sorry but religions doesnt do more about explaining existance itself you shoult try reading sartre’s phenomenology maybe you will find it interesting about explaining existance “l’etre et le néant” is better than any of your aquina’s petty métaphysics.

    “The contrary belief or faith is the superstition of atheism.” again the lack of honesty from every post on atheism , i already explained to you that atheism is the simple fact of not bieleving because there is nothing you said or tried to prove that give your catholic god a reality but you are again and again repeating that atheism is superstition while bielieving that some guy opened a sea , that another made bread appear from nowhere and could walk on water ” BECAUSE ITS WRITTEN ON THE BOOK AND THE BOOK CANT BE MISTAKEN”…..what a lack of honesty.

  8. IIz0,

    “I don’t believe in God because I was told to. Religious people are not devoid of intellectual curiosity. What planet are you living on?” Well you undubitably bielieve in catholic god because someone told you about it are you trying to deny that?After all i was saying it that you dont apply the degree of doubt upon you faith and its mechanism ,the evidence being that you dont doubt (from what i have seen at least) anything about the bible . Some that bieleve that the laws of the rational world can be bent by a supreme being making those laws not absolute is the one that think everything is possible and you failed to notice that by lack of honesty again.

    You again presume too much when you assert that I have not examined the Catholic faith for marks of credibility or that I have not had the intellectual honesty to ask myself whether or not I had objective grounds for certitude. I find it offensive the you, who do not know me, and who has not taken the time to consider my explanation, but rather shoots off another verbose rant, accuse me of dishonesty.

    this the supreme stupid assertion what exists exits nothing more nothing less deciding upon our limited mind what should exists and what shouldnt is impossible and sound totally delusional to me.So all the metaphysic of aquina is fallacious because it comes from the bible only not the observation of the world he was rather trying to apply the book to the world than the contrary and its sad you cant see this.

    You obviously have not read Aquinas. If you had you would not brush him off so flippantly and say something so patently false as that his metaphysics comes from the bible and not from observation.

    Banishment effective immediately.

  9. “You obviously have not read Aquinas. If you had you would not brush him off so flippantly and say something so patently false as that his metaphysics comes from the bible and not from observation.” <–nothing from aquina’s theory come from plain observation and its interpetation he is rather trying to apply his agenda to the universe more than he is trying to understand it.

    “You again presume too much when you assert that I have not examined the Catholic faith for marks of credibility or that I have not had the intellectual honesty to ask myself whether or not I had objective grounds for certitude.” your faith come from aquina’s “proof” here that i refuted (like many many many other philosophers c’mon buddy try sartre) . Faith have no credibility because faith need no evidence from the begining but you again fail to understand that , this is why you are dishonest you are trying to show us faith as knowledge , what a big scam my dear.

  10. Since i respect you decision to ban me i’ll stop posting and just read silently , but this isnt really fair since you are forbidding me the right to answer .heh bad thing free speech isn’t written on the bible.

  11. You assume too much also II0v4 if you think I have not read Sartre. I have studied a considerable amount of modern philosophy, especially Existentialism. Now, since you can’t behave yourself, do as you have agreed and desist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s