FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-28-2002, 07:48 PM   #71
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>
...
So, is your problem with Thomas Merton, monks, Trappist monks, Trappist monks who write books, all cloistered religious orders, Roman Catholics in general ...
...
[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</strong>
Yes, and much more: after carefully considerating them, religions are a human scam, including Roman Catholics' Vatican, and 'miracles' at Lourdes that don't 'happen' anymore since being under medical scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>
...
So all cloistered religious are ignorant of intellectual theory and advancement. Fascinating. It's a good thing St. Edith Stein slipped through the system, because she entered Carmel after earning her doctorate in philosophy.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</strong>
A doctorate in philosophy doesn't belong to the Faculty of Science in any university, it belongs to the Faculty of Arts: philosophy it's not science with its empiricism, it's theory speculating on verbal human concepts.
Ion is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:09 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: new york
Posts: 608
Post

Ion,

You did not answer my question. Have you ever read Thomas Merton? Have you ever visited a Trappist monastary? Any cloistered community (Dominican, Benedictine, Carmelite, Passionist, etc)? Have you ever had any contact with a cloistered monk or nun? Are you familiar with the Rule of St. Benedict or the Little Way of St. Therese of Lisieux? I am very interested in hearing of your experiences.

Well, it's a relief to hear you just don't target Catholics, but all religions. God knows the Catholics put up with enough garbage in this country.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>
Gemma Therese is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:10 PM   #73
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>
...
Ion, was that facetious?

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese</strong>
Such a 'brilliant' dogma as "That supreme intelligence is God." should get you a Nobel prize in Physics for 'knowing' the laws of nature.
Go ahead, submit it. I am watching.
Ion is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:21 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: new york
Posts: 608
Post

Ion wrote --

Such a brilliant dogma -- "That supreme intelligence is God."

Thanks, I'm flattered, but I can't take credit for a truth that has always existed.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese
Gemma Therese is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:33 PM   #75
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>Ion,

You did not answer my question. Have you ever read Thomas Merton? Have you ever visited a Trappist monastary? Any cloistered community (Dominican, Benedictine, Carmelite, Passionist, etc)? Have you ever had any contact with a cloistered monk or nun? Are you familiar with the Rule of St. Benedict or the Little Way of St. Therese of Lisieux? I am very interested in hearing of your experiences.
...
In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</strong>
No, Gemma.
Roman Catholics, Presbytarians, Methodists, Lutherans, Orthodox religions, Mormons are founded on the Bible, and the Bible is inconsistent within itself, is in conflict with science, and it's a book of phoney truths written by superstitious barbarians long ago.
Today, Roman Catholics people are a social power institution, led by the Pope.
To turn your question around, I already asked you two days ago in a post in this thread if you have studied 'Differential Calculus' by Arnaudies and Ferrand. Upon successful completion of that one, and it has nothing to do with God, it's another rational approach to life, I have for you six year worth of further scientific studies of books, so that you grasp my "...experiences.". Everything material in this world is made with this kind of science and technology, nothing on prayers.
Ion is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:36 PM   #76
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>Ion wrote --

Such a brilliant dogma -- "That supreme intelligence is God."

Thanks, I'm flattered, but I can't take credit for a truth that has always existed.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese</strong>
Go ahead submit this in science. I am watching.
Ion is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:44 PM   #77
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 13
Post

Quote:
Uhm, I was not making any probabilistic argument for the non-existence of God. I was simply stating that things aren't necessarily as black and white as definitely true and definitely false.
Are you saying that the exclusive bipolarity of either truth or falsehood does not necessarily exist, that it is possible for an idea to be neither true nor false? If so, please explain.

Do you assert that impeccable, indisputable knowledge regarding truth or falsehood is unattainable? If this is the case, how can you declare with any conviction that God is nonexistent?

Quote:
High on rhetoric, very little argumentative value. It can just as easily be reversed to:
I see no honest inquiry here - only the attempted rationalization of presuppositions or conscious denial. You have already decided that God exists, and you substantiate theism with prejudiced "logical faculties." You would have us believe that you derive your conclusion of theism from logic and reasoning, but in truth, you contrive your reasoning from the presumption that God exists.
This is conceivable, and I will certainly not claim abstinence from bias. Quite possibly, no one has an "objective perspective." The difference, however, is that I do not allege that theism is the logical conclusion of reason. On the other hand, neither do I attribute this to atheism. I believe that through equitable logic alone, one deduces deism or deistic agnosticism. You may reverse my argument if you wish, but it simply no longer applies when inverted.

Quote:
Consequently, how do you explain the fact that the majority of atheists on this board were previously theists? They found atheism with the presupposition that God exists.
Aside from indicating that belief in God is natural, this merely implies that atheism is easy and comfortable. If anything, this demonstrates that many atheists are implicatively indolent. The ingenuous truth is that atheism is extremely tempting. What could be simpler? There is no God, no morality, no responsibility - you can do whatever you want, because there is no authority, nobody to answer to, nothing to restrain you, and best of all, you have majority on your side; theists are "ignorant" and all of the "cool" or reputable people are atheists; macro-evolution is widely accepted as scientific fact; most people reprehend anyone who publicly professes theism. This, I believe is why many ostensible theists become atheists. It is irresistibly convenient.
The Apologist is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:46 PM   #78
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Ion:
<strong>
Go ahead submit this in science. I am watching.</strong>
What's the matter Gemma, cannot submit to science let's say the Exodus?
Looks like your "That supreme intelligence is God.", doesn't stand scientific scrutiny.
Ion is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 09:01 PM   #79
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by The Apologist:
<strong>
...
Aside from indicating that belief in God is natural, this merely implies that atheism is easy and comfortable. If anything, this demonstrates that many atheists are implicatively indolent.
...
</strong>
You are full of sentiments Apologist: 'indicating', 'merely implies', 'easy and comfortable', 'demonstrates', 'implicatively'.

How did you get 'this far' in reasoning?
Ion is offline  
Old 05-28-2002, 09:33 PM   #80
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 13
Post

Quote:
You are full of sentiments Apologist: 'indicating', 'merely implies', 'easy and comfortable', 'demonstrates', 'implicatively'.

How did you get 'this far' in reasoning?
What do you mean?

If you are asking why this is my "sentiment," I will say that I have not been exempt from the allure of atheism.
The Apologist is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:10 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.