Atheist bored at work. Feel free to ask questions

[PickyPicky]

Oooooo, loads of us. Spooky, innit?

No, speaking for myself, it’s interest, just academic interest. Plus my admiration for the Church of England makes me weigh in at places where its good name gets traduced. Other than truth, no goal. No desire to undermine your faith or turn you into One of Us.

 

[Greenfields]

so now I have to ask why as an Athiest do you admire the Church of England ?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I think [Tarsier’s edit: Hayes, Hayes and Drummey] made a marvelous point.

Me too. It just wasn’t the point you were making.

EDIT: Wait, what you quoted was not even from Aquinas (as PickyPicky already pointed out - I just spotted his post) . I thought the wording looked suspicious, but it took me a bit to dig it up. I thought maybe it was a modern “translation” (as if that is necessary) of Aquinas to make him accessible. You are quoting from this commentary on Aquinas.

So, you have a quote has nothing to do with the one you originally cited, in a commentary on Aquinas by a totally different set of guys writing centuries later.

Look, I’m all about seeing the atheist and the believers reason it out, but let’s do it with a little academic and logical integrity. Again, it’s probably time to retire the “Aquinas quote”, which isn’t an Aquinas quote and really doesn’t do any service to this discussion with Russell.

Everybody can read what I said Atheist bored at work. Feel free to ask questions - #111 by steve-b in post 111, I gave the links to my answer, all properly referenced. No need to be snarky.

The " Summa" was quoted directly. And the paraphrase of a quote attributed to Aquinas was shown as a paraphrase. NOT as the actual quote. But the point of the paraphrase was accurate

 

[PickyPicky]

Which are you saying was the direct quote, and which the paraphrase? Certainly the paragraph beginning “but what of evolution” is not a quote from the Summa, even though you referenced it as such.

 

[PickyPicky]

Oh, simple enough really. The constructive rôle it plays in so many English communities; its desire and constant effort, as the National Church, to keep Christians of all stripes together within one Church; its struggle for inclusiveness; its openness to reason. Well, that’ll do for a start!

 

[Tarsier]

The " Summa" was quoted directly. And the paraphrase of a quote attributed to Aquinas was shown as a paraphrase. NOT as the actual quote. But the point of the paraphrase was accurate

So Aquinas, who lived in the 13th century, was “quoted directly” speculating on evolution, a theory that wouldn’t develop until the 19th century?

 

[gazelam]

Sorry, I can’t resist asking this one: Is it true that there are no atheists in foxholes?

 

[PickyPicky]

Nope. It’d be an odd sort of argument for religion, though, wouldn’t it, even if it were true.

 

[steve-b]

Which are you saying was the direct quote, and which the paraphrase? Certainly the paragraph beginning “but what of evolution” is not a quote from the Summa, even though you referenced it as such.

I said the quote (which BTW is quoted in many sources,) was attributed to Aquinas as a paraphrase. I didn’t invent the quote.

I also gave my source by link, that uses the language of the quote, and the context where the language of the quote was used.

As one can see, It was from Catholic clergy and scholars, applying Aquinas, and in particular the Summa.

 

[PickyPicky]

So which are you saying was “the direct quote” from the Summa?

 

[Tarsier]

I said the quote (which BTW is quoted in many sources,) was attributed to Aquinas as a paraphrase. I didn’t invent the quote.

I also gave my source by link, that uses the language of the quote, and the context where the language of the quote was used.

As one can see, It was from Catholic clergy and scholars, applying Aquinas, and in particular the Summa.

After seeing all the dancing around that you are doing to avoid admitting that the “direct quote” isn’t from Aquinas (and that your source document wasn’t from Aquinas and has nothing to do with the conversation), I find it a bit rich that you posted that it is the ones without faith for whom

… no explanation is sufficient.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I said the quote (which BTW is quoted in many sources,) was attributed to Aquinas as a paraphrase. I didn’t invent the quote.

I also gave my source by link, that uses the language of the quote, and the context where the language of the quote was used.

As one can see, It was from Catholic clergy and scholars, applying Aquinas, and in particular the Summa.

After seeing all the dancing around that you are doing to avoid admitting that the “direct quote” isn’t from Aquinas (and that your source document wasn’t from Aquinas and has nothing to do with the conversation), I find it a bit rich that you posted that it is the ones without faith for whom

… no explanation is sufficient.

You are more concerned about the author than the truth behind the statement attributed to him. I would suggest you prove the statement attributed to Aquinas

 

[Kei]

Eh…what’s your favorite color?
Have you ever tried praying to St Thomas concerning your unbelief? Even if you don’t believe in God, surely you can believe in other people, whether or not you believe in yourself.

 

[Kei]

Various forms of evolution have existed through the ages, it simply wasn’t Darwinism.

 

[Tarsier]

You are more concerned about the author than the truth behind the statement attributed to him. I would suggest you prove the statement attributed to Aquinas

I can’t prove it because I’m arguing it wasn’t from Aquinas. It’s beneath him, as Aquinas spent much of his life proving the very proof that, according to the quote, is pointless.

I’m not concerned with the author, but with a quote that I think is harmful to the conversation, and I think Aquinas deserves better than to be credited as its author.

The quote is an untrue platitude. Scripture itself asks believers to “test everything”, which calls for reason and evidence. Even doubting Thomas wasn’t scolded for asking for proof, but because he already had enough proof (e.g. miracles of Christ, prophecies come true, the testimony of the other apostles) and still wanted more.

To say that unbelievers will never find arguments and proof sufficient is an insult to many of the unbelievers who did. Catholic apologists are fond of citing Sr. Anthony Flew, who allegedly became a late-in-life convert due to the evidence he saw presented by design. Just that one case study is enough to disprove the quote. Any believer who ever bought a “Case for …” book or listens to Catholic Answers to learn answers to hard questions is an argument against the other premise in the quote.

No, Aquinas never said that.

 

[Tarsier]

Various forms of evolution have existed through the ages, it simply wasn’t Darwinism.

I agree, which is why my first response didn’t dismiss it out of hand. However, evolution didn’t gain the scholarly and popular attention it has now until Darwin, which is why I just couldn’t shake suspicion of the quote. Either way, it doesn’t appear anywhere in the Summa, and nor does any mention of evolution of the species, so …

 

[Kei]

Yeah, it didn’t sound like it was anywhere in the summa, but just saying.

 

[Tarsier]

Yeah, it didn’t sound like it was anywhere in the summa, but just saying.

I appreciate you checking me on that - great point.

What I’m trying to get Steve to realize is that I have no beef with him, but the quote itself is not only not productive to the conversation, but really trivializing of the perspective of most people on the site.

I find it hard to believe that I’m the only person on here who has struggled with particular issues of the faith and needed to search for explanations, proofs, etc. to work them out. To see a quote that “to the one who has faith”, no explanation is necessary implies something lacking in my faith or that of others who have ever needed a reasonable answer for what they are to believe.

From atheist’s perspective, it implies a pigheadedness that is also insulting.

Whether or not it was written by Aquinas is important in so far as it doesn’t match with what Aquinas demonstrates about himself in his writing.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Thanks for getting back
Well ,I guess by equel I mean of importance.Equal isn’t a word i would dissect really.

If by importance you mean do people hold equal sway over others, then I would say that people are not equally important. In this way a CEO has more importance than a street sweeper. A senior citizen who votes has more importance than a child who doesn’t. If by importance you mean whether certain people should be treated differently than others based on their position, then I would say we are equal. As I noted in my previous post there is an equal set of basic rights we are born with. Despite this I fully understand that people are not treated equally in this regard.

And the answers from here?Why do you need answers if you believe you have them all?

I don’t believe I have all the answers, and never said that I did. I do have what I believe are explanations as to certain theological questions, and believers’ positions on those questions. I come here to discuss opposing viewpoints. So far I have found some of the responses wanting and so I continue to question, probe, and debate.

Another question I did ask Russel was ,and I can ask you,is …isn’t there a part of you that never feels
really complete,a feeling of longing and whistfulness for something you can’t quite put your finger on?
I realised the other day, the more I love God the more the longing to know Him …I will never be satisfied
where my spiritual life is at and i won’t be until I get to heaven.And it’s beautiful .
I could never imagine not having a spiritual life,it’s just so much of who I am …sometimes I try
to think what it would be like and there’s such a dead end feel about it ,I wish I had the words to describe it.
Funny ,I was going to sign off ‘God bless’ as I do all the time

To use terminology I’ve heard others use, I do not have a God-shaped hole in my heart.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Sorry, I can’t resist asking this one: Is it true that there are no atheists in foxholes?

Here are a few hundred to start:

militaryatheists.org

It’s a hateful cannard to say that there are no atheists in foxholes, to doubt the guts, honor, and conviction of numerous military men and women.