[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 722 KB, 600x600, dialectic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13217213 No.13217213 [Reply] [Original]

How do we reconcile them?

>> No.13217297

>>13217213
reading comprehension and the ability to not lap up anything you read like a dogmatic psued.

>> No.13217305

Vattimo, i.e.: we don't and LARP as both.

>> No.13217347

>>13217297
Christians were BTFO by Nietzsche, and non-Christians were BTFO by Aquinas. How do we resolve this?

>> No.13217351

>>13217347
Christian/ Atheist equivalent to NazBol Gang obviously.

>> No.13217355

>>13217347
>>13217297

>> No.13217366

Who was in the wrong here? What would a conversation between these two go down like?

>> No.13217388
File: 272 KB, 1432x1317, 1557708559092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13217388

The turin horse situation and its last words to its mother before falling to the threshold of madness testify to a man in search of truth, not that of a man blinded by hatred and resentment.

For his part Thomas Aquinas is a highly rational human being who has entered into communion with the possibility of an infinite ultraterrestrial and multidimensional love, which he accepts and wants to explore its consequences to the end. We must build a personal relationship with reality and stay vigilant.

>> No.13217389

>>13217213
They both dead lmao

>> No.13217401

>>13217351
I could see something with the end goal of devotion and mostly secular methodology. the idea that God created humans with the ability to change, so we should become the best versions of ourselves in order to show our appreciation for the gift good has given us.

>> No.13217410

Did Nietzsche even read Aquinas? Because it seems to me that a lot of his critiques of Christianity are critiques of a kind of German Bourgeois Protestantism, and the sort of Christianity that Aquinas constructs and defends is a different animal.

>> No.13217413

>>13217410
He likely would have had at least a familiarity. >Nietzsche commenced studies in theology and classical philology at the University of Bonn with hope of becoming a minister

>> No.13217473
File: 2.22 MB, 1917x2183, uber.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13217473

>>13217366
>Who was in the wrong here?
Aquinas, obviously.
>What would a conversation between these two go down like?
Aquinas would be utterly unprepared for Nietzsche's genius. Nietzsche, on the other hand, knew Aquinas thoroughly, as explained by >>13217413. That 600 year gap has significance, you know; there's a reason religion is dying.

>> No.13217491

>>13217473
Nietzsche's arguments are pretty shit.
“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man?”
“Faith: not wanting to know what the truth is.”

>> No.13217610

we dont, based is a compliment for a reason.

>> No.13217615

>>13217473
Pseud

>> No.13217679

>>13217610
based

>> No.13217684

Nietzsche was Christian. He just was disillusioned with the mindset

>> No.13217686

>>13217213
>>13217684
Kierkegaard.

>> No.13217728

>>13217686
>dude leap of faith!
yeah, fuck you retards

>> No.13217738

>>13217213
Tough one...

>> No.13217747

>>13217684
i cant take nietzsche seroiusly after reading his interpretation of buddhism, same with schopenhauer.

>> No.13217756

>>13217213
What problem does that solve?

>> No.13217772

>>13217389
kek rekt

>> No.13217779

>>13217213
both are overrated so there's no need
Pascal btfo both of them

>> No.13217833
File: 176 KB, 1024x768, PB quote Karma-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13217833

>>13217747
They could do no better than they did, they did not have access to the sources we have today. That is like blaming Newton for his abysmal ignorance of the periodic table when he performed his (al)chemical experiments...

>> No.13217842

>kill your mother and have sex with your father
What did Neetzche mean by this?

>> No.13217843

>>13217779
>muh pascal
Cope more.

>> No.13217881

McRide is the real shit and you know it

>> No.13217959

>>13217473
>tips fedora

>> No.13217966

>>13217843
How did Pascal btfo Aquinas?
(I'm a pseud who hasn't studied Pascal btw)

>> No.13217972

>>13217410
I've often though this. What would Nietzsche have been like had he been raised in a Catholic environment?

>> No.13217974

>>13217959
Cope.

>> No.13217983

>>13217966
The God of the philosophers isn't the God of Abraham, said Pascal, and he's right. But the God of Abraham is just some dude in the sky so the God of the philosophers is superior and Pascal killed himself for some fantasy.

>> No.13219000

>>13217213
Through Marx.

>> No.13219009

>>13217213
>how do we reconcile the cancer cell with the living cells?

Nuke it

>> No.13219019

>>13217347
>non-Christians were BTFO by Aquinas
cringe

>> No.13219228

You don't, you simply reject Aquinas as having done an elaborate work of philosopically invalid autism.

>> No.13219411

>>13217213
go back in time and make his Dad not die

>> No.13219419

>>13217473
>there's a reason religion is dying.

it's not though. there's an alarming number of self-declared atheists who still grovel before god, they only place man upon his throne in his absence. god is dead, we killed him, and we replaced him. religion is just as alive as ever.

>> No.13219420
File: 78 KB, 788x460, 24FD977B-CE07-4E49-8707-73325A9D24CF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13219420

>>13219419

>> No.13219499

>>13217473
Nietzsche doesn't come anywhere close to Aquinas, anon. He was never able to refute Aquinas at all

>> No.13219505

>>13219499
Others have already refuted his nonsense. He doesn’t even have to mention the peasant

>> No.13219520

>>13217347
>non-Christians were BTFO by Aquinas.
>Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.

>> No.13219697

>>13217747
Can you tell me where to read the right interpretation?

>> No.13219821
File: 61 KB, 300x229, 565465464.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13219821

>>13217347
>he thinks Aristotelian physics is a good argument for Christianity
Why do Thomists do this? Sorry but muh prime mover doesn't lead to Jesus walking on water.

>> No.13219833

>>13219520
This is so stupid. Without a ground for all being there's no explanation for anything. It's like if we look at a train, without an engine nothing moves. Positing an infinite series of boxcars doesn't change anything because the boxcars themselves don't have the power of movement.

>> No.13219849

>>13217491
>Nietzsche
>Arguments
Pick one

>> No.13219965

They are already reconciled. Thomism naturally decays into Nominalism under intellectual duress as the Aristotelian conception of omnipotence is unsatisfactory. Nietzsche was just describing the results of this hundreds of years later.

>> No.13220445

>>13219833
The universe Is. and has always been. Nothing creates it, it moves about and just Is.

>> No.13220516

>>13219833
What Aquinas asserts is that the engine is behind all the boxcars, but then he makes the leap that the engine should be called God.

>> No.13220581

>>13219520
>Actually posting Dawkings.
This is a terrible objection. It fails to understand what the arguments of Aquinas set out to do in the first place. If you understood the arguments, you would see why the "unwarranted assumption God himself is immune to the regress", is neither an assumption, but a conclusion, nor unwarranted, but following necessarily from the arguments.
>Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it.
Again, a misunderstanding of the arguments; they do not presuppose God, but an end to the necessarily limited series either of movements, efficient causes or perfection. And the fifth way has nothing to do with this way of arguing, so, again, misreading.
Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.
The five ways are not meant to show very "property" of God, beyond His necessary existence. Expecting an argument for the existence of God to, simultaneously, explain His goodness, omniscience, forgiveness, etc. is very silly.

>> No.13220590

>>13217213
Through a basic understanding of epistemology

>> No.13220597

>>13217686
this

they're reconciled in existentialism

plebeian christianity is not kierkegaard

>> No.13220602

>>13220445
yall need some antinomies of pure reason

>> No.13220619

>>13220445
A universe with no temporal beginning is not opposed to the arguments Aquinas made. What you said doesn't even answer to the post you're responding to; unless you think the universe is an entity separate from its parts.

>> No.13220636

>>13220516
Aquinas is saying that at some point on that train of boxcars, whether it's infinite or not, there must be an engine somewhere if that train is to move at all. That engine itself must be the ultimate source of movement. Everything on the train that moves is ultimately deriving that movement from the engine. The reason Aquinas calls this first mover god isn't immediately clear but he does go on to explain why this first mover must have omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, one, and so on. We can know from argument all of the primary qualities of a monotheistic God by inferring what it means for the first mover to be the first mover.

Dawkins would say that even so, this doesn't prove Christianity is true and Aquinas would agree with him which is why Aquinas doesn't try to make that argument. There comes a point, he says, where reason itself doesn't give you any more answers and we must rely on revelation.

>> No.13220639

>>13220619
based

>> No.13220656

>>13220619
There’s no need for a god. Which is good because he’d muck everything up.
What do you mean by a “ universe...separate from its parts”?

>> No.13220697

>>13220656
>There’s no need for a god. Which is good because he’d muck everything up.
What do you mean by "a god"? If you think he'd "muck everything up" it just shows you've a very anthropomorphic conception of what Aquinas was thinking about, which is mistaken.
>What do you mean by a “ universe...separate from its parts”?
If you think that "The universe Is. and has always been. Nothing creates it, it moves about and just Is" it can be understood in many ways. It could mean that a collection of limited beings, a collection we name the universe, has always existed; or that a thing, called the universe, which cannot be reduced to its parts and has its own properties, such as simply being ("The universe Is...it moves about and just Is"); or, perhaps, in another way. The first way -universe as a name for the collection of all individual things- does not oppose the arguments, indeed, it is part of them. The second way would be an objection, but not a very good one, I think, since, when you unfold what "simply Is" means, you're just affirming the same thing as Aquinas.

>> No.13220709

>>13220445
Nice cult blind faith bro.
The hallmark of a retard is someone who reads philosophy as irrefutable fact. Nietzche had insight, he wrote well, and is worth listening to and had a huge impact on philosophy. But he contradicts himself a lot and his arguments aren’t all that great. You are misunderstanding how to read philosophy

>> No.13220748

>>13220697
The original post she was responding to, with the analogy of an engine instead of God, would make God the soul of the world and lead to Spinoza's God rather than that of Aquinas. I am ok with that but the spectrum is between extreme anthropomorphism (a personal God who speaks to you) and extreme pantheism, where God is the principle of the intelligibility of things (which could be compared to Plato's Sun rather than the demure, who is lesser and subject to other laws such as justice).

>> No.13220806

>>13220748
I did not make the analogy post, but I do not think it would lead to pantheism, or the world-soul, or the demiurge at all; even though the analogy is, by necessity, limited. The argument from motion you can find in Aristotle's Metaphysics, and it did not lead to what Spinoza thought, but something closer to what Aquinas meant.
>...extreme pantheism, where God is the principle of the intelligibility of things (which could be compared to Plato's Sun rather than the demure, who is lesser and subject to other laws such as justice).
God being as the Sun, as Plato aptly said, is not at all pantheist. That all things are by Him and through Him and to Him, does not mean that He is all things, nor all things Him.
If your point is that there are many ways in which people speak of God, or gods, then I agree with you, hence the question of what the butterfly meant by "a god".

>> No.13220808

>>13219499

Aquinas is self-defeating. Do you know that?

>> No.13220827

>>13217213
Wow, Aquinas here is obviously the priest of a Solar cult. The astrotheological origins of Christianity are quite obvious when you look at the iconography...

>> No.13220828

>>13220806
My point is, I guess, and I am still thinking about this, is that the God of revealed religion seems incompatible to God as a principle enabling creation or being.

>> No.13220867

>>13220828
I see. Aquinas also deals with this, if you're interested, in the first part of the Summa Theologiae; and he is, of course, much more subtle and brilliant than I am. However, I find interesting the ways in which God speaks of himself Scripture. "I am who am" (Exodus, 3,14) for example, is one of the passages which most point towards compatibility, and indeed, unity of natural reason and Revelation.

>> No.13220916

>>13220581
Good post. People dont understant that the first actual has godlike characteristics that are unique to him as a conceptualized object in the aristotelean regression. His objection is retarded. Atheists in the past would sinply claim that the universe was everlasting and the debate would be over. These days people are resorting to these "refutations".
I actually prefer the post modern critique of metaphysical systems. They are sound critiques of belief systems, unlike the new atheist wave.

>> No.13220935

>>13220581
Garbage circular logic, you are laughable.

>> No.13220956

>>13220916
>Atheists in the past would sinply claim that the universe was everlasting and the debate would be over.
Even that wouldn't work because Aquinas assumed the universe was eternal since he believed it couldn't be proved either way with philosophy.

>> No.13221124

>>13220581
>If you understood the arguments, you would see why the "unwarranted assumption God himself is immune to the regress", is neither an assumption, but a conclusion, nor unwarranted, but following necessarily from the arguments.
This is something I'm interested in, could you elaborate on those arguments, and why god must be immune to regress? This anon >>13220636 says:
>The reason Aquinas calls this first mover god isn't immediately clear but he does go on to explain why this first mover must have omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, one, and so on. We can know from argument all of the primary qualities of a monotheistic God by inferring what it means for the first mover to be the first mover.
Which is something I read here before, but no one goes into detail of why the first mover must have these qualities. People say "because he's the prime mover," but that is somewhat circular and the name "prime mover" sounds like a language trick, implying a conscious action right out of the gate. Calling it an engine on the other hand would imply non-consciousness, since we consider engines as unconscious, but I digress, I'm not trying to be facetious here, but would honestly like to comprehend the argument fully.

>> No.13221142

>>13220956
Thats not what i meant with "everlasting". There were people that claimed that the regression could be infinite.

>> No.13221188

>>13221124
Aquinas will go into great detail but the gist of it goes something like this. Because everything that is changing is ultimately deriving its movement from the first mover, the first mover would have to be all powerful in order to be the first mover. Change is the actualization of potential, or the turning to potential into actual. Potential can't actualize potential so the first mover must be pure actual.

We already know that the first mover is omnipotent because to be omnipotent is to be able to do anything that is logically possible, meaning any sort of action or change is acting or moving as a result of the first mover but we can also know some things about what it means to be "pure act." Pure actual can't fail to exist or stop existing because that would involve change, and change is of course the actualization of potential. It would have to be non physical since all physical things change, it would have to be perfect since an imperfection of any kind is a potential. We also know that there could only be one pure actual because the only way we would be able to tell the difference between two pure actual things is if one of them had something the other didn't, but we know that pure actual can't lack anything. Pure actual would also have to know anything since a lack of knowledge is a potential.

So that's how we get to a god which is omnipotent, eternal, non-corporeal, perfect, singular, and omniscient in that order.

>> No.13221202

>>13221124
The first actual must have contained within itself all potentiality in order to satisfy the conditions of being the first in the finite chain of actuals and potentials. It is, because of that, omnipotent(1).

The first actual, because it contains within itself all potentiality, never becomes something else. It is eternal(2).

Because the first actual is eternal it must have a personality(or will) in order for the chain of actuals and potentials to come into existence. If that were not the case, there would be nothing except the first actual. Because there are objects outside it, the first actual has, by necessity, a personality(3). (Without personality we would find ourselves in a paradox).

These are the ones i understand(kinda). I really cant understand why this being must be good however. The concept of good seems to be derived here from the act of creation. There is a phrase that comes to my mind: "only a complete being could dedicate itself fully and truly to what is external to itself". That being said, i dont understand were the good part comes from.

>> No.13221300

>>13217213
I found a way to do it but I am too lazy to write it down

>> No.13221312

fuck god tbqh, you could spend years getting really autistic over this shit without finding true belief, yet he'll send you to hell for it (>inb4 teehee no you're just distancing yourself :) )

>> No.13221325

>>13219520
Imagine being so dumb that you actually think this is a good argument. I may have a shit life, but I will never be this anon, and that makes me feel better. Thank you.

>> No.13221333

>>13221325
Cringeworthy post

>> No.13221346

>>13221333
Don't be mad kid. Hopefully you are still young and you will have time to be cured of your faggotry

>> No.13221347

>>13217213
There is no need to reconcile nihilistic garbage that stems from a shitty childhood to the glory of the Heavens, anon.

>> No.13221430

>>13220935
Hardly.

>>13221124
Yes. The arguments end with a notion of God as pure act, substituent existence itself, "a thing" whose essence is existence and the final cause of all things. This is all within an Platonic-Aristotelian system of metaphysics. God is, therefore, radically unlike all other things; He is "immune" to the regress because of the kind of thing He is.
>...no one goes into detail of why the first mover must have these qualities. People say "because he's the prime mover," but that is somewhat circular and the name "prime mover" sounds like a language trick, implying a conscious action right out of the gate. Calling it an engine on the other hand would imply non-consciousness, since we consider engines as unconscious, but I digress, I'm not trying to be facetious here, but would honestly like to comprehend the argument fully.
I agree, that the answers you mention are insufficient.There is no short way about it. Others have mentioned some ways in the thread already, but I think they're forgetting that we should first consider what Aquinas, and others in the same tradition, consider those "properties" to mean and what metaphysical suppositions they rest on. So, I hardly think anyone who ignores or denies the metaphysics and ethics behind the proofs will accept them. Again, I consider it best to read the saint himself, (First 22 questions in the Summa Theologiae) with some commentary - unless you read a lot of classical philosophy- as his language is so different from ours.

>> No.13221596

>>13221188
>Aquinas will go into great detail but the gist of it goes something like this. Because everything that is changing is ultimately deriving its movement from the first mover, the first mover would have to be all powerful in order to be the first mover. Change is the actualization of potential, or the turning to potential into actual. Potential can't actualize potential so the first mover must be pure actual.
So actualization of potential is happening, that's okay by me, I guess that's a fair assertion by Aquinas.
>We already know that the first mover is omnipotent because to be omnipotent is to be able to do anything that is logically possible
But nowhere in that definition is the word consciously included, which is implied in the definition of the first mover and omnipotence? To be able to do anything that is logically possible consciously.
>Pure actual can't fail to exist or stop existing because that would involve change, and change is of course the actualization of potential. It would have to be non physical since all physical things change, it would have to be perfect since an imperfection of any kind is a potential.
I don't have a problem with any of your definitions except omnipotent and omniscient, because those two would imply knowing, while eternal, non-corporeal, perfect, and singular are self-cancelling.
>Pure actual would also have to know anything since a lack of knowledge is a potential.
Knowing is also a potential, it's an active engagement.

>> No.13221632

>>13221596
There's something in my brain that keeps me from reading posts when they quote and respond to individual sentences. I can't do it.

>> No.13221692

>>13221347
>nietzsche
>nihilistic
Please read things before criticizing them.

>> No.13222708

>>13220808
So is nietzche

>> No.13222713

>>13221632
It’s called being a pseud

>> No.13222730

>>13222713
That could be it, or I just don't give the time of day to people who can't write like they've graduated highschool. Nothing interesting comes from people who write like that.

>> No.13222848

>>13222730
>commentary is like you haven't graduated high school
You are an ignoramus.

>> No.13223775

>>13222730
Anything that involves knowing or doing is also the actualization of a certain potential, that's the fucking gist of it.
>I can't read individual sentences
>a pseud
>high school grads
What the fuck? I literally just wanted to discuss this instead of ad homing.

>> No.13223786

>>13219520
>Dawkins
gtfo

>> No.13223965

>>13220697
I’m not concerned with Aquinas’ absurdities.
The particles of the universe have always existed. I wouldn’t call them “beings” though. When referring to the Universe I mean all the space and particles of it. Not to be confused with the “known universe”.
My conception of the universe is infinite and eternal fireworks show.

>>13220709
>The hallmark of a retard is someone who reads philosophy as irrefutable fact.
Such as the Plato boys or the Aquinas boys. I agree. But here you claim I do this with Nietzsche? I don’t. Not even with Stirner. I add to my own perspective, thank you very much.
You are misunderstanding how to read me. Try the Socratic method next time.

>>13223786
No, you.

>> No.13224316

>>13217213
First St. Thomas would have to catch up on a lot history and the shitshow that was the Protestant "reformation" since Nietzche grew up Lutheran and understood the whole Christian faith through that lens.

>> No.13224325

>>13220445
Retard alert

>> No.13224346

>>13224325
explain yourself further... no? thanks

>> No.13224354

>>13219009
I agree.
Nietzsche truly was a mistake. Just like you, my beautiful, unplanned love <3

>> No.13224361

We don't, Nietzsche does the BTFOing for you, but its all useless to think about

Go donate money to charity instead

>> No.13224383

>>13224354
Christianity is nothing but a great life denier cult. The social equivalent of a cancer cell, it replicates it’s grey memes with sweet nothings about Nobel spiritual nonsense to flatter its victims. Leaving your NPC zombie, till death do you part.

Nietzsche was a great lover of life. A great Yes, in spite of formidable physical and later mental torments. He’d live it all over again if he could. The embodiment of a living healthy cell.

>> No.13224395

>>13224383
Just think of everything she says with a penis draped over her head from now on everyone. She obviously doesn't mind it that much.

Perhaps its something she would like very much at this point :3

>> No.13224432

>>13224395
nah

>> No.13224435

>>13224432
Hey she didn't deny it. All she's been doing is pretending she is a scary black person trying to find out where I live.

But it obviously isn't working and even backfired. :3

>> No.13224450

>>13224435
I have no idea what you're talking about, schizo-poster

>> No.13224473

>>13224450
You're just not paying enough attention, loser :3

>> No.13224640 [DELETED] 

So I tried to engage with the arguments of Aquinas honestly and truthfully, and I'm interested in the arguments, but I wasn't given anything except for:
>There's something in my brain that keeps me from reading posts when they quote and respond to individual sentences. I can't do it.
And so I can't move forward to acceptance of God as a necessity. Am I, a brainlet or a pseud, just not important enough to respond to?

>> No.13224755

>>13223965
>I’m not concerned with Aquinas’ absurdities.
Your loss. Nothing you've said objects to his thought in any serious way: it's merely superficial negation.
>The particles of the universe have always existed.
You're an atomist, then? I do not see why you would refuse to call the particles beings, however. Of course, atomism, ancient and modern, is full of absurdities and contradictions. Calling Aquinas' arguments absurdities, while there are only "the space and particles of it" is silly.
>My conception of the universe is infinite and eternal fireworks show.
This might have had some strength -even if only aesthetically- had you not declared yourself an atomist earlier.

>> No.13224871
File: 1.43 MB, 268x200, FE92097F-848D-4038-A12E-01E669D2212C.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13224871

>>13224755
You live in a dark muddy hole of delusion

>> No.13224909

>>13224871
No, you.

>> No.13225586 [DELETED] 

>>13224755
>Your loss. Nothing you've said objects to his thought in any serious way: it's merely superficial negation.
Fucking retarded thread, I tried to engage with what he said and this is what I got
>There's something in my brain that keeps me from reading posts when they quote and respond to individual sentences. I can't do it.

>> No.13225593

>>13221632
So this is the power of Aquinas.

>> No.13225597

>>13225593
I don't think that's Aquinas. That guy has been dead for a long time.

>> No.13225624

>>13225597
Yeah, and if he would be alive today he'd probably be an atheist.

>> No.13226676

>>13217473
cringe tier post

>> No.13226686

>>13219520
LOL

>> No.13226687
File: 50 KB, 492x700, A72AADB0-64A5-40F1-9F62-A733E1CEDEF1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13226687

>>13226676
Wew

>> No.13226730

>>13217213
LOL why does the guy on the right have hair like that?

>> No.13226739

>>13217351
gnostic antichristian christianity you mean? look up martin bergmann

>> No.13226741

>>13226730
Lice. It became traditional, but originally, dumb-bros living in close quarters all used to get lice.

>> No.13226743

>>13217728
Do you have any idea what Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is actually connected to?

>> No.13227092

>>13225624
>the average atheist argument
>just take it on faith bro! he’d agree with me!

>> No.13227100

>>13226741
>>13226687
It’s funny that atheists place their entire ideaology upon being more intelligent than people, yet don’t behave in a way that justifies this whatsoever. They never genuinely respond to an argument

>> No.13227102

>>13227100
Did you have a question?

>> No.13227103

>>13226743
>dude there’s no evidence just believe in it to cope!
cringe

>> No.13227109

>>13227100
You're on 4chan you fucking retard

>> No.13227121

>>13227109
>I don’t need to defend or justify my beliefs, it’s 4chan!
Excellent cop out!
>>13227102
I’m pointing out that all your responses to peoples posts have been one word answers calling them idiots, you pseud

>> No.13227254

>>13217213
Make them hold hands and peck each other on the cheeks before saying sorry

>> No.13227331

>>13227121
We have this one guy (you, isn’t it) who says “Le cringe” to a good post, and I said “wew” as a sort of “no U”
Generally I leave a simple “idiot” post when I’m tired of arguing with idiots who can’t answer anything properly.
Had some guy in another thread lay some mumbo jumbo he may have picked up from a book on economics or from a class he’s seriously taking, but he won’t elaborate and explain any of it. I caught him on an elaborate “no U” no one seems to know how to engage in a real conversation around here

You’re a pseud

>> No.13227478

>>13227092
He didn't have any opposition at the time, and I said probably, as statistically speaking more intelligent people tend to be non-religious, also I tried to engage with Aquinas' arguments and the person just stopped responding.

>> No.13227543

>>13227331
>justifies one word answers and calling people idiots instead of refuting them
>I’m the pseud

>> No.13227734
File: 158 KB, 238x300, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13227734

>>13217213