(February 7, 2020 at 3:18 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Obviously, the air you and I breathe right now is a matter but it doesn't have a form.

This statement shows that you don't know what "form" means in this context.

Your statements about Aquinas are equally misinformed.

I'll drop the discussion, as you don't seem to be interested.

Aristotle and Saint Tom both believed that air was prime matter. Which is to say the matter of matter. Air would not have form, but, rather, other things - higher order substances, would require that matter (of air as a primal element) and some form. Usually more than just the one. Primitive nubbins had this obsession with everything being some combination of fire, water, earth, air, and spirit.

That's probably not the way that Flat had it figured, ofc, but it is what Aristotle and Saint Tom had figured.

(February 7, 2020 at 7:47 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's nice, and Tack disagrees. 

---

You're not correcting any atheists here in this thread, which has nothing to do with some hilarious bullshit about how, hur dur, the christers paved the way for science.

---

Bel's purpose here on the forum is, apparently, to correct "simple-minded" atheists. Not simple-minded Christians.

edit:

Not necessarily to gae but just everyone reading this thread:

Keep in mind, Bel claims that there is "no true essence" to Christianity, i.e. that there is no "true form" of Christianity, and yet when debating with atheists, he clearly adheres to a specific form of Christianity - in fact, it's such a specific form of Christianity that he is seen constantly quoting the same philosophers, using the same, tired, old argments again and again, while completely ignoring the fundamentalist Christian thought, or the moderate contemporary Christian thought, or at least the kind that says "I believe in god, but haven't really read the Bible and don't care to."

Bel is very clearly highly fond of quite a specific type of Christianity. And yet, when it comes to this religion he'll claim "there is no true form." Funny. It's almost as if Bel himself finds certain forms of Christianity to be intellectually superior to others, and certain forms to be utterly ridiculous, both intellectually and philosophically. In fact, he won't even entertain certain pro-atheist arguments because they are just "too simplistic," no matter that they actually address claims made in real-life by real-life Christians, who aren't actually afraid to call themselves Christians, even in the presence of atheists.

So, he won't even take seriously certain arguments made by Christians, which is to assume that he simply doesn't take certain forms of Christianity very seriously as a whole. But wait, I thought there was no true form of Christianity? Who says the fundies are any less 'Christian' than the armchair theologians?

This dude is clearly a bad-faith actor, or just a well-read moron. Unfortunately for Bel, reading Aquinas and quoting Aristotle doesn't actually make you smarter than anyone else, much to his chagrin, I'm sure. It just means that one can learn to parrot arguments that are slightly more sophisticated than those of the fundies and fag-haters. What's more, I'm not actually convinced that Bel understands these arguments he's parroting as well as he claims he does. He constantly walks away from debates because people "clearly are not interested" in what he has to say, despite evidence to the contrary. Or he'll get fed up with being insulted, despite having no problem insulting atheists for being "simple" or "too brash" or whatever else. This guy is such a hypocrite and I'm not even actually convinced that he understands his own arguments. When he starts getting ripped apart he just walks away.

I really see no reason to take anything Bel says seriously anymore, after digesting much of what he's had to say here on AF. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that he's actually a Christian, and posts regularly on certain Christian forums, under a different name, obviously. This dude is too full of shit for me to even care to interact with anymore.

Belacqua Wrote:This statement shows that you don't know what "form" means in this context.

Then what does it mean?
Configuration? What would even be a configuration of air? As in, the air has a configuration of being around 20% oxygen, so that's a part of the form of the air? Why wouldn't that be a part of the matter of air?
Idea? What would be the idea of air? Like, something we can breathe? Well, that would be more of a teleological cause than an idea.

Belacqua Wrote:Your statements about Aquinas are equally misinformed.

Well, to be honest, I find Mary Baker Eddy slightly more interesting to read. At least you can see, through her writing, how people possibly came up with the crazy ideas about witchcraft. She makes it look like it all follows from an axiom that there can be no cognition in the matter. And, back when there were no computers, it probably seemed like an axiom.

Belacqua Wrote:I'll drop the discussion, as you don't seem to be interested.

If I weren't slightly interested, I wouldn't be responding to you.

EgoDeath Wrote:It's almost as if Bel himself finds certain forms of Christianity to be intellectually superior to others, and certain forms to be utterly ridiculous, both intellectually and philosophically.

Well, Christian Science is probably intellectually inferior to most forms of Christianity, because its believers not only accept Christianity, but they also accept some incoherent form of idealism. Don't you agree?

(February 8, 2020 at 5:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Then what does it mean?

Air is made of stuff. Nitrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, etc. The atoms are in turn made of other stuff. Subatomic particles, etc. These are composed in such a way that air has a certain composition, behaves in certain ways, can do some things and not others. This is the form of air. 

Quote:It's almost as if Bel himself finds certain forms of Christianity to be intellectually superior to others, and certain forms to be utterly ridiculous, both intellectually and philosophically. 

It is obviously true that certain kinds of Christianity are intellectually superior to others. Some are fascinating, others are utterly ridiculous. To say they are all the same, and all equally foolish, is ignorant.

(February 8, 2020 at 5:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Well, Christian Science is probably intellectually inferior to most forms of Christianity, because its believers not only accept Christianity, but they also accept some incoherent form of idealism. Don't you agree?

Well, any time you combine religion with other non-scientific nonsense, I mean, sure it's bound to be less worthwhile than just the religion itself. However, I'd have to know what you mean, more specifically, by "some incoherent form of idealism." But generally, yes, I'd agree.

Though, that wasn't really the point. The point is that while Belacqua asserts that no form of Christianity is "truer" than any other, he clearly believes differently, and demonstrates a different set of values by repeating the same tired old arguments and quoting the same people over and over again. Not to mention, his view of Christians as well-read philosophers is totally delusional and simply not in keeping with the statistics that we actually know about Christians. Hell, most Christians, statistically, don't even read their own holy book, let alone venture off into the works of Aquinas, that Bel so profoundly loves, and are hardly perusing Aristotle at their leisure. This view Bel has of Christianity is simply wholly separate from reality. It just is.

Most Christians, in the US, are watching America's Got Talent reruns while they heat their TV dinners in the microwave, yelling for the kids to come downstairs and get their highly processed food. I feel like Bel has this view of most Christians wearing a smoking jacket while leisurely flipping through the works of Aquinas, classical music playing in the background while some foie gras is being prepared in the kitchen. It's laughable. To even assume that most Christians take their own faith seriously is laughable. Period. Statistically. Statistically, they don't read their own book, don't attend church, don't do this, don't do that. In fact, it's bizarre to me that most "Christians "even feel justified calling themselves Christians.

"But ah! There's your folly young EgoDeath! There is no true Christianity! You don't get to define what a Christian is!" Bel cries as he then looks you right in the face, hypothetically speaking of course, and tells you about Aquinas other "great Christian thinkers." So, clearly, he does think that there is a true form of Christianity, and furthermore, he's the one to tell you about it.

In fact, I recently played a trick on Bel. He made a thread with a "reading list" where he talked about different books that he believes adequately explained Christianity. you see, it was a bit dirty of me, but I forced Bel to back himself into a corner. Bel does believe that there is a true form of Christianity, and he thinks he knows it better than all of us. I forced him to prove that by, himself, creating a list of specific books that he believes provides an adequate understanding of what the religion is. So clearly, he does think that there is one form of Christianity that one should adhere to. The problem is, this is just his summation of events, and nothing more. Nothing makes him more qualified to tell you what real Christianity is than anyone else.

Parroting Aquinas and quoting Aristotle doesn't make you a religious scholar. It just makes you sound a tad bit smarter than the folks over in Westboro. That's about it.

(February 8, 2020 at 6:18 am)Belacqua Wrote: It is obviously true that certain kinds of Christianity are intellectually superior to others. Some are fascinating, others are utterly ridiculous. To say they are all the same, and all equally foolish, is ignorant.

Great. So you concede that there are forms of Christianity that are truer than others, at least intellectually speaking, no? Of course, you won't answer my question directly.

(February 8, 2020 at 6:18 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 8, 2020 at 5:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Then what does it mean?

Air is made of stuff. Nitrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, etc. The atoms are in turn made of other stuff. Subatomic particles, etc. These are composed in such a way that air has a certain composition, behaves in certain ways, can do some things and not others. This is the form of air. 

That's not how aristotle or saint tom had it figured.  They thought that stuff was made of air. It would be impossible to get that backward if you'd read the work you're discussing. You haven't. You've read christian apologetics about it, which conveniently leave things like that out.

Because they're utterly ridiculous, like so many christian faiths.

(February 6, 2020 at 8:08 am)Belacqua Wrote: Why do you think that souls would be able to perceive anything without a working body?

In your view, souls cannot percieve anything? What point is heaven or hell in that case? The souls involved cannot notice either.

(February 8, 2020 at 4:10 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's not how aristotle or saint tom had it figured.  They thought that stuff was made of air.  It would be impossible to get that backward if you'd read the work you're discussing.  You haven't.  You've read christian apologetics about it, which conveniently leave things like that out.

Because they're utterly ridiculous, like so many christian faiths.

Like I've said plenty of times, Bel hardly even knows the material he's parroting. I wonder which Christian forum he gets his talking points from.

(September 1, 2019 at 12:45 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: What do you guys here think, what is the best argument against the existence of the soul (and therefore ghosts and afterlives)?
I used to think that the "Damage of the middle of the brain leads to two distinct personalities governing halves of the body." was an argument that would convince anybody, but, evidently, it won't. See here:
How do people who believe in souls explain away the fact that epileptic patients who have the middle of their brain severed appear to have two distinct personalities governing halves of their bodies?
In short, people respond with "Where is some reliable source for that claim?", and, to be honest, I am not sure what would be a reliable source for this. My psychology textbook saying that isn't really good evidence that's true, is it? I mean, my Croatian history textbook tells me most scientists agree Global Flood really happened.
Perhaps the best response to that is "And where is some reliable source of the claims about Maria's Shoe, and other things that supposedly prove the existence of soul?", what do you think?

LISTEN THE SOUL EXISTS. ITS HOW WE SLEEP AND HAVE DREAMS, ITS ALSO RELATED TO MORALS AND SPIRITUAL SENSE.