RE: Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion
November 2, 2015 at 3:49 pm
(This post was last modified: November 2, 2015 at 3:50 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
I just grabbed the first four I ran into, after a cursory read-through to make sure they were what I claimed they were, which is people addressing Aquinas' arguments from an atheistic perspective. I'm not surprised that you're disappointed, since you seem to interpret Aquinas in a way that is, to put it mildly, different from the way almost everyone else seems to read it. You might think they oversimplify his arguments, sure, but that's hardly surprising, given the length of Summa Theologica and the amount of space one generally has in an online blog entry, let alone a discussion-thread forum like this.
I have seen your assertions that Aquinas is misunderstood, but from my point of view, I don't think the misunderstanding is on this end. Very few people outside of Catholicism take Aquinas' arguments seriously anymore, both Christian and non-Christian scholars alike. What Aquinas did, though, was lay the philosophical basis for things like Intelligent Design and related "modern" stealth Christians to push theology into science classrooms.
Whether or not those are good critiques, they at least give you some framework by which to tell us in more direct wording, "this right here (quoted text) is why what Aquinas said is not correctly understood in your philosophical circles".
My point was simply that, if you want to see some atheist critiques, Google is your friend.
(Edit to Add: Google is your friend, as opposed to harassing us about it.)
I have seen your assertions that Aquinas is misunderstood, but from my point of view, I don't think the misunderstanding is on this end. Very few people outside of Catholicism take Aquinas' arguments seriously anymore, both Christian and non-Christian scholars alike. What Aquinas did, though, was lay the philosophical basis for things like Intelligent Design and related "modern" stealth Christians to push theology into science classrooms.
Whether or not those are good critiques, they at least give you some framework by which to tell us in more direct wording, "this right here (quoted text) is why what Aquinas said is not correctly understood in your philosophical circles".
My point was simply that, if you want to see some atheist critiques, Google is your friend.
(Edit to Add: Google is your friend, as opposed to harassing us about it.)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
