Read my final paper NAO!!! feedback welcome

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Pleasureizmine

Comparison in Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas v John Doe(name changed)

            This is not a desertion from God; far from this is a comparison of the Philosophies on Saint Thomas Aquinas. To me the his concepts the  three beautiful sisters, along with his two books “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles” all lack quintessential logic and factual vindication on his assertions. While Aquinas did anticipate the coming of the age of science his priorities take personal intuition over logic and science. To me this bias towards religion halts progression and invention, and stopping him from becoming a truly great philosopher.

            Thomas Aquinas spoke of the three beautiful sisters, all of which superseded the others in the case of an incongruity in the order of Religion (revelation) followed by Philosophy (logic) and Science (factual). While I do concur with Aquinas to a certain extent I would like to see an exchange with Science and Religion putting factual based evidence on the top. For me the motive behind this is progression and invention, this is the basis of mankind since the beginning of time and neither disembark from religion. They can be found in foundation in logic and facts; and if religion were to take a step above it would halt the progression and invention of our society. Not that religion does not have a place in society, but why last? Let me explain why I believe that you can not prove that God exists with factual based and logical evidence.

            Summa Theologica” can be translated as the “Structure of Knowledge”, an unfinished book written by Thomas Aquinas. This book is a description of his epistemology which regards as follows.

Aquinas Structure of Knowledge

1)      Revelation

2)      Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church

3)      Theology

4)      Philosophy

5)      Science

6)      Common Sense


Fishler Structure of Knowledge

1)      Invention

2)      Science

3)      Mathmatics

4)      Philosophy (logic)

5)      Progression

6)      Common Sense


Now, under Aquinas structure of knowledge there laid many problems. Why? Because it is merely and expansion of the three beautiful sisters; with a further emphasis on God and the Church with putting Theology and Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church above factual and logical studies. Hence further delaying the development of invention and progression; to me knowledge is built on gradients that intertwine one another, Common sense angles thought to progression, progression leads to logical thoughts, an thus to factual sciences. Invention comes from a chain of ideas strung together in a logical and factual ideas manner to create something new. There is no revelation in this process but only desire and free will.

            Summa Contra Gentiles” another book written by Aquinas, contains “5 Proofs of Gods Existence” to me each proof lacks factual basis as follows.

1) Argument of Motion – The first mover is not God, but matter every element in this universe has a properties to move, bind, react, separate or bond.


2) Cosmological Argument - The first cause is the same of the first movement, the cause of our existence is bonding of elements to creation compounds, which create enzymes, proteins to cells.

3) Argument of Necessity – Every physical thing is accidental, the universe is accidental, Nonsense. Everything that happens in the world happens because of a law or rule, nothing is accidental.

4) Argument of Gradation - This argument simply only exist to a point, that point exist at God only in being the ultimate being. Gradation is a simple as evolutionary paths taking different directions based on their conditions.

5) Teleological Argument - The architect of the universe is matter and elements following rules and laws of their physical properties bonding, moving, and creating what we call the universe today.

            In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead of his times foreseeing the coming age of science. Building a complex structure of knowledge with the right ideas but using the wrong execution. I do believe his thoughts were limited do to his existential belief and devotion to God. I am not saying removing God from the equation is the answer, but until God can be proven with factual and logical sciences there is no place for him in my epistemology.

Avatar image for oriental_jams
Oriental_Jams

3072

Forum Posts

110

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Oriental_Jams

Too much text for me to read at the moment. I'll give you my final opinion on it when I'm less tired. It looks pretty decent though.

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Pleasureizmine
Oriental_Jams said:
"Too much text for me to read at the moment. I'll give you my final opinion on it when I'm less tired. It looks pretty decent though.
"
Good I am turning it in on Thursday mass feedback is needed >__>
Avatar image for firelad43
Firelad43

62

Forum Posts

195

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#4  Edited By Firelad43

The only thing me teachers always say is dont end the writing with things such as "in closing". Apperantly they want it to be more subtle or secluded you know. Other than that the layout and everything looks pretty good.

Avatar image for karmum
Karmum

11514

Forum Posts

479

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 1

#5  Edited By Karmum

Did you actually write/type this? Because if you did, it does look pretty good.

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Pleasureizmine
Karmum said:
"Did you actually write/type this? Because if you did, it does look pretty good.
"
Yes, and thank you. Feedback please any confusions with structure, ethos seeming right?
Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Pleasureizmine
Firelad43 said:
"The only thing me teachers always say is dont end the writing with things such as "in closing". Apperantly they want it to be more subtle or secluded you know. Other than that the layout and everything looks pretty good.
"
Yeah, however it is a very formal paper. Any way you word it, it is going to derive to the same meaning. :D
Avatar image for psynapse
Psynapse

1084

Forum Posts

243

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#8  Edited By Psynapse

So uhh, what wiki page did you get that off?? Jk ;)

Looks good mate... Although i didn't actually read it... hence the 'look' part of that...

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Pleasureizmine
Psynapse said:
"So uhh, what wiki page did you get that off?? Jk ;)

Looks good mate... Although i didn't actually read it... hence the 'look' part of that..."
LOL search all of the interwebz for it if you find a matching sentence i will porn suicide my last living gamespot account
Avatar image for clean
Clean

2432

Forum Posts

621

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#10  Edited By Clean

good comparison with t - man and JD.

Avatar image for mrnitropb
Mrnitropb

2131

Forum Posts

1689

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 4

#11  Edited By Mrnitropb

Does your Prof want paragraphs? Cause they tend to in essays. The lists, unless this is a simple outline (and then its not formatted right) will not fly, at all. You need at least a paragraph explaining each set of lists, if not a specific sentence or two for each bulleted item. If you can't do that, they have to go.
  

Summa Contra Gentiles” another book written by
Aquinas, contains “5 Proofs of Gods Existence” to me each proof lacks factual basis as follows.Reformat this sentence. Author names do not need italics.

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Pleasureizmine
Mrnitropb said:
"Does your Prof want paragraphs? Cause they tend to in essays. The lists, unless this is a simple outline (and then its not formatted right) will not fly, at all. You need at least a paragraph explaining each set of lists, if not a specific sentence or two for each bulleted item. If you can't do that, they have to go.
  
Summa Contra Gentiles” another book written by
Aquinas, contains “5 Proofs of Gods Existence” to me each proof lacks factual basis as follows.
Reformat this sentence. Author names do not need italics.
" Its formatted way differently in word >__> Author name and the sentence has been changed. Anyways It has a strict 3 page limit.. >___> GRRR it was about 4.5 before i edited it down
Avatar image for mrnitropb
Mrnitropb

2131

Forum Posts

1689

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 4

#13  Edited By Mrnitropb

Well, if you want the text, you can, assuming thee isn't a font restriction, go down to an 11 or 10 point, and I think arial, is a bit smaller, as wel as marginally move the margins.

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By Pleasureizmine

good idea it has to be a SS font 12 i will look for a small one

Avatar image for virago
Virago

2566

Forum Posts

453

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#15  Edited By Virago

First line: "To me the his " <-- i think you have an extra word in there...

Third line: "age of science his " <-- comma: "age of science, his"
Line four: To me this bias" <-- this is all you, babe: just start with "This bias..." it sounds stronger.
Line four/five: "and stopping him" <-- wrong tense. "and stops him"
Line six: "three beautiful sisters" <-- unless your professor stated otherwise, this should be in quotation marks rather than italicized.
Line seven/eight:  "a certain extent I would" <-- comma "a certain extent, I would"
Line eight: "For me the motive" <-- "The motive" (this is still all yours)
Line nine: "and invention, this is" <-- colon "and invention: this is"
Line twelve: "you can not prove" <--cannot. it's one word.
Line fifteen: "progression; to me knowledge" <-- "progression; knowledge..."
Line sixteen: "another, Common" <-- period. "another. Common"
Line seventeen: "an thus" <-- "and thus". "and factual ideas manner" <-- what are you saying???
1) "universe has a properties to move" <-- is this singular or plural? chose one. 
4) "point, that point exist at God only in being" <-- clear this up, I don't understand what this means... grammatical error or punctuation?
Line nineteen: "In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead" <-- could be stronger as "Aquinas was a clearly a mind ahead..." rather than stating that you're concluding your paper...
Line twenty-one: "I am not saying removing God" <--take yourself out.
Line twenty-two: "for him in my epistemology" <--that's a bold statement. reword, maybe?

That's a very interesting topic, you clearly have a strong opinion of him. Nice work, Casey.
Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Pleasureizmine
Virago said:
"First line: "To me the his " <-- i think you have an extra word in there...
Third line: "age of science his " <-- comma: "age of science, his"
Line four: To me this bias" <-- this is all you, babe: just start with "This bias..." it sounds stronger.
Line four/five: "and stopping him" <-- wrong tense. "and stops him"
Line six: "three beautiful sisters" <-- unless your professor stated otherwise, this should be in quotation marks rather than italicized.
Line seven/eight:  "a certain extent I would" <-- comma "a certain extent, I would"
Line eight: "For me the motive" <-- "The motive" (this is still all yours)
Line nine: "and invention, this is" <-- colon "and invention: this is"
Line twelve: "you can not prove" <--cannot. it's one word.
Line fifteen: "progression; to me knowledge" <-- "progression; knowledge..."
Line sixteen: "another, Common" <-- period. "another. Common"
Line seventeen: "an thus" <-- "and thus". "and factual ideas manner" <-- what are you saying???
1) "universe has a properties to move" <-- is this singular or plural? chose one. 
4) "point, that point exist at God only in being" <-- clear this up, I don't understand what this means... grammatical error or punctuation?
Line nineteen: "In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead" <-- could be stronger as "Aquinas was a clearly a mind ahead..." rather than stating that you're concluding your paper...
Line twenty-one: "I am not saying removing God" <--take yourself out.
Line twenty-two: "for him in my epistemology" <--that's a bold statement. reword, maybe?

That's a very interesting topic, you clearly have a strong opinion of him. Nice work, Casey.
"
Thanks a bunch!
Avatar image for ogcartman
OGCartman

4330

Forum Posts

8250

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 1

#17  Edited By OGCartman
CaseyWegner said:
"

Comparison in Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas v John Doe(name changed)

            This is not a desertion from God; far from this is a comparison of the Philosophies on Saint Thomas Aquinas. To me the his concepts the  three beautiful sisters, along with his two books “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles” all lack quintessential logic and factual vindication on his assertions. While Aquinas did anticipate the coming of the age of science his priorities take personal intuition over logic and science. To me this bias towards religion halts progression and invention, and stopping him from becoming a truly great philosopher.

            Thomas Aquinas spoke of the three beautiful sisters, all of which superseded the others in the case of an incongruity in the order of Religion (revelation) followed by Philosophy (logic) and Science (factual). While I do concur with Aquinas to a certain extent I would like to see an exchange with Science and Religion putting factual based evidence on the top. For me the motive behind this is progression and invention, this is the basis of mankind since the beginning of time and neither disembark from religion. They can be found in foundation in logic and facts; and if religion were to take a step above it would halt the progression and invention of our society. Not that religion does not have a place in society, but why last? Let me explain why I believe that you can not prove that God exists with factual based and logical evidence.

            Summa Theologica” can be translated as the “Structure of Knowledge”, an unfinished book written by Thomas Aquinas. This book is a description of his epistemology which regards as follows.

Aquinas Structure of Knowledge

1)      Revelation

2)      Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church

3)      Theology

4)      Philosophy

5)      Science

6)      Common Sense


Fishler Structure of Knowledge

1)      Invention

2)      Science

3)      Mathmatics

4)      Philosophy (logic)

5)      Progression

6)      Common Sense


Now, under Aquinas structure of knowledge there laid many problems. Why? Because it is merely and expansion of the three beautiful sisters; with a further emphasis on God and the Church with putting Theology and Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church above factual and logical studies. Hence further delaying the development of invention and progression; to me knowledge is built on gradients that intertwine one another, Common sense angles thought to progression, progression leads to logical thoughts, an thus to factual sciences. Invention comes from a chain of ideas strung together in a logical and factual ideas manner to create something new. There is no revelation in this process but only desire and free will.

            Summa Contra Gentiles” another book written by Aquinas, contains “5 Proofs of Gods Existence” to me each proof lacks factual basis as follows.

1) Argument of Motion – The first mover is not God, but matter every element in this universe has a properties to move, bind, react, separate or bond.


2) Cosmological Argument - The first cause is the same of the first movement, the cause of our existence is bonding of elements to creation compounds, which create enzymes, proteins to cells.

3) Argument of Necessity – Every physical thing is accidental, the universe is accidental, Nonsense. Everything that happens in the world happens because of a law or rule, nothing is accidental.

4) Argument of Gradation - This argument simply only exist to a point, that point exist at God only in being the ultimate being. Gradation is a simple as evolutionary paths taking different directions based on their conditions.

5) Teleological Argument - The architect of the universe is matter and elements following rules and laws of their physical properties bonding, moving, and creating what we call the universe today.

            In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead of his times foreseeing the coming age of science. Building a complex structure of knowledge with the right ideas but using the wrong execution. I do believe his thoughts were limited do to his existential belief and devotion to God. I am not saying removing God from the equation is the answer, but until God can be proven with factual and logical sciences there is no place for him in my epistemology.

"
Wow, thats confusing but it seems smart =P
Avatar image for adam_grif
adam_grif

1170

Forum Posts

383

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By adam_grif
Hey, I just read through it. Additions are bold and underlined, deletions are marked with (x deleted).

CaseyWegner
said:
"

Comparison in Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas v John Doe(name changed)

            This is not a desertion from God; far from it, this is a comparison of the Philosophies of Saint Thomas Aquinas. To me,(word deleted) his concept(letter deleted) the  three beautiful sisters, along with his two books “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles” all lack quintessential logic and factual vindication on his assertions. While Aquinas did anticipate the coming of the age of science his priorities take personal intuition over logic and science. To me this bias towards religion halts progression and invention, and prevents him from becoming a truly great philosopher.

            Thomas Aquinas spoke of the three beautiful sisters, all of which superseded the others in the case of an incongruity in the order of Religion (revelation) followed by Philosophy (logic) and Science (factual). While I do concur with Aquinas to a certain extent I would like to see an exchange with Science and Religion putting factual based evidence on the top. For me the motive behind this is progression and invention, this is the basis of mankind since the beginning of time and neither disembark from religion. They can be found in foundation in logic and facts; and if religion were to take a step above it would halt the progression and invention of our society. Not that religion does not have a place in society, but why last? Let me explain why I believe that you can not prove that God exists with factual based and logical evidence.

            Summa Theologica” can be translated as the “Structure of Knowledge”, an unfinished book written by Thomas Aquinas. This book is a description of his epistemology which regards as follows.

Aquinas Structure of Knowledge

1)      Revelation

2)      Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church

3)      Theology

4)      Philosophy

5)      Science

6)      Common Sense


Fishler Structure of Knowledge

1)      Invention

2)      Science

3)      Mathematics

4)      Philosophy (logic)

5)      Progression

6)      Common Sense


Now, under Aquinas structure of knowledge there laid many problems. Why? Because it is merely and expansion of the three beautiful sisters; with a further emphasis on God and the Church with putting Theology and Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church above factual and logical studies. Hence further delaying the development of invention and progression; to me knowledge is built on gradients that intertwine one another, Common sense angles thought to progression, progression leads to logical thoughts, an thus to factual sciences. [Editors note: Early science, perhaps. Engineering also, however modern sciences are very much separated from common sense, especially since the discovery of "big science" in the 20th century] Invention comes from a chain of ideas strung together in a logical and factual (word deleted) manner to create something new. There is no revelation in this process but only desire and free will.

            Summa Contra Gentiles” another book written by Aquinas, contains “5 Proofs of Gods Existence” to me each proof lacks factual basis as follows.

1) Argument of Motion – The first mover is not God, but matter - every element in this universe has a properties to move, bind, react, separate or bond.

[This is not the best attack on the argument of motion. The first mover, according to science, is The Big Bang - and be sure to make note that asking "what caused the big bang" or "what happened before the big bang" are nonsensical questions - because before the big bang, TIME itself did not exist, neither did any spacial dimensions, and causal relationships (as in, something causing something else) and the concept of "before" do not exist in the context of something that lacks time. Asking those questions is like asking somebody to draw a square circle ]


2) Cosmological Argument - The first cause is the same of the first movement, the cause of our existence is bonding of elements to creation compounds, which create enzymes, proteins to cells.

3) Argument of Necessity – Every physical thing is accidental, the universe is accidental, Nonsense. Everything that happens in the world happens because of a law or rule, nothing is accidental.

[Correct. Also note that even if it were all an accident, as it is according to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, everything will seem non-random, because things happened the way they did. This is called the "privileged perspective" - because things happened the way they did, it gives the appearance that they MUST have happened that way.]

4) Argument of Gradation - This argument simply only exist to a point, that point exist at God only in being the ultimate being. Gradation is a simple as evolutionary paths taking different directions based on their conditions.


5) Teleological Argument - The architect of the universe is matter and elements following rules and laws of their physical properties bonding, moving, and creating what we call the universe today.

[Mention that this argument has no place now that theories such as evolution via natural selection are proven (don't let some baptist freak tell you it isn't) The argument that it must have been created because it was "beautiful" or "purposeful" is complete nonsense since all such teleological "proofs" are based on fundamental assumptions that can never be proven, no matter what.]

            In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead of his times in foreseeing the coming age of science. Building a complex structure of knowledge with the right ideas but using the wrong execution. I do believe his thoughts were limited do to his existential belief and devotion to God. I am not saying removing God from the equation is the answer, but until God can be proven with factual and logical sciences there is no place for him in my epistemology.

"


Some parts are a little flimsy, but it's ok.

I wish you luck.

What is this for?
Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By Pleasureizmine

Hey greats thanks for the feed back!!! My paper will be on echeat.com after i get back!!!  For all to use

Avatar image for joshrocks2245
joshrocks2245

246

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#20  Edited By joshrocks2245

God has already been proven and i didn't bother to read that whole thing.
I've already heard enough people trying to disprove stuff that happened in the bible or whatever the hell that was.

Avatar image for vaxadrin
Vaxadrin

2319

Forum Posts

1436

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 1

#21  Edited By Vaxadrin

Needs more pictures.

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By Pleasureizmine
joshrocks2245 said:
"God has already been proven and i didn't bother to read that whole thing.
I've already heard enough people trying to disprove stuff that happened in the bible or whatever the hell that was.
"
Not that I do not believe in his existence, I stated there is no room for him in epistemology which is a structure of knowledge. Lastly can you prove to me god exist with logical and factual sciences? If you can I am going to have to redo my entire paper. Thanks
Avatar image for joshrocks2245
joshrocks2245

246

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#23  Edited By joshrocks2245
CaseyWegner said:
"joshrocks2245 said:
"God has already been proven and i didn't bother to read that whole thing.
I've already heard enough people trying to disprove stuff that happened in the bible or whatever the hell that was.
"
Not that I do not believe in his existence, I stated there is no room for him in epistemology which is a structure of knowledge. Lastly can you prove to me god exist with logical and factual sciences? If you can I am going to have to redo my entire paper. Thanks
"
Um there is proof.
You've just been brainwashed by other atheists to believe he doesn't exist.
I know he exists, you can live your life as an unhappy atheist, i don't have to tell you the proof.
Most atheists are too stubborn to believe in anything until they grown up so i would rather not waste my time in complaining with you.
Avatar image for ljs9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By LJS9502_basic

I'd take out the personal pronouns if I was you, otherwise it's looking okay. The argument for God could use a little elaboration though.

Avatar image for mourne
Mourne

798

Forum Posts

1801

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By Mourne
joshrocks2245 said:
"Um there is proof.
You've just been brainwashed by other atheists to believe he doesn't exist.
I know he exists, you can live your life as an unhappy atheist, i don't have to tell you the proof.
Most atheists are too stubborn to believe in anything until they grown up so i would rather not waste my time in complaining with you. "
You just spent that entire "paragraph" (if it can be called one, and it really can't) saying there is proof and that atheists are undeniably wrong, and yet... You didn't finish it off with the proof. Please do.

I wouldn't say atheists are the ones that are brainwashed, but I digress.

The paper looks good, but what kind of length is that? That can't be more than 800 words. Is this college, by the way? If so, wow... Any final papers I went with were 1,000+ minimum (usually about double that).
Avatar image for joshrocks2245
joshrocks2245

246

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#26  Edited By joshrocks2245
Mourne said:
"joshrocks2245 said:
"Um there is proof.
You've just been brainwashed by other atheists to believe he doesn't exist.
I know he exists, you can live your life as an unhappy atheist, i don't have to tell you the proof.
Most atheists are too stubborn to believe in anything until they grown up so i would rather not waste my time in complaining with you. "
You just spent that entire "paragraph" (if it can be called one, and it really can't) saying there is proof and that atheists are undeniably wrong, and yet... You didn't finish it off with the proof. Please do.

I wouldn't say atheists are the ones that are brainwashed, but I digress.

The paper looks good, but what kind of length is that? That can't be more than 800 words. Is this college, by the way? If so, wow... Any final papers I went with were 1,000+ minimum (usually about double that).
"
Um because i would rather not explain proof to stubborn atheists who love to fight and complain about religions.
Atheists are not the ones brainwashed?? Hahaha
So them saying the same things like "OMG u dont have any proof so there is no god IM WINNER" is not brainwashed?
They all act like that as well but yeah they are the ones brainwashed.
I see why people from religions don't always bother arguing with atheists, it's just pointless because they are very stubborn and always say the same things.
Your all like clones.
Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By Pleasureizmine
Mourne said:
"joshrocks2245 said:
"Um there is proof.
You've just been brainwashed by other atheists to believe he doesn't exist.
I know he exists, you can live your life as an unhappy atheist, i don't have to tell you the proof.
Most atheists are too stubborn to believe in anything until they grown up so i would rather not waste my time in complaining with you. "
You just spent that entire "paragraph" (if it can be called one, and it really can't) saying there is proof and that atheists are undeniably wrong, and yet... You didn't finish it off with the proof. Please do.

I wouldn't say atheists are the ones that are brainwashed, but I digress.

The paper looks good, but what kind of length is that? That can't be more than 800 words. Is this college, by the way? If so, wow... Any final papers I went with were 1,000+ minimum (usually about double that).
"
Wow please show me your proof and evidence, I believe in god but there is no proof. Lastly it is a college paper for philosophy 1000 class which is worth 10 percent of my grade pretty basic shit if you ask me, with strict size and length restrictions as stated above. Lastly I doubt you are smarter then I am. By the way my major is accounting and I fucking hate writing papers.

So please leave you asinine pompous fucking attitude at the door.
Avatar image for churchy
Churchy

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By Churchy

The internet... serious business.

Avatar image for joshrocks2245
joshrocks2245

246

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#29  Edited By joshrocks2245
CaseyWegner said:
"Mourne said:
"joshrocks2245 said:
"Um there is proof.
You've just been brainwashed by other atheists to believe he doesn't exist.
I know he exists, you can live your life as an unhappy atheist, i don't have to tell you the proof.
Most atheists are too stubborn to believe in anything until they grown up so i would rather not waste my time in complaining with you. "
You just spent that entire "paragraph" (if it can be called one, and it really can't) saying there is proof and that atheists are undeniably wrong, and yet... You didn't finish it off with the proof. Please do.

I wouldn't say atheists are the ones that are brainwashed, but I digress.

The paper looks good, but what kind of length is that? That can't be more than 800 words. Is this college, by the way? If so, wow... Any final papers I went with were 1,000+ minimum (usually about double that).
"
Wow please show me your proof and evidence, I believe in god but there is no proof. Lastly it is a college paper for philosophy 1000 class which is worth 10 percent of my grade pretty basic shit if you ask me, with strict size and length restrictions as stated above. Lastly I doubt you are smarter then I am. By the way my major is accounting and I fucking hate writing papers.

So please leave you asinine pompous fucking attitude at the door.
"
There is proof, you just are too stubborn to do any research for any proof.
Hahaha your still in school aren't you and you think you are smarter then me?

Please do one thing before i leave your thread, learn to be a better person.
I know it's hard to be an atheist and always state your opinion when no one else cares, i know it's a hard life to be as stubborn as you are, but you can be a better person.
Just stop letting your self be brainwashed by other atheists, maybe you can change.

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By Pleasureizmine

If you stopped to read my post, I am not a atheist. But you did not, you just typed a mindless response to defend your religious views, step out of the shelter that is your life. Free will is a powerful drive as of which you seem to be lacking.

Avatar image for mourne
Mourne

798

Forum Posts

1801

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By Mourne
CaseyWegner said:
"Wow please show me your proof and evidence, I believe in god but there is no proof. Lastly it is a college paper for philosophy 1000 class which is worth 10 percent of my grade pretty basic shit if you ask me, with strict size and length restrictions as stated above. Lastly I doubt you are smarter then I am. By the way my major is accounting and I fucking hate writing papers.

So please leave you asinine pompous fucking attitude at the door."
Holy overreaction, Batman.

Who are you even talking to there, with that "please show me your proof and evidence"? I was actually on your side there, saying there is no evidence (although there's quite a bit that suggests that "God" is a human invention). The guy I was quoting is who I was addressing, so I'm guessing you just misjudged who said that... or something. I even commented that the paper was good--never said anything negative, just questioned the length of it and at what level it was for (college, high school). I actually didn't make it to the "strict length" post, though. I read the opening, came down to post the compliment I later did (you did ask for an evaluation, and I complied), but I happened across that one guy's post about all this proof of God so I addressed that first. Maybe I'm just reading it incorrectly, and if so, I apologize. It seems as if you're addressing him first and then me, but the tone fails to change throughout, so I hope you can understand the potential confusion.

I figured it was for Philosophy, one way or the other. That, or one of those "Overview/History of Religion" classes that attempt to veil their dissatisfaction with challenges from rival faiths by exploiting social differences brought on by each (I have taken such a course, so I'm fairly well versed in how it goes).

joshrock2245: Still awaiting that proof. I'm not brainwashed through atheism, I have to say--I weigh facts against superstition, and the facts of science seem to support a fabric of reality I can live in. Religion is almost entirely tradition--I was born a Christian, and am now a fervent atheist. Christianity simply does not hold up well to scrutiny (as is clear from defenders who happen to be confronted, as you have been here).

I guess that will be my last post on that subject until you post some of this supposed proof. So, I guess I'll never post on that subject again, eh?

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By Pleasureizmine

only partially directed t you mainly direct at the other guy

Avatar image for twoonefive
TwoOneFive

9793

Forum Posts

203

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#33  Edited By TwoOneFive

not sure if that semicolon in the beginning is used correctly

Avatar image for adam_grif
adam_grif

1170

Forum Posts

383

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By adam_grif

Just bumping this thread so it isn't lost when I return home after my exam today.

The guy who said there is proof for god is an idiot!

Just thought I'd chime in with that.

Avatar image for pleasureizmine
Pleasureizmine

2188

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By Pleasureizmine

please explain

Avatar image for adam_grif
adam_grif

1170

Forum Posts

383

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By adam_grif

Right, am back from an exam now.

Basically, there can be no evidence to prove God's existence by the definition of the term God ("exists outside of time and space" etc) . And if there was any, the religious community would jump all over it and shove it in everybody's face.

Essentially, science works like this:

- Get observations (facts)
- Derive relationships with other observations
- Describe these relationships (laws)
- Explain why this is happening (theories)

Theories are not particularly important for people in the real world, because it doesn't really matter to an engineer whether Newton or Einstein's equation for working out the motions of objects are more accurate - both are accurate enough for their purposes, and in many cases, people in the real world use out-dated laws and equations, and they still work fine on the scale they need them.

The religious community don't doubt particle physics. They have no problem believing that electrons orbit a nucleus, nor do they have any problem with what science uses to describe the motion of planetary bodies - because none of these conflict with their belief systems. Why then, do they insist that science, although admittedly right on so many things, HAS to be wrong if it conflicts with their ideologies? As you state before, religion should have no place in terms of sourcing knowledge and understanding about the world.

Avatar image for sculsoldi3r
sculsoldi3r

1355

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

#37  Edited By sculsoldi3r
Virago said:
"First line: "To me the his " <-- i think you have an extra word in there...
Third line: "age of science his " <-- comma: "age of science, his"
Line four: To me this bias" <-- this is all you, babe: just start with "This bias..." it sounds stronger.
Line four/five: "and stopping him" <-- wrong tense. "and stops him"
Line six: "three beautiful sisters" <-- unless your professor stated otherwise, this should be in quotation marks rather than italicized.
Line seven/eight:  "a certain extent I would" <-- comma "a certain extent, I would"
Line eight: "For me the motive" <-- "The motive" (this is still all yours)
Line nine: "and invention, this is" <-- colon "and invention: this is"
Line twelve: "you can not prove" <--cannot. it's one word.
Line fifteen: "progression; to me knowledge" <-- "progression; knowledge..."
Line sixteen: "another, Common" <-- period. "another. Common"
Line seventeen: "an thus" <-- "and thus". "and factual ideas manner" <-- what are you saying???
1) "universe has a properties to move" <-- is this singular or plural? chose one. 
4) "point, that point exist at God only in being" <-- clear this up, I don't understand what this means... grammatical error or punctuation?
Line nineteen: "In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead" <-- could be stronger as "Aquinas was a clearly a mind ahead..." rather than stating that you're concluding your paper...
Line twenty-one: "I am not saying removing God" <--take yourself out.
Line twenty-two: "for him in my epistemology" <--that's a bold statement. reword, maybe?

That's a very interesting topic, you clearly have a strong opinion of him. Nice work, Casey.
"
Virago ftw!! Casey ftw!!!
Avatar image for virago
Virago

2566

Forum Posts

453

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#38  Edited By Virago
TwoOneFive said:
"not sure if that semicolon in the beginning is used correctly"
That's so cute. lol.

@ Scul: WOOOO! Lol, you're fantastic