Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

The St. in front of his name removes his credability.

You're pathetic. Through and through.

talking down is the athiest's job

LOL, what absolute horseshit.

Resorting to merely talking down at me

I was being honest, if you can't tell the difference then that's not my problem.

Not only did you not specify in the original post who the quote is from

So it's dumb because I didn't specify the author? You said the quote was dumb, "the dumbest on the face of the planet" and couldn't even explain why. I wonder who is the dumb one now.

you also seem to think someone who insists that faith is more important then explanation has any credability

That doesn't even make sense. Learn how to create a sentence in English then get back to me.

I was referring to your flying hippy named jesus

He flies? State how you know this and where you get the idea of Him being a hippy from.

And nice to add LOL right after a fuck insult to make yourself look like a little kid getting off on argueing with adults.

You should take a good look at your argument and spelling before calling yourself that.

And that you're a retard for quoting and agreeing with him.

I'm the retard? This really is amusing, you can't even construct a sentence, you fail to produce arguments so leave behind little pathetic sentences in your slimy trail then toss out insults at those who find you to be the coward that you are - yet you call me the retard? Go back to nursery you nitwit.

Thank you!!! Finally, someone with sense !

You truly have no evidence to support that statement jackass.

Uh, yes I do, and so will you if you actually read about who he is... "jackass".

It would involve you crying over a lack of an afterlife.

Really? That is the best you can come up with? I pity losers like you.

Did you offer any reason that the quote was correct? Then why am i required to justify myself?

If you dispute something with a dumbass statement such as " Absolutely the dumbest quote on the face of the planet......................." then you should further go on to justify that and back it up so that you don't look such a fool.

You and your flying hippy can laugh it up all you want

I'm a hippy? What are you on, crack? Oh wait no, that would be me, right? Fucking loser, LOL.

it doesn't cahnge the fact the quote makes no logical sense

You haven't even managed to show that so all you are doing is proving that YOU make no logical sense and the quote does in fact make perfect sense.

mentally challenged beliefs well.

Your level of retardation is higher than I have ever seen in a person, congratulations.

By "God is not existance" I mean that He is not the existance that you suggest; He is not us, He is God.

I just dont want to go to the hassle of finding one, my time is limited.

If you have the time to print out these posts then you must have the time to back up your original statement(s) and the fact that you believe the quote to be wrong.

All im hearing is that you don't understand modern science im afraid, i not intentially being arrogant here so please don't take it that way.

I don't take it that way. I understand modern science, but there is a very big difference between modern science and inventions, but some people just don't seem to see that.

Your simply repeating the words of men, God is everything, God is existence.

You are simply repeating the words of Pantheist's. God is not everything, God is not existance. You are yet to comment on the points I posted in response to your "We are God".

Beleive me i have dabbled, i recognis the wisdom of religious texts, many athiest will not, what im saying is there metaphors should be interpreted literally.

I find it difficult to understand what you mean at times, do you mean that the bible is metaphors and metaphors only?

No thats what your saying, ive made myself fairly clear already.

Actually you haven't. So far all you have done is state that Aquinas' quote is false and done nothing to back that up except state several of your odd opinions that often don't even make sense. In my last post I stated the points you are yet to prove which I see you have hastily avoided. I'm waiting for you to back up your statements and stop wasting time.

So first its the bible then its the dictionary,

Often people (non-Christians) recoil from anything in the bible so I suggested the dictionary instead.

im sorry but you are God, you just forgot. Here watch this:

Stop evading everything its a complete waste of time. I don't give a rats ass what religion you are, I just want you to prove your original statement which you have said many times you cannot so I believe this discussion is over if you fail to prove the statement in your next post.

Of course you don't, thats because your happy playing it.

So, your theory here is that if I was to be playing monopoly and enjoying it, it wouldn't be a game to me? Your assumptions and opinions really are rather odd.

This is an interesting interpretation, how did you come to it.

When one is on a roundabout they cannot possibly forget.

IM not asking you to im asking you to take my word for it, and if you dont want to go and prove me wrong.

Seriously, what was the point in your original post? You admit to having no sources whatsoever that back it up therefore you have no means of proving the quote wrong and you don't even provide reasoning or logic.

Whatever you want to label the discoveris of modern science they have provided a coherent explantion of everything we see around us.

I don't see people evolving from apes around me and since no one can provide accurate "raw data" then I label it as an invention.

NO i am not kidding you, i need to know what your conception of God in order to know whether my words will fall on deaf ears. God is many things to different people.

Fair enough. God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God created the universe and all that is in it. If you want to know who He is, read something from the NT.

I beleive the quote is irrelevant as it was made when faith in a supernatural GOd as described by Christianity

That doesn't make sense. Are you basically saying that you don't believe it just because someone who believed in God wrote it?

We are God

Ur, no we're not. The dictionary defines God as a supernatural being that created the universe. Do you have that kind of power? Do I? Nope. We are not God.

There ive elaborated

You have not elaborated, you have gone off on a tangent which does not even make sense. Without faith, no explanation is possible; there is no faith present and neither is the possibility of an explanation.

i think an explanation is required to have a strong belief in something, but i dont think no explanation is possible without it.

With faith, no explanation is necessary. You state that one is required to explain having a strong belief in something. Why? Why is he required to explain his faith? Without faith, no explanation is possible. You state that there is a possible explanation to him without faith. Why is there an explanation about something he doesn't have? Its pointless as he doesn't have the faith and also he is out of his depth talking about faith which he has none of.

Yes it does and i just explained why, lool im not playing any games hear, i have no reason to.

I didn't say you were playing games, I said you were evading the questions/points. I will state them again:

You believe that time is one reason why the quote is false. If this is so, then that makes all past quotes false which is just an absurd assumption that is false.

You believe that stating it is false will suddenly make it false even though you cannot prove it to be false or provide reasoning that proves it false. This is wrong.

"If you mean by faith complete trust in something yes the quote is valid, if however you mean it in the sense of a strong beleif in God i will have to disagree" to which I replied:

"I have faith that my health will stay consistently high for the rest of this week give or take a cold/cough. I also have faith that God will look after me, my family and my friends for the rest of the week. Now, why would a be correct yet b be incorrect?"

Of course it doesnt, like most your happy playing t game of life.

I don't consider life a game; I consider it a roundabout that just keeps going round and round and eventually we will all at some point have to get off. Its a dizzy ride for me, but not a game.

Well i only said cause i thought you may want to prove me wrong and in doing so you'd come across a suitable source proving me right.

Hm, so I have to prove someone wrong who can't even provide his own sources or logical reasoning. I offered the quote, and not one dispute has proved it false or even came close. Why should I do the work when you are the one who disputed saying it was false yet giving no reason why?

I dont understand the relevance of this.

You mention the recent "discoveries" which I renamed as inventions.

I afraid im going to have to answer your question with another question, what do you mean by God

Are you kidding me? You don't know who God is? Or is this your way of evading my question. Elaborate on the point you made or I will assume you cannot.

No explanation is necessary with or without faith, Aquinas made the statement as he was a devout beeiver in God, im not going to split hairs and say he was completely wrong but the faith he subscribes to is.

I hear what you are saying but you are yet to prove why it is wrong. Don't just keep stating that it is wrong, prove why. No explanation is required with faith, no explanation is possible without it.

If you want to me convert you to panthiesm i will do so. Its not a really a faith though

That has got absolutely nothing to do with your previous statement, stop evading. Prove and explain your previous statement or fail to respond. Either way, panthism does not interest me in the slightest.

Your absolutely correct, but to be honest i just dont have the time to find a suitable source.

Then really there was no point whatsoever in your original post, was there?

read thorugh the other posts and understand the confusion.

Phew, I didn't know what to suggest if you didn't get there!

No, man has become more adept at interpreting his environment and his role in it

... and has learned how easy it is to fool others with nonsense inventions.

If you mean by faith complete trust in something yes the quote is valid, if however you mean it in the sense of a strong beleif in God i will have to disagree.

Ok, I will need you to elaborate some on this point. Here is what you state: a) faith in something b) faith in God. You state that if a is the meaning of the quote then it is correct, but if b is what is meant by the quote then the quote is false. I have faith that my health will stay consistently high for the rest of this week give or take a cold/cough. I also have faith that God will look after me, my family and my friends for the rest of the week. Now, why would a be correct yet b be incorrect? Furthermore, I think we need to refresh our minds of Aquinas' quote:

With faith, no explanation is necessary, without faith, no explanation is possible.

im fairly sure he mean it in the supernatural sense

He did. But I really want to understand your previous statement. How is it that a can be correct but b can be false? When one has faith in God, he is not required to explain it to anyone, but one with no faith in God, he can't possibly begin to explain it for two reasons, the first being that he has no idea what faith in God is as he doesn't have it and the second reason being that he doesn't have it therefore to explain it would make him an ignorant man talking about something he knows nothing of except the definition of it. Elaborate on your point, I am intrigued.

Anyway the point is if Aquinas was alive today i dont think he would have made the quote

An irrelevant hypothesis thus not the point.

I didnt say i didnt hacve proof

Sure, but you stated something therefore should have some sort of evidence to back that up other than your words. Otherwise, like I said, you may as well be saying you have three eyes, four arms and ten legs or whatever it was.

You go on to act very confused about the whole "dumb" thing and also the bit where one refuses to recognize an intelligent individual due to their beliefs. I was not referring to you when I said these things, I was referring to the dimwit who called Aquinas dumb and failed to explain why he made such an ignorant statement, not yourself. I apologize for the confusion, perhaps I should have made myself more clear. If you are still confused, just read through our posts from beginning to end plus the very first response which was not to you and it will most likely all fit into place.

No the quote isnt valid because human knowledge has advanced, we now know how we got here i.e. evolution

So, basically, through the years men have invented ideas and stories and you call this "human knowledge advanced". Well, fair enough, but that is most certainly not what I would label it as. The quote is valid and I have not seen one person yet prove it to be false or point out a valid discrepancy. If the only issue you can point out is time then that just isn't enough to prove it to be false.

I think you'll find it isnt but keep insulting me you're making yourself look like a very classy and respectful person.

LOL, I am not insulting you, I am just amazed at the responses the quote has received, and obviously, some of the things you have said - although you are a lot less moronic than others here.

Thats not true, btw i dont appreciate your insinuation that i just outright lied to prove a piont, look into it, research what proportion of the scientists worldwide are athiests, the last time i did any snooping on this i found stats saying it was approximately 90%. What does that tell you?

Ok, I don't really know what you are getting at here as this has absolutely nothing to do with the original debate. Furthermore, telling me statistics without proof is like telling me you have a tail, three eyes and ten legs.

Ill openly admit right now i got this figure off the top of my head but im reasonably confident its not too far off the mark as i had to do a college project which required me to look into this about 5 years ago.

Well there we go then, the statistic is most likely false which proves your original statement also to be false.

can tell your a very courteous person, the second someone disagrees with you they're labelled ignorant and unintelligent

For someone to not even recognize another's intelligence just because of a contrasting belief is dumb, dimwitted and downright ignorant. If one cannot recognize another's intelligence just because he is a Christian is pathetic. Yet you expect me to respect an ignorant pratt? Nah, not like that, sorry.

I never said the man wasn't smart i said that in the context of the modern world that particular quote isn't valid anymore.

The quote isn't valid because of time differences? So, all of the work of scientists through the ages are no longer valid just because they were from a different decade/century etc? That is ludicrous and absolute horseshit.