Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:32 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:28 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Rome Sweet Home
by Norman Geisler

Only about 70 pages into it but I'm seeing a weird irony already. In it, Geisler (and his co-author) talk about how Atheism, Relativism, and the philosophies of guys like David Hume and Kant are self defeating and so their positions are untenable. They say that volitional reasons keep people from becoming Christians--that is, they may have all the evidence they need but cannot change due to a necessary change in behavior, friends, etc. They also assert that it takes more faith to be an Atheist than it does to be a Christian, given the evidence and any amount of intellectual honesty.

These men are Protestants. Anybody else read this book?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:09 am 
Offline
Our Lady's Gladiator
Our Lady's Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:26 am
Posts: 102901
Location: Revelation 11:19-12:1
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus
nope, but that's what i found out in dealing with atheists... there is no intellectual honesty because they reject any proof a/o documentation you offer as being not valid :roll:

_________________
All Marian devotion begins with Christ,is centered on Christ,and ends with Christ.
As Mary brought Jesus to us,so shall She bring us to Jesus!


De Maria numquam satis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:01 am
Posts: 1117
Location: United States
^^^^^^^^^^^ you mean all atheists are dishonest and stupid then?

_________________
49 lbs lost and 6.5 left to go

"One single act of love will make us know Jesus better...It will bring us closer to him for all eternity." -----St. Therese of Liseux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:17 am 
Offline
Our Lady's Gladiator
Our Lady's Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:26 am
Posts: 102901
Location: Revelation 11:19-12:1
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus
not at all... but no amount of truth you provide to them would change their opinion... stubborn would be a better word

_________________
All Marian devotion begins with Christ,is centered on Christ,and ends with Christ.
As Mary brought Jesus to us,so shall She bring us to Jesus!


De Maria numquam satis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:18 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:01 am
Posts: 1117
Location: United States
I find it to be workign slowly but still working iwth my Mom over time. Never give up. If you give up on trying to show them the Lord, then it will be over. The battle is never over. I refuse to think this way.

_________________
49 lbs lost and 6.5 left to go

"One single act of love will make us know Jesus better...It will bring us closer to him for all eternity." -----St. Therese of Liseux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:26 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
It takes a whole lot more Faith to believe in nothing than it does to believe in something .... That is the irony....

You have to work a lot harder at believing in nothing than to actually give in and believe in something when all the evidence supports the belief of something although it may not be tangible.

So while one is looking for this tangible proof and they will not relent because they have not found such proof they exhaust themselves trying to either prove or disprove what they already know in their heart. They are actually working against themselves, thereby they must exert more belief and Faith in the nothing than in the something. This in itself is illogical and defeatist, which they claim us to be ....

And no I have not read the book it is just common sense ....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:30 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
MySavingGrace wrote:
I find it to be workign slowly but still working iwth my Mom over time. Never give up. If you give up on trying to show them the Lord, then it will be over. The battle is never over. I refuse to think this way.


We can never truthfully give up, because in reality we never know if a seed we have planted will sprout and grow .... In truth our job is not to cultivate the seeds as that is the job of the Holy Spirit and the Lord to make sure that is done, when the time is right and the person is open and willing, but it is our job to make sure that the seeds are planted and watered at least so that they have the ability to grow should the opportunity arise....

Pax Christi
Debi

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:30 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:35 am 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


Without reading his book, perhaps he means showing how Kant's ethics, while pretending to be objective, is still relativism. I do believe you can show his ethics to be untenable.

(Forumjunkie gets ready for Max Majestic to come in swinging)

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:38 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


Tell me can they prove that God does not exist? IOWS, is it theoretical that God does not exist or is it Scientifically proven Fact that He does not?

What are the differences between theory and Fact?

You cannot prove either side of the equation Scientifically really to conclusivity... So therefore Scientifically it is theorized that either He does or does not exist .... One holds the positive position and the other the negative position... But prove to me that a Deity such a God the one that we believe in and have taken a leap of Faith in, as you have put it does not exist, conclusively and Factually ... not theoretically

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Last edited by MysticalRose on Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:40 am 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MysticalRose wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


Tell me can they prove that God does not exist?


I think what PED meant is that Kant wasn't an atheist. And he attempted to not be a relativist.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
forumjunkie wrote:
MysticalRose wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


Tell me can they prove that God does not exist?


I think what PED meant is that Kant wasn't an atheist. And he attempted to not be a relativist.

FJ
True I can see that as well but the point made that Atheism is based more on Faith than even we have to base our beliefs on is still a valid theory ....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:52 am 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MysticalRose wrote:
forumjunkie wrote:
MysticalRose wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


Tell me can they prove that God does not exist?


I think what PED meant is that Kant wasn't an atheist. And he attempted to not be a relativist.

FJ
True I can see that as well but the point made that Atheism is based more on Faith than even we have to base our beliefs on is still a valid theory ....


Right, I agree with the position that atheism requires a strong faith... Even stronger than theism because with theism we have the help of grace unto faith...

I think PED's point was WHY was Kant included in a list of things that pointed to atheism?

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:04 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:01 am
Posts: 1117
Location: United States
the biggest reason I see people are atheist with lack of "proof" is believing in immaculate conception. They don't view it as possible. Also, never seeing God and not having God himself write in the bible but quotes from him


Its also bad things happenign around them, feeling if theere is a God how does this happen?

_________________
49 lbs lost and 6.5 left to go

"One single act of love will make us know Jesus better...It will bring us closer to him for all eternity." -----St. Therese of Liseux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:13 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Here is why they are using Kant .....


Kant's Philosophy

The keystone of Kant's philosophy, sometimes called critical philosophy, is contained in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), in which he examined the bases of human knowledge and created an individual epistemology. Like earlier philosophers, Kant differentiated modes of thinking into analytic and synthetic propositions. An analytic proposition is one in which the predicate is contained in the subject, as in the statement “Black houses are houses.” The truth of this type of proposition is evident, because to state the reverse would be to make the proposition self-contradictory. Such propositions are called analytic because truth is discovered by the analysis of the concept itself. Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, are those that cannot be arrived at by pure analysis, as in the statement “The house is black.” All the common propositions that result from experience of the world are synthetic.

Propositions, according to Kant, can also be divided into two other types: empirical and a priori. Empirical propositions depend entirely on sense perception, but a priori propositions have a fundamental validity and are not based on such perception. The difference between these two types of proposition may be illustrated by the empirical “The house is black” and the a priori “Two plus two makes four.” Kant's thesis in the Critique is that it is possible to make synthetic a priori judgments. This philosophical position is usually known as transcendentalism. In describing how this type of judgment is possible Kant regarded the objects of the material world as fundamentally unknowable; from the point of view of reason, they serve merely as the raw material from which sensations are formed. Objects of themselves have no existence, and space and time exist only as part of the mind, as “intuitions” by which perceptions are measured and judged.

In addition to these intuitions, Kant stated that a number of a priori concepts, which he called categories, also exist. He divided the categories into four groups: those concerning quantity, which are unity, plurality, and totality; those concerning quality, which are reality, negation, and limitation; those concerning relation, which are substance-and-accident, cause-and-effect, and reciprocity; and those concerning modality, which are possibility, existence, and necessity. The intuitions and the categories can be applied to make judgments about experiences and perceptions, but cannot, according to Kant, be applied to abstract ideas such as freedom and existence without leading to inconsistencies in the form of pairs of contradictory propositions, or “antinomies,” in which both members of each pair can be proved true.

In the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) Kant described his ethical system, which is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. Kant described two types of commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.”

Kant's ethical ideas are a logical outcome of his belief in the fundamental freedom of the individual as stated in his Critique of Practical Reason (1788). This freedom he did not regard as the lawless freedom of anarchy, but rather as the freedom of self-government, the freedom to obey consciously the laws of the universe as revealed by reason. He believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself and that the world was progressing toward an ideal society in which reason would “bind every law giver to make his laws in such a way that they could have sprung from the united will of an entire people, and to regard every subject, in so far as he wishes to be a citizen, on the basis of whether he has conformed to that will.” In his treatise Perpetual Peace (1795) Kant advocated the establishment of a world federation of republican states.

Kant had a greater influence than any other philosopher of modern times. Kantian philosophy, particularly as developed by the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, was the basis on which the structure of Marxism was built; the dialectical method, used by both Hegel and Karl Marx, was an outgrowth of the method of reasoning by “antinomies” that Kant used. The German philosopher Johann Fichte, Kant's pupil, rejected his teacher's division of the world into objective and subjective parts and developed an idealistic philosophy that also had great influence on 19th-century socialists. One of Kant's successors at the University of Königsberg, J.F. Herbart, incorporated some of Kant's ideas in his system of pedagogy.
http://www.connect.net/ron/kant.html

According to Kant and his philosophy there are no absolutes and therefore everything is relative to the pereceptions of the observer. This is the height of RELATIVISM.... According to him we cannot even conclude that we exist here in this time or dimmension, that would be something that is a perception as well ....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:13 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MySavingGrace wrote:
the biggest reason I see people are atheist with lack of "proof" is believing in immaculate conception. They don't view it as possible. Also, never seeing God and not having God himself write in the bible but quotes from him


Its also bad things happenign around them, feeling if theere is a God how does this happen?


believing in immaculate conception. They don't view it as possible.

Really? How is raising Lazarus from the dead any more possible?

Also, never seeing God

Well, that is our fault. We used to walk in the garden with him. But, after the fall we lost him and are only left with finding him in his creation much like finding out about a painter from his painting. The first sin was a sin of disbelief. What followed was spiritual blindness.

Its also bad things happenign around them, feeling if theere is a God how does this happen

Again, this is our fault. We sinned and brought evil into the world.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:15 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Seriously folks according to Kant the Matrix is reality

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:19 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MysticalRose wrote:
Here is why they are using Kant .....


Kant's Philosophy

The keystone of Kant's philosophy, sometimes called critical philosophy, is contained in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), in which he examined the bases of human knowledge and created an individual epistemology. Like earlier philosophers, Kant differentiated modes of thinking into analytic and synthetic propositions. An analytic proposition is one in which the predicate is contained in the subject, as in the statement “Black houses are houses.” The truth of this type of proposition is evident, because to state the reverse would be to make the proposition self-contradictory. Such propositions are called analytic because truth is discovered by the analysis of the concept itself. Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, are those that cannot be arrived at by pure analysis, as in the statement “The house is black.” All the common propositions that result from experience of the world are synthetic.

Propositions, according to Kant, can also be divided into two other types: empirical and a priori. Empirical propositions depend entirely on sense perception, but a priori propositions have a fundamental validity and are not based on such perception. The difference between these two types of proposition may be illustrated by the empirical “The house is black” and the a priori “Two plus two makes four.” Kant's thesis in the Critique is that it is possible to make synthetic a priori judgments. This philosophical position is usually known as transcendentalism. In describing how this type of judgment is possible Kant regarded the objects of the material world as fundamentally unknowable; from the point of view of reason, they serve merely as the raw material from which sensations are formed. Objects of themselves have no existence, and space and time exist only as part of the mind, as “intuitions” by which perceptions are measured and judged.

In addition to these intuitions, Kant stated that a number of a priori concepts, which he called categories, also exist. He divided the categories into four groups: those concerning quantity, which are unity, plurality, and totality; those concerning quality, which are reality, negation, and limitation; those concerning relation, which are substance-and-accident, cause-and-effect, and reciprocity; and those concerning modality, which are possibility, existence, and necessity. The intuitions and the categories can be applied to make judgments about experiences and perceptions, but cannot, according to Kant, be applied to abstract ideas such as freedom and existence without leading to inconsistencies in the form of pairs of contradictory propositions, or “antinomies,” in which both members of each pair can be proved true.

In the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) Kant described his ethical system, which is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. Kant described two types of commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.”

Kant's ethical ideas are a logical outcome of his belief in the fundamental freedom of the individual as stated in his Critique of Practical Reason (1788). This freedom he did not regard as the lawless freedom of anarchy, but rather as the freedom of self-government, the freedom to obey consciously the laws of the universe as revealed by reason. He believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself and that the world was progressing toward an ideal society in which reason would “bind every law giver to make his laws in such a way that they could have sprung from the united will of an entire people, and to regard every subject, in so far as he wishes to be a citizen, on the basis of whether he has conformed to that will.” In his treatise Perpetual Peace (1795) Kant advocated the establishment of a world federation of republican states.

Kant had a greater influence than any other philosopher of modern times. Kantian philosophy, particularly as developed by the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, was the basis on which the structure of Marxism was built; the dialectical method, used by both Hegel and Karl Marx, was an outgrowth of the method of reasoning by “antinomies” that Kant used. The German philosopher Johann Fichte, Kant's pupil, rejected his teacher's division of the world into objective and subjective parts and developed an idealistic philosophy that also had great influence on 19th-century socialists. One of Kant's successors at the University of Königsberg, J.F. Herbart, incorporated some of Kant's ideas in his system of pedagogy.
http://www.connect.net/ron/kant.html

According to Kant and his philosophy there are no absolutes and therefore everything is relative to the pereceptions of the observer. This is the height of RELATIVISM.... According to him we cannot even conclude that we exist here in this time or dimmension, that would be something that is a perception as well ....


According to Kant and his philosophy there are no absolutes and therefore everything is relative to the pereceptions of the observer. This is the height of RELATIVISM....

I'll admit that it has been about 10 years since I read Kant, but I think the final analysis is wrong. Kant DID believe in absolutes... What he did not believe was that were privy to them through reason as much as other philosophers thought.

(If I remember correctly) Kant attempted to give an objective morality without a direct metaphysics. The problem that I agree with is that it fails. At the end of the day, it is indeed relativism... Or, at least it could become such.

EDIT - BTW, I will gladly bow to anyone who is a little more proximate to a study of Kant... I am digging deep into the memory here. I deal only with Aquinas now...

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:29 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Kant was no relativist...sheesh. Mysticalrose, Kantian philosophy isn't relativist...Hegel is another matter. He messed up, but he did so trying to believe in objective things.

I go to probably the most conservative Catholic school in the nation...Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is something we have to read and dissect. It isn't this cut and dry

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:30 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MysticalRose wrote:
Seriously folks according to Kant the Matrix is reality


I think it would be more correct to say that the Matrix was all we could know about reality without faith in something more. Kant did not regard faith as unreasonable... Even faith in that which is beyond our reasoning.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: