Anselm (of Canterbury) & Thomas Aquinas, Now Just Amusing Naive Loonies?

Catholics and some Protestant Christian groups still quote and stand by the writings of these two , who were once considered wise men, but forget that in worldly knowledge and rationality, they can be beaten now by the average intelligent ten year old, in both knowledge and wisdom.

For Thomas Aquinas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

Don't bother with the Catholic Encyclopedia reference as it is so biased towards their heroes, that it is utter crap, same goes for the reference to Anselm.

For Anselm of Aosta/Canterbury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury

www.egs.edu/library/anselm-of-canterbury/biography/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

Firstly I'll introduce you to some of the terms we often use in my region:

Old or

Common Term   |             Definition                   |   New Term

Theology           |   Pondering the Mind of god    |   Pondering Porkies

Theologian        |  Trained in Pondering Porkies |.  Porky Ponderer

Clergy (Priests) |  Teachers of Porkies              |   Porky Pushers

Apologists        |  Produce excuses for Porkies |   Porky Producers

This is the terminology I will be mostly using from this point on.

Both Thomas Aquinas and his predecessor Anselm, were Porky Producers and between them, they produced a whopping pile of porky dung.

They tried to justify many of the porkies that Catholic Porky Ponderers and Porky Pushers believe in and push respectively.

Except Thomas had an extra goal, to actually produce porkies based on Aristotle, in order to have those porkies accepted by the Catholic church, to include in with their already existing porkies.

To any person who really looks at their work, Rationally, both these people were almost entirely Irrational.

Especially Anselm, who tried to Rationalize the Atonement of sins from the death of Jesus.

Since these religions consider Jesus as god, then it is irrational to consider that god died on the cross in atonement for the sins that were deemed punishable by god.

A dies to appease A.  Hmm Nothing Rational There!

One thing I've always noted about Porky Producers like those mentioned.

When things get difficult, they always fall back on the same old Irrational conjecture (not Knowledge), which really doesn't display their wisdom, but demonstrates very clearly their Delusion.

God's mind is unfathomable, LOL.

Such as Anselm's Ontological concept of his (and his alone) god.

In that according to Anselm, the term God, refers to "Something than which nothing greater can be thought of."

An easy scapegoat concept for his use.

It also shows that he never read the Bible properly.

Or though from the Extreme Malevolence Of His God in the Old Testament.

He may really mean: Something than which nothing more malevolent can be thought of. 

I'm sure many of you have come across works of these blokes, some of you may be Philosophers or Ex-Porky Ponderers/Pushers.

To be continued L8r:  Your Thoughts Please?

:-D~

Views: 137

Tags: Anselm, Apologist, Aquinas, Canterbury, Catholic, Catholicism, Christian, Philosophy, Priest, Religion, More…Theologians, Theology, Thomas, of

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 29, 2013 at 3:31am

True Bud,

Over the last several Millenniums, human perception has been a powerful tool for creating delusion.

Comment by Bud the Wonderer on October 28, 2013 at 7:12pm

Modern religions, such as xtianity, started out in the dim recesses of human history as explanations for natural phenomena. Every naturally occurring phenomenon was thought to have an intelligence behind it, by reasoning similar to this: that if human beings can apply motive force to something, such as to push an object, then observing that a strong wind can push very heavy things must indicate that there's some sort of intelligent being behind the phenomenon, but one that must be more powerful than human beings: i.e., a 'god.' It is in this way that the ancient Mesopotamian god Enlil, in Sumerian literally 'Lord Wind,' was born.

 

Now, though, we have science. And also people who still look to the modern descendants of these ancient irrational explanations for natural phenomena, in order to understand how the world 'works': that is, those who continue to look to religion to form the basis of their worldviews.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 26, 2013 at 6:40pm

Here's a blog I like from Church of Apathy.com.  If God Exists, He Hates Your Guts. LOL

http://www.chuurchofapathy.com/GodHatesYou.html

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 23, 2013 at 5:14pm

For those who are interested in Why, I'm attacking Ancient, now Naive Catholic heroes is that I'm still getting the Arguments produced by these Loons continually pushed at me as if these arguments were current and sensible, which in both cases they are certainly NOT.

They were likely defeated by Rational thinkers the moment they hit paper.

They have been defeated by thinkers for the last century at least.

But: I'm continually getting their arguments pushed in my face.

Evidently these fools have no Idea of Rational Thinking.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 23, 2013 at 8:05am

Finally: On Human Thought:

Thinking like Science would arrive at the same level regardless of individuals like porky producers.

While people were idolizing Anselm and later Aquinas, elsewhere likely more progress was being made in the thinking stakes.

Far more intelligent humans were making greater progress, the Chinese were designing and making clocks, well ahead of their Western counterparts, well ahead of anybody in Rome and men of extreme Intellect like Leonardo da Vinci caused science and rational thought to take far greater leaps than Porky Producers ever did.

But, we cannot expect religion, like Catholicism to appreciate real progress in thinking, because such progress is detrimental to them and Christianity.

Real progress of thought is truly the bane of Religion.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 23, 2013 at 7:55am

BTW: By my line "Verbal Trickery" used by Anselm, I really meant Semantics, though when the brain gets tired or from my usual bouts of Insomnia, it gets difficult to think of words at the appropriate time.

Yes, both Anselm and Aquinas played a lot on semantics in their arguments.

Though as any philosopher knows, Semantics (words) have no real connection to reality, they are only descriptions of elements of thought and perception.

Perception is purely an illusion created by the brain, such as perceptions of terms like: something greater than can be thought of, is entirely a mythical construct of human perception and nothing at all to do with physical reality.

None of Anselm's nor Aquinas's concepts had any bearing on reality, because they were purely semantic constructs in their own minds.

These blokes never could get with reality, such Drongos they were!

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 23, 2013 at 7:46am

Another friend mentioned the loon by the name of: William Lane Craig, who calls himself analytic philosopher of religion, who debates publicly against Atheists.

Yet, this bloke is truly just another Porky Producer, his arguments are entirely Irrational and rely entirely on reproducing the same age old erroneous concepts Porky Ponderers have been producing for the last 2000+ years.

The new Porkies he has added to his debates, bear little evidence of open mindedness and rational thought.

Willian is also extremely Unintelligent (like Anselm and Aquinas), since his arguments consist only of products of dysrationalia, such as blind bias, delusional concepts pushed as reality, etc... ad nauseum.

Supporting my previous blog that Religious Fundamentalists on average have the lowest Intelligence of all humans.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 23, 2013 at 7:30am
Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 23, 2013 at 7:18am

A philosopher friend once said to me that those ancient Porky Producers like Anselm and Aquinas should be respected for their contribution to human progress of Thought.

I TOTALLY DISAGREE!!! 

On the following grounds:

Anselm and Aquinas were actually so deluded that they caused the decay of human thinking, and did nothing to add to the progress of human thinking.

Their entire conception and mode of thinking was purely based on trying to excuse their delusion and making reality fit into this religious based delusion.

Facts Is: 

> Anselm tried to use verbal trickery, not genuine logic to make pretend that his God's existence could not be denied.  He Failed, and instead showed how Delusional he was.

>Aquinas tried to make Aristotle's Rationality appear to support the Irrationality of Christianity and Failed to do so in any truly Rational sense. 

>Aquinas also tried to Argue a case for First Cause, which also fails to make any truly Rational sense.

Only delusional people consider Anselm and Aquinas as being great thinkers.

They were simply two delusional people making up Irrational Lies (Apologetics) or Producing Porkies to Justify and Support their Irrational, Delusion.

No, neither of them were great thinkers.

I've studied their arguments and even a 14 year old student could see through those arguments, which rationally, were utter Crap.

They may have seem wise and clever to other of their delusion, but to an open minded critique, their arguments were benign, lack genuine logic and really, when considered overall, meant very little.

They actually Impeded The Progress Of Thought.

To put it into a bit of Mathematical lingo.

Both tried to either Rationalize (make Factual) the Irrational (delusion) which always results in Irrationality.

Rational (+ve) X Irrational (-ve) always produces Irrational (-ve) 

Yet Aquinas tried to go the other way, because in his youth he idolized Aristotle, but the product will also be Irrational.

There arguments were never anywhere near truly convincing, except for those who also wanted to believe the Irrational outcome.

They took thinking back 1000 years, even Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Confucius, Lao Tzu and many other early Philosophers had far more Intelligent (rational RQ) thinking.

On a Rationality scale or % of Rationality, these two idiots would rate less than 20%, or in other words, they were both Highly Unintelligent!

As all religious fundys Are!

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service