Home The Amazing Atheist Thomas Aquinas Sucks

Thomas Aquinas Sucks

143
33
SHARE

Thomas Aquinas was dumb as dirt.

source

33 COMMENTS

  1. And this is precisely why the new atheists will never be regarded as intellectuals. Gone are the intellectual atheists of the past who had at least basic understandings of philosophy and would actively and honestly debate prominent theist thinkers. Now days atheists are arrogant and intellectually void or lazy, made up of fools who don't even have basic comprehension of philosophical concepts and who think they know better than the greatest minds of history.

  2. If you think Aquinas is wrong in substance, that's one thing. If you've ever read Aquinas, you couldn't concievably think that he was stupid. The natural inference is that the author hasn't read Aquinas or have much knowledge of Aristotelian metaphysical framework in which he works. This is in fact displayed in his discussion of infinite causal chains, which Aquinas discusses with a great deal of subtlety, but understanding this subtlety requires a knowledge of Aristotealian metaphyics and actually having read Aquinas, not some treatment, like Dawkin's, which is itself riddled with misunderstanding and ignorance of the metaphysical framework Aquinas is operating within.

  3. I think the fact this man got 1.1 million subscribers is testament to the brainless apologia that some athiests will swallow, in a similar manner to many deists. This is the most pathetic argument against Aquinas I have ever seen.

  4. This is your so-called "bright" ideas—that is to say youtube-videos that no philosophers would take seriously and that insist on misrepresenting classic philosophers and insult their contributions to humanity. Some progress…

  5. Minha nossa, como você é burro!! Você é tão burro que eu estou momentaneamente impossibilitado de escrever em inglês porque assistir ao seu vídeo me deixou mais burro. Eu acho que todos aqui se tornaram mais burros depois de ouvirem o que você disse. Você, meu caro, deveria envergonhar-se de ser tão burro, nem mesmo um débil mental seria tão burro quanto você foi nesses 15 minutos!!

  6. I'm sorry I really enjoy your videos but to say Thomas Aquinas is stupid is completely ridiculous even athiests know he wasn't dumb in the slightest bit. I understand your brain cannot comprehend his thoughts.

  7. Such a disrespectful, ad hominem attack by someone who doesn't truly understand the points being made, and therefore substitutes real understanding of these arguments with something he does understand. No wonder he thinks its easy to refute Aquinas as he is only refuting his own half-baked understanding. This says a lot about TJ.

  8. So pretty much there is energy in the universe (some existing in the form of kenetic energy) …. therefor there is god.
    God is that energy and there is not concious nor is does he judge us on silly parameters
    A better refutation of this argument is simply concluding it to be an argument along the lines of " God as an answer for what we don't understand, which pretty much mean's the God diminishes the more we understand about the universe."

  9. Your stupidity causes me physical pain. If you're going to critique Aquinas' arguments, then you should first;
    1.) Understand what he's actually arguing
    2.) Understand how he's actually arguing it
    3.) Understand the conclusion to his actual argument

    Looking at a 4-point explanation of his theories won't explain them to you, they will give you the reasons why his theory is correct if there are no self-contradictions and/or if all of the statements are true. The existence of self-contradiction and the truth of the statements made are subject to outside discussions. Shut up, retard.

  10. I understand that you have a self-validating need to seem intelligent to your audience of 12-year olds, and you can do it and gain lots of views whilst doing it, by arguing against strawmen of arguments rather than actual arguments; but you have to realize that if that's what you will do, you can't make axiomatic claims about the status of these arguments, based on said strawmen. Such patterns don't, wouldn't, and won't fool anybody who understood the actual arguments.

  11. What an asshole! Who gives a rats ass what this jerk thinks. The only thing he did is help stop Milo with his shitty channel . Way to go nut sack!

  12. not to mention science came from the Catholics who use their head. Aquinas was not trying to prove god with logic but rather he was trying to use mere limited human logic to reason towards a god. and that's good enough. we don't need to grasp infinity. our definition is of the simplest form. when we ask who is god god would talk back in the burning bush and say, "I AM". which is yaweh. when we talk about god we say, "god IS". and so u cannot use the argument from natural order. bcoz then you have no answer to the question why is there "something rather than nothing". why are the laws the way it is. without god you cannot justify or make sense of any existence coz god is existence, BEING and everything else just have being or existence but they do not become itself those things. which is why Aquinas will get this scrub butthurt and annihilated if he exist today 😄

  13. Ha stars don't shine because of rapid hydrogen atoms in the plasmatic state have their nucleus crunched together by the immense gravity of the mass of sun which forms a helium atom and enables the exited atom to release photons and gamma rays in the form of energy to make up for the additional mass according to m = e/c2, that's fucken stupid jumbo mumbo bullshit, they shine because the Flying Spaghetti Monster was afraid of the dark and needed a night light to keep his meatballs roasty toasty

  14. What is funny about the whole show is the fact that the bible claims that it is a allegory. Arguing about what a person believes is real when the source claims it is a story or poem designed to teach something is funny as hell.

    Galation 4-22-24

    22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
    23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
    24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

    About the verse. Do real people have fictional children. So what does this mean for the claim that Abraham is the father of Israel?

  15. You can't dismiss someone's arguments as invalid just because you disagree. Thomas Aquinas was a pure genius. He was a true founder of causative thinking of the universe. Sorry TJ, but you weren't amazing this video.

LEAVE A REPLY