"its just garbage right"

Spoken in the vein of a true Hitchens/Dawkins-ite... The Eucharist may be garbage, but that is a claim that needs to be made by substantive rational argumentation, not juvenile ad hominem attacks. Hitchens and Dawkins are both full of empty rhetoric and vain conceit, and notably skimpy when it comes to the rationality that they so proudly claim to champion.

All you really have to be in this world is polite. Hitchens was the best there was on defending freedom of speech, but he came off as a self-satisfied asshat when the topic was religion. This is true even where he was right, like radical Islam and opposition to female circumcision.

well yeah it was ambiguous in that i might have been asking should i write it on paper, papyrus, a hooker's back in blood, etc.

but come on lol.

i'm no prescriptivist. the grammar rules in books are emergent descriptions of what we actually do, they should not be taken as normative suggestions, the only exception being if you know your audience is one who thinks they should.

Write it on Waropoly.

ok

*takes sharpie*

*writes "senior thesis" on a waropoly board*

*farts for good measure*

rallinator I know very little about Hitchens and Dawkins, except that every time I hear their words I find myself nodding.

Why do you think they ought to take the Eucharist any more seriously than any other tripe the religioso's put out there? Transubstantiation isn't the most absurd thing you all have come up with, but it's up there. So no, it doesn't warrant "substantive rational argumentation." There's nothing rational about the claim. I won't take your plea for discussion over such a thing seriously; I won't give it the time of day. Yes, ad hominem, because at least then I get some enjoyment out of the conversation. All that being said, there is no evidence for any of it. That rational enough for you?

If not, consider my claim that every time you eat a pancake you are IN FACT consuming the wilted semen of Krystitiklk'q'kw evil juggernaut overlord of doom. No? We'd better have a rational discussion about it, you know, hash it all out - I'm sure I can find a way to put the burden of proof on you.

Honestly, YJ, I imagine rallinator's mention of Hitchens mentioning the Eucharist was because that was the context in which the original recommendation was made.

Imagine the following exchange.

YJ: I'm writing my senior thesis on the oppression of trade unionism in the 21st century US.

Other: You should read Glenn Beck's book on immigration!

YJ: Umm, I did actually. It sucked. Also, it doesn't mention trade unions.

Other: Well why does it have to mention trade unions?! Does it have to mention the Communist party too, to be good?

It'd be kind of annoying, right? The point is, the Eucharist was the intro to the recommendation. Ralli's complaint, as I take it, was of irrelevance of the recommendation. That wasn't meant as a criticism of the book.

Very good, Yellowjacket. Again, the whole point of my thesis is to show that transubstantiation is in fact metaphysically impossible, so you will find that I agree with you when you say in fact rather absurd. The crucial point is not that it is absurd, but the findings of fact that lead one to think that is absurd. I can fairly easily deny your claim about the overlord of doom because there *actually* is no evidence to support this. Transubstantiation at least has the support of some very intelligent and thoughtful philosophers (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham) and also has the historic support of an entire tradition of thought. The burden of proof is not on you, it is on the proponents of transubstantiation, and they have held their end of the bargain by putting forth seriously complex and well thought-out philosophical expectorations of what is going on in that process. The claim does warrant substantive rational argumentation because there is substantive rational justification that can be given for it.

Reading Questions 75-77 of Part 3 of Aquinas' Summa Theologiae would be a good place to start. Again, I think that Aquinas is quite wrong, but to refute him is actually fairly difficult and cannot adequately be done via ad hominem. If your only concern is to enjoy yourself, I suggest you go to a concert or watch a movie, rather than speak about what you don't know.

Hoist by his own over-bloated verbiage.

lol timur who do you mean not me i hope

that shakespearian allusion would be best used on obi, no? perhaps save it for later.

It was directed at ralligator.
Ralli: You're talk sounds like you've been asked to give a big, special speech to the whole fraternity and you're wetting your pants.

Replace 'You're talk' with 'Your style of speech', please.

Back to the topic: 'food security, sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture, nutrition, development aid, conflict, military intervention, human rights, climate change.'

What about a comparison of the effects of all these things on families in different regions, focusing on a single family in each?

@semck yeah thanks, I did catch that. I was fishing. Got a bite :)

@rallinator there is no rational argument in favor of the Eucharist that is not equally valid for Satan's hot jizz in your pancakes. Would you care to ponder carefully the implications of my claim? Or would you just call me an idiot and tell me to fuck off? I, for one, would choose the latter. Now, any philosopher worth his salt can pretty up even the most ridiculous argument, wrap it in flowery prose, and make it seem worthwhile, but that doesn't make it so. Not everything ought to be given the weight of consideration you seem to feel this matter deserves.

Ye're a' talkin' shite. (signed The Pict)

Write it on cocaine, and write it about your mom.

No really, Thucydides. I believe such a project could have scientific/sociological/political significance, whilst still being approachable by the general public (leading to a possible bestseller?).

@cteno4: Sorry, no cocaine, no pen, no mum. Guess I"m f*cked.

@Timur: I applaud you for responding to what I actually wrote.. oh wait..

Yellowjacket: "there is no rational argument in favor of the Eucharist that is not equally valid for Satan's hot jizz in your pancakes."

This is simply not true. Again, if you could be bothered to read on the subject, you would understand this. If you can't be bothered to do that, than there is no reason for you to talk about it.

"Would you care to ponder carefully the implications of my claim?"

Yes I would, if you gave rational arguments in support of it and spelled out those implications. There are only two respectable options when presented with a rational argument: to critique its logic and its premises, or to simply not care. But if you choose to not care, then you cannot simply dismiss it.

"This is simply not true."

OK, against my better judgement, I'll bite. Make one please. Wow me with your aplomb. Make sure to keep your words monosyllabic so's I can understand them.

"...when presented with a rational argument"

Big talk, from a guy who hasn't presented one yet. All I've heard so far is an appeal to the authority of one pretty controversial figure and two others I haven't heard of (I'm sure it's just my own ignorance). Am I just to accept this face value? I shouldn't have to read their complete works to understand your argument. If, indeed, you have one.

@Rallinator
" Again, the whole point of my thesis is to show that transubstantiation is in fact metaphysically impossible, so you will find that I agree with you when you say in fact rather absurd. "

Transubstantiation may be physically impossible, but nothing's metaphysically impossible. What it may be, and what it sounds like you may be arguing, is that it's metaphysically inconsistent with established Catholic doctrine, which is almost the same thing, but is different enough to be worth pointing it out, at least in the context of such a precise argument.

"You're talk sounds like you've been asked to give a big, special speech to the whole fraternity and you're wetting your pants."

The topic of transubstantiation rarely comes up in Greek life, Timur. Even if ti did, a speech that length would need at least two off-color jokes to even have a chance of being paid attention to.


Yellowjacket, you seem to be saying something along the lines of "religion is stupid so I'll just make fun of it and since it's so stupid I won't even listen to the stupid things you say to defend that stupid thing you're talking about." This makes you come off as nothing but an uneducated and closed minded buffoon. No one's asking you to start being a practicing Catholic, just to to talk about the issue at hand in an intelligent and fair-minded way. Perhaps that's beyond you.

I think Invictus's point here gets to the logical difference between a truth and logical validity. For example, take statement "If there is no water on Earth, life cannot exist on Earth". The dependent clause of life not existing on Earth is not true because the conditional clause is not true. But despite it not being a true statement, it is logically valid in that the dependent clause does indeed follow from the conditional clause.

I think what people are trying to do is establish whether the conclusion of transubstantiation can be shown to follow from the conditions of Catholic doctrine. For skeptics like you and me, it may seem a bit of a moot point, given that we would likely reject (or challenge) the fundamental premise of the existence of divinity, but that only bears on the possible truth of the argument, not its possible validity.

Am I somewhat right there, Invictus et al, or totally barking up the wrong tree?

Pretty much. If the discussion is about the metaphysics of a topic then you can't just yell out "metaphysics isn't real!" declare victory, and go home. It's like saying that since literary characters aren't real so there's no point in discussing literature.

ThucThuc, I got ya covered. Write on gun control/ advocacy/ whathaveyou. It's a rough draft, so you'll want to edit it down a little, round out the grammar some, but here it is, more or less, a complete undergraduate thesis: threadID=967015

"Transubstantiation: The Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist"
I mean I believe in Santa Claus, but wtf? Besides, it makes me feel quite nauseous. Blaaaaaaagh!!! Thank you. Lord.

Invictus, originally yes, that's a line I'm quite comfortable towing - as I've previously alluded, giving it more credence is not worth the effort. However, I've foolishly given him an opening to waste my time. Lets see how he takes advantage. I don't know about you, but I've already braced myself.

Honestly, he's talking about metaphysics and the Eucharist to a physicist/atheist, so the idea is not going to earn a whole lot of initial regard. I'm well-accustomed to having my sense of faith in humanity shattered by pretentious assholes with the former, and religious assholes the latter. So far he's leaning strongly toward pretension, but give it time.

Now, whether you see it or believe it or not, my mind is open, should I catch a glimmer of something worthwhile through the bullshit-fog, but I see no reason (yet) why this conversation should offer anything more than a double-barreled version of your standard contortionist mindfuck.

@Invictus:
Who says we're no real? (Macbeth)
"To shit or not to shit?" (Hamburger)

thank you, hecks. This is what I suspect as well, but I'm still sharpening the knives.

I have no interest whatsoever on whether church dogma is consistent, which I hope I've made abundantly clear by now.