From a Catholic Apologist:
Do you want to buy a tree I turned into gold? No, none of the accidents changed, but it is really gold.
These people are scum. They argue against the most concepts of science and the use of evidence.
Catholics deny reality. They will is a fantasy world. Catholic = liar and/or delusional freak.
They will is a fantasy world. Catholic = liar and/or delusional freak.
Should read:
Their world is a fantasy world. Catholic = liar and/or delusional freak.
Moderator’s Note: “These people are scum.” “Their world is a fantasy world. Catholic = liar and/or delusional freak.” :dubious:
I’m gonna transubstantiate this “Great Debate” into a Pit thread.
Heh. Good luck with the complete devastation about to follow.
Is ** Ammonius Saccus** the most religion hating person on Earth?
Or just a one-trick pony? :rolleyes:
Aside from really having a bug up your backside on the Catholic notion of the Eucharist, you are sadly displaying a serious lack of knowledge regarding the philosophical underpinnings of the concept of transubstantiation and a genuine ignorance of Catholic consideration of science.
Now, I am not a big defender of transubstantiation (as it requires me to wear my Aristotelian hat, which always sits lopsided on my head), but if one is going to argue against it, it behooves one to understand the differences between Aristotelian metaphysics and epistemology and current science (or even Aristotelian physics).
We’ll see how this goes, but if you can’t demonstrate a bit better grasp of your subject matter, I’m moving your rant to the Pit.
Erm…
Right! If you don’t shape up, we’re moving you down to the Ninth Circle of the Pit! 
Now, I sadly confess to being one of your hated papists, A S. But I will point out that this thread was actually moved (while I composed my response) by my fellow Moderator who, as it happens, is himself an atheist who has expressed certain (better informed) criticisms of religion and religious belief on several occasions.
I would love to hear your defense of this bullshit.
Aristotelian metaphysics are unscientific crap.
So, which one of you moved it to the Pit?
Or is there some as-yet unrevealed mod with whom you two did it, making it an act of a Trinity?
Fuckwit.
I get it. Fuckwit is only the accidents of your repsonse. The substance was intelligent.
Fuckwit.
Mike did.
As one of the hated papists, I did not want to move it in a manner that would be considered prejudicial to the “discussion” until it had leaped off the rails.
Mike could be more objective.
Since you appear to measure all things by (what is, I suspect, your rather limited view of) science, I see no reason to waste my time.
Aristotelian metaphysics are clearly not science. The RCC does not claim that it is a scientific explanation (and under Aristotelian metaphysics, the accidents should appear to every scientific test as bread and wine–that is the whole point of distinguishing substance from accident).
Go read a text on philosophy: I recommend Stumpf’s From Socrates to Sartre as a decent layman’s primer.
I would to see anyone defend transubstatiation as anything more than unsubstaniated metaphysical bullshit. Can you present any evidence to support that transubstatiation is real?
But it looks jaunty that way. Quite striking.
It transubstantiated here.
Actually, that accidents-substance thing was quite clever of you.
Tho Oakminster’s assessment of you stands.
Can you present any valid evidence that the “substance” actually changes? Any at all?
Do you believe in ID as well?
Sorry. The title is just Socrates to Sartre, no “From.”
In the unlikely event the infinite monkeys banging around in the vast open spaces of your cranium manage to fling some bit of poo worthy of a thoughtful response into one of your posts, you’ll get such a response.
To date, I have yet to see you post anything worthy of being used to wipe the ass of a diseased camel.
Is it this book: