Forums | MacLife

What on earth does Prada have to do with any of this?

chickenhawk wrote:

<link>

I'm not sure how that post connects "unless Prada is involved" to the 6 posts previous to it.

Tallgeese wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Not to derail this thread from its wonderful discussion of papal fashion and gay tailors, but here's the quote I was looking for from the last pope on the subject:

"The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself... but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking. "

It seems to me that this is the old erroneous equating evolutionary theory with Social Darwinism (which has nothing to do with Darwin excepting misinterpreting "survival of the fittest" as meaning "survival of the strongest").

No, it's a rebuttal to exactly what user is promoting: the idea that evolutionary theory is more than a scientific theory of how organic life in its present state came to be, but can be used to prove atheism/materialism.  user actually demonstrated what the Church is objecting to quite well in the last two posts. A conflation of the science of evolution (accepted by Church) and the philosophy of materialism (obviously not accepted).

You don't prove atheism/materialism, it just is.

If there's any proving to be done, it's to be attempted by the people who make the wild claim that all-powerful entities from another dimension affect our physical world and read our thoughts through undetectable means.

The Pope just gets upset when he's called on it, instead of everybody just rolling over and believing everything he says.

Maybe having luxuriously comfy feets is spiritual.

Guess it beats the ol' salt-soaked switch on the back.

bedstuy wrote:

I just find it odd that anyone with a Prada fetish is going to lecture the world about materialism.  That's not a particularly radical view for me to hold.

We're not talking Material Girl, here. Materialism in this context is the philosophy that there is nothing beyond the physical world and that all things can be explained in terms of physicality.

Tallgeese wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

I just find it odd that anyone with a Prada fetish is going to lecture the world about materialism.  That's not a particularly radical view for me to hold.

We're not talking Material Girl, here. Materialism in this context is the philosophy that there is nothing beyond the physical world and that all things can be explained in terms of physicality.

He should probably find another word to use then as long as he's wearing Prada.  More people might buy into his drivel then.  It's akin to lecturing about homosexuality while half of his brigade are on their knees with alter boys.

Last edited by bedstuy (2007-04-14 3:33 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

You don't prove atheism/materialism, it just is.

If there's any proving to be done, it's to be attempted by the people who make the wild claim that all-powerful entities from another dimension affect our physical world and read our thoughts through undetectable means.

The Pope just gets upset when he's called on it, instead of everybody just rolling over and believing everything he says.

Amazing! You need to call a few million theologians, philosophers, and scientists and tell them to stop arguing!

Nah, the theologians just need to prove their claims.

But they can't - they'll just keep on making those claims, telling the flock that uncritical belief is the most important thing, all the while reaping the benefits.

Glad you agree with me.

BTW, what you've just been posting is known as Argumentum ad verecundiam: argument or appeal to authority.

Last edited by user (2007-04-14 7:58 pm)

Why?

I bought some new brown Prada combat boots this week so I guess I can celebrate that way.

user wrote:

Nah, the theologians just need to prove their claims.

But they can't - they'll just keep on making those claims, telling the flock that uncritical belief is the most important thing, all the while reaping the benefits.

Actually, theologians generally don't need to prove their claims.
Any logic arguement starts with axioms, and when theologians write their papers, they accept certain things that you may not.

If what they accept is false, then obviously anything based upon it falls apart. But theologians generally write to people who accept the initial claims on faith.

user wrote:

Glad you agree with me.

BTW, what you've just been posting is known as Argumentum ad verecundiam: argument or appeal to authority.

No I wasn't. I was just countering your claim that no critical thought happens on the part of believers, that they "roll over and believe whatever [the pope] says."

I provided a short list of people who spent their lives critically thinking and still believe.

You are wrong.