Catholic Theologians and their Works

>>9185457
Summa Theologica - Aquinas.

Good luck :^)

>>9185470
Thank you :)

>>9185457
>reading with preconceived conclusion
Enjoy your confirmatory bias, pleb :^)

>>9185489
Yeah, this isn't something to encourage but this might not be serious - Poe's Law and all.

>>9185470
Keep in mind that OP is not looking to deepen his understanding but to win debates. Debating a Catholic well-versed in Aquinas is not an easy win.
OP, consider going after Protestants instead. Read some Ken Ham and work from there.

>>9185509
>condemns confirmation bias
>suggests another form of confirmation bias

>>9185529
I'm just trying to help the OP. It's much easier to "refute" Ham-tier apologetics than classical apologetics. I didn't make any value judgment about the OP's actions, you read that into my statement.

>>9185539
>I didn't make any value judgment about the OP's actions
>keep in mind that OP isn't looking to deepen his understanding, only win debates
At least put some effort into your bullshit.

>inb4 I-I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with what I was reading into OP's statement

>>9185457
>refuting faith
Doesn't work that way bub

>>9185556
>in order to increase my efficiency at refuting the faith.
He stated his purpose in the post. Are you ill?

>>9185560
You drew that conclusion on your own. Might already understand the faith and wish to reduce time in refuting it.

Put more effort into your backtracking as well.

>>9185558
You're right that someone can't refute "faith" in general, but in this situation "the faith" can be refuted, since it refers to the doctrines of the church and isn't built on mere fideism.

>>9185572
>Might already understand the faith and wish to reduce time in refuting it.
So what you're saying is he might no be interested in deepening his understanding, but merely be more efficient at winning debates?
>it's a contrarian retard pretends to be able into logic episode

>>9185581
Looks who's talking. The man with the confirmation bias whose reading things into other people's posts.

That interpretation would only work if it ignored the parts of my post that put yours to embarrassing shame.

>>9185572
>You drew that conclusion on your own
If by this you mean "read directly from the OP," then yes, I did.
I have to assume at this point that you're trolling. Don't ever reply to me again, etc etc.

>>9185579
Yes they are, everything is mere fideism.

>>9185457
This 'converting to catholicism' meme has gone too far, you can stop now guys, very funny.

>>9185599
>why are people unsatisfied by materialistic antitheistic views? Maybe they want to feel spiritually satisfied and have a connection with God?

NOOO, IT CAN'T BE THAT, ATHEISM WAS SUPPOSED TO RULE THE WORLD!

>>9185592
Kek, weak finish from a weak argument

Continue ignoring posts that destroyed yours, retard.

>>9185593
>muh spooks and other nonsense

File: image.jpg (132KB, 1200x758px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1200x758px

>>9185593
This isn't a meme m8

>>9185457
>Catholic theologians
>Catholic apologists
Just read theologians, philosophers and mystics instead of muh apologetics. You will get a better, well-rounded understanding of the ins and outs of the religion and its thought by immersing yourself into it than reading New York Times Top 100 "Catholic Apologetics Win Arguments in Modern America Now!!!" $25

>>9185876
I'm Catholic bucko.

Aquinas was a mistake.

>>9185876
Next tier: Gnosticism, Rhizomatic Autorganisation, Pragmatic Antinomianism, Yahweh is the demiurge, Sex Magick, Thunder Perfect Mind

A high profile contemporary thinker is Alasdair MacIntyre. You might come across people citing him (in particular his probably-most-famous work After Virtue) on occasion if they ever get around to talking about someone who isn't Old Tommy himself.

Obviously Chesterton and belloc

>>9185457
You can probably refute the truths about the faith, although the massive tome of apologetic literature will make it incredibly daunting, but I don't think you can refute the goodness and beauty of it. Those two are essential parts of the faith and do not operate under argument. They are also arguably more powerful converters than whatever truths the faith may or may not may or may not explain. Catholicism isn't just a philosophy.

File: 29555a955d32ed8bcc6fafec18674115.jpg (135KB, 736x867px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 736x867px

>>9186130
>Believing in heresy purely for the uniqueness
Take some oxycodone and read Aquinas, lad.