On Dec 21, 1:06 pm, "George Dance" wrote:
> Kant was not an agnostic. He said that "God" existed in the higher,
> 'noumenal' reality, and believed that he had proved that /a priori.
from
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html which was found
after a google
The attentive reader of Kant's writings will notice that he regarded
the failure of the traditional proofs for God's existence not as
closing the
books on the issue, but as posing one of the most important problems
for
transcendental philosophy to resolve.
You'll find NOTHING different to that, written about Kant's irrational
position on the god crap anywhere, its as agnostic as one can get
George. Even the Randaphobic Termite twit fell over that mystical
transcendental crap of Kants.
Do you wanna have a crack at explaining rationally that stupid Kantian
agnostic transcendental crap George?
Go on I dare ya, have a crack at explaining HOW man can have or how man
can claim ANY knowledge of anything non-sensory, anything that is NOT
existent as sensory matter.
Come on George see if you can do what the Randaphobic Termite couldn't.
He said "atoms were not able to be sensed", and yet he doesn't want to
talk about Ernest Rutherfiord's work nor Hiroshima
> Kant insisted that his method was a superior form of reason.
Well dont just leave it at that George, no-one is going to believe that
other than another mystic or fucked in the head Kantian, explain HOW
and why Kant arrived at that conclusion.
Give us a run down on what caused Kant to insist that he was soooooooo
stupid. What could Kant do in his method of gaining knowledge, about
ANY matter of sensory existents, that you cant?
> You're misrepresenting him, unfairly to
> agnostics.
What makes an agnostic feel he ought be treated with any less
humiliation and riddicule than a full blown mystic George?
Michael Gordge
