Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I went upstate for a Bob Dylan concert, which, of course, kicked ass. Anyhow...

The way I see it the were both saying the same stupid thing but were on opposite side of the argument. Calvin said, essentially that reason is the enemy of faith (so did Martin Luther, just as a footnote, but I actually like Luther). Kant said that faith is the opposite of reality.

My other point in saying that Kant is an idiot is that someone could read one of his books and not know the difference between the empyrical and the transcendental. I blame the author, not the reader.

Of course they were on opposite sides of the fence, where do you think the debate and thrill factor comes in to play...it'd be awfully boring if they all agreed, said the same thing, and managed to fit in a croquet game and tea... and it was I who had dificulty deciphering what the differences were...that's why I asked, and the reason for this thread, to get the input of those wiser than I, they have answered and I am now Dynny-kuns EI

I think you mis-interpret. I didn't mean that they ought to say the same thing, even though they were, I meant that what they were sayign was basically moronic.

They were morons for creating theories? writing them up and inspiring thought? Why would Kant be considered a Great than?

No, they were idiots because they said that reason and faith connot sanely co-exist int eh same mind. First off, anyone who claims sanity is in denial. Second, wake up!

So faith is resonable? We'll see what the evil bunny and real philosophers have to say about that...:p

So I'm not a real philosopher? Let the big boys play their games, eh? That'll get you far in life.

And on top of that, you seem to eb making a habit of twisting my words. Faith and reason can co-exist as m-o's for the same mind without the person being stark raving mad.

I like watching the big boys play...and it gets me far in life...very far

oh and I don't like being on top either!!! well not always

No-no, little puppy, I think that it is YOU who is in trouble.....

If the boy is big enough...yes!

*points at dynny* ICKY!!!!!!!! :p

I may showing my idealistic empircalism, but I am not icky, just well liked...Harlots weren't a bad thing until christianity made it so...at one point in history, we were actually sacred! Besides there are few males on this board that I would even consider giving such exquisite honors to...no matter how much I was paid:p

Don't tell me i have to explain why sex is so icky again!

Well it's your issue than...and no reason to judge me because I am a free spirit!

No I don't mean sex is evil, or unclean, or sinful. it's just...... icky.

So how does that justify calling me icky? I think sex is a wonderful way of expressing admiration...

Sure, if saying "Wow! Your sac of oozing humors and wheezing gasses is so elegantly great to touch!" is admiration of the highest quarter, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

How would you explain icky then if its nothing to do with being unclean?

I mean that sex is kosher, it just isn't exactly a brand new outfit.