Philosophy

[Scrotum]

I find it strange that a Christian based forum (i admit which is open for debate by scoffers) have a topic called "Philosophy-For the love of the pursuit of knowledge".

Is not Christianity's worst enemy knowledge?

In reality, to be Christian DEMANDS ignorans. Or am i wrong? (rethorical, no im not)...


No insult to the Owner of this Forum, but religion demands ignorance, and pursuit of knowledge is not possible because they would become atheist's. Worth debating perhaps ?

[Curious]

A True Christian statement. No, you are incorrect im sorry.

By default, you are Atheist. As you are, by default, illiterate at birth. To claim Theism in any sort of way, you have to have a basis for it, Which does not exist (then there would be no atheists would it, idiots excluded).

You are not atheist by default at all. An atheist believes there is no God, or gods. By default you are ignorant of the concept of God or gods and so have no opinion concerning it whatsoever. You say there is no basis for theism but many people know that this is not the case at all. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it does not exist.

[Bugmaster]

In reality, to be Christian DEMANDS ignorans.

It's too bad they do not DEMAND proper spelling.

Sorry moderators, I couldn't resist :-)

[Sender]

And not to try to insult Christians, which is quite hard to avoid concerning there beliefs, but they are forced to ignore reality, facts. Or they simple ignore things in the Bible, which is even worse, because then they pick and choose what they like, which is kinda strange if you have your certain religion.. Non?

I think here you are presenting a false dichotomy, or at least misrepresenting the theistic-evolutionist viewpoint. It's not that theistic evolutionists (like myself) are ignoring the Genesis narrative; personally, I treat the creation story as true myth, its importance lying not in its historicity but in its philosophical perspective. Myths have value - they are not historical, but then again are not meant to represent history; Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to deal with God's relationship to the world and particularly to man, also to deal with the nature of humanity. At least, that's how the rabbinic tradition deals with them.

Given this interpretation of the creation narrative I see no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

Please see a previous thread of mine entitled "Why do Evolutionist lie?"

[mrmufin]

No insult to the Owner of this Forum, but religion demands ignorance, and pursuit of knowledge is not possible because they would become atheist's. Worth debating perhaps ?

I don't think that religious participation necessarily demands ignorance, primarily because there are probably as many different ways to practice religion as there are believers. Some believers readily accept and embrace the pursuit of knowledge, be it scientific, philosophical, mathematical, historical, whatever. How individual believers reconcile inconsistencies between scriptural teachings with "worldly knowledge" may vary quite a bit.

One thing that I have noticed in my years of debate and discussion on topics religious and/or philosophical is that a skilled apologist can deliver answers to pretty much anything...

To turn your question around, what specific "knowledge" completely and conclusively eliminates all possibility of one or more gods, and how?

Regards,
mrmufin

[QED]

One thing that I have noticed in my years of debate and discussion on topics religious and/or philosophical is that a skilled apologist can deliver answers to pretty much anything...

Quite so. Now does this indicate that there really is something mysterious to it all, or does it reveal that controversial religious arguments are based on predicates that are beyond rational enquiry? The sort of ignorance that Scrotum refers to might be thought of in terms of 'not playing the game'. Religions presents us with many 'unverifiables' such as the afterlife and the realms of heaven and hell. To offer such concepts which, by their very definition, are beyond proof is breaking the rules of normal engagement between people offering their different interpretations of the world.

This activity is normally conducted by way of scientific enquiry and to present any hypothesis which has no capacity for experimental verification is considered to be pure conjecture and carries no weight as a consequence. However, because religion established itself prior to science and cut-in early-on with the concept of faith, in the world of religion pure conjecture does carry weight. Quite literally so in the form of vast Cathedrals and other material structures.