Philosophy + Christianity = ?

[Mithander]

Hm... I already have my opinions, and I know the opinions of Christians about this, so I want to hear from more people.
I would prefer this thread only to be responded to by people of non-Christian or anti-theistic points of view.
Anyway, I hear so much about how Christians are ignorant and ignore basic facts of science, but there's not much about the humanities and Christianity that I hear. So I wanna hear all your opinions about how the two do/don't mix.

DO NOT POST ANYTHING STUPID OR HATEFUL OR IGNORANT. PLEASE FACT CHECK EVERYTHING YOU SAY TO PREVENT YOUR SELF FROM SOUNDING LIKE A COMPLETE MORON. THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST IS TO HAVE A INQUISITIVE DIALOGUE.

[Atrocious]

Free thinking is not welcomed in Christianity.
Philosophy + Christianity = heretic

[Spirotot]

Originally Posted by Atrocious

Free thinking is not welcomed in Christianity.
Philosophy + Christianity = heretic

Are you kidding me?

If I remember right, from my Philosophy 101 class I had a few semesters ago, most (if not all) of the philosophers and philosophies we studies argued FOR some "higher being" and/or creator, A.K.A. God.

Richard Dawkins is one philosopher (not really a philosopher, but we did study him) who I remember as being an atheist. However, to put it simply, he is an idiot (when it comes to his beginning-of-universe/time/life theories, at least). Just watch Expelled if you don't believe me...

Just so you know, I am a Christian. But I'm all for free thinking! If anyone is against free thinking, it's probably evolutionists. Again, Expelled is a great example of that... I would highly recommend that movie.

@Mithander: Sorry, I know I'm getting slightly off-topic... Leaning more towards the Evolution Vs. Creation debate than just your general "philosophy and Christianity". But you didn't specify what philosophy/ies you were thinking about.

Also, just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what "basic scientific facts" Christians supposedly ignore. (I don't mean that as a jab at you, Mithander - I'm honestly just curious...)

[Atrocious]

Originally Posted by Spirotot

Are you kidding me?

If I remember right, from my Philosophy 101 class I had a few semesters ago, most (if not all) of the philosophers and philosophies we studies argued FOR some "higher being" and/or creator, A.K.A. God.

Richard Dawkins is one philosopher (not really a philosopher, but we did study him) who I remember as being an atheist. However, to put it simply, he is an idiot (when it comes to his beginning-of-universe/time/life theories, at least). Just watch Expelled if you don't believe me...

Just so you know, I am a Christian. But I'm all for free thinking! If anyone is against free thinking, it's probably evolutionists. Again, Expelled is a great example of that... I would highly recommend that movie.

@Mithander: Sorry, I know I'm getting slightly off-topic... Leaning more towards the Evolution Vs. Creation debate than just your general "philosophy and Christianity". But you didn't specify what philosophy/ies you were thinking about.

Also, just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what "basic scientific facts" Christians supposedly ignore. (I don't mean that as a jab at you, Mithander - I'm honestly just curious...)

I wouldn't say Richard Dawkins was an idiot. If you've just watched some video where it only shows pieces of information, I could see how you could say that, but if you have read any of his books. You would know otherwise that religion in itself is made to control people.

Now let us have a small history lesson. The foundation of the church was the Catholic Church which broke into the Western (Roman) Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'll focus on the Roman Catholic Church, a majority of the people at the time of it's foundation were illiterate, meaning they can't read. The church abused its power and then later England split off from the church making the it's own church, protestantism. Well this is sort of a rebellion or act of free thinking right? Well seeing as how the Catholic Church was one of the earliest churches to be constructed, wouldn't it also be right to say directly related to the way it should be. Anyways, England had a rebellion and formed it's own church. Let me quote the bible real quick.

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel 15:23

Just thought I'd throw that out there, the foundation of most modern churches is founded upon the protestant rebellion. Know what that means, it's sinful to worship in a modern church unless it's a Roman Catholic church. You know what that sounds like to me? Mind control.

[Spirotot]

Originally Posted by Atrocious

I wouldn't say Richard Dawkins was an idiot. If you've just watched some video where it only shows pieces of information, I could see how you could say that, but if you have read any of his books. You would know otherwise that religion in itself is made to control people.

Ok, I will admit, I do have relatively little knowledge of Dawkins. However, in Expelled, the Dawkins says he's an atheist. BUT, he doesn't have any idea how life started. He thinks life on Earth may have been "planted" here by some "higher being/s", A.K.A. aliens.

But I still have a few questions for him: Why is there absolutely NO evidence of us being put here by aliens? And, please, answer the original question of "How did life start?"

Enough about Dawkins.

Sadly, today, there are actually two types of Christians. There are the religious Christians, and the "non-religious" Christians. I am a "non-religious" Christian. Why? Because I have a personal relationship with God.

Here is a definition of "religion" I found on Google:

A sincerely held set of beliefs, values and attitudes; beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature and worship of a Supreme Being, supernatural force or god(s).
admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx

Type "define: religion" into Google, and you'll find nothing about relationships.

So, I will agree with you, religion, in and of itself, is not a good thing. Probably even a mind control device that the church and/or government use to try to control you.

Originally Posted by Atrocious

Now let us have a small history lesson. The foundation of the church was the Catholic Church which broke into the Western (Roman) Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'll focus on the Roman Catholic Church, a majority of the people at the time of it's foundation were illiterate, meaning they can't read. The church abused its power and then later England split off from the church making the it's own church, protestantism. Well this is sort of a rebellion or act of free thinking right? Well seeing as how the Catholic Church was one of the earliest churches to be constructed, wouldn't it also be right to say directly related to the way it should be. Anyways, England had a rebellion and formed it's own church. Let me quote the bible real quick.

If you read the first few books of the New Testament, you will find that the ORIGINAL churches, and the disciples of Christ, did not act very much like the Catholic church. I am by no means saying that Catholics are damned to hell or anything. But I am saying that the way Protestants conduct their churches is much more biblical than the Catholics (in my opinion, at least - I realize I'm probably pretty biased, as I am a Protestant). In reality, the Catholic Church never rebelled, but they were getting askew in their practices/beliefs. England's rebellion was a good rebellion.

By the way, using that verse the way you did would imply that all rebellion is wrong and sinful. So rebelling against your parents who are abusing you would be wrong. If you're a slave, rebelling against your master would be always wrong.

Fortunately for all the abused children and sex slaves, you quoted that verse severely out of context - Probably just like the Roman Catholics did back in the day to try to control the illiterate.

God had commanded Saul to eradicate ALL of the Amalekites, and to kill every living thing of theirs. But, Saul took the king of the Amalekites alive, and most (or all) of their livestock.

Saul was rebelling directly against God's orders, not the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, Saul had sinned.

Now, again, I'm not saying that ALL rebellion is ok... It depends on the situation.

[putis]

Originally Posted by Spirotot

Ok, I will admit, I do have relatively little knowledge of Dawkins.

How nice of you to be talking about someone and their beliefs, to the point of insulting them, while you admittedly have only one, obviously biased source.

Originally Posted by Spirotot

However, in Expelled, the Dawkins says he's an atheist. BUT, he doesn't have any idea how life started.

I don't see anything wrong with this, as no one knows for certain. To say you know for sure is pretty silly.

Originally Posted by Spirotot

He thinks life on Earth may have been "planted" here by some "higher being/s", A.K.A. aliens.

But I still have a few questions for him: Why is there absolutely NO evidence of us being put here by aliens? And, please, answer the original question of "How did life start?"

It's not 'his' idea, it is/was a somewhat popular theory, and there is evidence to support it. It's called panspermia. Do you your own research.

[Gow]

Martin Luther preceded the English split off.

"October 31, 1517: Martin Luther posts his 95 Theses, protesting the sale of indulgences."

It was from him that Protestants stem from. Just so one also knows, Henry VIII wrote a book defending the Church before splitting off from the Church later for the sole reason of divorcing, and killing wives to get a male heir.

Even before the Christians there was religion. Lest we forget the Romans based their religion on the Greeks, and the Greek pantheon of Gods with Romanized names. Jupiter, Mercury, Saturn, Mars, Pluto, Uranus, et cetera.

Yes, religion is used as a method of control to some extent, but no moreso than any other form of control throughout the ages. Tyrants exist in many forms, and guises. It is a fool's quest to think that without religion, Tyrants would cease to exist. Unless people think religion defines human nature to such an extent that if all traces of it were removed human nature would change. Of course, early humanity had no concept of religion inasmuch as they hunted, and gathered, and maybe the rudimentary concepts of philosophy, but the nature of humanity was the same as it remains so today, tomorrow, and until humanity ceases to be.

It is philosophy that drives the human animal to realize that there is something more to life than eating, defecating, sleeping, and reproducing. It is from that thought that humanity seeks to be something more than the sum of his/her parts.

Anything more than that is most likely a matter of perception by the individual.

[Atrocious]

Originally Posted by Spirotot

Ok, I will admit, I do have relatively little knowledge of Dawkins. However, in Expelled, the Dawkins says he's an atheist. BUT, he doesn't have any idea how life started. He thinks life on Earth may have been "planted" here by some "higher being/s", A.K.A. aliens.

But I still have a few questions for him: Why is there absolutely NO evidence of us being put here by aliens? And, please, answer the original question of "How did life start?"

Enough about Dawkins.

As putis said, no one knows how life started, but an invisible magic being who came out of nowhere, created everything then disappeared doesn't really suffice for an answer, for me at least.

Sadly, today, there are actually two types of Christians. There are the religious Christians, and the "non-religious" Christians. I am a "non-religious" Christian. Why? Because I have a personal relationship with God.

Here is a definition of "religion" I found on Google:



Type "define: religion" into Google, and you'll find nothing about relationships.

So, I will agree with you, religion, in and of itself, is not a good thing. Probably even a mind control device that the church and/or government use to try to control you.

lol, I love when people say that. So, you're not religious but you have a personal relationship with God, the figure that is at the center of Christianity which is a religion that you follow the basic principles of BUT you aren't religious. That makes perfect sense. I guess it's like talking on the phone while there's just a dial tone.

If you read the first few books of the New Testament, you will find that the ORIGINAL churches, and the disciples of Christ, did not act very much like the Catholic church. I am by no means saying that Catholics are damned to hell or anything. But I am saying that the way Protestants conduct their churches is much more biblical than the Catholics (in my opinion, at least - I realize I'm probably pretty biased, as I am a Protestant). In reality, the Catholic Church never rebelled, but they were getting askew in their practices/beliefs. England's rebellion was a good rebellion.

Rebellion is sinful no matter how it's conducted, just because it had a good outcome doesn't justify it.

By the way, using that verse the way you did would imply that all rebellion is wrong and sinful. So rebelling against your parents who are abusing you would be wrong. If you're a slave, rebelling against your master would be always wrong.

Fortunately for all the abused children and sex slaves, you quoted that verse severely out of context - Probably just like the Roman Catholics did back in the day to try to control the illiterate.

God had commanded Saul to eradicate ALL of the Amalekites, and to kill every living thing of theirs. But, Saul took the king of the Amalekites alive, and most (or all) of their livestock.

Saul was rebelling directly against God's orders, not the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, Saul had sinned.

Now, again, I'm not saying that ALL rebellion is ok... It depends on the situation.

Rebellion is rebellion. Guess it's a good thing I'm not christian, because I can do whatever the hell I want.


On another note, HELLO GOW.


And another note, this may be unrelated but this is where I got the rebellion bible verse from. http://www.godhatesgoths.com/
Pretty intense website.

[Spirotot]

@Putis: I have at least two sources (WOOHOO, right? ) - one presumably unbiased (my Philosophy courses), the other, more or less biased (it's on a movie - not even a "Christian" movie, and Dawkins says what he said with his own mouth).

Also, Putis, did I ever say I knew how life started? I don't think so. You're right: No one knows for sure, because no one was there to watch it freakin' happen.

Originally Posted by Atrocious

but an invisible magic being who came out of nowhere, created everything then disappeared doesn't really suffice for an answer, for me at least.

The fact that we were planted here by aliens

Originally Posted by Atrocious

who came out of nowhere, created everything then disappeared

for no particular reason (that I'm aware of, at least... Maybe we're just a reserve food supply, or something?), doesn't really suffice for an answer for me, either.

And does the fact that scientists believe our universe come from nowhere bother you, too? (By the way, could someone explain to me how something could come from nothing? I just don't see how space, time, matter, and the laws of Physics that govern our universe just exploded out of absolutely NOTHING.)

Also, I'd like to point out that God did not come out of nowhere. He is outside of space, and TIME. Therefore, he wouldn't need a beginning. Or and end, for that matter. (Scientists believe in parallel universes, even when they explicitly say there's no way to detect them [http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...020205-1.html]]. What if God is similar, in the fact that he can't be "detected"?

And @Putis, again: I did read up a little bit on this panspermia theory. From what I read, there's very few scientists who actually believe it's even possible. And the ones that do admit that the chances of ANY bacteria or whatever surviving on an asteroid are very, very slim. Think about it: These bacteria would have to survive the impact of another asteroid slamming into the planet of origin. They'd then have to survive the travel through space to Earth, with the cosmic rays, radiation, and whatnot. They'd also have to be lucky enough to avoid collisions with other space rocks. And, of course, be lucky enough to actually land on earth. Then, they'd have to survive the burn through Earth's atmosphere. And they'd have to be capable of surviving in Earth's ocean's, even BEFORE they get there.

Real likely, huh?

Oh, yes, I forgot, we were assuming that aliens brought life here. That makes the chances of the bacteria's survival skyrocket. But where's the proof that aliens exist, again?

Also, Atrocious, read this: WikiAnswers - Why do some Christians say that Christianity isn't a religion but a relationship

And make sure to notice that it says "some Christians" in the title, not "all Christians". Why is that?

Because not all "Christians" have a relationship with God. They are simply going through the motions (also known as: RELIGION). So, yes. Christianity can be a religion. OR, it can be a relationship.

[ChurchedAtheist]

It's issues like the origin of the universe that make me an agnostic. I can't rule out a deity creating the universe, especially since science has no explanation for the origin of the universe(that i know of). yes, there is the big bang, but i've never heard an explanation of HOW that tiny superhot ball came to be.
On the flip side, I see no evidence of a god in life. not a personal one anyway. too much pain and suffering for that. even if there were, i see no evidence that it would be the god(s) of ANY religion today, and that modern religions are NO more likely true than ancient greek/egyptian gods.

[HipHopScribe]

I believe the prevailing position among scientists is that our universe came from a primordial mass, not from "nothing". Where that mass came from, most would probably say they have no idea. Any argument that God created the universe runs into the same issue basically, then where did God come from? Any argument about God being infinite, existing outside of normal space and time, could also just be applied directly to the condition that led to the created our universe, so why even bring God into the equation, with not a single indication of the existence of anything resembling the common religious conception God?

As for this panspermia idea, as far as I know it's just an idea that some people like, not a theory with hard evidence, but consider that we know life exists, we know of lifeforms that can survive extremely harsh conditions, we know objects travels around the universe. So, even given any unlikelihood of the scenario, it's already hugely more likely, based on what we know about the universe, than the answer of "God did it", since we have absolutely no evidence that "God" even can exist.

Again, this is just an idea, Dawkin's DOESN'T know how life originated, or how life arrived on Earth, and I see nothing idiotic about him admitting that.

In terms of philosophy and Christianity, it is true that many philosophers set out to prove the existence of God, or at least discussed it in some way, so they often intersect.

[Atrocious]

Originally Posted by Spirotot

And does the fact that scientists believe our universe come from nowhere bother you, too? (By the way, could someone explain to me how something could come from nothing? I just don't see how space, time, matter, and the laws of Physics that govern our universe just exploded out of absolutely NOTHING.)

Knowing where the universe came from or didn't come from, won't change my day-to-day life, knowing it would just be like knowing some other fact.
Even if scientist can't explain it now, doesn't mean an explanation won't one day in the future surface. But I'm not taking an Intelligent Design theory seriously until I have a conversation with the person who supposedly made us.

Also, I'd like to point out that God did not come out of nowhere. He is outside of space, and TIME. Therefore, he wouldn't need a beginning. Or and end, for that matter. (Scientists believe in parallel universes, even when they explicitly say there's no way to detect them [http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...020205-1.html]]. What if God is similar, in the fact that he can't be "detected"?

That just sounds like an attempt at making a scientific explanation to justify the fact God can't be proven or not proven.

Also, Atrocious, read this: WikiAnswers - Why do some Christians say that Christianity isn't a religion but a relationship

And make sure to notice that it says "some Christians" in the title, not "all Christians". Why is that?

Because not all "Christians" have a relationship with God. They are simply going through the motions (also known as: RELIGION). So, yes. Christianity can be a religion. OR, it can be a relationship.

Regardless how you say your last statement, it's a religion nonetheless, relationship or no relationship. It's just trying to make it sound like you are more religious.

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe

I believe the prevailing position among scientists is that our universe came from a primordial mass, not from "nothing". Where that mass came from, most would probably say they have no idea. Any argument that God created the universe runs into the same issue basically, then where did God come from? Any argument about God being infinite, existing outside of normal space and time, could also just be applied directly to the condition that led to the created our universe, so why even bring God into the equation, with not a single indication of the existence of anything resembling the common religious conception God?

Nothing is infinite, so I agree on that angle, if God is infinite, God is nothing.

[Spirotot]

Originally Posted by Atrocious

But I'm not taking an Intelligent Design theory seriously until I have a conversation with the person who supposedly made us.

That day will come soon enough.

Originally Posted by Atrocious

That just sounds like an attempt at making a scientific explanation to justify the fact God can't be proven or not proven.

It more or less was. Similar to how scientists try to justify evolution.

Originally Posted by Atrocious

Regardless how you say your last statement, it's a religion nonetheless, relationship or no relationship. It's just trying to make it sound like you are more religious.

^---- Here is proof that, sadly, Christians will always have a label. The label? Religious.

Atrocious, what religion are you?

Originally Posted by Atrocious

Nothing is infinite, so I agree on that angle, if God is infinite, God is nothing.

Just out of curiosity, how can nothing be infinite? I've always heard that the universe is infinite. Or has that changed recently? (I'm not being snide or sarcastic in this comment - I really am just curious.)

[Atrocious]

Originally Posted by Spirotot

It more or less was. Similar to how scientists try to justify evolution.

Evolution is more of a cycle that has been proven to exist.

^---- Here is proof that, sadly, Christians will always have a label. The label? Religious.

Atrocious, what religion are you?

Well isn't that what they are? Saying you have a personal relationship is just sugar coating the fact.

Well, for a generalization that people understand, I'd say I'm atheist. But if you want a more defined classification of myself and principles I agree with, I'd say I'm humanist. Specifically, secular humanism.

Just out of curiosity, how can nothing be infinite? I've always heard that the universe is infinite. Or has that changed recently? (I'm not being snide or sarcastic in this comment - I really am just curious.)

Think of it more like "nothingness is infinite", basically void is infinite, void and nothing are pretty much the same thing in a way, the non-existence of.

[putis]

Originally Posted by Spirotot

It more or less was. Similar to how scientists try to justify evolution.

You're a moron.

Science doesn't 'justify' evolution, it relies on proven facts and observable evidence.

[Spirotot]

Originally Posted by putis

Science doesn't 'justify' evolution, it relies on proven facts and observable evidence.

Would you mind listing a few of those for me?

And then I'll list a few that argue for [but do not prove (I added that so you would assume I could prove Creation, and then call me a idiot or moron or whatever again. )] Creation (or at least the lack of Evolution). If you haven't converted me to an Evolutionist first, that is.

[ChurchedAtheist]

Originally Posted by putis

You're a moron.

Science doesn't 'justify' evolution, it relies on proven facts and observable evidence.

or, to be even more accurate, science doesn't justify anything. Humans can use science to justify their agenda, but science itself doesn't justify an agenda, and is completely impartal.

[putis]

Why would would I spend time to enlighten you with information that's readily available, and quite abundant? Your mind is obviously made up; your 'relationship' is quite the piece of evidence.

I never assumed that I could 'convert' anyone, that's quite foolish.

Originally Posted by EndUnknown

or, to be even more accurate, science doesn't justify anything. Humans can use science to justify their agenda, but science itself doesn't justify an agenda, and is completely impartal.

Mhmm.

[Spirotot]

Originally Posted by putis

Why would would I spend time to enlighten you with information that's readily available, and quite abundant?

Why? For many reasons. Because it shows you value your beliefs. It also shows that you're confident in your beliefs. And, it shows that you care about spreading your beliefs to others.

If you don't value your beliefs, if you're not confident that they're correct, if you're not trying to spread your beliefs, if you're so high up on your horse that you don't care whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs (by your standards - or anyone's for that matter), if you can't spend 5 minutes to tell me why I should believe your beliefs, then what reason do I have to believe in your beliefs?!

[putis]

Evolution is not 'my belief.' It's a fact. I don't need to 'spread' anything, if you want the truth seek it.

Being that they're not 'my beliefs,' but are actually facts, you can choose to believe them or not.