You are, no doubt, aware that Socrates himself argued for the existence of the gods in Apology, I assume, Dyshade? Yes? No? Some inherent difference between assuming a secular belief can be held true versus believing an account such as the tale of Genesis or David to be true, I suppose. No matter.


Do me a favor, Dyshade. Close your eyes. Take a deep breath. Spend fifteen seconds considering the idea that the other side could be correct. Let me know where it gets you.

So because a man sees a big bridge he can just go and build it?

Because he is an engineer just without the ability to catagorize, approach, recognize, or apply engineering?

You must have those abilities in order to utilize the train of thought and as such it is exactly that; trained thought. Not inherent. Man is curious yes and yes we do ask questions. but one needs to be taught how to effectively ask and answer those questions or all you are left with is a bunch of poppycock.

The concepts need to be actualized by that exact categorization, recognition, and application.

For if one does not have the knowledge to apply said knowledge do they in fact EVEN have said knowledge? No. Of course not.

Like I tried to say earlier but was pretty much disregarded. I have had this discussion with Theologists who would take the bible and thump you heavily upon the head IF you were to even attempt to correlate philosophy to theology. Of course they would appreciate the debate but they would smile and tell you in no uncertain words how both are completely different trains of thought.

The smartest theologist I discussed this with was a Catholic. He was devout to a "T" but accepted exterior discussions and differing ideals in the name of debate because it helped him to test his faith. Which is what he pretty much explained Theology as; a test for the enlightened. A way to further your understanding of god and how he effects your life. He also stated that the Catholics have schools exactly for the reason to teach theology to the young because it needs to be taught.
Just as philosophy needs to be taught. Just as mathematics needs to be taught. Just as any subject which educates NEEDS to be taught. Else we would all be illiterate bumpkins eking out a living farming and mumbling prayers to the sun god for good crops.

I spent a good decade. Now I know which is right and which is wrong. Let me know when you have learned the differences and nuances which make them both unique.

As for Socrates. There is a way to debate the existence of gods in a theological manner and a way to do it in a philosophical manner. When you know the difference get back to me.

I don't know if this will help or hinder this thread, but I had a philosophy prof expain the difference thusly:

"You can wax philosophic about theology, but you can't be theologic about philosophy".

I'm inclined to agree with Dyshade. Being philosophic is not inherent in most human beings. With rare exceptions (Socrates or Wang Yangming), we have to learn it from someone.

Careful there. Backpedal much harder and you're going to take a dive out of a third story window.

You haven't made a single fucking argument that was worth anything, Dyshade. Just because Crazy Joe who lives in a cardboard box down the road told you something once, doesn't make it so. You need some sort of concrete reason for why

a) Philosophy and religion are unrelated.

b) One debate about the existence of gods can be religous and one can be completely secular.

c) Philosophy can't be philosophy until it's named as such.

That doesn't amount to "I read it in a pamphlet once."

Another piss-poor metaphor, but one that does, in a way, get to the heart of the issue. The actual correlation you're looking for is, "Can someone build a bridge without having first seen a bridge?"

Of course, you don't want to actually ask that, because the answer is yes. Bridges are a fairly common idea found anywhere that humanity was ever adressed with the question, "How do I get over that body of water?". These bridges don't all look the same, nor are they all called bridges. Some are better than others, and the method of their creation and use can differ greatly. Certainly no civilization ever jumped from wooden sticks and vines to towering suspension bridges a half mile long. Yet their function is always clearly the same.

Firstly, I was not backpedaling. Secondly, just because you dismiss my arguments does not immediately invalidate them. That is sophomoric and you know it.
I have made several very valid arguments that some people heer have actually listened too and agreed with. I have discussed this with people whoo in no way resemble crazy joe whoever that is. I do not feel the need to elaborate on who those people are because it will in no way change your very poorly educated opinion.

It is no fault of mine own that you do not know of nor have the knowledge needed to view the gaping difference between religious thought/theology and reasoned thought/philosophy. Your mind is your own. You can curse up a storm, insult my intelligence for hours on end, and dismiss all of my arguments and I will still be correct.

I could cut.paste huge amounts of material validating the difference and show you many fine minds whom agree and you will still, I am sure, view them as you will. That is your complete right.

And once again you took a metaphor completely out of context. It takes an educated engineer to build a complicated bridge. Education being the key. It takes an educated man to question ones existence and place in the world correctly and with high reason and/or religion.

So as you see it of course it is piss poor, because I never meant it in the regard within which you place it.

Any man can see the golden gate bridge and yet not any man can design and build it.

Any man can ask a question and create a simple answer yet only an educated man can formulate a question and a reasonable answer.

If you cannot see that I expect that it shall be years before you do.

Fine, I have faith in the concept that mankind is capable of sound, independent thought; subtly mark me down as an idiot then.

That in no way negates my dissertion nor commends you to being an idiot.

Mankind is quite capable of all that and more.

But certain avenues of thought must be taught and once learned utilized in an appropriate manner in order to discern any sort of intellectual gain.

A man can be brilliant and yet live in a culture which does not promote education and so that man learns how to farm very well. Yet he never learns any more than that because of lack of education.

It is why we had what is commonly referred to as the Dark Ages.

Then stop making subtle comments that allude that we must be idiots because we dissagree with your perception.

Of course education helps but it doesn't represent the pinnacle of human achievment and independence. I came out of a hopeless public school and I did more to educate myself on my own then the school ever did.

If I made any comments alluding to such I apologize.

You live in a society which actively promotes education. You have the internet, public libraries in every city, and bookstores everywhere. Self-education is the same as being taught. In order to utilize intelligence one must be taught. Regardles of how you are taught in the end it amounts to the same thing.
"I did more to educate myself on my own"
The key word being educate. You taught yourself. Which means you sought knowledge and learned from it. You actively utilized the freedoms we have in our republic which also I might add was another creation of the Greeks

I find it interesting that our debate on philosophy is also a philosophical question.

It seems inevitable to me that philosophical questions about the nature of life will recieve consideration from a philosophical manner comparable to classic Greek Philosophy. Man is constantly faced with philosophical questions in his existence, so how can philosophical concepts not be considered and thoroughly extrapoliated by all cultures at some point?

It is interesting.

Some cultures do not support philosophical thought. Take for instance Fundamentalist Muslims. They do not support philosophical thought. They support faith in Allah. There is an intrinsic difference.

As to how I suggest that this mode of thinking must be taught.

Lets take a man and place him from birth into a dark room and feed him, water him, but provide absolutely no other form of input. That man 20 years later will have learned nothing. We must have stimuli in order to learn. There are certain cultures who do not provide this stimuli. They provide rigid moral structures surrounded by religious piety without elbow room for free thought.
We must be taught. Either by someone else or by ourselves and yet the truth remians the same.

My ass he won't have learned. He'll learn when the water comes, when the food comes, where to use the bathroom, where to sleep. He'll learn every inch of his room. He might very well consider the person who brings his food to be a God. You have no way of knowing how the man would react in that situation without actually performing the experiment, you're just making assumptions.

Not to mention that such an environment is by no means "natural". And no man or animal would naturally exist in such a setting, so it is moot in regards to this debate.

I was trying to supply rational for my supposition that Man must learn. You just helped it along because with the limited stimuli yes indeed that man would learn where to piss, shit, and whatever else. Yet he would not learn anything else. He would have no idea that 2 + 2= 4 or that metaphysics is a topic of philosophical thought or that Shakespeare was a genius or that Bach was a wonderchild.
His would be a dark world and even if he did go in for a bit of introspection it would be chaotic and go nowhere.

It is not moot if it helps to get a point across.

We learn from the information we are supplied with. Our minds are only limited by the culture we live in. Is it no wonder that the United States has some of the best universities in the world which are populated by just about every nationality who has come here to learn.
We have freedom of thought and of speech. Both culminate to produce the ability to question oneself and our place in existence. You can either do so philosophically or theologically and yet you have the freedom to do either one. Or both if you have the mind to do it.

Not one person in this debate has brought any real facts into thier side of the debate yet.
I have provided many. And any first year philosophy student would readily agree. Errant agreed and he is a philo student. My Step-Father agrees and he got a minor PHD in Philosophy; his major was in Chemical Engineering.

I dont understand what you're getting at. Of course man needs outside stimulus to learn, thats why man has his 5 senses.... Saying that man can't learn without a stimulus is like saying a fish cant live outside of the water.