I am of the opinion that in certain matters of a religious nature that philosophy is an inappropriate discipline to discuss those matters.Now before anyone gets thier panties in a bunch,hear me out.I will use an example from one of the very threads on this web site.The topic at hand was the existence of an historical Christ.
I was told by some of my fellow debaters that I could not definitively prove that Christ did not exist because of lack of evidence.They say that this is called trying to prove a negative.But from my way of thinking I feel that if the evidence far outweighs the lack of evidence then I would think it logical to take up the former position instead of the latter.
My problem with philosophy is that it is my opinion that philosophy tends to over think the matters it seeks to explain or discredit.They introduce alot of ideas which at times are irrelevant and not to mention the circular thinking that leads to nowhere.And they introduce other elements which in my view are way beyond the subject at hand.When it comes to the subject of the existence of Jesus I believe that the lack of evidence and the similarities of prior existing myths are sufficient to discount the veracity of the existence of an historical Christ.
I would love to hear what all of you have to say about this and what you think about the matter.Remember we are not discussing the existence of Christ per say,but intstead the use of philosophy and its effectiveness in discussing things of a religious and supernatural nature.
I was told by some of my fellow debaters that I could not definitively prove that Christ did not exist because of lack of evidence.They say that this is called trying to prove a negative.But from my way of thinking I feel that if the evidence far outweighs the lack of evidence then I would think it logical to take up the former position instead of the latter.
My problem with philosophy is that it is my opinion that philosophy tends to over think the matters it seeks to explain or discredit.They introduce alot of ideas which at times are irrelevant and not to mention the circular thinking that leads to nowhere.And they introduce other elements which in my view are way beyond the subject at hand.When it comes to the subject of the existence of Jesus I believe that the lack of evidence and the similarities of prior existing myths are sufficient to discount the veracity of the existence of an historical Christ.
I would love to hear what all of you have to say about this and what you think about the matter.Remember we are not discussing the existence of Christ per say,but intstead the use of philosophy and its effectiveness in discussing things of a religious and supernatural nature.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
