I recently challanged someone's beliefs on this without them around. It was a sort of thought experiment to see what I would come up with. I used the allegory of the watch and the watch-maker as it was already there and easy to understand.

If you're on a beach and you find a watch, you immediatly assume there was a watch-maker.

Now, for the sake of the argument just accept the obvious flaws and carry on. I know that there are many, just stick with me.

You assume that there was a maker to the watch. There are many things about the watch that tip you off to what the maker is or was like. The materials used, the form of the watch (what it looks like, so on), the design and ultimately, it's funtion or intended pupose.

I took a possition and assumed the other. I am not religious, and the other person is. But as I have already mentioned, we both assume someone created the watch. That's usually the point of the allegory, to show that people intentionally believe that if there is something there that seems intelligable, we all assume it has a maker, a mind behind the matter.

So, we both assume a maker, you got me. I guess I'm religious... but now what? Well, as I was thinking I imagined what the religious person would do with the holy watch that had a maker... Would they seek it's owner? A religious person would, yes. They all seek god. So, how would they do it? They would take one look at the watch and figure out it's intended purpose which is to tell time. They would keep the time and proclaim it's importance.

A philosopher, a true lover of knowledge though, had he not seen a watch before, would be inclided to destroy the watch (dissassimble it) for the sake of more knowledge.

To myself, life is interesting and beautiful, but it has it's draw backs as well. I am not stupid, life is ugly, but I think the ugly is beautiful in it's own way. I appreciate my time here on earth and find the universe and life in general to be astonishing. I like to question life, I love looking for new questions about life that I haven't thought of before, and to dream about the answers.

I would then be inclined to destroy the watch to learn more. More about the watch, and indirectly more about the maker is there be one or not. The watch as a product of a maker (possibly) would tell me more about him once I am done.

Therefor, I believe the philosopher, or the destroyer of the maker's watch, would end life knowing more about the maker than the religious person that lives life by it's hands. Not only that, but the philosopher, driven by authentic curiousity and appreciation could be said to love god more than the religious person.

What do you think?

I would say philosophers, for i think they search for answers and don't necessarily have a bias or aren't expected to. It seems the religious followers are less willing to challenge or verify their understanding of their religion including their god. It is not necessarily that they are ignorant or stubborn but more so that they are expected and told to accept the truth they are told and not to act or think in any way that might be blasphemous.

Because philosophers seek to understand the meaning and not just the definition of an idea they are more likely to by their own work come to a conclusion of who and what god is. You can be told what anything is and still not understand or know it but if you actively seek the knowledge you want by your own means and mind you will better understand the knowledge you receive.

tough one. Well relgious people almsot never change what they bleive and philospehrs are always trying to figure things out. SInce things change then i have to go with the Philosphers too.

Being philosophical is an essential human characteristic that brings us closer to God. When philosophy is established, perfected and subscribed to by any other human, it can be said to be a religion. Religious followers who are above monkey-see-monkey-do religious observation are all philosophers in their own right who see meaning in a particular school of thought, practice their philosophy, and make it an integral part of their existence. Considering that religious followers are much more probable to believe in the existence of God and practice the religious philosophy they follow, they are much more likely to be closer to Him than a philosopher who does not put belief into practice.

Hmmm this is a tough one. There are several key figures in history who were both. Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Dante Alighieri to name a few. I consider myself a philosophical thinker and a religious person myself. For me they contribute to each other.

I am going to say religious followers just for one reason. There are certain events that are more inclined to be experienced by devout religious followers than philosophers. Things like a theophany, stigmata, prophetic dreams and visions, etc. are associated with a religious follower more so than a straight up philosopher and so I am going to go with religious follower on this one. Whether you believe in theophanies, prophetic dreams and visions, etc. that is a whole different story. If they happened to you I am sure your opinion might change ;). Again, people can be both.