rainbow walking

Just out of curiousity:

most free thinkers are atheists and skeptics declaring their skepticism to be the crux of their freedom of thought.

The impression I get when an atheist, in the same breath, declares himself to be thinking freely and thus an atheist, is that what he means is his thoughts are free from the constraints he believes theism would put on them.

To this I say fine. Now tell me which atheist invented the idea of atheism? If you claim your thoughts are free while your ideas are hand-me-downs just how free are your thoughts?

Or am I equivocating free thought with creative thinking? Are the two not alleged to be synonomous?

If your world view is based on logic, evidence and proof, how does this liberate your thoughts?

If logic, evidence and proof are very narrow filters that allow only the naturalistic perceptual to be real, how liberating is this?

I think you are just trading masters.

kwigibo

u make the mistake of thinking atheism is some kind of institution. Being an atheist only means u are not something, by definition a theist, beyond that any thoughts u might have or beliefs u might hold are completely your own. That is what is meant when we say freethinker, u become an atheist, not a theist, through your own devices and then u are free to think, there is no dogma of atheism. atheism is merely a label of convenience, it would be fine if people assumed u weren't a theist until stated otherwise, but unfortunately it is the other way around.

Atheism is not an idea, it is a label.

Vorkosigan

To this I say fine. Now tell me which atheist invented the idea of atheism? If you claim your thoughts are free while your ideas are hand-me-downs just how free are your thoughts?

Hi, RW.

First, atheism is an old and honorable word. Buddhists have disbelieved in gods for 2,500 years and going strong. "Atheism" is simply the disbelief in gods. Nothing more.

Second, if other people have been brilliant before me, why shouldn't I adopt their arguments and ideas as my own? That's what other people are for, no? Why re-invent the wheel? The fact that I know the arguments of George Smith and Michael Martin and Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll implies nothing about my own intellect. It just means that I have been wise enough to understand the body of literature, and reflect on it.

Michael

abe smith

Well, RainbowWalking, what do I care for your opinion?

Jamie_L

I can't speak for all atheists, but for myself and others that I've encountered, I say that we did not become atheists because we encountered the "philosophy" of other atheists. We examined the world around us, looked at the religions that claim to have "the answers", and found that theism didn't make any sense.

Some people are raised as atheists, so their story may be a little different. But it's certainly no different than most believers, who believe mostly just because that's what they were raised on.

To me, "free thinking" means that I think for myself. I make up my own mind, and I do so by examining the arguements on different sides of an issue. I don't accept dogma simply because lots of people say so, or because some supposed authority says so. This goes for "Crossing Over with John Edwards" as much as for the Pope and the Bible.

Everyone has to use some criteria to decide what is correct and what is not - otherwise you would pick and choose your beliefs at random. I use logic, reason, and science because in my experience, these means are the most reliable. This doesn't restrict my thoughts anymore than any other system. It does, however, restrict me from believing foolish claims - whether that's a claim from an Amway representative or a preacher.

It doesn't matter how narrow logic and reason make you worldview. We should not believe something merely because it has broader (imaginary) horizons. We should believe what is true.

Jamie

Foxhole Atheist

Well RW, the lack of a belief in a god or gods is the default state of the human mind with regard to thought. Any religious doctrine must be placed there by others. In a sense, one may say that we are born atheists and become theists through indoctrination and conditioning. This conditioning and indoctrination precludes the ability to think freely.

Foxhole Atheist

“I think you are just trading masters”.

I am my own master.

deank

I tried very hard to become a theist. I threw out my bad music and didn't watch evil TV shows anymore. No swearing, going to church, hanging out with "Good Kids." Everything goes fine until I start reading the Bible. Then it becomes morbidly obvious that Christianity a crock of bullshit. Later on I discovered that other faiths weren't any different. I'm not one who believes in crocks of bullshit, ergo I am an atheist.

Atheists do not adhere to a book, way of life, or loosely followed set of morals, but arrive at atheism by finding religion to be patently false, contridictory, or just plain stupid.

Just curious, RW - which parts of the Old Testament have you decided to ignore?

-Dean

Datheron

RW,

A few points, as many others have already been answered.

I suppose that is one way to put it; note, though, that it is a true statement mainly because the only good anti-thesis to atheism is theism, not because we purposely "think freely from theists".

Are they hand-me-downs, though? Atheism prides itself in logical thinking and reasonable judgement; any idea must pass through those two criteria at least to be accepted by atheists (at least, the thinking ones). You're trying to make it sound as if atheism is much like a cult, whereby we accept ideas without question. Free thinking, of course, is precisely the mechanism that prompts questioning.

In fact, you are. Creativity knows very little bounds; free thought still has to contend with the aforementioned logic.

Non-sequitur, and a circular argument, with an attempt to obfuscate cause/effect parameters.

The idea here is that after applying our trademark logic, we arrive at the conclusion of naturalism, which is built upon that logic. You're arguing as if we picked naturalism, and then twisted the rules of logic around to fit its definition. Once again, while this may be typical behavior in cults and brain-washing operations, the importance of the reversal of events makes it very clear why atheism isn't considered one.

Now, if you're attempting to argue that a worldview based on logic, proof, and evidence is inferior to some other proposed worldview...well, go right ahead. I highly doubt that you'll succeed in convincing anybody here, as argumentation itself is a form of logic, but you can certainly try.

GunnerJ

::Waits for Theophilus to show up and prove you wrong::