Freethought & Rationalism Archive

09-27-2002, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:


It is hilarious how many Christians want to be free thinkers! What is the point of calling yourself a Christian if you are not dogmatic in your faith?
Starboy

Except that "it was for Liberty that Christ freed us . . . and do not take on yourselves the yoke of slavery a second time."

As a matter of fact Christians can't have faith because faith implies doubt and since only knowledge frees Christians can't have faith nor doubt.

Maybe it is them dictionary definitions that get your mind all screwed up.

Starboy · 09-27-2002, 09:36 AM

Amos, if you want to call yourself a freethinker or an atheist, that is fine with me. It will confuse a great deal of people, however that has never stopped you in the past.

Starboy

09-27-2002, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
 Thus a weapon of mass destruction becomes "Peacemaker", and dogma becomes "freedom".

You are so apple bad, dude, you are orange good.

Galiel, I have only heard about him.

To me it is normal that the masses are wrong and it is my ambition to prove that.

09-27-2002, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:
Amos, if you want to call yourself a freethinker or an atheist, that is fine with me. It will confuse a great deal of people, however that has never stopped you in the past.

Starboy

Fair enough but let me remind you that only a Freeman is a Freethinker and the rest is free to think otherwise.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

09-27-2002, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by d'naturalist:
For the sake of sanity, let's separate the two terms that are being confused here.

A free thinker (two words) is a person who thinks freely, comes to their own conclusions about things, has the ole free will functioning with vim and vigor (whoever they are).

A freethinker (one word), on the other hand, is someone who develops their own set of beliefs about the world based on experience & reason, independent of authority. In a way, 'freethinker' is synonymous with 'nonreligious'. A religious person's set of beliefs about the world are generally based on authority & tradition. For a religious person to consider themselves a freethinker, they would have to independently develop their own set of beliefs that almost exactly mirror those of an established religion. A neat trick, if you can pull it off.

Good idea and, for the sake of sanity may I add another dimension to free thought with the word Freethinker spelled with a capital F. This belongs to the Freeman without whom the argument could never be conceived to exist for it is the extreme position from which all thoughts about freedom emerge.

Of course this position is available to us or we would never have intimations of it.

NOGO · 09-27-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

HelenM
If this is a requirement of being a freethinker then I'd say there are none!

I mean, come on, get real - we're all emotionally attached to our beliefs!

Helen

Helen, you can only speak for yourself.

NOGO · 09-27-2002, 10:41 AM

Panta Pei
Well, you have just described all the theists that I know...including HelenM.

NOGO:
HelenM admitted that she is attached to her beliefs. So according to my way of thinking that disqualifies her as a free-thinker. Mind you she did not specify in which domain.

Panta Pei:
They truly see the evidence for God, having examined all the other options with their freedom to think and will not submit to your assertion of authority as a non-theist.

NOGO:
Most theists belong to an organization who tells them what to believe. I cannot claim to be a free-thinker and be a member of the KKK. If I become a member of the democrats then at least in politics I can no longer call myself a free-thinker. This is so because the party will not like it if I start taking position against it on some issues.

Panta Pei:
They may also have their faith, their group membership and their emotional attachments, however, this is a universal quality found on this site in abundance and is irrelevant to one's ability to think freely and examine evidence.

NOGO:
Not so. Faith is a belief which is not based on evidence. As for emotional attachements, as I said to HeleM, you can only speak for yourself and not generalize as you have.

"Irrelevant". The fact that you are emotionally attached to a belief is irrelevant when you are evaluating evidence ???? Get real!

Panta Pei:
Conclusions based upon evidence are still open to interpretation and that is what freethought is all about.

NOGO:
Exactly and when your faith or your organization has already settled the issue for you you are no longer free. This should be clear enough.

Panta Pei:
Strong convictions regarding metaphysical naturalism, for instance, should not limit one from exploring other possibilities...unless one is not a freethinker, of course.

NOGO:
convictions and especially stong one are not part of a free-thinker's vocabulary.

NOGO · 09-27-2002, 10:59 AM

Quote:

HelenM
Yes, but why can't you turn that around and say "To be an atheist you must deny holding a belief that such a being as God exists. This is not negotiable and therefore it's dogma. Therefore atheists aren't freethinkers".

Your example Helen is flawed.
One does not start by calling himself an atheist and then suddenly realizing that this forces him not to believe in God as a dogma. One does not believe in God first and as a consequence calls himself atheist because that is what atheist means.

NOGO · 09-27-2002, 11:12 AM

I would like to clarify one thing.

There are areas for which I do not consider myself a free-thinker. Religion is not one of them.

When it comes to religious belief I see no impediment to my believing other than the evidence itself.

There is no social impediment - what will my friends think? etc.

There is no emotional impediment - example, somebody were to prove that Mars orbits Jupiter and not the sun. Ok, next.

HelenM · 09-27-2002, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
Helen, you can only speak for yourself.

You could use this as an answer for anything but I think you know full well that it's possible to make observations about other people.

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
NOGO:
HelenM admitted that she is attached to her beliefs. So according to my way of thinking that disqualifies her as a free-thinker. Mind you she did not specify in which domain.

Yes, but I think everyone is attached to their beliefs.

It's just that not everyone admits it.

So I don't see that as making me any less a freethinker than anyone else.

Helen

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-27-2002, 09:36 AM	#62
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Amos, if you want to call yourself a freethinker or an atheist, that is fine with me. It will confuse a great deal of people, however that has never stopped you in the past. Starboy

09-27-2002, 10:41 AM	#67
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Panta Pei Well, you have just described all the theists that I know...including HelenM. NOGO: HelenM admitted that she is attached to her beliefs. So according to my way of thinking that disqualifies her as a free-thinker. Mind you she did not specify in which domain. Panta Pei: They truly see the evidence for God, having examined all the other options with their freedom to think and will not submit to your assertion of authority as a non-theist. NOGO: Most theists belong to an organization who tells them what to believe. I cannot claim to be a free-thinker and be a member of the KKK. If I become a member of the democrats then at least in politics I can no longer call myself a free-thinker. This is so because the party will not like it if I start taking position against it on some issues. Panta Pei: They may also have their faith, their group membership and their emotional attachments, however, this is a universal quality found on this site in abundance and is irrelevant to one's ability to think freely and examine evidence. NOGO: Not so. Faith is a belief which is not based on evidence. As for emotional attachements, as I said to HeleM, you can only speak for yourself and not generalize as you have. "Irrelevant". The fact that you are emotionally attached to a belief is irrelevant when you are evaluating evidence ???? Get real! Panta Pei: Conclusions based upon evidence are still open to interpretation and that is what freethought is all about. NOGO: Exactly and when your faith or your organization has already settled the issue for you you are no longer free. This should be clear enough. Panta Pei: Strong convictions regarding metaphysical naturalism, for instance, should not limit one from exploring other possibilities...unless one is not a freethinker, of course. NOGO: convictions and especially stong one are not part of a free-thinker's vocabulary.

09-27-2002, 11:12 AM	#69
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	I would like to clarify one thing. There are areas for which I do not consider myself a free-thinker. Religion is not one of them. When it comes to religious belief I see no impediment to my believing other than the evidence itself. There is no social impediment - what will my friends think? etc. There is no emotional impediment - example, somebody were to prove that Mars orbits Jupiter and not the sun. Ok, next.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.