goody2shoes

At my age, nothing mystifies me ;-)

Goody

HelenM

At my age, everything mystifies me!

love
Helen

goody2shoes

The first post of this topic started with:



But, I just read The "about us" page of the infidels and found the following:


"Our adopted mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself."

Are "freethinkers" really required to stay inside the box? Perhaps a topic about "open-mindedness" is inappropriate.

Perchance

Hi Goody,

These are the definitions of "freethinker" from <a href="http://www.dictionary.com" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com</a>:

As you can see...

All of these refer to freedom, not necessarily from belief, but from "dogma" and "authority." Freethinking does not require that its believers hold to a particular belief (unless you define love of skepticism and freedom from dogma and authority as beliefs...) It just requires them to question. People who call themselves "freethinkers" or even "atheists" or "infidels" may hold quite different beliefs.

I think "closed-box" thinking happens a lot more with those who accept dogma and authority, which freethinkers, at least by these definitions, cannot do.

-Perchance.

P.S. I've seen other dictionary definitions posted before, so I'm assuming it's okay to post this material. If not, please, some moderator tell me so!

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

goody2shoes

You make it sound lofty, but that does not alter the fact that a tight box exists around the concept. There are indeed certain belief systems that are automatically precluded. For example, per your dictionary definition a "freethinker" could never even consider being a Christian ------ or examine entire ranges of concepts that lie outside of the dogmatic statement of naturalism on the infidels' page.

Call it what you want, but that is as dogmatic as any religion I have ever heard of and is closed minded in the extreme. (IMO)

Goody

Perchance

If someone holds that questioning his or her beliefs is a high value, that there is nothing that is immune to the power of skepticism, and that dogma and authority (even the dogma and authority preached by people he or she may agree with) are unnecessarily restrictive, then why would you think that person could not become a theist?

If his or her questions led to rational answers, if his or her skepticism about religion was satisfied, and if he or she could accept that a religion's "authority" was not dogmatic, then I see no reason a freethinker could not be a theist.

Saying that a freethinker cannot be a theist (or a Christian, if you want to limit it a little further) seems to be admitting that theism is based on dogma and authority, rather than rationality, and cannot stand up to skepticism. In my opinion, of course.

-Perchance.

goody2shoes

I guess I was going by the infidels' statement and not by your dictionary definition. I repeat the statement: "Our adopted mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself."

I am a freethinker by your definition and the infidels are not -- not as long as they hold to that dogma. They could never become a theist or even examine a religion like Christianity because those doors are closed.

Goody

Perchance

Hi Goody,

You're right. You seemed to be linking my dictionary definitions and the infidels' statement together, and I did not understand why you were doing so.

As for that statement...

I don't think it's a dogma. I usually think of a dogma as a belief that cannot be changed (or which people say cannot be changed), which is seen as utterly sufficient for the "truth" it purports to explain, and which has some kind of authority, godly or not, behind it.

The part of the statement about the "natural world being all there is" might be seen as "utterly sufficient for the truth it purports to explain." Nowhere else do I see anything reminiscient of a dogma. The infidels are not threatening to kill anyone who believes differently, for example, or saying that someone who believes otherwise is not a "true infidel."

Why do you think it is? And why do you think all "infidels" hold to it? Obviously, you are participating on these boards as a registered forum user, and yet you do not hold to these beliefs. I do not hold to them in that, since I consider myself an agnostic, I think that there is possibly something more than the natural world (just that it's a very slim possibility and I've never seen anything to prove it). Why do you think all others are "infidelic faithful" according to this statement, and only that?

-Perchance.

goody2shoes

That's a strange statement. I wonder why you ever said something like that. Are you trying to say that religious people, who have what you call "dogma", are evil people who run around killing people and atheists do not?

Anyhow, I just came to this area because a friend mentioned it to me. I had just looked on it as a discussion group with a atheistic bent. I did not realize until recently that the Infidels is a "charitable organization" with it's own dogmas and active counter-religious agendas like the American Humanist Association. I have known such militant atheists in the past but those of atheist/agnostic beliefs in my current circle of acquaintances are not inclined towards proselytizing.

Well, that's O.K. --- but it does make the organization a self-declared enemy (as in opponent) of spiritual values which I hold at a high level. (Before you ask, I mean the desire of many like myself to gather and worship God.)

The reason I mentioned freethinking was because it is part of the infidels' websites.

Goody

Perchance

Hi Goody,

I mentioned those characteristics because I think that people who believe they have an infalliable, unchangeable, authoritative dogma (be it religous or no) are likely to exclude others from their group, tell others how to live, and, in extreme cases, threaten those who do not believe as they do with physical violence. I think freethinkers (or non-believers, or atheists, call them what you will) are highly unlikely to do this, not only because they are skeptical of authority, but because, as some people around here keep pointing out, trying to get a bunch of non-believers to agree on anything is like herding cats.

I am sorry that you feel the existence of "infidelic" programs, websites, and charities is an attack on your beliefs. I don't see it that way (any more than I view the existence of Christianity as an attack on my beliefs; someone shoving it in my face is a different matter). Do you feel that atheism is dedicated to destroying theism? I don't think that's its mission (if it has one!) or the mission of the Secular Web. It provides information, and a place for people to gather to talk about the issues, and sometimes support or entertainment. Those sections which Christians or other theists might find offensive, like the Humor Forum, are clearly marked.

I don't think there's much chance of a jihad of non-believers against believers, because of the skepticism of dogma if nothing else. Individual non-believers might act that way, but that doesn't mean all do, or that the militants would persuade anyone else to follow them. I don't think all Christians want to kill me, either.

-Perchance.