Datheron

Hey, I said it would be hard for him to convince someone. I didn't say that there doesn't exist many others who are convinced on lesser arguments...after all, our resident anti-free-thinking community must exist in order for us to exist, right?

emotional

Why freethinking necessary leads to atheism:

1. There is no evidence for a sovereign-God as described in the Bible and Qur'an. The Universe at large behaves precisely as if such a being does not exist. That is fact.

2. The only reason for assuming otherwise is by valuing scripture as the ultimate arbiter for truth and interpreting all facts to fit the scripture. But this isn't freethinking, this is slavery to scripture. Theists don't worship God, they worship only a scriptural idea.

3. Once scripture is disregarded, and everything is evaluated at face value, as a smooth table, according to natural fact, it becomes quite clear that the God of the Bible and Qur'an is sheer human fiction. Studying the natural universe, atheism inevitably follows.


More <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/presuppositional.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi kwigibo,
We all claim ownership of our thoughts. That's how we come to our unique personalities. The point I emphasize is that our thoughts, no matter how closely we hold them as our own, are very rarely ORIGINAL.

kwigibo: 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.


rw: I think you may be mistaken here. There may be no formal atheist dogma but every atheist has his reasons for not believing god or gods. It's in these reasons that you find his faith in other explanations to be almost dogmatic. Atheism appears to be a conclusion drawn, an interpretation rendered, on the same evidence available to all. When it's all said and done theist and atheist alike end up arguing the same warmed over ideas that were not our own initially since we didn't create them but just adopted them. It's a rare occasion when a new idea is introduced.

kwigibo: 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.

rw: Labels are attached to complex ideas to facilitate identification.

phlebas

Labels can also say "Hi, My Name Is:" or "20% Off." Having a word for something doesn't make it a complex idea.

rainbow walking

[quote]Originally posted by turtonm:
<strong>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?Your thoughts are guided by contemplations that were devised by others to define an ontological epistemology that gave man's capacity to define the primary purpose of his existence. While it is true that man's capacity to define is the primary method by which he maintains his existence it in no way follows that it must take the definitive role for his existence.

I hold that when a man recognizes the difference is when he moves from reflection to creation.

To state it another way, it is one thing to create new ways to extend existence...it is far more difficult to create new REASONS for doing so.

kwigibo

there is such a thing as convergent ideas. just because someone has had the same idea, does not mean if u have the same idea u are somehow in debt to that person. ideas cannot be copyrighted. atheism is not a complex idea, it explains nothing about a person except that they are not a theist, and therefore it is a label. what u seem to be suggesting is that in order for people to obtain freethought, everybody must have completely different beliefs and ideas, and pardon me, but that's just fucking stupid



[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: kwigibo ]</p>

kwigibo

"rw: I think you may be mistaken here. There may be no formal atheist dogma but every atheist has his reasons for not believing god or gods."

This means nothing. no matter how eloquent u try to be, it doesn't hide the poor quality of your statements.

"It's in these reasons that you find his faith in other explanations to be almost dogmatic. "

this cannot be qualified. I assume u mean scientific explanations, and there is nothing dogmatic about science. Scientists can be dogmatic, but science is self-correcting. what do u propose we base our reasons on if not science, or should we have no ideas at all?

Howay the Toon

My feeling about the phrase "free-thinker" is that is simply a euphemism for atheist to avoid the negative connotations of that label in certain societies.

I've never heard it used in Britain, perhaps because people don't seem to mind calling themselves atheists or agnostics or whatever.

It's not very surprising then that those who call themselves free-thinkers tend to be atheists. There's not any deep conclusion here.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Howay the Toon! ]</p>

kwigibo

you're absolutely right. i myself never came across the word until i came here (II). I don't even like the word as i think it's condescending. the reason i responded is that i take exception at being called dogmatic



[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: kwigibo ]</p>

Megatron

This is going to start off a bit OT, but in response to the above:

I believe, with little doubt, that "freethinker" is, in fact, a euphemism. It probably has its roots in America, where euphemism has conquered our language. Over here, unfortunately, directness and honesty have taken a backseat to eluding negative connotations and trying to walk the line of "politically correct".

However, it also has a double-meaning in that it is a convenient label used to sum up all those willing to question what they are told: atheists, agnostics, and others as well can all gather under that umbrella - some who are definitely "freethinkers" are not necessarily atheists.

I am an atheist, but not all who would be called "freethinkers" share my beliefs, and that's what makes the term a label, not a structure.

Note, however, that the same also relates to atheist. There are many atheists, just here on this forum, with different beliefs/opinions in many areas - examples being morality, veracity of religion, and political affiliation.

This also goes to prove that there is no particular ideology that atheists are bound to, and no binding dogma. Any two atheists can have completely different beliefs, and only fit the label of atheist because they lack the belief in a theist-defined god.