galiel

That is a fallacious argument. If one accepts the commonly accepted definition of "freethinker" as one who reaches conclusions about the world based solely on reason, then someone who makes determinations based upon a single authority whose validity is controversial without any corroboating evidence, while ignoring contrary evidence, then sucha person cannot bea freethinker. That is no more dogmatic than an assertion that someone who believes in god cannot be an atheist. It is a matter of consistency with definitions, not a fallacious appeal to authority.

galiel

Double bubble, post and trouble.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

galiel

Ever read George Orwell, Amos? You have the con down. Use a word precisely in opposition to its common definition, and thus make any meaningful conversation impossible. Thus a weapon of mass destruction becomes "Peacemaker", and dogma becomes "freedom".

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

galiel

Lowder's argument is mere sophistry and circular reasoning. He asserts that it is possible, theoretically, to logically and critically come to the conclusion that there is a god, but admits that a) no such example exists, and b) he has no evidence that his assertion is valid.

It is akin to arguing that, if someone could find incontrovertible empirical evidence of a UFO that landed on Earth and conducted anal probes of humans, then that someone would be rational by concluding that UFO's have landed on Earth and conducted anal probes on humans. That is really nice, but no such evidence exists, so all assertions that UFO's have visited Earth and conducted anal probes on humans are not rational.

Merely stating that a thing is so does not make it so. in fact, Lowder violates the very tenets of critical thinking in his article.

And you, Helen, avoided answering the question.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

NOGO

The way to avoid this kind of nonsense GeoTheo is to avoid putting things in the negative.

Noone can prove the non-existance of anything.

Atheists do not see evidence for the existance of God and therefore do not believe for lach of evidence.

Bree

There's no reason to jump on Helen.

It's best if YOU define YOURSELF as YOU see fit, not as others see you.

NOGO

A free-thinker is by definition free to think whatever he wants. He is therefore swayed by evidence and is not constrained by faith nor his participation or membership in any organization.

A free-thinker refuses to submit to authority in matters of belief. Instead he wants to see the evidence for himself. If at times he accepts the opinion of authority, he reserves the right to re-examine the issue and change his mind at any time.

A free-thinker feels no guilt for his beliefs nor lack of belief.

A free-thinker tries his best not to let his judgement be influenced by fear or other emotions.

Finally, A free-thinker is not emotionally attached to any of his beliefs which he can easily drop if the evidence warants it. By easily I mean without emotional distress.

If you are emotionally attached to your beliefs then you are not a free-thinker. That seems to me excludes all religious believers. If you are in love with someone then you are not a free-thinker with regard to that person.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Starboy

That is fine and good, but when you decide to tell people how you see yourself, it is best you use terms in the way they are commonly understood. Otherwise you are being difficult, and that is not very nice.

Starboy

Bree

I disagree.

For example, when I introduce one of my friends to Jekyll, I say "and this is my husband" simply because that is the way Jekyll likes to be referred to. Now, the word "husband" means "master of the house" and I have no problem with her choosing to label herself thusly. It would be incorrect for someone to continually call her "wife" simply because she does not wish to be referred to as such. It's a matter of courtesy.

It's the same as a Christian saying "well, I still think of you/call you a Christian because you exhibit Christ-like personality traits and you live your life in a holy way" even after you've repeatedly told them you're an atheist.

ksagnostic

I personally dislike the term "freethinker" with regards to religion and more specifically godbelief. I dislike it for the following reasons:

1) "Freethinker" implies an all or none viewpoint (i.e., either one is a "freethinker" or one is not), and I don't think such a viewpoint corresponds to reality at all. Look at the Political Forum on this very website, where nontheists of varying political stripes rail against what they see as the blindness of those who do not share their political beliefs. What I see is evidence of a lot of entrenched, assumed viewpoints. I think we all have them, they are an inevitable part of being human. Entrenched viewpoints may include a belief in god or gods or spirits, but they may also include beliefs in political ideologies, scientific ideologies, the rightness of those who think like you, the wrongness of those who use different thought processes, or, the most common one I see here, the incorrectness of those who label outwardly similar viewpoints with different terminology. None of us can entirely escape influences arising from the personal architecture of our brains, or the influences of our life history. I think the best we can do is to try to be aware of our own biases and how they are likely to effect our thinking when we approach an issue. To me, the person who comes closest to being a "freethinker" is someone who is most likely, on the widest variety of issues, to consciously strive to come to an independent conclusion based on what information is available. I personally have seen no evidence whatsoever that someone who refers to him/herself as a theist is necessarily less of a freethinker than someone who refers to him/herself as an atheist/nontheist. The existence of a god one issue in a variety of issues.

2) Freethinker is by implication a self aggrandizing label, with a perjorative element when it comes to others who do not meet the labeler's definition of "freethinker" (this does not mean that I think that anyone who uses the term "freethinker" means it that way, but rather that is how the self descriptive use of the term often comes across). When someone says "I am a freethinker," there is at least the implication of "and you're not," or at least "I think freely, unlike most others". Someone who puts great stock in labels (e.g., freethinker excludes theist)is more likely to, when encountering someone who uses a different label to describe their own beliefs, start to argue with the label rather than the individual (The "all true scotsmen" attack, kissing cousin of the "no true scotsmen" defense).

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>