Amos

Sure, I stand corrected. We all have to follow our senses and it would be wrong, or at least much worse, if our mind should be in charge of our sense perception. Or is it and is there a difference.

Jamie_L

Amos:

Are you suggesting that by controlling our own actions we are "slaves to our desires"? By this definition of "slaves to our desires", what's wrong with that?

You desire to be faithful to God and live according to his teachings. When you resist certain temptations to do the moral thing, you do so because you DESIRE to follow these teachings. How are you less a slave to your desires? Simply because you desire something else?

Jamie

Jane Marple

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

Yes, so what? Freedom of thought must be expressed, new ideas must come to light, criticism makes mankind evolve!

"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."

Being an atheist means not accepting the philosophy preached by some institution, means thinking by yourself, searching the answers alone or with help of other thinkers, sharing opinions, that sort of stuff!

"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?"

Wich theist invented the idea of theism? Nothing borns out of nothing, atheism has it's origin in theism... But that doesn't makes it something dispicable... just noble: atheism goes against dogmas, thoughts long stuck in peoples minds... But the idea isn't that young: in ancient greece many thinkers didn't believe in Gods.

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

Who's more creative: a person that says everything was created by someone, who was never seen, who is Good himself, sees everything, listens to everything, is everywhere, defies maths and phisics... or someone who says this is all mumbo-jumbo?

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

Liberates the mind of pre-conceptes ideas and explanations. Logic, Reason and Proof are the basis of a well structured mind, capable of having is own thought, discovering new ways.

"I think you are just trading masters."

We have no masters. We are our own masters, we decide what's right or wrong, we make our own minds. We are humans and we're pround!

Viva a República,
Viva o Estado Laico!

Liberdade, Igualdade, Fraternidade!

Foxhole Atheist

“…atheism has it's origin in theism...”

Perfectly stated, Jane. Now, if we can just get the theist to understand that.

“…or someone who says this is all mumbo-jumbo?” And, endeavors to find the answers in nature.

BTW Jane, welcome to the Sec Web. I hope you don’t mind my adding to your thoughts.

rainbow walking

Hey Rainbow...

Hey Koy…

Koy: Once again, dear friend, you insert the flaw. Atheists don't need a reason to not "believe" a fiction to be a fiction. It is self evident.

Rw: If that was the essence of an atheist’s position you would have a valid point to which I would readily concede. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most people (especially in this forum) take it quite a distance beyond that by postulating any number of reasons why they perceive their position to be self evident. And, they do so quite positively and forcefully…sometimes even menacingly, such that they have moved from a neutral position of non-belief to a positive position of ANTI-BELIEF. A position I think you adhere to without flinching. There is a fundamental difference between a non-believer and an anti-believer.

Claiming God as a fictitious character to be self evident doesn’t make it so. In fact, according to your own story, you had to arrive at your position by a consideration of the claims. Your present position may have become intuitively familiar such that it appears now to be self evident but it wasn’t always so.

Now you do a pretty fair job of exposing some of the negative connotations in religion but this, in no way, establishes the existence or non-existence of God to be a finalized conclusion much less self evident.

Koy: By the way, do I need a reason to "believe" Luke Skywalker is a fictional being? No. It is self-evident.

Rw: I’m not comfortable with your use of “self evident” here. You declare it so because you know about movies and acting and the whole shebang and no one is claiming Luke Skywalker should be venerated as a supernatural entity. Bad analogy

Koy: More cult terminology insertion (or, more properly, interpolation).
Force as you may cult terminolgy upon us and you'll only reveal your indoctrination. Couch it in tentative qualifiers like "almost dogmatic" and achieve spin apologetics.

Rw: Your very presence in this forum belies both your faith in your position as well as the dogmatic approach you incorporate in promoting it. I suppose I could have used “trust” in lieu of “faith” but “dogma” isn’t an exclusively religious term.

Koy: My hat's off, but I'd only ask, can you be "almost pregnant?"

Rw: There’s an undeniable probability that a certain percentage of four year old girls are, even as we speak, “almost pregnant”. Since you haven’t assigned any specific time frame or relative parameters to it, I have a valid argument. On the other hand, if you are asking if “I” can be, then I must issue a resounding NO! I am not female.

Koy: I guess it's all just perspective to you, then, for there is no appearance in that regard to an atheist.

It is a conclusion drawn. A valid, irrefutable conclusion.

There is, however, no "interpretation rendered." Interpretation implies that there are some questions remaining; something still open to debate.

There are no questions involved in fictional creatures. They are fictional.

Rw: You can irrefutably, conclusively prove that God is just a fictional character?

Koy: No, it is only the theist that argues the same warmed over ideas ad nauseam. We simply provide the answers.

Rw: Now there’s a whopper of a sample. (Or is that a sample of a whopper?) How many RIGHT answers have you provided after we get beyond the open admission that you don’t KNOW the answers to many of the more cogent questions, especially in the crucial areas of existence and life?

Koy: My answers are entirely my own and that's the distinction.

Rw: Prove it! Prove that any answers you’ve formulated to date were ENTIRELY your own and not warmed over extensions of already existing arguments.

Koy: The fact that others have reached the same irrefutable conclusion as I have only serves to reinforce the veracity in the same superficial argument from popularity sense that cults rely upon, but by no means is the multitude a contingency of the conclusion.

Rw: Wrong. It proves that the majority of people on both sides of the issue have their familiar sources from which they attempt to ameliorate by mixing it with their own unique style and personality. The ideas remain the same. The only thing unique, (sometimes), is the method of delivery.

Koy: The facts do not lie; only the interpreters do. Fiction is fiction; to indoctrinate fiction to be non-fiction is the lie.

Rw: When you factually establish your position you can crow, until then you’re just another cackle.

Koy: If I proclaim Luke Skywalker to be a factual being then I am doing nothing more than lying.

Rw: I’ve never proclaimed God to be a factual being. I claim that “I believe” He is a factual being.

Koy: If I believe Luke Skywalker is a factual being then I am doing nothing more than deluding myself.

Rw: I may very well be doing just that Koy. That’s the risk we all take when we take a stand. You could just as easily be found guilty of the same infraction.

Koy: Then, at least, you agree that such fictional beings are, indeed, created?

Rw: I believe I was referring to the “ideas” from which we derive our world views. The current “IDEAS” we have of God were created, yes. But this doesn’t mean God was created.

Koy: Too true, which is why the New Testament is not a "new" testament at all; it is merely humanism stolen to instill a very old idea: slavery.

Rw: Religion is a social construct. Humanism is a social construct. Society is a social construct and so is slavery. All of these “ideas” were new at one time or another. All of them have been used to justify the peaks and valleys of man’s existence in one form or another. All of them have been used to vilify the ideals of others at one time or another. None of them are exempt from future abuses.

Koy: It's remarkable that we're in agreement, but miracles can happen, I guess.

Rw: That was a good guess. Anyway, nice to have you back. I frequently enjoy your wit even if I am the target.

Foxhole Atheist

from Amos:

“…if our mind should be in charge of our sense perception. Or is it and is there a difference.

Whoa. If not our mind, then what? Everyone perceives the natural world in just a slightly different way. That’s what makes each and every one of us unique. Our physiology may be extremely similar. But, the complexity of our minds offers myriads of intellectual views.

kwigibo

That's right Amos, we are cave-dwellers, the caves are just a little fancier these days

Tani

it make us "free" because we are allowed the tools to dissect any claims given to us. it gives us the chance to test claims, others' or our own's. it is indifferent to mockery, and has no need to defend itself from it, as well lets nothing to be too to sacred to be questioned, or to be doubted.

it restricts us within the knowable, yet also allow us to hypothize things that are more miraculous with no less plausibility than any alledged miracles.

i don't see how the theists can have anything more than that. albeit we are not free from logic so to speak, no theists are either. worse still, theists have to accept much more to be unquestionable than the freethinkers.

hypothetically speaking, freethinkers and theist are basically the same except that the freethinkers would unveil god's mask, and no theist would ever dare to.

Howay the Toon

This is meaningless gibberish isn't it?

Oolon Colluphid

Well, it was Amos that said it...

Oolon