The "Freethinking" Atheist

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The "Freethinking" Atheist

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:hazindu

Paisley wrote:

hazindu wrote:
Atheists believe there is not free will?  I don't believe in any type of predestination.  It's the theist's concept of an all seeing, all knowing and all powerful god that is incompatible with fee will, but I don't believe in such god, or any god, so what do you suppose I believe in that binds my will?

There is theological determinsim. But now I am digressing. The point is that if you believe in "free will" (which many, if not most, atheists do...as is being made evident in your reply), then you are actually making an argument for the existence of a soul. Sorry, but the atheistic worldview does not permit you this luxury.

Also, for the record, I never said predestination; I said predeterminism. 

 

 

Most atheists I know, don't believe in free will at all, but that our decisions are influenced by our environment, education, and experiences. As it is obvious by simply observing the world around you and the society that you live in, however I doubt you comprehend this.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
My bullshit detector is

My bullshit detector is beeping constantly reading Paisley's posts. Verbal gymnastics are sophistry and piss me off. How would having free will imply a soul? That's a complete non-sequitor. 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley won' t understand everything you just stated, even though you have made it as simple as possible. Now I would personally changed "own knowledge and database that will result in the only possible choice for him." only possible choices for him" only because usually there are more than just one choice, how we come to that decision of a choice is determined as circumstances under which the decision or rational thinking is conducted under. But that's just me nitpicking Sticking out tongue

See the problem is that Paisley is assuming that freethinker means free will and choice to make it with out any influence at all, instead of rejection (which can be done without free will, as it has been shown many times over) of religious dogmatic beliefs or religious/public authority, in the decision or rational thinking process.

Yeah I know, I have had experience with Paisley before. I agree that more than one choice may be available for consideration and a choice is made based on perception at the time. Which I simplified for him so he didn't blow any neurons. I saw exactly what he was doing after I read the post and a few of his exchanges. It's his same attempt to discredit atheism repackaged. You may want to find a large fan to blow away the smoke he's going to make.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:I don't

latincanuck wrote:
I don't need to score any points at all, your still a moron, that's a statement of fact

You win debates by making valid points. Thus far, you haven't made any. This is the reason why you continue to fling ad hominem attacks.

latincanuck wrote:
Second you still don't comprehend the concept of the word freethinker.

What you call "free thinking" is nothing more than a "robot with consciousness" processing data in a completely deterministic and mechanical fashion. Your worldview precludes the possibility of true novelty and creativity.

latincanuck wrote:
I can by my education, my upbringing, my experiences lean towards freethinking.

Here's the flaw in your logic. With no "free will," there is no "I." You're not a participant in your life, just a spectator. This is problematic for the atheist because he actually believes that he is the "master" of his own fate. You're not! Sorry to disappoint, but you're not in control and you never were.

latincanuck wrote:
However free will supposes that you are not influenced at all by anything, that all your decisions are made based only on your abiltiy to make the decision free from any outside influence at all, meaning your experiences, your knowledge, upbringing all of that has no bearing in your decisions, which we all know is bullshit.

You err. Free will does not mean that you do not have any influences or constraints. It simply means that you have the ability to choose among alternatives and that this choice is not completely predetermined by external influences. That is, there's an element of unpredictability at play.

latincanuck wrote:
Again, free thinker is defined as someone that does not accept religious dogma or religious authority in areas of rational thinking, it can also be defined as someone that goes against popular public opinon.

To accept or not to accept implies free will. If your choice to accept was completely predetermined by physical causality, then your freedom to choose otherwise was merely an illusion. What this means is that your freethinking is also an illusion. You're not free. Quite the opposite. You're a slave to the blind, unsympathetic forces of nature playing themselves out.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
First off,  there's atheism and there's materialism - the two don't necessarily connect. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. Materialism is the philosophy that holds that one can only prove the existence of matter.

This is why I say "atheistic materialism." Anytime I find an atheist attempting to disocciate himself from materialism, then I know I am dealing with an individual who has some kind of lurking god-belief.

jcgadfly wrote:
Not sure where I stand on materialism (lean toward property dualism myself).

Property dualism is consistent with materialism (a.k.a. physicalism). Dual-aspect or neutral monism are not (they're actually pantheistic beliefs).

Quote:
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that while the world is constituted of just one kind of substance - the physical kind - there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properies. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) adhere in some physical substances (namely brains).

source: Wikipedia "Property dualism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism 

jcgadfly wrote:
As for your "no free will, no free thought" claim, do you also believe that if someone mentions God in a discussion or as a curse, that person must believe God exists?

I do believe that when an individual curses the name of God that he (the individual) is exihibitng a belief in the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip."

Returning back to the subject at hand, free thinking implies an intelligent agent who has free will. This is really indisputable.

 

So you're a presuppositionalist/TAG subscriber?

If I call you an SOB, do you really believe that I called you a puppy?

Using names of divinities in curses is more of a colloquialism than anything else. Using "God" in conversation means as much to me as it does to the average Christian who uses it in prayer - not a thing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
yet again you prove yourself to be a moron, Thank you for that.

Sorry, but you do not score intellectual points in debates by engaging in ad hominem attacks.

latincanuck wrote:
Free will has nothing to do with freethinking, as the definition is the unwillingness to accept dogmatic thinking and religious authority as the basis for reason. As such, free will as defined really has nothing to do with the basis of your argument, it is completely stupid argument.

The key word in your argument is "unwillingness." The term presupposes free will. You have just refuted your own argument.

It appears to me, Canuck's point is that "free thought" is a relative term applied to finite systems, a thought "free" of the influence of a certain system (in this case religion) is a free thought and the person holding it is a "free" thinker relative to religion. Free will is presupposed in there, though, it is supposed that the thinker has an agency wholly independent of a part of the universal environment, it is assumed the thinker is local to a finite system. In order to assume that thoughts which do not influence the thinker actually exist this assumption must be made.

The main counter-point put forward, Game Theory, does not need to suppose free will, it attempts to explain that what a appears as free will in decision making is the result of a probabilistic self checking system. "Will" (or thought) advances into free area non deterministically and the system updates accordingly to define new probability spaces. As in games, which is the crux of the analogy, the momentum of an advance is everything, momentum is the energy that drives and directs decision making, and momentum is checked by the system. There are many strategies employable in the acquisition of momentum, and the definition of a freethinker therein is one in a position to maintain or increase momentum (in terms of advancing thought). It is simple to see then, how a religious thinker almost certainly cannot be a free thinker in terms of game theory. Religious systems seek mostly to stifle and stagnate the momentum of advance in thought, the opposite of freedom as defined by game theory. For example a religion can be said to keep thought "in check" which in turn ensures that momentum into 'free' probabilistic space is less able to be built because it is driven into 'safe' probabilistic space first.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

First off, this isn't a debate, you are completely lacking the defintion of the words you are using and using your own defintion of the word, which is and has been incorrectly applied by you.

 

from the merrian-webster website

 

freewill

freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. Which is the case you are making.

Your arguement is not this

 voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>.

Freewill has been defined already and in this case it has nothing to do with freethinking. Now if you are using this defintion

 voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will> then yes atheist do believe this, that I can freely make a decision based on the options I have available to me, however the reasons one makes those decisions are influenced by many many factors,  none however are based on never using any prior knowledge or causes, because our decisions are based on our experiences/knowledge. You will factor in many options when making a decision, it may be based on one or many factors, such as, education, knowledge, experience, cultural influence, upbringing, social influences, envoiromental factors, genetic influences, etc, etc, etc. As such freethinking or the desire not to be influenced by dogma or religious beliefs does not require free will in free from divine intervention or prior causes. However I can make the voluntary choice or decision to use or discard religious influences depending on the choices or reasoning behind it. Yet again, all of it will be based on prior causes.

 

But calling your a moron, I am just stating the fact as presented by you, you have complete lack of knowledge of how the words you are using should used and are defined. If you wish not to be described as a moron (which again this isn't a debate, if you don't like it, stop acting like one) then educate yourself please because every post you have made so far, proves my statement about you.

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I do believe that when an individual curses the name of God that he (the individual) is exihibitng a belief in the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip."

Returning back to the subject at hand, free thinking implies an intelligent agent who has free will. This is really indisputable.

So you're a presuppositionalist/TAG subscriber?

What relevance does this question have with the subject at hand?

jcgadfly wrote:
If I call you an SOB, do you really believe that I called you a puppy?

No. I suspect that if you called me that you would be directing anger towards me.

jcgadfly wrote:
Using names of divinities in curses is more of a colloquialism than anything else. Using "God" in conversation means as much to me as it does to the average Christian who uses it in prayer - not a thing.

When an atheist stubs his little toe on the coffee table and curses God with a profusion of expletives, I can assure you that it is more than a mere colloquialism. He is in no uncertain terms blaming God for the incident.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
zero

Paisley wrote:

aiia wrote:
Prove there is free will.

aiia wrote:
Prove predetermination.

I don't have to prove free will or determinism. If determinism is true, then it logically follows that there are no "freethinkers."

It would appear then, that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

 

Zero

This has been pointed out to you several times and you also probably represent a majority of theists.

Thank you for exhibiting the depth of ignorance of your ilk.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Doesn't consciousness allow

Doesn't consciousness allow for some middle room here? Is this really a black and white issue? Isn't everything connected? Free vs not free, must both be true, and everything inbetween ???

Paisley,  I still don't understand what benifit you propose for better happier living ???  Are your posts just for fun, or purposely humiliating ? If your goal is to frustrate and divide, you are indeed a winner .....

You never answered the basic question "are you god?", and "is everything god?".  It's easy to agree that nothing is truly 100% free, as all is connected, but in this connection, there are choices consciousness makes. So the question is how much freedom do we have in making choices. Am I missing something in this "Freewill" discussion ??? It's never made any sense to me, when presented as black and white. I AM feeling extra dumb this moment. I AM use to it tho .... always in AWE.      

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm pretty much done in this

I'm pretty much done in this thread. Trying to explain things to Paisley is like banging your head on the wall. You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him think...

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I do believe that when an individual curses the name of God that he (the individual) is exihibitng a belief in the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip."

Returning back to the subject at hand, free thinking implies an intelligent agent who has free will. This is really indisputable.

So you're a presuppositionalist/TAG subscriber?

What relevance does this question have with the subject at hand?

jcgadfly wrote:
If I call you an SOB, do you really believe that I called you a puppy?

No. I suspect that if you called me that you would be directing anger towards me.

jcgadfly wrote:
Using names of divinities in curses is more of a colloquialism than anything else. Using "God" in conversation means as much to me as it does to the average Christian who uses it in prayer - not a thing.

When an atheist stubs his little toe on the coffee table and curses God with a profusion of expletives, I can assure you that it is more than a mere colloquialism. He is in no uncertain terms blaming God for the incident.

So, according to you, if I stub my toe against the coffee table and yell "FUCK!". I'm commanding the table to have sex?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:When an

Paisley wrote:

When an atheist stubs his little toe on the coffee table and curses God with a profusion of expletives, I can assure you that it is more than a mere colloquialism. He is in no uncertain terms blaming God for the incident.

 

In that context "God" is just a culturally learned thing to say. As a child the atheist has seen adults use the expression and imitated. For the atheist cursing God is just another cultural expression that has lost its original meaning.

 

How many people who describe a situation as a "Catch 22" actually have any concept what it means?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
The Bottom Line

Paisley,

I think the bottom line here is that you are attempting to broaden the definition of freethinker to mean free of any controlling force. The term "freethinker" was coined to mean free of dogma and the influence of authoriy. You may argue that a freethinker is not truly free, but you cannot argue that that makes him not a freethinker, because the term "freethinker" isn't defined literally. Are all members of Greenpeace green?

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
ah catch 22

How many have seen the movie?" (I have), most people when they use it, really mean between a rock and a hard spot, instead of meaning a situation that no matter what your decision, there is either no solution, or only the undersirable outcome is possible.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote:You may

lieutenant24 wrote:
You may argue that a freethinker is not truly free, but you cannot argue that that makes him not a freethinker, because the term "freethinker" isn't defined literally.

But you are simply making my point. The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker (at least, the atheistic worldview does not permit him to characterize himself as such). On the other hand, there are believers who can argue that they are quite literally freethinkers. Such are the luxuries of having a truly rational worldview.

Incidentally, the atheist is not a freethinker even as you define the term because he is bound to the dogma of metaphysical materialism.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:How many

latincanuck wrote:
How many have seen the movie?" (I have), most people when they use it, really mean between a rock and a hard spot, instead of meaning a situation that no matter what your decision, there is either no solution, or only the undersirable outcome is possible.

Agreed. The atheist is really in a "catch 22" situation here. Both determinism and indeterminism are arguments for the existence of God.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Paisley wrote:

When an atheist stubs his little toe on the coffee table and curses God with a profusion of expletives, I can assure you that it is more than a mere colloquialism. He is in no uncertain terms blaming God for the incident.

In that context "God" is just a culturally learned thing to say. As a child the atheist has seen adults use the expression and imitated. For the atheist cursing God is just another cultural expression that has lost its original meaning.

How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So, according

jcgadfly wrote:
So, according to you, if I stub my toe against the coffee table and yell "FUCK!". I'm commanding the table to have sex?

Why are you yelling? And who are you yelling at?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I'm pretty

MattShizzle wrote:
I'm pretty much done in this thread. Trying to explain things to Paisley is like banging your head on the wall. You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him think...

Good. Hopefully this means that you will be taking your insipid potty humor elsewhere. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Paisley

aiia wrote:
Paisley wrote:

aiia wrote:
Prove there is free will.

aiia wrote:
Prove predetermination.

I don't have to prove free will or determinism. If determinism is true, then it logically follows that there are no "freethinkers."

It would appear then, that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

And it would appear that you have no argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
P - "The atheist wants to

P - "The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing.

Me - Yes, All is GOD

P - If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident,

Me - NO, there is no separate deity, all is ONE.

P - then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning."

Me - That's nutty, God Damn it !  What original meaning? Besides, there is no meaning, that we could know this day  ......

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yet here again, we stand correct

Paisley wrote:

lieutenant24 wrote:
You may argue that a freethinker is not truly free, but you cannot argue that that makes him not a freethinker, because the term "freethinker" isn't defined literally.

But you are simply making my point. The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker (at least, the atheistic worldview does not permit him to characterize himself as such). On the other hand, there are believers who can argue that they are quite literally freethinkers. Such are the luxuries of having a truly rational worldview.

Incidentally, the atheist is not a freethinker even as you define the term because he is bound to the dogma of metaphysical materialism.

 

Your completely distorting the meaning of the word and taking one part, Free, as literally meaning free will, not freethinker as in not using dogmatic and religious authoritan beliefs/opinions in their rational thinking. So yes we are all correct and you so far are incorrect and well wrong, because so far, you haven't defined free will beside something that either is free from prior cause and divine intervention or it's not, and if it's not then it's not free will. Which at this point, well from the beginning your arguement, from the twisting and deliberate ignorance of the word freethinker has fallen apart. As for the catch 22, no, again no god is required for how humans make decisions, the influence and how it is all processed. See our brains gather data, and we use that data to make decisions.....no god is required, no where is god required in freethinking or decision making, or how we as humans make decisions, your entire argument is fallacious from the beginning and shows your complete lack of knowledge of the usage and meaning of the words free will and freethinker. So far you haven't even demostrated free will or defined it properly, we have had to do that for you, and you still can't comprehend what it means, and freethinking, well so far you have the same problem understanding this word as you do with free will.

 

So next time when you really want to debate, define the meaning of the words, and make sure you understand what they mean, because this debate pretty much end when you completely twisted what freethinker means, and never bothered to properly define free will. At least I gave you definitions to work with, you just jump around from one ignorant statement to another without ever actually making a proper point or properly addressing the topic, you rather avoid it, especially when others show your lack of knowledge. So please learn how to debate (hence again....the moron statement)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Right. So... you have no

Right.

 

So... you have no idea how to answer my question.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

[...]

This would only be a problem for an omniscient being. And we're dealing with two different questions, the influence of society and the chain of causality, which makes your argument equivocation.

Once again, the "panentheist" raises an infantile non-topic that awkwardly betrays a Christian apologist's stench.

(Oh... and "hi" to everyone... else...)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"Hi" MAG, you very handsome

"Hi" MAG, you very handsome equivocation destroyer .... >  the things that don't make any sense  <      WOW, WAIT,  that ain't funny       but I laugh, I AM nervous ..... ENERGY/MATTER , hummm, and whatever? , and condemned to be ME ..... GOD FUCKING DAMN IT .....   

  ((( just call me lucky ????? , and think of the living,  when you toss my ashes into the wind  ......................................................................... >         >         >

TIME = NOW , measurement is a useful math dogma wanting to improve .....

Religious dogma will say, I have found the thingy to worship with these rules , and if you do it right , heaven after death , and even lots of virgins too .....     

   ((((( WISH it was true ..... E T C  .........

 

  I get the feeling Paisley, YOU is afraid .... I AM not , I AM GOD, PERFECT AS I AM , with pain, as I AM morphine too ......    


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So, according to you, if I stub my toe against the coffee table and yell "FUCK!". I'm commanding the table to have sex?

Why are you yelling? And who are you yelling at?

1. Yelling = expression of pain
2. "Fuck" = first word that came to mind. It could just as easily have been "Ouch"
3. target of yelling = no one/the empty air.

Putting god in everything actually cheapens your deity. If he's nothing special, he doesn't deserve worship.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Let's Try This Again

Paisley wrote:

But you are simply making my point. The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker (at least, the atheistic worldview does not permit him to characterize himself as such). On the other hand, there are believers who can argue that they are quite literally freethinkers. Such are the luxuries of having a truly rational worldview.

Incidentally, the atheist is not a freethinker even as you define the term because he is bound to the dogma of metaphysical materialism.

Your point is quite literally invalid. Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker. What you are doing is no different than me telling you that you aren't a real man.

That being said, you also cannot argue both that atheists cannot be free thinkers and that believers can be free thinkers because you are using two different definitions to define them. By your definition either everyone is a free thinker or no one is. Determinism either applies or it doesn't. Believing in it or not has no effect on whether it is true.

Finally, metaphysical materialism isn't a requirement of the "atheistic worldview" nor does it have any more dogma than chemistry or the color blue.

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Why are you yelling? And who are you yelling at?

1. Yelling = expression of pain 2. "Fuck" = first word that came to mind. It could just as easily have been "Ouch" 3. target of yelling = no one/the empty air. Putting god in everything actually cheapens your deity. If he's nothing special, he doesn't deserve worship.

But the fact is that you didn't use "ouch." Enough said.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Geezz Paisley, the god(s) of

Geezz Paisley, the god(s) of religious dogma ain't my god , "GOD DAMN IT" ..... 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote:Paisley

lieutenant24 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
But you are simply making my point. The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker (at least, the atheistic worldview does not permit him to characterize himself as such). On the other hand, there are believers who can argue that they are quite literally freethinkers. Such are the luxuries of having a truly rational worldview.

Incidentally, the atheist is not a freethinker even as you define the term because he is bound to the dogma of metaphysical materialism.

Your point is quite literally invalid. Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker. What you are doing is no different than me telling you that you aren't a real man.

Okay. Have it your way: "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." However, my point is still valid: "The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker."

By the way, for someone who professes to be a "freethinker," you are pretty dogmatic on the definition of freethinker.

lieutenant24 wrote:
That being said, you also cannot argue both that atheists cannot be free thinkers and that believers can be free thinkers because you are using two different definitions to define them. By your definition either everyone is a free thinker or no one is.

I thought you just stated that "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." Right? So atheists cannot be "free thinkers." 

lieutenant24 wrote:
Determinism either applies or it doesn't. Believing in it or not has no effect on whether it is true.

That nature is completely deterministic has never been proven. Apparently, you are holding a belief without sufficient evidence. I would think this would be anathema to the atheistic position. Moreover, the prevailing scientific evidence (i.e. quantum mechanics) indicates that the world is fundamentally indeterminate.

lieutenant24 wrote:
Finally, metaphysical materialism isn't a requirement of the "atheistic worldview" nor does it have any more dogma than chemistry or the color blue.

Actually, the "freethinker" must take scientific materialism as "dogma."

Quote:
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

source: Wikipedia "Freethought"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethinker 

It would appear that the "freethought" movement is inherently self-refuting because it is based on the dogma of scientism.

Quote:
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritive and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

source: Wikipedia "Dogma"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma 

Quote:
The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has AUTHORITY over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of a perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

source: Wikipedia "Scientism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Why are you yelling? And who are you yelling at?

1. Yelling = expression of pain 2. "Fuck" = first word that came to mind. It could just as easily have been "Ouch" 3. target of yelling = no one/the empty air. Putting god in everything actually cheapens your deity. If he's nothing special, he doesn't deserve worship.

But the fact is that you didn't use "ouch." Enough said.

But I didn't use "God" either. Or is your God perchance named "Fuck"? I could just as easily have been cursing myself for not paying attention. Am I god now?

Again, putting your deity in everything or everything in your deity makes him less worth having. That's why I think Dawkins calls what you appear to follow "sexed up atheism".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I wonder

With Paisleys defintion or really vague defintion of free will, would a freedom fighter that doesn't believe in free will still be a freedom fighter because after all they both have free in the word?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:lieutenant24

Paisley wrote:

lieutenant24 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
But you are simply making my point. The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker (at least, the atheistic worldview does not permit him to characterize himself as such). On the other hand, there are believers who can argue that they are quite literally freethinkers. Such are the luxuries of having a truly rational worldview.

Incidentally, the atheist is not a freethinker even as you define the term because he is bound to the dogma of metaphysical materialism.

Your point is quite literally invalid. Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker. What you are doing is no different than me telling you that you aren't a real man.

Okay. Have it your way: "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." However, my point is still valid: "The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker."

By the way, for someone who professes to be a "freethinker," you are pretty dogmatic on the definition of freethinker.

lieutenant24 wrote:
That being said, you also cannot argue both that atheists cannot be free thinkers and that believers can be free thinkers because you are using two different definitions to define them. By your definition either everyone is a free thinker or no one is.

I thought you just stated that "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." Right? So atheists cannot be "free thinkers." 

lieutenant24 wrote:
Determinism either applies or it doesn't. Believing in it or not has no effect on whether it is true.

That nature is completely deterministic has never been proven. Apparently, you are holding a belief without sufficient evidence. I would think this would be anathema to the atheistic position. Moreover, the prevailing scientific evidence (i.e. quantum mechanics) indicates that the world is fundamentally indeterminate.

lieutenant24 wrote:
Finally, metaphysical materialism isn't a requirement of the "atheistic worldview" nor does it have any more dogma than chemistry or the color blue.

Actually, the "freethinker" must take scientific materialism as "dogma."

Quote:
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

source: Wikipedia "Freethought"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethinker 

It would appear that the "freethought" movement is inherently self-refuting because it is based on the dogma of scientism.

Quote:
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritive and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

source: Wikipedia "Dogma"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma 

Quote:
The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has AUTHORITY over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of a perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

source: Wikipedia "Scientism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

 

Oh if you like to add things don't forget this part from Wikipedia on that entry "While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument." However freethinker has been agreed by many sides including those of the theistic community, philosophical community, artistic community and scientific community, and various others. So will you like to play with words and try to associate them on vague terms, as you just did with scientism and freethinker, we see again, you lack of knowledge of the terms of the words you are using. That all a freethinker is, is someone that doesn't use the authorative views of religion or the dogmatic beliefs of religion or popular society. Now, you can try to twist that all you want, but in the end free will, scientism aren't part of freethinker, they could be discussed as part of it, however you have still not defined free will properly outside of a vague term that you are using, really this debate has been done ages ago, your just grasping at straws at every turn.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I DO "think". How free? I

I DO "think". How free? I don't know .....

All my thoughts and language, including math, are innately dogmatic.

Generalizing; Math dogma is evolving and open to change and improvement. Religious dogma is rigidly stuck in idol worship of a separate, non-verifiable, "thingy construct", of man's wild imagination of hopes and fears. 

Anti matter is matter, the big bang is the small bang, evolution (cellular) revolution   

Science, physics, QM, deals with material testable reality, Religion is fantasy speculation .... the "AWE" ... Keep the awe, fix the dogma ....  

Umpa Lumpa?    Puzzle ?  Sick and fat on dogma candy !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i9XNMELog8


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
But the fact is that you didn't use "ouch." Enough said.

But I didn't use "God" either. Or is your God perchance named "Fuck"? I could just as easily have been cursing myself for not paying attention. Am I god now?

You make my point by now admitting that you were cursing. Evidently, you were angry and felt the need to yell and curse at someone. Of course, now you would have us believe that you were shouting expletives at yourself. LOL

jcgadfly wrote:
Again, putting your deity in everything or everything in your deity makes him less worth having. That's why I think Dawkins calls what you appear to follow "sexed up atheism".

Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Oh if you

latincanuck wrote:
Oh if you like to add things don't forget this part from Wikipedia on that entry "While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument."

Agreed. The "freethinker" is dogmatic and his dogma is based on scientism.

Quote:

The term [scientism] is also used to pejoratively refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[2] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8] (Compare: scientific imperialism[9])

source: Wikipedia "Scientism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Now We're Getting Somewhere

Paisley wrote:

Okay. Have it your way: "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." However, my point is still valid: "The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker."

That was not, in fact, your original point.

From your original post:

Paisley wrote:

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

In your last post, you attempted to shift the focus of this discussion. You agree that the term "freethinker" is not, by definition, inherently inaccurate when used to describe an atheist. You have lost your original argument. If you wish to debate the term "freethinker" itself, start a new thread and I will happily join in the fun.

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Damn , we all lose again ,

Damn , we all lose again , shit,  we may never figure this "reality?" out ....    

  Round 2   


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Right.

 

So... you have no idea how to answer my question.

Game theory is based on the free will of rational agents whose decisions or choices are described in the mathematical language of probabilities. This has already been stated.

Quote:
In games with multiple equilibria, looking back from an achieved equilibrium, it is manifestly the case that we - though not any one of us taken individually - could have acted differently, in just the sense that champions of free will have always maintained was incompatible with science while being necessary for the ascription of genuine freedom.

source: Kevin Quinn, "Game Theory, Freedom and Indeterminacy," Post-Austistic Economic Review (Issue no. 38, 1 July 2006,  article 1)

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue38/Quinn38.htm 

But whether game theory argues for free will or not is really irrelevant to the topic at hand. The bottomline is that: If there is no free will, then you are not a free thinker! Every thought you have, every belief you entertain...could not have been otherwise.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Oh if you like to add things don't forget this part from Wikipedia on that entry "While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument."

Agreed. The "freethinker" is dogmatic and his dogma is based on scientism.

Quote:

The term [scientism] is also used to pejoratively refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[2] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8] (Compare: scientific imperialism[9])

source: Wikipedia "Scientism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

 

Ok, so you are showing your true colours again, you have no concept of what you are talking about. You now have gone from free will (which was your original statement) to scientism  (which would more or less back up the our statement of no free will needed), so now your contradicting yourself. Which is even worse, but still you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using. Your entire arugment is fallacious and your grasping at straws.  You don't get debate points for changing your stance mid way through, definetely don't get points for misundstanding the meaning of the words you are using. Pick one, free will or scientism. Then please define free will, define scientism, then with your own words associate them in some relevate form to freethinking, using the proper term of freethinking, not just part of the word free and you cannot associate free will to freethinker because they both have free as part of the word. This is problem with your entire argument, none of it is associated beside some vague, terms that you seem to make up as you go. You fail to understand how to debate.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
!@#$%^&U*I)ASDFGHJKL:"ZXCVBNM

!@#$%^&U*I)

ASDFGHJKL:"
ZXCVBNM<>?ERTYUIKL&*IGKFEDRGVHBVCVHIO*)$%#%@%*HKFDUSX<MGDTSVO@PJ

1234567890-               


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote:Paisley

lieutenant24 wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Okay. Have it your way: "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." However, my point is still valid: "The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker."

That was not, in fact, your original point.

From your original post:

Paisley wrote:

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectual honesty demands this.

In your last post, you attempted to shift the focus of this discussion. You agree that the term "freethinker" is not, by definition, inherently inaccurate when used to describe an atheist. You have lost your original argument. If you wish to debate the term "freethinker" itself, start a new thread and I will happily join in the fun.

No, I don't agree. My last post employed sarcasm to make a point. And I still stand by my original post. The term "freethinker" as the atheist defines it is a misnomer. The term literally means "FREE thinker." A free thinker can only be a free thinker if he truly exercises free choice in his thought-processes. "Robots with consciousness" are not free thinkers. And since the atheistic worldview basically depicts human beings as robots with consciousness, then the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Are pantheists fucking NUTS

Are pantheists fucking half NUTS ?     Seems so .... 

  ( I still think it is progress from the god of abe crazies )  Go evolution .....   


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Sarcasm?

Paisley wrote:

No, I don't agree. My last post employed sarcasm to make a point. And I still stand by my original post. The term "freethinker" as the atheist defines it is a misnomer. The term literally means "FREE thinker." A free thinker can only be a free thinker if he truly exercises free choice in his thought-processes. "Robots with consciousness" are not free thinkers. And since the atheistic worldview basically depicts human beings as robots with consciousness, then the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron.

Come now Paisley, you have no grounds upon which to disagree. You are trying to redefine the term "freethinker" by sheer force of will. Can you provide me with a credible definition of "freethinker" that contains a reference to free will? "Free" can mean many things, and in this case, it means free of emotion, authoriy, religious dogma, etc. Free will simply is not defined as a necessary prerequisite to freethought.

You are hung up on an idea that struct you as clever and are understandably reluctant to lay it to rest. You may still argue that the term "freethinker" should be redefined to include free will, but your current line of reasoning is exhausted. Exercise a degree of humility and preserve what is left of your dignity, good sir.

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
YEAH Prozac , the atheists

YEAH Prozac , the atheists are already SAVED,

Geezz Paisley , go save a god of abe follower .... tell them of Pantheism !   


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Dawkins

Paisley wrote:

Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting. 

No I think the point is to suggest Pantheism is reducible to atheism, not equal.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"I come not to bring peace,

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"   DIVISION .... from them ....

   to EXCITE debate , to challenge the church hypocrites .... ((( good idea Jesus, but Matthew , fucked up that message, as it was poorly written   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword#Quotes

    

     


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Paisley

Eloise wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting. 

No I think the point is to suggest Pantheism is reducible to atheism, not equal.

Thank you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
But the fact is that you didn't use "ouch." Enough said.

But I didn't use "God" either. Or is your God perchance named "Fuck"? I could just as easily have been cursing myself for not paying attention. Am I god now?

You make my point by now admitting that you were cursing. Evidently, you were angry and felt the need to yell and curse at someone. Of course, now you would have us believe that you were shouting expletives at yourself. LOL

jcgadfly wrote:
Again, putting your deity in everything or everything in your deity makes him less worth having. That's why I think Dawkins calls what you appear to follow "sexed up atheism".

Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting. 

So every "curse word" needs to be aimed at a God for it to be a "real" curse word? If someone does something nice for me and I thank them for it, did I really thank them or did God step in and take it? I called it "cursing" because that's how I was raised. Nobody's God was involved (unless you worship my parents).

This what I mean when I say you cheapen your deity.If your God is so pathetic that he can't allow for common dealings with othe human beings or allow people to have self-expression, is he really worth having. let alone worshipping?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin