Is a free thinker allowed to believe a Creator exists??
Posted on: February 3, 2007 - 6:06pm
Offline
Is a free thinker allowed to believe a Creator exists??
Can a person be free to think that God exists and be call themselves a freethinker?
Or are freethinkers 'forbidden' from thinking a creator exists?
Are freethinkers allowed to be skeptical of the theory of evolution or would that violate one of the bylaws?
Perhaps I should start an I'm a freethinker who believes in God challenge hmmm?
- Login to post comments
Do you rationalize right or wrong, real or unreal, possible or impossible, by your own reason and observations? Or do you rationalize based on an ancient dogmatic religious book or teaching that dictates these things for you?
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
I would say, yes. A freethinker allows his/her self to question anything, no matter how taboo. If you find theist's arguments convincing, by all means believe. But if you're a freethinker, you'd keep an open mind about possibly being wrong or mistaken.
A freethinker would begin by learning about the topics that he wishes to debate, he would refrain from making grand pronouncements, (such as you do about cosmology, despite not being well 'versed' in the matter) and he would be open to conceding the limits of human understanding.
Tell me how that jibes with saying 'godidit'?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Hello Krehlic,
Are you suggesting that is what a free-thinker does and thus makes one a freethinker?
If I believe God exists by applying my own reason and observation can I then call myself a freethinker who believes in the existence of God?
Or do you rationalize based on an ancient dogmatic religious book or teaching that dictates these things for you?
So then communists who subscribe to Marxism are not freethinkers?
If you follow and believe something such as the Bible because you have investigated it rationally and come to the conclusion that it must be correct, then I'd say you are a freethinker. However, if you believe and live by it simply because you were taught to do so as a child, then you are not a freethinker. Likewise, if you rationalize inconsistencies and contradictions by reason of faith and not observable, testable logic, then you are not a freethinker.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Allowed or disallowed by whom, pray tell? Freethinkers by definition don't have people dictate to them what they can or can't think. Duh.
Seems to me that the Thought Police are a product of exclusively theism even in totalitarian regimes where the Supreme Leader/Beloved Leader substitutes for God as object of worship.
You do realize that marxist-lennonist ideology was meant to be held as a dogma, don't you?
Aren't we all waiting for our share of winter wheat?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I'd say you hit the nail on the head, there--freethinkers aren't among those who make statements about Absolute Truths like theists do, and are capable of readjusting their assessments of things pending additional information at a later date.
The theist, on the other hand, thinks he already knows it all.
Well that would exclude many of the folks I know who call themselves free thinkers who have never had an original thought and who buy into every atheist sound bite that comes down the pike without applying a modicum of critical thinking.
About the equivalence among many freethinkers that 'naturedidit'
LOL
Silly theist! dont you know that there are massive amounts of evidence to show nature/evolution to be the more likely, and frankly, reasonable answer.
Check your facts dear.
We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.
~ Richard Dawkins
MrRage,
Good answer! I wonder how many freethinkers actually do have an open mind?
But it doesn't end there, A_A. How naturedidit (natural selection) was adopted by agribusiness to do artifically do what nature has always done, and that's why we have farm animals and produce that didn't exist even a couple hundred years ago, nevermind didn't exist when God supposedly created the world.
Nothing you eat on your plate existed when God supposedly created the world--thru artificial selection and hybridization, mankind created what you're eating. God had nothing to do with it.
If a person is a freethinker, his/her mind is indeed open, but with the caveat that such people are astute enough to recognize a figment of imagination when they see it. It takes a theist to be incapable of making such distinctions.
See also Bill Moyers' series, "Faith and Reason".
Do you realize how hard it is to have a truly original thought? There's just so much to learn, everyone has to rely on the expertise of others. Being a freethinker has nothing to do with coming up with everything originally.
If they don't have an open mind, they're not freethinkers. Openness of mind is a necessary condition to being a freethinker.
Hello AA,
So its not possible to be a freethinker and be skeptical of evolution or believe a Creator of the universe exists?
lol. Naturedidit. That's pretty funny.
BTW, you can be skeptical of evolution. Though, in that event I would say you are either poorly informed or basing your skepticism on your religious faith.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Dear Clara,
Except in your case in that your mind is totally closed towards the possibility a Creator exists...Evidently you are not a freethinker.
Even funnier if you ask how nature came into existence it turns out nature did that too!
Actually, I'm not skeptical of evolution...I'm skeptical of Darwinism but thats a topic for another thread.
I doubt you will find anyone here that claims that they KNOW there is no god. They would, however, say that the existence of one if extremely unlikely.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Ah, the unmoved mover argument. So, how does a mover not need a mover itself?
Yes the old I'm a weak atheist intellectual dodge.
Ironic that most atheists and all theists share the same belief... that God might exist.
As far as the Abrahamic god goes, I am a very strong atheist. I don't deny the remote posibility of it's existence, but that is so remote I will never worry on it.
Nearly all atheists are agnostic to a degree, but most of the people here are of the highest.
Edit: Note, I have to go, I'll pick back up in an hour or so.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
It excludes you, at least as far as your cosmological 'arguments' go.
And you of course, have original thoughts.
What a hollow complaint coming from a dogmatist. Theism is inculcated into children before they are entrusted with going to the bathroom on their own.
Your complaint seems more like a projection.
You avoided answering the question. Tell me how being a free thinker jibes with making appeals to the supernatural, based on ignorance?
Oh , and one other thing: your tit for tat appeal to symmerty fails: the problem with 'nature did it' for you, is that natural arguments can be shown to work.
"goddidit' is an appeal to supernaturalism.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
To be a freethinking skeptic of evolution is plausible, but it would first require that you actually knew about evolution.
Arguing from personal ignorance and special pleading to supernaturalism is not free thinking. It's giving up.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Krehlic,
Did you apply any critical thinking to that sound bite?
If you want to see my arguments I'm making a case in the Atheist vs Theist thread. To answer your question even if the mover did need a mover then atheism is wrong and theism is correct, right?
It is absolutely possible to be skeptical of evolution. I am skeptical of evolution. I question everything I have an interest in. I apply what I know to what is presented, and I make up my own mind. From what I currently know about creationism and evolution, my conclusion (which is subject to change) is that evolution is the most accurate explanation as to how we, as humans, came to exist.
I do not limit my thought to what authority figures say, though I do take it into consideration. Everything I know and what ever books, documentaries (etc) I can get my hands on are also considered.
Freethinkers consider the evidence and make up their own minds.
We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.
~ Richard Dawkins
How is weak atheism a dodge? It's merely a position. Atheists and theists share plenty of beliefs. There's nothing ironic about it.
1) You should tread lightly when charging people about intellectual dodges, theist. Appeals to faith are intellectual dodges of the highest order.
2) Holding that one does not hold to a belief, while also conceding that one does not have a deductive disproof, is rational, not an intelectual dodge. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of an 'intellectual dodge'
The only irony here exists in your ignorance of what weak atheism actually is: a lack of belief, sans a deductive disproof. That does not mean that one 'believes god might exist' that merely speaks to the limits of inductive reasoning.
A free thinker begins by learning what he's talking about... he measures his comments against his evidence, he withholds making grand judgements, particulary about subjects he's ignorant of...
So far, you've demonstrated a basic ignorance concerning every topic you've discussed here. Yet there's no end of grand pronouncements from you...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
He's just spouting uncritically swallowed soundbites....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I fully agree. As a matter of fact, just yesterday, I was discussing how cows and bananas were genetically modified by humans, with my 9yo. (simpler terms of course) Watching him process that was amazing .... thinking, questioning .... amazing.
We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.
~ Richard Dawkins
Krehlic,
Being an atheist is a disbelief (or to the timid) lack of belief in all gods. Strongly disbelieving in specific gods doesn’t make you a strong atheist. That would be like saying you only lack belief in the existence of football but you strongly disbelieve in the forward pass.
Some once and awhile.
If theism were demonstrably false no amount of inculcation would result in over 85% of the population subscribing to theism. People continue to believe in theism because it makes sense of their experience and situation.
You’re referring to my thread in Atheism vs Theism where I am making a case for theism based on evidence not ignorance. Something you may try in response rather than smearing my character in this thread…
But one can only live up to one’s abilities.
Yeah! I am a freethinker! Finally!
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
No, no, and no again.
1) That's an appeal to popularity. Once upon a time, 85% of the population believed that the Sun literally rose in the morning. And hey, that was based on evidence too. After all, we SEE it rise, don't we??
2) Most of that 85% believe in theism because they haven't researched alternatives - either through choice or because they're simply unable to.
todangst
I agree, that is why I challenged folks to a debate about theism vs materialism in the Atheist vs Thiest thread and I am appealing to evidence and reason not faith.
It is an intellectual dodge when sites like this and others hold theists and the notion of a God in absolute ridicule disdain and contempt, bash theism from pillar to post and then when confronted suddenly turn into weak atheists who can’t even bring themselves to say categorically God doesn’t exist and then have the gall to claim the burden of proof is with the theist.
Lack of belief means you concede the claim might be true but you decline to embrace such a claim. That is exactly what atheists say all the time, ‘I’m not saying God doesn’t exist…I just lack that belief.’
Drew_Theist,
Do you believe there is a good chance God does not exist?
One can do all the activities you mentioned and still be a weak atheist. I wish more theist would join me in my weak atheism, that's why I attack it.
We have the gall to claim the burden of proof is with the theist because the theist is the one making the claims! It's a innocent until proven guilty type of thing.
You have wrongfully put words in my mouth. Cease and desist misrepresenting me and my position. Thank you.
Which version? And don't just say "Catholic version" because there are different versions of that, too.
Yep. The One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. The Catholic canon is the only correct one. Ah, the beauty of not having to worry about differing versions
We, of course, do accept many different versions. We just only accept those approved by the Church as reliable.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Krehlic,
No, I think the odds are more likely God does exist. I don’t deny the possibility I could be mistaken and have asked atheists on countless occasions to make there case God doesn’t exist. You know what they say? ‘Were not the ones making any claims and we don’t claim God doesn’t exist we just lack belief God does exist.’
If the majority of atheists themselves don’t deny the possibility God exists why should they gripe if theists do believe God exists?
Make no mistake Krehlic, you are not on a website that merely claims a lack of belief in God, this website holds belief in God and theists on the highest order of contempt and disdain and I think people who make such claims should be accountable…don’t you?
Mr.Rage
Drew_theist wrote:
It is an intellectual dodge when sites like this and others hold theists and the notion of a God in absolute ridicule disdain and contempt, bash theism from pillar to post and then when confronted suddenly turn into weak atheists who can’t even bring themselves to say categorically God doesn’t exist and then have the gall to claim the burden of proof is with the theist.
Ok, to make a positive claim such as "God exists" does put the burden of proof on you. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there's no way out of it. If it is the job of the disbeliever to disprove the existence of a god, then you better get to work on the rest of the gods of all the religions of the world, dead and current. Otherwise, by your logic, they must all exist.
I don't know about how strongly other people here feel, but I believe tthe god of the Bible is just as likely to exist as Zeus or Thor. Now, if you think that the odds are in favor of God's existence, I would love to see the evidence to support that claim.
I can certainly speak for myself and can assume that I am speaking for most, if not all, other atheists on these forums when I say that I do not hold theists themselves in any level of contempt or disdain. It is their beliefs and faith in untestable gods that I hate. If I hated theists then I would have to hate most of my friends and family as well. Though, while on this subject, many of the people I would have called good friends (theists) in the past hate me now that I am an atheist.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
The key word in there is 'rationally'.
If a theist (most of all, Christains, as I can speak from experience) investigates his own beliefs and comes to the conclusion that he was correct all along, then he either has a very lacking collection of resources or collects information for the sole porpose of proving himself right.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
You know very well what I meant.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
That only begins with the presumption that all theists are wrong. I thought a freethinker must be open to the truth
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
So you say, yet so far, you've done little more than spout every sort of nonsense I've seen before, most of it easily refuted by someone who actually knows something about the topic.
Nonsense, even you don't buy that argument. You have no problem out all admitting that Judaism is false, Islam is false, Buddhism is false... you recognize that billions of people hold to claims that you can easily see are false.
No. Stop. I asked you, in here, in this thread, how free thinking jibes with appeals to the supernatural.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
What a classic projection... you already assume your position is the truth, and in reality, you consider 'free thinking' to be any thinking that agrees with you on the 'truth'
As usual, you have it backwards... free thinking involves being open to being wrong... in other words, free thinking is defined in contradistinction to dogmatic thinking and theistic faith.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I'm open-minded in pursuit of the truth. I'm just not open-minded enough to let my brains fall out onto the floor.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
So, in other words, you are open minded to anything that does not contradict your religion.
I don't see what your point is then. I inferred from you earlier post that you're saying we act like strong atheist, but when we're cornered somehow we have to admit to being mere weak atheist. Could you show me where this is going on?
Well, wise me up. How is this relevant to who has the burden of proof?