|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
So, this forum is supposed to be for freethinkers only?
Posted on: February 5, 2007 - 4:32am
   Offline
So, this forum is supposed to be for freethinkers only?
Thus said Sapient in another thread. If so, why are there theists invading these threads?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
It is probably because it reads like a debate thread and they don't want to come out and say it is an atheist vs theist arguement. I have seen a few theist try to post their arguments in threads that aren't even close though.
From what he said, there will soon be a badge or something that says we are freethinkers, and only people with it will be able to post here - but it isn't ready yet.
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
The moderators will determine whether the content is appropriate here or not. Any, theist vs. atheist debate will be moved to the proper forum The Theist vs. Atheist forum.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Are you suggesting it is impossible for a person to be a freethinker and a theist?
Just how much freedom does a freethinker have?
That's what I'm not getting either.
It is impossible for a theist to be a rationalist in the strictest sense. Yes.
This is because theism requires faith, which is, by definition, irrational. See any one of two dozen threads regarding this topic.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Just so I'm not misunderstood, I changed the word to rationalist on purpose. It's up to the high level mods to decide if the forum ought to be "Rationalist anonymous." I think the intent here is that forum is for people who are committed to rationality as the sole means of aquiring knowledge.
So it seems to me, anyway.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Freethought is a characteristic of individuals whose opinions are formed on the basis of an understanding and rejection of tradition, authority or established belief. This definition as for example is applicable to thought based on rejection of religious dogma.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethinker
On the agenda is a restriction of account that will be placed on theists to disallow them to post in our haven of freethought as well as a few other forums.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
So would a theist technically be a freethinking, if he/she wasn't of a certian religion?
Not unless you agree with bod and buddies, and then everything is a religion and cult... therefore no theist can come here? jk.
In the same way that all the skater-punks are nonconformist -- just like all their friends...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
HAHA! You reminded me of a comic I saw last year. It was this kid with a school uniform, the kid siad "I'm tired of conforming, so I'm wearing a shirt under my uniform." then another kid says "Hey, me too!"
Did you see the Southpark where Stan and Wendy broke up and Stan became a goth kid?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
We think that debates with theists should be placed in the appropriate forums that's all. I will not get into the semantics of the meaning of freethinker..etc... I believe Sapient discussed that in detail. I don't really see why that is such a big deal and why people are getting worked up over it. That's why we have different forums. In addition, due to the large amount of visits, this helps us, the mods, to keep track of everything.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
No, I don't watch much southpark anyway
I haven't seen it in years and I saw that one.
Some might argue that freethought has it's roots in deism. I think it's since progressed a little to refer more specifically to those who reject the notion of god. However in the context here, the point is rather moot. We used "freethinkers anonymous" to refer to a haven of those who don't have a belief in a god so we can discuss the world without seeing it through the lens of religion. In the near future at the bare minimum the more ignorant or close minded theists wont be able to even view our little haven, and if a more open minded theist (deist like) believer sneaks in, it's not the end of the world.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Greetings all,
Hamby,
Everyone has belief in things minus conclusive evidence its true. Most atheists I have talked with claim they ‘believe’ God doesn’t exist. Very few are willing to make a knowledge claim God doesn’t exist. So in short they have a faith God doesn’t exist since they act like its true minus conclusive evidence it is true.
Sapient,
Are you suggesting folks should reject established belief without examining if it should be rejected? They should reject just on the basis it’s an established belief? That sounds like closed thinking not freethinking.
So you’ve answered my question, in your opinion a person can’t be a freethinker and a theist.
But sure tell me where I can get my badge with a star on it and I’ll wear it. Seig Heil!
Theism is not a religion, it is a philosophical position much like materialism and atheism is. And it can be derived at by an appeal to evidence even though that goes against the grain of freethinking.
Well the thread I started wasn’t about theism vs atheism it was about this very point, can a theist be a freethinker or are freethinker forbidden from thinking God exists. That would be freethinker sort of. Or maybe freethinker lite.
No, I'm suggesting you consult an outside source on definitions. I merely posted the information that came up in my definition search, it's from wikipedia. Didn't you see the link? I didn't bring forth the point for argument, I brought it to you for clarity.
You just signed up.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Oh
My
Thoth!!
Actually "freethinkers anonymous" sounds like a place where people come to the front of the room confess to being a freethinker and say it has been 120 days since I had a free thought.
I clicked on your link to the Wikipedia article it went to a blank page.
I'm going to miss coming here and giving you guys the business about being so called freethinkers.
I've never seen such group think in my life.
Amoung theists there is a huge diversity of opinion. I bet there is not a freethinker here who questions the validity of Darwinisn, yet there are plenty of theists who believe in evolution.
I bet their are extremely few freethinkers who are opposed to abortion yet many theists are pro choice.
Probably very few 'freethinkers' believe homosexuality is wrong (or are afraid to admit because then they might not be deemed 'freethinkers' yet their are Christian churches composed of homosexuals.
The fact is there is more diversity of opinion on social issues and politics among theists then there is freethinkers. About the only real freedom you have is to think like others in the group.
Drew_theist, freethinking and diversity, while overlapping, are not the same thing. A majority of freethinkers could agree on certain issues, like atheism. This doesn't change the fact that they're freethinkers.
Never been to Church, eh?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
if this is just housekeeping, why don't you just move theist-atheist debates into the correct forum? that way you don't have to speculate on the beliefs of the poster, you can just objectively move debates depending on their characteristics.
there are many atheists who make many irrational arguments on this site. will these atheists be prevented from freethinking on this forum?
Even if you define one particular belief someone holds as being irrational (such as a belief in unicorns) does that discount them from freethinking? or would only atheists who believe in unicorns be allowed to join this forum?
If not, then why not retitle this forum more precisely: atheists only. that way, people won't get confused.
Yup, we already do that.
Agreed.
Nope, because atheists are freethinkers in the definition we are using.
Yeah only atheists who believe in unicorns, not theists who believe in unicorns. The idea is that freethinkers can discuss without the glaze of theistic belief whether they believe in unicorns or not without having to deal with delusional allusions to Jesus or Allah while engaging in discourse.
Why not just rename atheist vs theists to: atheists vs delusional and ignorant people?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
why don't you do it? what's keeping you from doing it? you're the moderator.
someone's being atheist does not indicate an ability to communicate with that person. this particular belief is unfortately not on its own a rationality test. the term rational applies to evaluating arguments, not people.
there are plenty of delusional and ignorant atheists; if there is a delusional atheist or an ignorant atheist, would you place this person in the atheist category or the delusional category in that forum?
Perhaps atheist_vs_theist can be called rational_vs_irrational?
That would fit with the site's purpose and name, as well as allow it to include arguments between any two (or three, four, etc) opinions; the rational one to be determined through discussion.
Atheist v. Theist discussions would be an obvious sub-set of said arguments, and would predominate the threads.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
But there's a categorical difference between an assumption in naturalism and a theist assumption of the supernatural. Supernatural claims are necessarily irrational, (or non rational, if you prefer) as one cannot reason concerning a proposed 'entity' beyond nature.
Natural Assumptions are not non rational. Here is why:
1) Natural assumptions intend to assume only what is required to begin knowing the world.
If, for example, there is in fact a need to assume the existence of other first person ontology other than my own, this assumption only allows me to assume whatever is needed to unpack first person ontology, nothing more.
The assumptions in theism violate this precept. In fact, they are the ultimate violation of this precept.
2) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world naturally would not justify ever holding to an assumption that fails to adequately account for reality.
This is where pragmatism enters into any foundationalist approach to justifying knowledge - natural assumptions are dropped in the face of negating evidence. No naturalist would continue to hold to an assumption that simply failed to work.
Dogmatic thinking insists that one recommit and intensify belief in the face of negating evidence
3) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify making any assumption that violated what we know of the world through rational-empirical methods.
Consider Stephen Hawkings here, in his description of speculative cosmological theory:
There are cosmological models that have as much evidence going for them as astrology. They differ from astrology, however, in that they do not violate what we already know of the universe. - Universe in a Nutshell.
Supernatural claims are the ultimate violation of reason. As per Occam's razor, they multiply complexity into infinity.
4) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify any supernatural or 'transcendent' assumption. Why? Because these terms, "supernatural" and 'transcedent are defined from the outset, in such a way that they preclude the possibility of holding to them as 'properly basic beliefs' because each definition is a negative definition, devoid of any universe of discourse.
So you're attempt to defend your irrationalism through Tuo Quoque fails. (i.e. the argument that holds, "I'm wrong, but so are you, so I'm justified in being just as wrong as you"
It's a very common theist argument by the way.
And it's irrational.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Do you ever post anything other than whining complaints about the board?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
http://www.rationalresponders.com/tracker/3715
Sapient seems to make the assumption that all theists have no freely thought out their positions on a diety. Doesn't this go completely against the idea of rational thinking? Assumptions on the world and most of all on other people is the worst irrationalism.
Assumptions on the world holds true against all people. For example, assuming a God doesn't exist. How rational is that? Seriously? To just know God isn't real. It's mind boggling to be, honestly.
The hypocrisy permeates this very thread massively. As atheists, we are all for freedom of speech, flow of ideas, and especially religion(or no religion) Yet, here is Sapient stating that theists will be marked and labeled so to not post, based on nearly any merit or intelectual status? Just because you assume their beliefs in life are founded in restricted thought?
May I point out a pattern in that I see some of the less intelligent members will tail-coat on some of the better arguments within a post. This is just fine and all, but how must free thinking is going in to that one?
"Freethought is a characteristic of individuals whose opinions are formed on the basis of an understanding and rejection of tradition, authority or established belief. This definition as for example is applicable to thought based on rejection of religious dogma. "
And a Theist can't achieve these standards because....? You speak of theists as if they are all fundamentalist Christians. This is bizarre, misunderstood, irrational thought when you take into consideration the very intelligent people in this world who have thought more about the existence of an undogmatic, rational God, more so then most of you have thought about the non-existance. This is diverted back to the coat-tail effect. "Oh, that sounds like a good argument, let's beat this into everyone repeatedly" Sounds a little...Christianish?
1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.
Get it right, we are for the most part agnostic atheists. We don't claim to know much about the existence of dieties in general. We simply do NOT believe in them, as there is NO good reason to believe. We WILL shred specific deity claims at will; i.e. using the problem of evil to challenge omnicient and omnipotent beings.
Understand though, I don't believe in god in the same way I don't believe in Bigfoot. I don't assume Bigfoot does not exist, I simply do not believe in said Yeti. Show me a Bigfoot corpse, and I'll believe. How could I not?
We should not assume things without proper evidence actually exist. There is no convincing evidence for the supernatural, let alone deities. Provide proper evidence, and I'll believe. End of story.
Also understand that I think the possibility of Bigfoot existing is almost infinitely more probable than the Christian God existing. At least Bigfoot would be natural.
I'm personally not a fan of the "thesit" lables, but I fail to see how said lable affects the merit of what you write. A good argument is a good argument, regardless of the source.
Personally, I don't like the freethinker lable. It smacks of self edification to me. We all have biases, there is no getting around it, and no sense in denying it - afterall, we are all human. Some of us like to cover said bias with lables.
That said, biases don't have much to do with the merits of particular beliefs. Your belief is either tenable or not. Based upon evidence or not.
Personally, I'm NOT a freethinker, and I've never understood why being one was desireable in the context the lable is usually used in.
I'm an atheist. It's taken me YEARS to admit that to myself. Fuck me if I'll hide it from you at this point (I will hide it from my employers and what not though, and you know why I do) I don't and WON'T entertain every garbage idea or argument that comes down the pike. It simply isn't worth my time. For example, when people claim God is the Universe, I simply laugh and do something more productive.
I have reasons for being such.
I also freely admit that I DO think less of people who claim to be creationists. Such people scare the fuck out of me, in all honesty. I KNOW not all creationists can be inbeciles or mentally deficient, but truth be told, that IS how I see them - I cannot help myself. I DO see myself as mentally superior to such people (fuck I see turnips as superior to such people), and I honestly don't feel bad about that. In my experience, I AM smarter than such people, and so is the average tubor.
So, yeah, there you go.
I'm open to changing my mind, but even I admit the evidence I'd require for changing my mind is extraordinary - and I don't feel remiss or unreasonable in asking for it.
I guess a theist could be a freethinker, but I'd question why they would want to fool themselves into thinking they are one like lots of atheists do.
It's just a fucking lable, and it has no bearing on the question it relates to.
But people like to call themselves freethinkers.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.