Freethought BoC'ers

[Jonse]

Ok, does anyone else see the irony in calling yourselves free thinkers and then labeling yourselves with the same labels over and over?

I'm not saying you're not free thinkers, but seriously people...

It's ironic and quite frankly, immature. Possibillianism, Agnosticism, Absurdism? Sure. But once you go to one extreme or the other you're doing the same thing. Both require strong belief (disbelief if you want to call it that) and even stronger opinions-- and there's not much room for free thinking when you're firmly entrenched in 'your own' opinion.

Yeah, seriously...'free thinkers'

Atheism doesn't require a belief at all. It's a lack of a belief.

As for the "extremes", very few atheists are gnostic/positive atheists.

Again I'll bring up the part where nobody assigns themselves these opinions and labels before coming up with them on their own, but it seems that was ignored the first time I said it.

[jcnporter]

Again I'll bring up the part where nobody assigns themselves these opinions and labels before coming up with them on their own, but it seems that was ignored the first time I said it.

[TaoTapeTao]

I considered myself as a Christian/theist, however I seem to anger allot of Christians I talk to about the subject...silly little things. Now I don't really know anymore.

These are my personal beliefs, maybe you can help me put a label on it.

God is love, I love God, God loves his creation.
God is the universe, manifesting itself subjectively, just as my music is me manifesting myself through sound. Getting closer to God means getting closer to earth.
God set up the universe in an excellent "prime" state. Call it the big bang, whatever I don't care.
The universe is decaying. Third law of thermodynamics states everything becomes lesser forms of energy over time. I believe in physical degeneration rather then evolution.
I believe there is a distinct difference between humans and animals. We would have seen groups of species evolving in a similar way. Making art/cook food/inventing. We would have seen vastly different species then us collecting fire-wood by now.
As apposed to animals, we are the most free species on this planet. God wants us to do what we want. Its quite a responsibility, and the reason why we have most of the shit things in the world.
I believe we as a species have the possibility to be Gods, however, praying to humans is frowned upon by initial creator. The only thing removing us from being a God is mortality. Singularity could be an answer. Theres also a good chance we'll change in an evil force.
God is dead for anyone who doesn't believe in him. I think thats what the phrase "He died for your sins" means. You don't have to believe if you don't want.
Not a single religion is the right one -or- all of them are.
Religion in itself is an evil thing. This is due to the rotten nature of humanity and our thirst for becoming Gods, rather then the rotten nature of initial creator.
I speculate the afterlife is inside the mind,a dream-loop produced by the last few seconds of brain activity. Lets just hope you'll get a nice dream (better figure out what those nightmares mean!).

Theres more but maybe you can figure it out. What am I?

You suppose a lot of things here... I don't think we're inherently evil I think good and evil are an inseperable dichotomy. Also animals do evolve in similar ways, we are just way beyond that point. People speculate that its because we learned to cook food so our brains could get larger and because we developed symbolic understanding. I also agree with your god as the universe type thing, but I don't think it's a singular sentient being thinking like humans do and I don't like to even say its god or a diety or even a separate entity- it's just "isness".

[mechanismj]

Ok, does anyone else see the irony in calling yourselves free thinkers and then labeling yourselves with the same labels over and over?

I'm not saying you're not free thinkers, but seriously people...

It's ironic and quite frankly, immature. Possibillianism, Agnosticism, Absurdism? Sure. But once you go to one extreme or the other you're doing the same thing. Both require strong belief (disbelief if you want to call it that) and even stronger opinions-- and there's not much room for free thinking when you're firmly entrenched in 'your own' opinion.

Yeah, seriously...'free thinkers'

Atheism doesn't require a belief at all. It's a lack of a belief.

As for the "extremes", very few atheists are gnostic/positive atheists.

Again I'll bring up the part where nobody assigns themselves these opinions and labels before coming up with them on their own, but it seems that was ignored the first time I said it.

I think the point here is that labels are like boxes. They can only hold so much. You can't really say you're free when you're inside a box. Atheism is just as much of a box as theism.

[Techboy]

well not really. when you say you are religious you are saying how you have a certain set of rules, in that case you are saying you have a sandbox in which you are allowed to think and behave. when you're saying you're atheist, it's quite the opposite - you don't believe in a higher power which dictates these things, and so you are outside of any box living your life your own way. i don't see how that puts you in a box in any way. i guess i know what you're saying about labels but rodheh is definitely right here, you label yourself -after- thinking. it's not like i'm ever thinking stuff and having to go "oop, better silence that... an atheist wouldnt say that!"

[mechanismj]

There's always a box.



I've come across just as many atheists who add nothing new to the conversation as I have theists.

That said, I'm not arguing in favor of one or the other.

[naicob]

well not really. when you say you are religious you are saying how you have a certain set of rules, in that case you are saying you have a sandbox in which you are allowed to think and behave. when you're saying you're atheist, it's quite the opposite - you don't believe in a higher power which dictates these things, and so you are outside of any box living your life your own way. i don't see how that puts you in a box in any way. i guess i know what you're saying about labels but rodheh is definitely right here, you label yourself -after- thinking. it's not like i'm ever thinking stuff and having to go "oop, better silence that... an atheist wouldnt say that!"

You're toeing the same line most other atheists do and in much the same way as most other atheists, you completely miss the point of what he's referring to. You said atheism is a 'total lack of belief'-- and that's irrelevant. It is a very strong opinion which absolutely dismisses the idea that a creator could have created this Universe and/or your life (to use as an example). It's not about acknowledging that there is one, it's about leaving the mind open to the possibility, and is rather dependent of 'free thinking' unless you know something that nobody else seems to know. If that's the case, then I withdraw everything I presumed, but if it isn't, then you have no choice but to admit that a total lack of belief is at the very least a very strong belief in your opinion, and doesn't differ much at all from someone totally convinced in their opinion that God exists. Both demand a strong belief, even if the belief is in not believing anything at all. You might not believe in God, but you sure as hell are convinced by an equally impossible to know opinion that one doesn't exist, hence, leaving you less open to any other possibilities, which is hardly indicative of a 'free [as in not bound (to ones own opinion)] mind'. Call me crazy, but that same thought process creates God, does it not?

There are limitations to what we know, if we even know anything at all. To claim to know pretty damn near anything with absolute confidence isn't open, humble, or free-- let alone the very nature of existence.

To acknowledge that you are an 'atheist' you join a group and in the process sacrifice your individuality and freedom. Your 'own' opinion is a culmination of your experiences and a truthful expression of your disbeliefs should be "I don't have a clue, but maybe an inclination" because my 'experience' is very limited.

You can call it 'free thinking', I call it immature delusion, and maybe we'll both be right. Besides, I guess I'd rather be told by someone other than myself that I'm a 'free thinker'.

[mechanismj]

well not really. when you say you are religious you are saying how you have a certain set of rules, in that case you are saying you have a sandbox in which you are allowed to think and behave. when you're saying you're atheist, it's quite the opposite - you don't believe in a higher power which dictates these things, and so you are outside of any box living your life your own way. i don't see how that puts you in a box in any way. i guess i know what you're saying about labels but rodheh is definitely right here, you label yourself -after- thinking. it's not like i'm ever thinking stuff and having to go "oop, better silence that... an atheist wouldnt say that!"

You're toeing the same line most other atheists do and in much the same way as most other atheists, you completely miss the point of what he's referring to. You said atheism is a 'total lack of belief'-- and that's irrelevant. It is a very strong opinion which absolutely dismisses the idea that a creator could have created this Universe and/or your life (to use as an example). It's not about acknowledging that there is one, it's about leaving the mind open to the possibility, and is rather dependent of 'free thinking' unless you know something that nobody else seems to know. If that's the case, then I withdraw everything I presumed, but if it isn't, then you have no choice but to admit that a total lack of belief is at the very least a very strong belief in your opinion, and doesn't differ much at all from someone totally convinced in their opinion that God exists. Both demand a strong belief, even if the belief is in not believing anything at all. You might not believe in God, but you sure as hell are convinced by an equally impossible to know opinion that one doesn't exist, hence, leaving you less open to any other possibilities, which is hardly indicative of a 'free [as in not bound (to ones own opinion)] mind'. Call me crazy, but that same thought process creates God, does it not?

There are limitations to what we know, if we even know anything at all. To claim to know pretty damn near anything with absolute confidence isn't open, humble, or free-- let alone the very nature of existence.

To acknowledge that you are an 'atheist' you join a group and in the process sacrifice your individuality and freedom. Your 'own' opinion is a culmination of your experiences and a truthful expression of your disbeliefs should be "I don't have a clue, but maybe an inclination" because my 'experience' is very limited.

You can call it 'free thinking', I call it immature delusion, and maybe we'll both be right. Besides, I guess I'd rather be told by someone other than myself that I'm a 'free thinker'.

What naicob said.

The whole left/right good/evil atheist/theist democrat/republican coke/pepsi dichotomy is all well and good for some, but it's ANYTHING BUT free thinking.

[Basefree]

You are effectively offering a narrower definition of atheism. If many people stretch it, then it must be considered a broader term by today's standards, right? Was it ever stone-written anywhere anyway?

[mechanismj]

You are effectively offering a narrower definition of atheism. If many people stretch it, then it must be considered a broader term by today's standards, right? Was it ever stone-written anywhere anyway?

I very well could be. Perhaps you could enlighten me a little.

[Basefree]

You are effectively offering a narrower definition of atheism. If many people stretch it, then it must be considered a broader term by today's standards, right? Was it ever stone-written anywhere anyway?

I very well could be. Perhaps you could enlighten me a little.

Just my perception of the state of things, but I think lack of belief is synonymous with atheism for many people. Do you know of a better word? I dare you say 'clueless'.

If you imply lack of belief is impossible under any circumstances, I find it theoretically problematic.

[Jonse]

It's ironic and quite frankly, immature. Possibillianism, Agnosticism, Absurdism? Sure. But once you go to one extreme or the other you're doing the same thing. Both require strong belief (disbelief if you want to call it that) and even stronger opinions-- and there's not much room for free thinking when you're firmly entrenched in 'your own' opinion.

Yeah, seriously...'free thinkers'

Atheism doesn't require a belief at all. It's a lack of a belief.

As for the "extremes", very few atheists are gnostic/positive atheists.

Again I'll bring up the part where nobody assigns themselves these opinions and labels before coming up with them on their own, but it seems that was ignored the first time I said it.

I think the point here is that labels are like boxes. They can only hold so much. You can't really say you're free when you're inside a box. Atheism is just as much of a box as theism.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What box is there here? The only boxes are "yes, I believe there's a god of some sort" or "there is no god of any sort". All I'm doing is acting upon reason and saying that because there's no evidence to support the existence of a god and because I don't know personally if there is one, I'm not going to believe in one. It's not like I'm on "team atheist" or something. If empirical evidence comes along contradictory to my beliefs I will be forced to accept it as truth. Until then, I feel this terminology properly describes my beliefs. I don't see the "box" at all, or how using these terms is immature or somehow prevents us from thinking freely.

[Jonse]

well not really. when you say you are religious you are saying how you have a certain set of rules, in that case you are saying you have a sandbox in which you are allowed to think and behave. when you're saying you're atheist, it's quite the opposite - you don't believe in a higher power which dictates these things, and so you are outside of any box living your life your own way. i don't see how that puts you in a box in any way. i guess i know what you're saying about labels but rodheh is definitely right here, you label yourself -after- thinking. it's not like i'm ever thinking stuff and having to go "oop, better silence that... an atheist wouldnt say that!"

You're toeing the same line most other atheists do and in much the same way as most other atheists, you completely miss the point of what he's referring to. You said atheism is a 'total lack of belief'-- and that's irrelevant. It is a very strong opinion which absolutely dismisses the idea that a creator could have created this Universe and/or your life (to use as an example).

NO, it doesn't. It's not an opinion or belief at all unless one chooses to make it one. Please go research what agnostic atheism and gnostic/positive atheism are. I was an agnostic atheist before I even knew what it meant. It's the most defensible position and that's why people stick by it.

We're not sacrificing individuality or freedom joining a group. That's absolute horseshit. This isn't a political issue, it's the matter of god. Does god exist? I don't know. Is there evidence? Nope. Therefore, I choose not to believe in god, but I am not saying he does not exist, nobody can know that for sure. Immature delusion? Sure. Definitely immature delusion to hold the position that doesn't assume anything and then call yourself what everyone else calls that same position of belief.

Or maybe you need to stop acting like you have some immense wealth of wisdom you're going to share with us on the subject, especially since you don't seem to understand atheism.

[mechanismj]

Exactly.

[mechanismj]

Atheism doesn't require a belief at all. It's a lack of a belief.

As for the "extremes", very few atheists are gnostic/positive atheists.

Again I'll bring up the part where nobody assigns themselves these opinions and labels before coming up with them on their own, but it seems that was ignored the first time I said it.

I think the point here is that labels are like boxes. They can only hold so much. You can't really say you're free when you're inside a box. Atheism is just as much of a box as theism.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What box is there here? The only boxes are "yes, I believe there's a god of some sort" or "there is no god of any sort". All I'm doing is acting upon reason and saying that because there's no evidence to support the existence of a god and because I don't know personally if there is one, I'm not going to believe in one. It's not like I'm on "team atheist" or something. If empirical evidence comes along contradictory to my beliefs I will be forced to accept it as truth. Until then, I feel this terminology properly describes my beliefs. I don't see the "box" at all, or how using these terms is immature or somehow prevents us from thinking freely.

Exactly.

[Jonse]

I think the point here is that labels are like boxes. They can only hold so much. You can't really say you're free when you're inside a box. Atheism is just as much of a box as theism.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What box is there here? The only boxes are "yes, I believe there's a god of some sort" or "there is no god of any sort". All I'm doing is acting upon reason and saying that because there's no evidence to support the existence of a god and because I don't know personally if there is one, I'm not going to believe in one. It's not like I'm on "team atheist" or something. If empirical evidence comes along contradictory to my beliefs I will be forced to accept it as truth. Until then, I feel this terminology properly describes my beliefs. I don't see the "box" at all, or how using these terms is immature or somehow prevents us from thinking freely.

Exactly.

So then why'd you make your original comment in the first place?

Atheism is not a box unless you make it a box.

[naicob]

well not really. when you say you are religious you are saying how you have a certain set of rules, in that case you are saying you have a sandbox in which you are allowed to think and behave. when you're saying you're atheist, it's quite the opposite - you don't believe in a higher power which dictates these things, and so you are outside of any box living your life your own way. i don't see how that puts you in a box in any way. i guess i know what you're saying about labels but rodheh is definitely right here, you label yourself -after- thinking. it's not like i'm ever thinking stuff and having to go "oop, better silence that... an atheist wouldnt say that!"

You're toeing the same line most other atheists do and in much the same way as most other atheists, you completely miss the point of what he's referring to. You said atheism is a 'total lack of belief'-- and that's irrelevant. It is a very strong opinion which absolutely dismisses the idea that a creator could have created this Universe and/or your life (to use as an example).

NO, it doesn't. It's not an opinion or belief at all unless one chooses to make it one. Please go research what agnostic atheism and gnostic/positive atheism are. I was an agnostic atheist before I even knew what it meant. It's the most defensible position and that's why people stick by it.

We're not sacrificing individuality or freedom joining a group. That's absolute horseshit.
This isn't a political issue, it's the matter of god. Does god exist? I don't know. Is there evidence? Nope. Therefore, I choose not to believe in god, but I am not saying he does not exist, nobody can know that for sure. Immature delusion? Sure. Definitely immature delusion to hold the position that doesn't assume anything and then call yourself what everyone else calls that same position of belief.

Or maybe you need to stop acting like you have some immense wealth of wisdom you're going to share with us on the subject, especially since you don't seem to understand atheism.

Why not just Agnostic? Why Atheist-Agnostic? It's a nonsensical marriage of concepts. So, you somehow know there is no evidence of God, and at the same time you don't really know if he exists or not?

How can you rationally make the claim with absolute confidence that the evidence for God existing does not exist? What if evidence does exist, and even to the point of being everywhere around you, but you're simply not aware of it, or are incapable of understanding it? An ant might not be aware of your existence as a human being, but it doesn't mean that you don't actually exist. The same would apply to all ants, and any or all congregations of ants, because there is only so much an ant is capable of.

We are very limited in what we can conceptualize with human minds, human logic, and human experience. The more you claim to know, the less you allow for thinking freely because you do away with the possibility of other possibilities, known or unknown. By allowing for possibilities, you allow for research, for progression, and for thinking freely. By claiming to know that there is no evidence for God, your are simply making obvious your very own limitations, but that is very far from actual knowledge, because you couldn't possibly know this and by claiming that you do, are hopelessly bound by a box of your own creation.

Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, it's understanding that one cannot possibly know if evidence for God does or does not exist because that information or lack-there-of, is unknowable. That's the point.

[mechanismj]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What box is there here? The only boxes are "yes, I believe there's a god of some sort" or "there is no god of any sort". All I'm doing is acting upon reason and saying that because there's no evidence to support the existence of a god and because I don't know personally if there is one, I'm not going to believe in one. It's not like I'm on "team atheist" or something. If empirical evidence comes along contradictory to my beliefs I will be forced to accept it as truth. Until then, I feel this terminology properly describes my beliefs. I don't see the "box" at all, or how using these terms is immature or somehow prevents us from thinking freely.

Exactly.

So then why'd you make your original comment in the first place?

Atheism is not a box unless you make it a box.

Oh, I still stand by my statement. What you said just proved my point, man. You said that if evidence one day comes along that proves there is a God, you would be FORCED to change your tune. Not exactly free thinking, is it? That's why you can't see the box.

[Negamuse]

You said that if evidence one day comes along that proves there is a God, you would be FORCED to change your tune. Not exactly free thinking, is it? That's why you can't see the box.

Semantic dickwaving. If something's scientifically proven, then it's rational to adapt your thinking to deal with it.

[Jonse]

You're toeing the same line most other atheists do and in much the same way as most other atheists, you completely miss the point of what he's referring to. You said atheism is a 'total lack of belief'-- and that's irrelevant. It is a very strong opinion which absolutely dismisses the idea that a creator could have created this Universe and/or your life (to use as an example).

NO, it doesn't. It's not an opinion or belief at all unless one chooses to make it one. Please go research what agnostic atheism and gnostic/positive atheism are. I was an agnostic atheist before I even knew what it meant. It's the most defensible position and that's why people stick by it.

We're not sacrificing individuality or freedom joining a group. That's absolute horseshit.
This isn't a political issue, it's the matter of god. Does god exist? I don't know. Is there evidence? Nope. Therefore, I choose not to believe in god, but I am not saying he does not exist, nobody can know that for sure. Immature delusion? Sure. Definitely immature delusion to hold the position that doesn't assume anything and then call yourself what everyone else calls that same position of belief.

Or maybe you need to stop acting like you have some immense wealth of wisdom you're going to share with us on the subject, especially since you don't seem to understand atheism.

Why not just Agnostic?

Because agnostic pertains to a position of knowledge. Atheism pertains to a position of belief (by not being one).

The term Agnostic Atheist I fee best describes me.