Freethought BoC'ers

[Jonse]

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.

No, it doesn't prove your point at all. You completely misunderstood the term "free thinking" here. Atheism is not a box or something you're locked into. Being an agnostic atheist is taking the most logically defensible position on the matter of god. We are free thinkers because we do think for ourselves on this matter as opposed to allowing religion to tell us what to think. We're open to empirical evidence to persuade us that we are wrong and as of yet it has never been delivered.

I really don't know why you think someone who admits he doesn't know a god exists, admits he doesn't believe in said god and then decides x label properly describes his current beliefs is somehow not free thinking. You are aware you can change your label if it no longer suits you? Furthermore you are aware these labels aren't made to promote some sort of pack mentality? It's just what we call ourselves.

[TaoTapeTao]

The point is that if you define yourself as an atheist, you're immediately categorized and limited by definition, like a christian saying they're a christian. It doesn't matter how accurate the term is to your situation, you're still pigeonholing yourself to a pre-established notion/idea.

I think creating a label or name or distinct religion was one of the stupidest things human beings can do, and I don't think it makes a whole lota sense to come into the world and just immediately pick and choose what belief system you're compatible with. For fuck's sake it's the universe lol, you're free to live in it and think how you want, so everyone just just believe what they want.

That's why atheism or any religion or belief system for that matter fails to do its only task because by defining itself it forsakes the novelty of belief to begin with. Nihilism is a perfect example of this paradox. You can't believe it if you don't believe anything.

EDIT: Let me clarify, I don't believe in any religion and I believe what I want to, independent of whatever is already around, whether it coincides with my belief system or not. In a lot of ways, religions are fashion trends to me, people pick and choose which one they think suits them best. It seems irrational when the point is creating a story of the where and why of your place in the universe. Or in some cases just plain lazy..

[Jonse]

The point is that if you define yourself as an atheist, you're immediately categorized and limited by definition, like a christian saying they're a christian. It doesn't matter how accurate the term is to your situation, you're still pigeonholing yourself to a pre-established notion/idea.

Well again, it's just whatever suits my beliefs.

So is the whole point that having a label = non free thought? That's a very odd way to look at things. By that logic we shouldn't apply genres to artists either. All of this is generally just done for the sake of convenience.

[naicob]

delete

[naicob]

That is precisely why artists like BoC that separate themselves from the herd are often unclassifiable. I would call them free thinking artists because they are original in their approach. I get upset when people call them 'electronica' or 'ambient' not because they don't make electronic music, but because someone who doesn't really enjoy ambient or electronic music would never give them a shot simply based on those classifications. I can't stand most electronic music, yet I think the brilliance of BoC is unmatched regardless of genre and is completely different than 99.9% of 'electronic music'.
This is how groups kill the individual.

[TaoTapeTao]

well I agree in theory no music should not be restricted to genres, but for convenience sake yes just because it's an approximate grouping of similar styles so people can find new music/bands/artists. But there shouldn't be that sort of convenience in creating a worldview, I mean it's your perception of the world.

I'm not saying that if one says they're x that it immediately voids their freedom of thought but I do think it limits and overstates their view. Belief shouldn't be restricted to categories and I refuse to believe that every atheist or christian or w/e out there agrees on every single point of perception, and therefore it creates problems.

and naicob's point exactly- a genre shouldn't define an artist like a religious title shouldn't define a belief system. I just think it's ridiculous period.

It just boils down to the fallacies and silliness of language and attempting to articulate a belief system through labels sorely distorts and twists the truth.

[naicob]

We are free thinkers because we do think for ourselves on this matter as opposed to allowing religion to tell us what to think. We're open to empirical evidence to persuade us that we are wrong and as of yet it has never been delivered.

You can't possibly be serious... How many of you are there? Are you the fucking Borg?

So in the free thinking Universe, it's 'religion' or atheism? Black or White?

I think 'free thinkers' need to get a new name asap. Maybe 'free of thinking' would be more appropriate.

[jcnporter]

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'.

Let's be clear that the concept of 'god' is a human invention. The cows in a field know nothing of 'god'. Moreover 'god' is not a 'force' or 'whatever came before the big bang'. It is a quite specific concept in most religions of a creator figure with human-like characteristics.
So if one wishes to think freely, it is necessary to ignore such concepts and start with a 'blank page', for example with the question of 'how did the world come about?'
So in such a scenario it is wrong to say 'I do not know whether god exists' because straight away you are raising the concept of god above other possible concepts.
I think it is more correct to say 'I will ignore all invented beliefs and will start from scratch'.
I would say that atheism most closely fits this way of thinking (although clearly not ideal) if one simply interprets its meaning as 'a lack of belief' without assigning any certainty (which I don't believe anyone in this thread is). To me it describes someone still searching, still considering.
We might not want to get tied up in labels, but sometimes they are useful. I don't really want to have an argument from first principles every time I wish to call a chair a chair.

[fujee]

[TaoTapeTao]

"To call a chair a chair" is a terrible analogy for the issue of labels and religion so it's very inconsistent and unrealistic to relate to that analogy.

Also, you can most certainly be a free thinker and still acknowledge preconceived notions of God or whatever. Free thought is considering the possibilities as you said, so you contradict yourself if you suggest that working with those ideas is not free thought. Free thought means thinking for yourself

But the bigger issue is athiesm is EXACTLY that- taking the notion of god and then inverting it. So by your explanation- atheism is NOT free thought because it is built from the pre-determined ideas of god and theology. So there can be no free thought with atheism according to your post.

Atheism doesn't start from scratch, it starts from supposed belief systems.

Atheists or any theists can certainly be free-thinking but it's the "I'm x or x" that subverts free thought to begin with. It's a title, and titles imply predetermined and defined notions on what is what.

EDIT: And also, I don't believe in God for one second, but you can't for one second state as verbatim what is and what is not. That is fact. Period. You don't know if God does exist, and you don't know what cows think about. This might seem like an arbitrary detail, but I hate the idea of affirming things that can only be supposed. But I still do agree, I think God is a man-made idea. But even that comes from something real- experiencing reality. So you can't just denounce it and shrug it off like it has no significance. Otherwise you aren't really free in thought- you're closed off from contingencies and angles.

[naicob]

Let's be clear that the concept of 'god' is a human invention. The cows in a field know nothing of 'god'. Moreover 'god' is not a 'force' or 'whatever came before the big bang'. It is a quite specific concept in most religions of a creator figure with human-like characteristics.

Every human concept is a human invention. People personalize God, or the concept of God, because people personalize everything. It is hard to imagine God because our imaginations are limited.

What is mathematics without the human mind?

So if one wishes to think freely, it is necessary to ignore such concepts and start with a 'blank page', for example with the question of 'how did the world come about?'

You seem to think everyone who is religious is imagining God with human characteristics. I find that religious people are more than capable of imagining God as something beyond the scope of their understanding and beyond the scope of humanity. You will never start with a blank page because your experience as an always experiencing human is what makes something like that impossible. Just because you were once one way or another, doesn't mean the recorder was ever shut off. In fact it's been recording since before you can remember and before you were born.

So in such a scenario it is wrong to say 'I do not know whether god exists' because straight away you are raising the concept of god above other possible concepts.

So, what are these other concepts that aren't human inventions?

I think it is more correct to say 'I will ignore all invented beliefs and will start from scratch'.
I would say that atheism most closely fits this way of thinking (although clearly not ideal) if one simply interprets its meaning as 'a lack of belief' without assigning any certainty (which I don't believe anyone in this thread is). To me it describes someone still searching, still considering.
We might not want to get tied up in labels, but sometimes they are useful. I don't really want to have an argument from first principles every time I wish to call a chair a chair.

An atheist dismisses the possibility of divine intervention or a creator. Why? Because things he has experienced as a human being makes him think this is the case, not because he is starting from scratch. If you're 'still' searching, you're hardly doing anything new, and by the very act of experiencing reality, you're inventing or interpreting something because it is the way you do things as a human.

[Jonse]

We are free thinkers because we do think for ourselves on this matter as opposed to allowing religion to tell us what to think. We're open to empirical evidence to persuade us that we are wrong and as of yet it has never been delivered.

You can't possibly be serious... How many of you are there? Are you the fucking Borg?

So in the free thinking Universe, it's 'religion' or atheism? Black or White?

I think 'free thinkers' need to get a new name asap. Maybe 'free of thinking' would be more appropriate.

No, it's not just religion or atheism. There are atheistic religions even. You could also be a theist who isn't part of any religion, like a deist.

I don't know what your deal is. Apparently you've some sort of prejudice against atheists because it seems that it's of the highest importance to you to suggest that we are stupid. "Free of thought"? Is that really necessary?

A very large chunk of people who are atheists came to be atheists by challenging and questioning the beliefs they were brought up with. I would not call this being "free of thought".

[mechanismj]

The point is that if you define yourself as an atheist, you're immediately categorized and limited by definition, like a christian saying they're a christian. It doesn't matter how accurate the term is to your situation, you're still pigeonholing yourself to a pre-established notion/idea.

Well again, it's just whatever suits my beliefs.

So is the whole point that having a label = non free thought? That's a very odd way to look at things. By that logic we shouldn't apply genres to artists either. All of this is generally just done for the sake of convenience.

Exactly! Now you're on the right track! If it suits your beliefs, that is totally fine. No judgement here. However, there are some that consider labels to be a restriction of thought, creativity, music, what have you, and I could see why people who rely on the convenience of labels would consider this viewpoint strange or weird.

I agree with naicob's point on BoC. They are a free floating entity when it comes to music. Assigning them a label constricts much of the information they are releasing into the universe. I believe they called it, at least when referring to the internet, 'homogenizing the user base'.

Now let's call a chair an ashtray and be done with it!

[Jonse]

But the bigger issue is athiesm is EXACTLY that- taking the notion of god and then inverting it. So by your explanation- atheism is NOT free thought because it is built from the pre-determined ideas of god and theology.

For the last time, NO it is NOT. Atheism is built on no ideology other than not believing in what you do not know to be certain. It isn't an inversion of god inherently. It isn't anything of god.

I really do not understand why the lack of a belief in a god somehow equates to a lack of free thought. That's absolutely preposterous. Do you know whether or not a god exists? If you're being honest, the answer is no. Agnostic atheism is the only logical position I see from that point.

[Jonse]

The point is that if you define yourself as an atheist, you're immediately categorized and limited by definition, like a christian saying they're a christian. It doesn't matter how accurate the term is to your situation, you're still pigeonholing yourself to a pre-established notion/idea.

Well again, it's just whatever suits my beliefs.

So is the whole point that having a label = non free thought? That's a very odd way to look at things. By that logic we shouldn't apply genres to artists either. All of this is generally just done for the sake of convenience.

Exactly! Now you're on the right track! If it suits your beliefs, that is totally fine. No judgement here. However, there are some that consider labels to be a restriction of thought, creativity, music, what have you, and I could see why people who rely on the convenience of labels would consider this viewpoint strange or weird.

I agree with naicob's point on BoC. They are a free floating entity when it comes to music. Assigning them a label constricts much of the information they are releasing into the universe. I believe they called it, at least when referring to the internet, 'homogenizing the user base'.

I want to know what your point was when you came in here with claims of irony. Did we all come off as people who wanted to use labels to restrict our thoughts?

[mechanismj]

Well again, it's just whatever suits my beliefs.

So is the whole point that having a label = non free thought? That's a very odd way to look at things. By that logic we shouldn't apply genres to artists either. All of this is generally just done for the sake of convenience.

Exactly! Now you're on the right track! If it suits your beliefs, that is totally fine. No judgement here. However, there are some that consider labels to be a restriction of thought, creativity, music, what have you, and I could see why people who rely on the convenience of labels would consider this viewpoint strange or weird.

I agree with naicob's point on BoC. They are a free floating entity when it comes to music. Assigning them a label constricts much of the information they are releasing into the universe. I believe they called it, at least when referring to the internet, 'homogenizing the user base'.

I want to know what your point was when you came in here with claims of irony. Did we all come off as people who wanted to use labels to restrict our thoughts?

That pretty well covers it, yeah. I may have rushed to the conclusion that nobody was thinking outside the labels they were defining themselves by. I can see from how this thread is turning out that that may have been a false accusation on my part. Now that things are shaken up, I see a lot of free thinking going on.

[naicob]

We are free thinkers because we do think for ourselves on this matter as opposed to allowing religion to tell us what to think. We're open to empirical evidence to persuade us that we are wrong and as of yet it has never been delivered.

You can't possibly be serious... How many of you are there? Are you the fucking Borg?

So in the free thinking Universe, it's 'religion' or atheism? Black or White?

I think 'free thinkers' need to get a new name asap. Maybe 'free of thinking' would be more appropriate.

No, it's not just religion or atheism. There are atheistic religions even. You could also be a theist who isn't part of any religion, like a deist.

I don't know what your deal is. Apparently you've some sort of prejudice against atheists because it seems that it's of the highest importance to you to suggest that we are stupid. "Free of thought"? Is that really necessary?

A very large chunk of people who are atheists came to be atheists by challenging and questioning the beliefs they were brought up with. I would not call this being "free of thought".

Excuse me if I think 'free thinkers' have their collective heads up a gigantic ass. Anyone seriously calling themselves a free thinker needs to get their head examined and cleaned. That's my opinion.

I have nothing against atheism or atheists, theists, the comatose, or the insane. I do have a problem with arrogance, which I find to be the lowest form of closed mindedness. Claiming to be a 'free thinker' stinks of extreme arrogance.

A very large chunk of people, regardless of affiliation or behaviourism, challenge themselves, their environment, beliefs, institutions, etc. Just because many people don't sit around trying to prove or disprove things, or understand something as grand as the Universe with something as puny as their minds, doesn't make them any less prone to free thought. I could be freely thinking about a doughnut for the rest of eternity, or is 'free thought' limited to those that 'get it' and reserved for 'the big questions'?

[Jonse]

You can't possibly be serious... How many of you are there? Are you the fucking Borg?

So in the free thinking Universe, it's 'religion' or atheism? Black or White?

I think 'free thinkers' need to get a new name asap. Maybe 'free of thinking' would be more appropriate.

No, it's not just religion or atheism. There are atheistic religions even. You could also be a theist who isn't part of any religion, like a deist.

I don't know what your deal is. Apparently you've some sort of prejudice against atheists because it seems that it's of the highest importance to you to suggest that we are stupid. "Free of thought"? Is that really necessary?

A very large chunk of people who are atheists came to be atheists by challenging and questioning the beliefs they were brought up with. I would not call this being "free of thought".

Excuse me if I think 'free thinkers' have their collective heads up a gigantic ass. Anyone seriously calling themselves a free thinker needs to get their head examined and cleaned. That's my opinion.

I have nothing against atheism or atheists, theists, the comatose, or the insane. I do have a problem with arrogance, which I find to be the lowest form of closed mindedness. Claiming to be a 'free thinker' stinks of extreme arrogance.

A very large chunk of people, regardless of affiliation or behaviourism, challenge themselves, their environment, beliefs, institutions, etc. Just because many people don't sit around trying to prove or disprove things, or understand something as grand as the Universe with something as puny as their minds, doesn't make them any less prone to free thought. I could be freely thinking about a doughnut for the rest of eternity, or is 'free thought' limited to those that 'get it' and reserved for 'the big questions'?

Do you not understand why the term "freethought" was used to begin with? Nobody here is claiming they are moreso a "free thinker" than anyone else who is keen on logic. It's an umbrella term of which several stances on the existence of god fall under. I didn't want the thread to just be "atheist boccers" because I know we have nonreligious believers here.

I presumed most everyone would have understood this but I guess not. Perhaps you did understand it but you just have such an issue with the idea of free thought in correlation to atheism that you feel the need to derail this thread into ranting about the words we use to describe things as opposed to the things themselves. This is like when people get angry about the term "IDM".

[TaoTapeTao]

But the bigger issue is athiesm is EXACTLY that- taking the notion of god and then inverting it. So by your explanation- atheism is NOT free thought because it is built from the pre-determined ideas of god and theology.

For the last time, NO it is NOT. Atheism is built on no ideology other than not believing in what you do not know to be certain. It isn't an inversion of god inherently. It isn't anything of god.

I really do not understand why the lack of a belief in a god somehow equates to a lack of free thought. That's absolutely preposterous. Do you know whether or not a god exists? If you're being honest, the answer is no. Agnostic atheism is the only logical position I see from that point.

I wasn't saying atheism=not free thought, I was saying in reference to the poster's logic, you could only conclude that.

Listen. What does the word Atheism mean? It means not theistic. What is theistic? Relatively- Belief in some form of a god. Therefore, atheism is the inversion of that. That's how it came to be. So atheism is built on the notion of god. Your interpretation of Atheism may be disbelief in uncertainties, but by definition it is the inversion of theism. This argument concludes my point in the futility of definition as it overgeneralizes and causes miscommunication, which seems to be the case with the verbatim concept of atheism.

[Jonse]

But the bigger issue is athiesm is EXACTLY that- taking the notion of god and then inverting it. So by your explanation- atheism is NOT free thought because it is built from the pre-determined ideas of god and theology.

For the last time, NO it is NOT. Atheism is built on no ideology other than not believing in what you do not know to be certain. It isn't an inversion of god inherently. It isn't anything of god.

I really do not understand why the lack of a belief in a god somehow equates to a lack of free thought. That's absolutely preposterous. Do you know whether or not a god exists? If you're being honest, the answer is no. Agnostic atheism is the only logical position I see from that point.

I wasn't saying atheism=not free thought, I was saying in reference to the poster's logic, you could only conclude that.

Listen. What does the word Atheism mean? It means not theistic. What is theistic? Relatively- Belief in some form of a god. Therefore, atheism is the inversion of that. That's how it came to be. So atheism is built on the notion of god. Your interpretation of Atheism may be disbelief in uncertainties, but by definition it is the inversion of theism. This argument concludes my point in the futility of definition as it overgeneralizes and causes miscommunication, which seems to be the case with the verbatim concept of atheism.

I would say the inversion is moreso gnostic atheism. In general it's more of an opt-out sort of thing than it is an inversion. The term itself, meaning "without theism" is certainly a negation of theism, that's the whole point, but I don't think it takes the concept and flips it upside down.