The "Freethinking" Atheist
Offline 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. 
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
On what do you base your first sentence? I always understood free-thinking as meaning "not bound by dogma". What definition are you using?
"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
Paisley:
See Game Theory.
/End
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Psycho-physical supervenience arguments address this problem more directly than that.
**reminds Paisley that we have had this discussion elsewhere.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I explicitly stated it in the OP.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What about Game Theory?
Paisley,
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but outside of the internet, there are these things called books. In some of the better books, you will find that scientists have written down what they know, often in intricate detail. Why don't you hoof it down to the nearest university library, and do a search for "Game Theory." Read the book, and then you won't have to ask silly questions anymore.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Your intelligence shows through your words. Let's do the work you should have done. First let's look at the definition of "Freethinker" from various dictionaries:
From freedictionary.com
One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.
From Webwordonline.com
noun; The doctrine that reason is the right basis for regulating conduct
adjective; Unwilling to accept dogma or authority (especially in religion)
From Merriam-Webster's website
One who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma
From encyclopedia.com
A person who rejects accepted opinions, esp. those concerning religious belief.
So, none of these require your definition of freewill, so again, as many times before...you're an idiot, and you have proven it this time, again.
Umm hamby if paisley could do this, and actually bother with trying to expand his intelligence instead of looking like a dumbass, he would have bothered with looking up the word freethinker instead of starting a daft thread
"Freewill" philosophy has never intrigued me much. What am I missing?
I AM both free and not free, in the Yin Yang of my being, the expression of what I AM, GOD, doing my dance. I will now make a decision, while the A L L of what my life is, IS a force, I cannot control. Yeah to the AWE .... the WOW !
What are you trying to teach us, my concerned friend Paisley ???
Atheism Books.
See definitions kindly offered for your assistance in above posts.
I wonder what you are up to here as I know you have links to dictionaries since you misused them previously.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
I know what game theory is. I don't see the relationship that it has with the OP. And it is certainly not my responsibility to explain the relationship.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I can provide dictionary definitions too.
free will : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Bullshit you do.
Hamby, do you mind if I copy and paste the same pop quiz that Valiant failed to answer here, for Paisley's answering pleasure?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
That free thinking presupposes free will.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley says "Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."
Ummm OK, now what ? Surrender to something ? I just honestly don't get your point ?
I really want to understand ....
Atheism Books.
Game theory is based on "choices" that are completely predetermined. So, I am failing to see how this refutes my argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Stop the pretense. You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
*WAAAAMP!*
Sorry. You failed the test.
Looks like you don't know what Game Theory is at all.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
SLAVES TO THE "AWE" WE ALL ARE
, now what ? 
I think his point is that because Game Theory presumes freewill exist, it can't be used as a refutation of the argument that freewill does not.
Wiki: "Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others."
yet again you prove yourself to be a moron, Thank you for that. You completely have no clue what freethinker means, that it is obvious from your statement. Your argument is baseless on the term "free will." If you really want to get into this stupid argument about free will and what the hell it is, the word "Freethinker" as it has been defined has nothing to do with your dumbass definition at all. 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. You are just associating the term FREE that's it, and using it in the most incorrect term. Which maybe I haven't made the definition properly, free of the dogmatic religious views and authority in rational thinking and discussion. Does that make it easier for you, probably not, because your lack of knowledge on simple definition is astounding.
There can be many reasons why one wouldn't accept dogmatic religious views for the basis of reason and rational discussions, could be educational background, one's cultural background, the upbringing from the parents and all of these would influence if one becomes a freethinker. Which means they don't accept religious authority or dogmatic beliefs in regards to rational thinking and discussions. All of it really independent of your definition of free will.
I think both you and he need to rely on more than Wikipedia to get your facts, and need to know about foundational scientific principles behind social behavior and ethics (like game theory) before dismissing them or entering into discourse about how incorrect the viewpoint is.
I don't know why you bothered italicizing 'strategic situations'. Evolving, growing and competing in a dynamic environment certain counts as a 'strategic situation' last time I checked.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I think you need to not retort with any sort of presumption regarding the extent to where I get my facts.
Plus.. this little jewel of a sentence adds nothing of substance--so I can't really respond.
This is how I viewed the thread thus far:
P: Freewill doesn't exist.
R: Look at game theory.
P: Game theory presumes freewill exist, therefore can't be used to argue the original contention.
//
I need a response that does something along these lines:
R: (Insert either (a) No it does not because X, (b) Some other point).
//
A valid response is not: "Look at the basic principles of science and study more before you enter conversation."
If it were, I suppose I could respond: "You are arguing against freedom and justice, learn more about history before you make responses like that. I like peanut butter, can you swim?"
The italicization was within the original quote. Otherwise I would have added the parenthetical (emphasis added).. which I didn't.
I see what you are trying to do, you are attempting to warp definitions again, your favorite hobby.
In you favorite on-line dictionary it says, "freethinker: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma"
and you found free will: "free will : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)"
So you are suggesting that if a freethinker forms opinions independent of authority that means free will must be present. Unfortunately not. My decisions are made based on that which I have accumulated in my memory banks. The observed event is considered and only a certain possibility is possible based on what I know of the situation. If more information becomes available I may make a different conclusion.
Example- I learn a bloody murder has been committed and you have blood on you. I conclude you had something to do with it. The blood is tested in a lab and turns out to be the blood of chipmunks you kill for thrill. I now conclude you didn't do it but charge you with cruelty to animals instead. Does this at all involve free will or predetermination? No. When more data became available I calculated that instead of a murderer you were a sadistic animal killer.
If freethinkers reject religious dogma then this data (dogma) is not used in the decision process when calculations are processed. No dogma in the decision process equals a freethinker. Since free will requires no interference from a superior power (your universal god or whatever) you conclude then freethinking requires it. But wait, you forgot about prior causes didn't you?
What is a prior cause? A prior cause is everything that you have ever learned or observed and now store in you memory banks or brain. So do you have free will or are you going to make a decision based on the knowledge you have stored in your brain? Can you make any other conclusion but that which you know? no.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
I AM a ROBOT , but I like it .... don't you ?
When's the celebration start? , Robot "ball room" dancing anyone ? ....
Atheism Books.
You're the one quoting from Wikipedia and not scientific literature. What am I supposed to think?
...And, again, if you actually knew anything about Game Theory, you'd know that third point is incorrect. Also, you I and must've read Paisley's initial post differently:
I read that she's contending that we can't call ourselves 'freethinkers', since 'free will' lies in the domain of the metaphysical. Game Theory has everything to do with blowing such a ridiculous contention out of the water.
Game Theory does not 'presume' anything. No scientific theory does. Game Theory is a mathematical exploration of systems of behavior, and like all scientific theory, was the result of observation rather than agenda.
It is when you propose to dismiss an entire field of study in order to attack a group of individuals, which Paisley effectively did in his opening post. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because you don't understand it (arguing from ignorance).
If I didn't know anything about history, I'd argue that I wouldn't have much grounds for debating it with anyone. Your last sentance is a Strawman.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
What isn't analogous ? What are we fighting about ? Oh yeah , LIFE .... but why ?
Is fighting evolution ??? Seems so , all right, lets get it on in spirit of LIFE, kill something for gods sakes and glory ..... ???? I AM super confused ....
Atheism Books.
INDEED, It is confusing .... maybe we should meditate a little more on this life thing we are ....
Atheism Books.
Indeed.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Prove there is free will.
Prove predetermination.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
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. Not sure where I stand on materialism (lean toward property dualism myself).
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 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
Paisley,
You're a lying hypocrite. I left you enough rope to hang yourself, and you've done a great job. Since you claim to know that GT presupposes freewill (even though freewill hasn't been defined worth a damn yet...) would you like to explain the dynamics of Game Theory as they apply to mitochondrial activity during outcrossing? When you're done with that, please tell me how mitochondria make decisions.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?
The point is that a belief in free will is incompatible with atheistic materialism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Exactly.
Game theory attempts to explain the behavior of multi-agent systems employing probabilistic algorithms. That is, it presumes that intelligent agents have "free will."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Sorry, but you do not score intellectual points in debates by engaging in ad hominem attacks.
The key word in your argument is "unwillingness." The term presupposes free will. You have just refuted your own argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Agreed. Well stated.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I don't need to score any points at all, your still a moron, that's a statement of fact, your complete lack of knowledge of the word and the usage of free will so far, shows that you can't even understand what the hell it means, and how it is to be used. Second you still don't comprehend the concept of the word freethinker. I can by my education, my upbringing, my experiences lean towards freethinking. 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. Hence your complete lack of understanding as to why the term free will is bull shit and why free thinker has nothing to do with your definiton of free will. 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. Or someone that is free of the dogmatic or religious influence in regards to rational thinking. But I doubt you can comprehend this, so far you have played with words and defintions and been so wrong in their meanings.
A robot is a complex computer that processes environmental input data in a completely deterministic and mechanical fashion.
My worlview does not deny consciousness. I'm surprised to learn that your worldview does.
I'm suggesting that if the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism is true, then there are no freethinkers. Every thought or belief you now have could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freedom.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Free thinking implies the ability to freely choose beliefs. If all your beliefs are predetermined, then they are not free. It's that simple.
By the way, I'm male, not female. This is the second time that I have corrected you on this misperception. I suggest next time you get it straight.
I did not mention "game theory" in my OP. So, how did I dismiss it?
Your response to my OP was to simply say: "See...Game Theory." When I asked you "What about Game Theory?," you failed to provide any argument that refuted my OP. I'm still waiting for one.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I don't have to prove free will or determinism. If determinism is true, then it logically follows that there are no "freethinkers."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
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.
Property dualism is consistent with materialism (a.k.a. physicalism). Dual-aspect or neutral monism are not (they're actually pantheistic beliefs).
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.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, I am not the one who is claiming to be a freethinker while simultaneously denying the existence of free will. That honor goes to you and your fellow atheists. I am simply demanding a modicum of intellectual consistency and honesty. That's all.
I have already provided the definition of "free will."
Free will can best be defined as the ability of an agent to choose otherwise given the same situation or circumstance. It implies an element of indeterminism.
By the way, the onus is not upon me to explain "game theory." That's your responsibility. If you believe that game theory refutes the argument I presented in the OP of this thread, then the onus is upon you to present a compelling case for why game theory refutes it. At this point in time, no counter-argument has been forthcoming, just lame ad hominem attacks.
What I do know about "game theory" is that it is based on probability algorithms which are employed to describe the behavior of free agents. How does this refute my argument?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
If you had read the rest of my post, you may have noticed I said
What this means is the religious aspect is not processed as relevant even if I know about it as I regard the information as false. In programming it would be a path rejected as not meeting a parameter that has been defined. Your dictionary definition that you found not me said free will is the freedom to make choices that are not influenced by prior causes or by divine intervention. Everything that you have seen, experienced, or learned is a prior cause. All of this information is in your own processing unit, your brain. You will make your decision based on this information. This is not free will at all.
Summary - so you don't have to read it all:
1-Freethinking is the rejection of religious dogma or one who forms opinions independent from authority
2-Free will is the freedom of humans to make choices without divine intervention or determined by prior causes.
3-Prior causes are everything that you have learned, seen, and experienced it is your accumulated knowledge.
Definition of prior cause: prior - earlier in time or order; taking precedence
cause - a reason for an action or a condition; something that brings about an effect or a result; a person or a thing that is the occasion of an action or a state; an agent that brings something about; sufficient reason
Combined this means - things that have occurred earlier or before that bring about a result.
Conclusion - A freethinker has no free will as his decisions are made based on HIS own knowledge and database that will result in the only possible choice for him. As outside authorities (your universal mind or Yahweh, Allah etc.) are not involved in the processing and their very existence is rejected as data he meets the requirement of a freethinker.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
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.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
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
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.