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
Most atheists I know, don't believe in free will at all, but that our decisions are influenced by our environment, education, and experiences. As it is obvious by simply observing the world around you and the society that you live in, however I doubt you comprehend this.
My bullshit detector is beeping constantly reading Paisley's posts. Verbal gymnastics are sophistry and piss me off. How would having free will imply a soul? That's a complete non-sequitor.
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
____________________________________________________________
"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.
You win debates by making valid points. Thus far, you haven't made any. This is the reason why you continue to fling ad hominem attacks.
What you call "free thinking" is nothing more than a "robot with consciousness" processing data in a completely deterministic and mechanical fashion. Your worldview precludes the possibility of true novelty and creativity.
Here's the flaw in your logic. With no "free will," there is no "I." You're not a participant in your life, just a spectator. This is problematic for the atheist because he actually believes that he is the "master" of his own fate. You're not! Sorry to disappoint, but you're not in control and you never were.
You err. Free will does not mean that you do not have any influences or constraints. It simply means that you have the ability to choose among alternatives and that this choice is not completely predetermined by external influences. That is, there's an element of unpredictability at play.
To accept or not to accept implies free will. If your choice to accept was completely predetermined by physical causality, then your freedom to choose otherwise was merely an illusion. What this means is that your freethinking is also an illusion. You're not free. Quite the opposite. You're a slave to the blind, unsympathetic forces of nature playing themselves out.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
So you're a presuppositionalist/TAG subscriber?
If I call you an SOB, do you really believe that I called you a puppy?
Using names of divinities in curses is more of a colloquialism than anything else. Using "God" in conversation means as much to me as it does to the average Christian who uses it in prayer - not a thing.
"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
It appears to me, Canuck's point is that "free thought" is a relative term applied to finite systems, a thought "free" of the influence of a certain system (in this case religion) is a free thought and the person holding it is a "free" thinker relative to religion. Free will is presupposed in there, though, it is supposed that the thinker has an agency wholly independent of a part of the universal environment, it is assumed the thinker is local to a finite system. In order to assume that thoughts which do not influence the thinker actually exist this assumption must be made.
The main counter-point put forward, Game Theory, does not need to suppose free will, it attempts to explain that what a appears as free will in decision making is the result of a probabilistic self checking system. "Will" (or thought) advances into free area non deterministically and the system updates accordingly to define new probability spaces. As in games, which is the crux of the analogy, the momentum of an advance is everything, momentum is the energy that drives and directs decision making, and momentum is checked by the system. There are many strategies employable in the acquisition of momentum, and the definition of a freethinker therein is one in a position to maintain or increase momentum (in terms of advancing thought). It is simple to see then, how a religious thinker almost certainly cannot be a free thinker in terms of game theory. Religious systems seek mostly to stifle and stagnate the momentum of advance in thought, the opposite of freedom as defined by game theory. For example a religion can be said to keep thought "in check" which in turn ensures that momentum into 'free' probabilistic space is less able to be built because it is driven into 'safe' probabilistic space first.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
First off, this isn't a debate, you are completely lacking the defintion of the words you are using and using your own defintion of the word, which is and has been incorrectly applied by you.
from the merrian-webster website
freewill
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. Which is the case you are making.
Your arguement is not this
voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>.
Freewill has been defined already and in this case it has nothing to do with freethinking. Now if you are using this defintion
voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will> then yes atheist do believe this, that I can freely make a decision based on the options I have available to me, however the reasons one makes those decisions are influenced by many many factors, none however are based on never using any prior knowledge or causes, because our decisions are based on our experiences/knowledge. You will factor in many options when making a decision, it may be based on one or many factors, such as, education, knowledge, experience, cultural influence, upbringing, social influences, envoiromental factors, genetic influences, etc, etc, etc. As such freethinking or the desire not to be influenced by dogma or religious beliefs does not require free will in free from divine intervention or prior causes. However I can make the voluntary choice or decision to use or discard religious influences depending on the choices or reasoning behind it. Yet again, all of it will be based on prior causes.
But calling your a moron, I am just stating the fact as presented by you, you have complete lack of knowledge of how the words you are using should used and are defined. If you wish not to be described as a moron (which again this isn't a debate, if you don't like it, stop acting like one) then educate yourself please because every post you have made so far, proves my statement about you.
What relevance does this question have with the subject at hand?
No. I suspect that if you called me that you would be directing anger towards me.
When an atheist stubs his little toe on the coffee table and curses God with a profusion of expletives, I can assure you that it is more than a mere colloquialism. He is in no uncertain terms blaming God for the incident.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It would appear then, that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Zero
This has been pointed out to you several times and you also probably represent a majority of theists.
Thank you for exhibiting the depth of ignorance of your ilk.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Doesn't consciousness allow for some middle room here? Is this really a black and white issue? Isn't everything connected? Free vs not free, must both be true, and everything inbetween ???
Paisley, I still don't understand what benifit you propose for better happier living ??? Are your posts just for fun, or purposely humiliating ? If your goal is to frustrate and divide, you are indeed a winner .....
You never answered the basic question "are you god?", and "is everything god?". It's easy to agree that nothing is truly 100% free, as all is connected, but in this connection, there are choices consciousness makes. So the question is how much freedom do we have in making choices. Am I missing something in this "Freewill" discussion ??? It's never made any sense to me, when presented as black and white. I AM feeling extra dumb this moment. I AM use to it tho .... always in AWE.
Atheism Books.
I'm pretty much done in this thread. Trying to explain things to Paisley is like banging your head on the wall. You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him think...
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
So, according to you, if I stub my toe against the coffee table and yell "FUCK!". I'm commanding the table to have sex?
"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
In that context "God" is just a culturally learned thing to say. As a child the atheist has seen adults use the expression and imitated. For the atheist cursing God is just another cultural expression that has lost its original meaning.
How many people who describe a situation as a "Catch 22" actually have any concept what it means?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Paisley,
I think the bottom line here is that you are attempting to broaden the definition of freethinker to mean free of any controlling force. The term "freethinker" was coined to mean free of dogma and the influence of authoriy. You may argue that a freethinker is not truly free, but you cannot argue that that makes him not a freethinker, because the term "freethinker" isn't defined literally. Are all members of Greenpeace green?
COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES
How many have seen the movie?" (I have), most people when they use it, really mean between a rock and a hard spot, instead of meaning a situation that no matter what your decision, there is either no solution, or only the undersirable outcome is possible.
But you are simply making my point. The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker (at least, the atheistic worldview does not permit him to characterize himself as such). On the other hand, there are believers who can argue that they are quite literally freethinkers. Such are the luxuries of having a truly rational worldview.
Incidentally, the atheist is not a freethinker even as you define the term because he is bound to the dogma of metaphysical materialism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Agreed. The atheist is really in a "catch 22" situation here. Both determinism and indeterminism are arguments for the existence of God.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Why are you yelling? And who are you yelling at?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Good. Hopefully this means that you will be taking your insipid potty humor elsewhere.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
And it would appear that you have no argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
P - "The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing.
Me - Yes, All is GOD
P - If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident,
Me - NO, there is no separate deity, all is ONE.
P - then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning."
Me - That's nutty, God Damn it ! What original meaning? Besides, there is no meaning, that we could know this day ......
Atheism Books.
Your completely distorting the meaning of the word and taking one part, Free, as literally meaning free will, not freethinker as in not using dogmatic and religious authoritan beliefs/opinions in their rational thinking. So yes we are all correct and you so far are incorrect and well wrong, because so far, you haven't defined free will beside something that either is free from prior cause and divine intervention or it's not, and if it's not then it's not free will. Which at this point, well from the beginning your arguement, from the twisting and deliberate ignorance of the word freethinker has fallen apart. As for the catch 22, no, again no god is required for how humans make decisions, the influence and how it is all processed. See our brains gather data, and we use that data to make decisions.....no god is required, no where is god required in freethinking or decision making, or how we as humans make decisions, your entire argument is fallacious from the beginning and shows your complete lack of knowledge of the usage and meaning of the words free will and freethinker. So far you haven't even demostrated free will or defined it properly, we have had to do that for you, and you still can't comprehend what it means, and freethinking, well so far you have the same problem understanding this word as you do with free will.
So next time when you really want to debate, define the meaning of the words, and make sure you understand what they mean, because this debate pretty much end when you completely twisted what freethinker means, and never bothered to properly define free will. At least I gave you definitions to work with, you just jump around from one ignorant statement to another without ever actually making a proper point or properly addressing the topic, you rather avoid it, especially when others show your lack of knowledge. So please learn how to debate (hence again....the moron statement)
Right.
So... you have no idea how to answer my question.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This would only be a problem for an omniscient being. And we're dealing with two different questions, the influence of society and the chain of causality, which makes your argument equivocation.
Once again, the "panentheist" raises an infantile non-topic that awkwardly betrays a Christian apologist's stench.
(Oh... and "hi" to everyone... else...)
"Hi" MAG, you very handsome equivocation destroyer .... > the things that don't make any sense <
WOW, WAIT, that ain't funny 
but I laugh, I AM nervous ..... ENERGY/MATTER , hummm, and whatever? , and condemned to be ME ..... GOD FUCKING DAMN IT ..... 
((( just call me lucky ????? , and think of the living, when you toss my ashes into the wind ......................................................................... > > >
TIME = NOW , measurement is a useful math dogma wanting to improve .....
Religious dogma will say, I have found the thingy to worship with these rules , and if you do it right , heaven after death , and even lots of virgins too .....
((((( WISH it was true ..... E T C .........
I get the feeling Paisley, YOU is afraid .... I AM not , I AM GOD, PERFECT AS I AM , with pain, as I AM morphine too ......
Atheism Books.
1. Yelling = expression of pain
2. "Fuck" = first word that came to mind. It could just as easily have been "Ouch"
3. target of yelling = no one/the empty air.
Putting god in everything actually cheapens your deity. If he's nothing special, he doesn't deserve worship.
"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
Your point is quite literally invalid. Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker. What you are doing is no different than me telling you that you aren't a real man.
That being said, you also cannot argue both that atheists cannot be free thinkers and that believers can be free thinkers because you are using two different definitions to define them. By your definition either everyone is a free thinker or no one is. Determinism either applies or it doesn't. Believing in it or not has no effect on whether it is true.
Finally, metaphysical materialism isn't a requirement of the "atheistic worldview" nor does it have any more dogma than chemistry or the color blue.
COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES
But the fact is that you didn't use "ouch." Enough said.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Geezz Paisley, the god(s) of religious dogma ain't my god , "GOD DAMN IT" .....
Okay. Have it your way: "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." However, my point is still valid: "The atheist who professes to be a freethinker is quite literally not a FREE thinker."
By the way, for someone who professes to be a "freethinker," you are pretty dogmatic on the definition of freethinker.
I thought you just stated that "Freethinker doesn't mean free thinker." Right? So atheists cannot be "free thinkers."
That nature is completely deterministic has never been proven. Apparently, you are holding a belief without sufficient evidence. I would think this would be anathema to the atheistic position. Moreover, the prevailing scientific evidence (i.e. quantum mechanics) indicates that the world is fundamentally indeterminate.
Actually, the "freethinker" must take scientific materialism as "dogma."
It would appear that the "freethought" movement is inherently self-refuting because it is based on the dogma of scientism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
But I didn't use "God" either. Or is your God perchance named "Fuck"? I could just as easily have been cursing myself for not paying attention. Am I god now?
Again, putting your deity in everything or everything in your deity makes him less worth having. That's why I think Dawkins calls what you appear to follow "sexed up atheism".
"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
With Paisleys defintion or really vague defintion of free will, would a freedom fighter that doesn't believe in free will still be a freedom fighter because after all they both have free in the word?
Oh if you like to add things don't forget this part from Wikipedia on that entry "While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument." However freethinker has been agreed by many sides including those of the theistic community, philosophical community, artistic community and scientific community, and various others. So will you like to play with words and try to associate them on vague terms, as you just did with scientism and freethinker, we see again, you lack of knowledge of the terms of the words you are using. That all a freethinker is, is someone that doesn't use the authorative views of religion or the dogmatic beliefs of religion or popular society. Now, you can try to twist that all you want, but in the end free will, scientism aren't part of freethinker, they could be discussed as part of it, however you have still not defined free will properly outside of a vague term that you are using, really this debate has been done ages ago, your just grasping at straws at every turn.
I DO "think". How free? I don't know .....
All my thoughts and language, including math, are innately dogmatic.
Generalizing; Math dogma is evolving and open to change and improvement. Religious dogma is rigidly stuck in idol worship of a separate, non-verifiable, "thingy construct", of man's wild imagination of hopes and fears.
Anti matter is matter, the big bang is the small bang, evolution (cellular) revolution
Science, physics, QM, deals with material testable reality, Religion is fantasy speculation .... the "AWE" ... Keep the awe, fix the dogma ....
Umpa Lumpa?
Puzzle ? Sick and fat on dogma candy !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i9XNMELog8
Atheism Books.
You make my point by now admitting that you were cursing. Evidently, you were angry and felt the need to yell and curse at someone. Of course, now you would have us believe that you were shouting expletives at yourself. LOL
Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Agreed. The "freethinker" is dogmatic and his dogma is based on scientism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
That was not, in fact, your original point.
From your original post:
In your last post, you attempted to shift the focus of this discussion. You agree that the term "freethinker" is not, by definition, inherently inaccurate when used to describe an atheist. You have lost your original argument. If you wish to debate the term "freethinker" itself, start a new thread and I will happily join in the fun.
COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES
Damn , we all lose again , shit, we may never figure this "reality?" out ....
Round 2
Atheism Books.
Game theory is based on the free will of rational agents whose decisions or choices are described in the mathematical language of probabilities. This has already been stated.
But whether game theory argues for free will or not is really irrelevant to the topic at hand. The bottomline is that: If there is no free will, then you are not a free thinker! Every thought you have, every belief you entertain...could not have been otherwise.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Ok, so you are showing your true colours again, you have no concept of what you are talking about. You now have gone from free will (which was your original statement) to scientism (which would more or less back up the our statement of no free will needed), so now your contradicting yourself. Which is even worse, but still you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using. Your entire arugment is fallacious and your grasping at straws. You don't get debate points for changing your stance mid way through, definetely don't get points for misundstanding the meaning of the words you are using. Pick one, free will or scientism. Then please define free will, define scientism, then with your own words associate them in some relevate form to freethinking, using the proper term of freethinking, not just part of the word free and you cannot associate free will to freethinker because they both have free as part of the word. This is problem with your entire argument, none of it is associated beside some vague, terms that you seem to make up as you go. You fail to understand how to debate.
!@#$%^&U*I)
ASDFGHJKL:"
ZXCVBNM<>?ERTYUIKL&*IGKFEDRGVHBVCVHIO*)$%#%@%*HKFDUSX<MGDTSVO@PJ
1234567890-
Atheism Books.
No, I don't agree. My last post employed sarcasm to make a point. And I still stand by my original post. The term "freethinker" as the atheist defines it is a misnomer. The term literally means "FREE thinker." A free thinker can only be a free thinker if he truly exercises free choice in his thought-processes. "Robots with consciousness" are not free thinkers. And since the atheistic worldview basically depicts human beings as robots with consciousness, then the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Are pantheists fucking half NUTS ?
Seems so ....
( I still think it is progress from the god of abe crazies ) Go evolution .....
Atheism Books.
Come now Paisley, you have no grounds upon which to disagree. You are trying to redefine the term "freethinker" by sheer force of will. Can you provide me with a credible definition of "freethinker" that contains a reference to free will? "Free" can mean many things, and in this case, it means free of emotion, authoriy, religious dogma, etc. Free will simply is not defined as a necessary prerequisite to freethought.
You are hung up on an idea that struct you as clever and are understandably reluctant to lay it to rest. You may still argue that the term "freethinker" should be redefined to include free will, but your current line of reasoning is exhausted. Exercise a degree of humility and preserve what is left of your dignity, good sir.
COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES
YEAH Prozac , the atheists are already SAVED,
Geezz Paisley , go save a god of abe follower .... tell them of Pantheism !
Atheism Books.
No I think the point is to suggest Pantheism is reducible to atheism, not equal.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" DIVISION .... from them ....
to EXCITE debate , to challenge the church hypocrites .... ((( good idea Jesus, but Matthew , fucked up that message, as it was poorly written
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword#Quotes
Atheism Books.
Thank you.
"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
So every "curse word" needs to be aimed at a God for it to be a "real" curse word? If someone does something nice for me and I thank them for it, did I really thank them or did God step in and take it? I called it "cursing" because that's how I was raised. Nobody's God was involved (unless you worship my parents).
This what I mean when I say you cheapen your deity.If your God is so pathetic that he can't allow for common dealings with othe human beings or allow people to have self-expression, is he really worth having. let alone worshipping?
"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