Who are the freethinkers? {MOVED TO AvT}
Offline One whose mind is allowed to think whatever they want without the inability to question or think twice about something.
That is my own description of a person who thinks freely.
Now , Just who are the free thinkers?
Here are two stories that show a free thinker and a non-freethinker:
A man finds a magical land , rubs it , and out comes a genie.
The genie says to him , "I am not going to give you any wishes , but perhaps you would like to know the Facts?"
The man agrees to let the genie tell him what are facts.
So the genie says ," When you die , you go into the ground. We can see this because it happens. There are no ghosts or spirits. My word is true , because I am a genie and I am all knowing. You are stupid if you believe otherwise. I will show you some evidences from the ground to prove that you are apes. And surely , you will never doubt my word, because of the evidence."
2nd story:
A man finds a lamp with a message inside of it that reads , "If you wish to have the three wishes you desire , believe my word , and someday you will get what you want."
The keyword here is belief.
I believe that Jesus is the son of God . I don't have evidence or anything. All I have is my confidence , my dignity , and my faith.
Now , Zeus could be God , Thor could be God , unicorns might exist , lepurchauns might exist , and Common descent might exist.
My friend , who is an atheist , told me that he will never believe in any crazy myths because of the evidence.
Now , I ask you , "Who has the more free mind? The one who believes something to be true , and knows he/she could be wrong , or the person who undeniably believes something to be true , because of evidence or someone elses sayso?"
- Login to post comments
I can make up definitions too...
You are a strange and confused person. Did you not notice that Freethinkers Anonymous is for atheists only? I moved your thread to a more appropriate forum.
Now, onto your strange confusion.
The very concept of "allowing someone to think a thought" is absurd. Thoughts happen in real time after the brain has processed data. It is impossible to prevent a thought from occuring since it is impossible to know a thought until after it has already happened.
"Without the inability to question"?? That's a double negative, dude. "Without the inability" is equivalent to "with the ability." Is that what you meant? Someone can think whatever they want with the ability to question or think twice about something?
If that's what you meant, then sure. Pretty much everybody has the ability to question their conclusions, and except for people who die right after having a thought, everybody can rethink a previous thought. Your definition is so banal as to be useless.
Um...
What?
You're silly for believing something without evidence.
The nerve! How dare he insist that anything he believes be supported by evidence!
It's not a matter of free mind. The person who unquestioningly believes something is a poor critical thinker. Unfortunately, simply being open to questions is not good enough. A good critical thinker must also know which questions to ask and how to go about finding accurate answers.
You are clearly not very good at either of these things.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Clearly the friend who insists on supporting evidence before being convinced is more of a free thinker than the one who accepts hearsay from a lamp. This is because he refuses to let his opinions be shaped merely by someone else's word. Lamps are not peer-reviewed.
Seriously, is that a legitimate question?
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
Welcome to the forum.
Webster's defines open-minded as "receptive to arguments or ideas." Ergo, to be open-minded is to listen to and consider opposing viewpoints, not to actually accept these claims. So, your argument misses the point entirely.
Webster
Furthermore, Christianity is a religion. Unlike science, philosophy, etc., it holds onto a set of dogma that it refuses to question, that is not open to debate. The religion is, hence, defined by these beliefs. It is closed-minded, by definition.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No , my point was dead on.
I don't know the truth. I can't claim to know everything.
My beliefs are just beliefs. I doubt them , and sometimes I deny them , but they are just beliefs. I believe in Christ.
I may believe in Bhudda tomorrow.
If I am really a Christian , I will stick to my Christian beliefs until I die.
If someone has evidence against Christianity , I look at the evidence. I don't ignore the evidence like most people would do , I study it and try to falsify it.
If there is something I can't falsify , then my beliefs are wrong.
I accept the theory of evolution . I know the universe is expanding. Those aren't rationalistic ideas , because we know them to be true.
I just don't believe that we came from apes , or that the universe expanded from a singularity.
Those ideas are rationalist , because we don't need to experience them to reason that they existed.
Rationalism isn't bad , but it isn't good enough.
If you want me to believe something , I gotta be there to see it.
T saw a whole manner of ghosts and happenings. Jesus Christ came to my grandmother before she died.
personal accounts are a bad example , but at least she saw it first hand.
Nobody on earth has ever seen a big bang happen. Nobody has lived hundreds of millions of years.
I believe in things that I almost know to be a certainty , but I still have an open mind about other religions , and I look up the quran , or go to a sihk temple , or something.
Like I said , I believe in the science of evolution , gravity , and stuff like that.
But how do we know we have evolved from apes?
The similarities suggest that we evolve from apes. I only see similarities that are there. You believe that you are related to apes , only because your brain makes the connection. When I look at apes , I see animals . You might say that DNA suggests that we are related.
In the bible , it makes close comparisons between humans and animals. In some ancient religions , humans have the body parts of humans , but the minds of Gods.
There are religious explnations of these phenomenon.
I am an open minded person , because there are other explanations of things , and I could be wrong about my beliefs.
Those who rely on evidence don't have open minds , because they think that all things that don't have evidence are incorrect.
Rationalists to be specific don't have open minds.
2000 years ago , it was rational to say that the earth is flat .
People's reason told them that the earth is flat , and that you don't need to go to the ends of the earth to figure that out.
That is knowledge acquired through reason , without resorting to experience.
i miss Matts cat...
We don't come from apes, we are apes. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee.
Where did the universe expand from?
But you didn't see it...so why are you a Christian? And you're right, personal accounts are a terrible example. Now where have I heard that before? Hmmm.....was is it Butterbattle's video?
Yes.
Yes it was.
Yeah good thing there is all that overwhelming evidence to support the theory or we'd be really fucked, you're right.
Relevance?
Watch this, plox.
Fail post is fail.
You can say that again.
Also, you clearly didn't watch the video.
Are you saying the Earth is flat? Because then I just wasted 10 minutes of my time on either a Poe or a complete and utter moron.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
First of all, that's a No True Scotsman fallacy. The argument ad hocs who is Christian to prevent falsification.
Wikipedia
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)
Also, if you are willing to consider opposing evidence and question your own position, then there's a chance that you won't be a Christian when you die because there's always a chance that you're wrong. Ergo,by your logic, there is a chance that you are not Christian at this very moment, since there is a chance that you won't be a Christian when you die.
You say, "Those ideas are rationalist, because we don't need to experience them to reason that they existed." You also said that theory of evolution and that the universe is expanding are not rationalistic ideas. This would imply that you directly experienced evolution and the expansion of the universe. Did you?
Virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution, including the evolution of humans; after all, we're an animal too. Human evolution is just as much a part of the theory as the evolution of any other animal currently in existence and better supported than most. Similarly, virtually all cosmologists accept an expanding universe, including the Big Bang. So, according to science, we also know that the claims you don't believe in to be true. No offense, but I would wager that you either don't understand the science behind these concepts or you've arbitrarily drawn a line in the sand due to your religion.
Okay, I don't understand how you're defining rationalism, but being rational just means having reason or understanding. This does not in any way exclude direct observation.
However, one of the problems with anecdotal evidence is that it can only be observed by a few people. My little brother might see Bigfoot in his closet everyday, but if nobody else can determine that it's actually in his closet, there's not much we can do. On the other hand, suppose that my little brother believes dinosaurs never existed. I take him to the natural history museum to see the dinosaur fossils and convince him that dinosaurs do exist. The difference between the two cases is that anyone can go to the museum and see the dinosaurs; it is concrete, objective evidence. Whereas, my little brother is the only one that can see bigfoot. It is sufficient evidence for my little brother, but not for anyone else.
Nobody saw Professor Plum kill Mrs. Peacock in the library with the candlestick, but if you gather enough clues, you can figure out that it happened. This is one of the main purposes of science, to discover what we can't discover using only our senses and logic; we use technology and evidence. Like with a murder scene, science strives to unravel what we don't yet understand.
In the case of the Big Bang, if you already accept that the universe is expanding, then it follows that they expanded from something. Computer simulations, based on our current knowledge of the the universe, estimate that the universe expanded from a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago.
There's a lot more to physiology than just "oh hey, he looks like me."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
“Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.
And the extensive fossil record, embryology, social behavior, phylogenetics, etc.
Also, of course when you look at an ape, you see an animal. They are animals. You’re a just implicitly suggesting that humans aren’t, and you’re wrong. Not only that, but humans are apes as well. There is not a single characteristic that suggests otherwise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
No, no, no, if it has no evidence, then I simply don’t believe it. It is not incorrect; it is unsupported. Unless it contains a logical error, it is potentially correct and potentially incorrect.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Naw, he's not. He's putting up a strawman of what it means to be rational, destroying the strawman, and concluding that people that are rational aren't open-minded. The reference to people believing in a flat earth 2000 years ago was an example to show that being rational is closed-minded. I don't think he watched the video.
Also, his basis for this argument is not entire correct. Contrary to popular belief, many educated people did not believe in a flat earth 2000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and that the Earth's surface therefore could not be flat. He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.
I suppose he might argue that Aristotle is irrational.
Even if his argument didn't have all these problems, he's still just using an example to support an already fallacious argument. He's saying that a flat earth was supported by the evidence, but they didn't rely on personal observation (like, looking at the ground and observing that it's flat isn't personal observation?), which is why they were closed-minded and thus, wrong. He takes that relationship to our current argument and draws a parallel. Apparently, unsupported, "open-minded" positions are better than supported, "closed-minded" positions.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Oh, I see what you're saying. Hahaha, sorry.
Okay, so a rationalist is a person that appeals to reason as the supreme source of truth and shuns sensory perception. Well, in that sense, I guess I'm more of a positivist. My position is pretty close to David Hume's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivist
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare