Are Atheists Free Thinkers?

[DriftingSand]

Yes. I question, God answers.

Matthew 7:7 (ESV)


“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

I didn't come to a belief in God until I was in the total depths of alcoholism. That's when I got on my knees and prayed for God's help. He literally sent help in the form of a coworker who invited me to an AA meeting just a few days after I prayed. I continued to pray for wisdom and truth and He's answered my calls and needs ever since.

Well, I'm glad that you have stopped drinking. Alcoholism is a nasty problem to overcome so good for you. That's a happy ending and I hope and think you should feel proud and good about it.

Your anecdote is the same for many of the born again religious. They are at their lowest point, whether drugs, alcohol, gambling, depression, in prison, homeless, etc. and thy turn to God or Allah, etc. and find the strength to turn their lives around and forever after they are zealously religious.

Why do you think that happens regardless of the religion? Could it be because it is emotional - you were as you described "in the total depths of alcoholism" and needed something to believe in. Your response was emotional. You were enculturated in a society the is predominately Christian. Had you been born and raised in India you would've prayed to a Brahmin, in Pakistan Allah, in Jerusalem Yahweh, in Italy the Catholic God, etc.

Could it be that your coworker got you to go to AA, isn't a miracle and it isn't even a coincidence, but that it just makes sense. You knew you needed help and he or she saw that you did.

This is, even from an unbiased perspective, not enough evidence to proclaim once and for all, that the Christian God is real and to commit all of your beliefs to this one dogma. It might be that IS the truth, but not conclusively. Therefore because there are more reasonable explanations for your conversion to Christianity, the story is not compelling to someone who doesn't believe.

It could be that in order to sustain your sobriety that you must whole-heartedly believe. Critical questioning would then only be a threat to your well being.

Since my emotions are part of my being I believe them to be part of God's creation. My belief in God often effects my emotions but it also effects my rational, unemotional side. When I look at life from a belief that God exists the meaning of my existence takes shape and has greater meaning. I end up feeling that life is a blessing to be experienced in a state of humility and gratitude. I believe that God is a Person or individual but I also recognize Him as a power or force. In AA, we used to call this power our "Higher Power." I'm not a proponent of calling God that at this point in my life but using that term helped me see Him as just that ... a power greater than myself.

So, for me, His influence in helping me when I needed Him most (and during other trials of life) have only bolstered my belief that He's real and not a figment of my imagination.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I didn't come to a belief in God until I was in the total depths of alcoholism. That's when I got on my knees and prayed for God's help. He literally sent help in the form of a coworker who invited me to an AA meeting just a few days after I prayed. I continued to pray for wisdom and truth and He's answered my calls and needs ever since.

Well, I'm glad that you have stopped drinking. Alcoholism is a nasty problem to overcome so good for you. That's a happy ending and I hope and think you should feel proud and good about it.

Your anecdote is the same for many of the born again religious. They are at their lowest point, whether drugs, alcohol, gambling, depression, in prison, homeless, etc. and thy turn to God or Allah, etc. and find the strength to turn their lives around and forever after they are zealously religious.

Why do you think that happens regardless of the religion? Could it be because it is emotional - you were as you described "in the total depths of alcoholism" and needed something to believe in. Your response was emotional. You were enculturated in a society the is predominately Christian. Had you been born and raised in India you would've prayed to a Brahmin, in Pakistan Allah, in Jerusalem Yahweh, in Italy the Catholic God, etc.

Could it be that your coworker got you to go to AA, isn't a miracle and it isn't even a coincidence, but that it just makes sense. You knew you needed help and he or she saw that you did.

This is, even from an unbiased perspective, not enough evidence to proclaim once and for all, that the Christian God is real and to commit all of your beliefs to this one dogma. It might be that IS the truth, but not conclusively. Therefore because there are more reasonable explanations for your conversion to Christianity, the story is not compelling to someone who doesn't believe.

It could be that in order to sustain your sobriety that you must whole-heartedly believe. Critical questioning would then only be a threat to your well being.

Since my emotions are part of my being I believe them to be part of God's creation. My belief in God often effects my emotions but it also effects my rational, unemotional side. When I look at life from a belief that God exists the meaning of my existence takes shape and has greater meaning. I end up feeling that life is a blessing to be experienced in a state of humility and gratitude. I believe that God is a Person or individual but I also recognize Him as a power or force. In AA, we used to call this power our "Higher Power." I'm not a proponent of calling God that at this point in my life but using that term helped me see Him as just that ... a power greater than myself.

So, for me, His influence in helping me when I needed Him most (and during other trials of life) have only bolstered my belief that He's real and not a figment of my imagination.

Well, there really is no arguing that. Cheers and I wish the best for you and yours for the future.

 

[edthecynic]

Most atheists can only parrot some party line about God making a rock He can't lift, etc.

Actually, they have much better ones than that!

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon (448 BC - 400 BC)

 

[edthecynic]

???...sorry.....they are exclusive to each other.....and agnostic says they haven't made a decision, an atheist has......

agnostic-
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

It does not have to do with belief. It has to do with being able to KNOW one way or the other.
The agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist, or neither.

an atheist denies the existence of a deity.....if you do not deny the existence of a deity you are not an atheist.....that is inherent in the origin of the word....."a" no....."theist" based on root word for god
agnostic..."a" no......"gnostic" based on root word for knowledge....

I think more accurately, an Atheist denies the existence of the Supernatural. They don't believe in Astrology or Voodoo either. To an Atheist, Nature is supreme. Some might also call them Naturalists.

 

[guno]

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise
cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith

 

[DriftingSand]

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise
cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith

Just like folks believing in abiogenesis or macroevolution without any significant evidence or undeniable proof. That takes LOTS of faith. First there was nothing then **poof** there was something for no particular reason or purpose.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise
cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith

Just like folks believing in abiogenesis or macroevolution without any significant evidence or undeniable proof. That takes LOTS of faith. First there was nothing then **poof** there was something for no particular reason or purpose.

Sure.
That is exactly what is described by the data. Just what scientists want you to believe. Every paper submitted for peer review includes the word "poof".
Significant evidence?
Voluminous.
Undeniable proof?
Absolutely not. Still being studied by open minds eager to discover the truth.
You certainly don't demand either of these for your beliefs.
Only faith.

 

[edthecynic]

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise
cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith

Just like folks believing in abiogenesis or macroevolution without any significant evidence or undeniable proof. That takes LOTS of faith. First there was nothing then **poof** there was something for no particular reason or purpose.

"First there was nothing" is biblical creation, thank you for admitting it is BS.

 

[guno]

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise
cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith

Just like folks believing in abiogenesis or macroevolution without any significant evidence or undeniable proof. That takes LOTS of faith. First there was nothing then **poof** there was something for no particular reason or purpose.

One needs no belief if they use the scientific method, science is based on demonstrated facts, all the fundamentalist religious loons can come with are straw man arguments based on their understanding of tenth grade science. It takes a really bizzaro sense of "logic" to accept a sky god impregnating a women so he can give birth to himself so he can sacrifice himself to himself for rules that the god created in the first place.

Scientist don't meet every Sunday and grovel to invisible being and chanting I believe, I believe

The bottom line is while modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" and reading from a primitive book may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

 

[guno]

Do you question whether or not there is a God? Or that Jesus is actually the Savior? Are you critical of your beliefs? Do you review them on a constant basis to be sure that you still feel that they match up with any new evidence or experiences you've had since choosing those beliefs? Are you critical about why you are a Christian instead of an agnostic, or Muslim, or Hindu, or etc.? Do you apply the same reasoning as to why you aren't of another faith to why you are a Christian? That would be free thinking. Thought free of dogma, orthodoxy, doctrine, and baseless presuppositions. Questioning everything is free thinking.

Yes. I question, God answers.

Matthew 7:7 (ESV)


“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

Christianity's Irresolvable Problems, Circular Reasoning and Lack of Foundational Basis

Christians use circular reasoning with unsupported assumptions to justify their beliefs. They take each unsupported assumption and use it to justify another one, in effect, using "fiction to support fiction". Here are examples from their basic arguments defending their faith. This is what they typically say when asked to explain the basis of their beliefs (summarized in my own words):

Question:
"How do you know the Bible is true? How do you know it is the word of God?"

Christian Answer:
"Because the Bible says it is God's word. The Bible is internally consistent and harmonious. Its writers, who lived thousands of years apart, agree on the same message. It also contains many fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The odds of that happening by chance, according to Christian theologians, are astronomical. The Bible also agrees with history, archaeology and science. It is the only book that is complete with a chronicle of humanity's history, salvation, and future predicament.

The Bible has changed millions of lives. The Gospel writers and Apostles were willing to die for their faith. Now who would die for something they knew wasn't true? As C.S. Lewis, a Christian writer, put it: "No one would die for a lie." The first Christians, many of which were martyred, also died for their faith.

The Apostles saw Jesus rise from the dead. 500 people witnessed his resurrection, according to the Apostle Paul. The resurrection is what our faith stands on. It is what sets Jesus apart from the rest and proves that he was the real deal and the true Son of God. Muhammad's body is still in his tomb, while Jesus' tomb is empty.

But the biggest reason for me is that I've experienced how Jesus changed my life. The Holy Spirit lives within me. I feel its truth and have experienced Jesus in my heart. I was at the very bottom of my life when I first heard the Gospel. When I accepted Christ, I was born again. My sins were washed away and my life began anew. I became right with God and felt a huge burden lifted off my shoulders. I now have a personal relationship with God, not a religion. I am a living testimony to God's truth and love. And so are many of my brothers and sisters in the Lord. We are witnesses for Christ.

We can also trust that the Bible is still in its original form, because God would protect his word and not let it be changed or altered by people. The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the 1940's, contained Biblical manuscripts from over a thousand years ago that were relatively the same as they are today, demonstrating that the Bible hasn't changed much.

The decision of whether to accept Christ or not is the most important decision of a person's life. Choose carefully. There are eternal consequences at stake. Jesus came and died for your sins. He claimed to be the only way to God. What will you do with that? Either he was a liar, a lunatic, or he was right. If he was the first two, then you can forget him. But if he was who he said he was, then your eternal destiny depends on whether you accept him or not. Remember that.

Now, based on what Jesus did and said in the Gospels, it does not appear that he was a liar in any way. He did everything he said he would, and kept his promises. And he does not appear to be crazy in any way either, for his teachings were filled with great wisdom. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that he was Lord. He fulfilled the OT prophecies, and rose from the dead, proving that he was the one - the true Savior whom God sent to bring forgiveness and eternal salvation to mankind. Will you accept him or reject him? The choice is yours."


Those are the standard arguments and assumptions of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists, summarized in my own words based on my knowledge and experience from having been one of them before. They may sound convincing to someone desperate to believe in something that has all the answers in a nice little package coupled with big promises (i.e. an eternal father who will love and take care of them, and reward them with eternal life). But they are not convincing to objective logical thinkers.

So let’s take apart the above point by point:

(Note: When I refer to my treatise below, I refer to this: Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions)

- First, the Bible is not internally consistent. It is not even one book, but 66. There are thousands of contradictions and discrepancies. (see my treatise linked above for examples and links) Not all of them can be explained away. There are even contradictions in basic theology. For example, the Old Testament predicts a Messiah who will become ruler of the Jews and establish a physical kingdom on Earth. Jesus didn't do that. What the New Testament writers did was reinterpret everything in the Old Testament to make it fit in with their beliefs: The Serpent became Satan. Satan became evil. Lucifer became Satan. The OT praises and psalms became prophecies of Jesus, though they weren't. The Messiah came to establish a spiritual kingdom, not a political one (conveniently so, since Jesus failed to fulfill the OT Messianic prophecies). Etc. Most of the alleged fulfilled prophecies by Christians were either imaginary ones that were never intended to be, ambiguous, or didn't even come true (Prophecies of Tyre's destruction, Moses and the Promised Land, etc. See my treatise for more examples.)

- The Bible was put together by the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which decided which books were to be included as canon and which were to be thrown out. Now, what makes you think this Council is infallible? Because God was protecting his word? Again, that is a circular argument, especially since it has not been established that the Bible is God's word or infallible in the first place.

- The Bible does not really claim to be God's word or divinely inspired. If you look at the beginning of them, you will see that many are simply letters sent to some group or church. Or they are introduced by name or not at all. There are only 3 verses that are used to claim that it is God's word, but they do not even clearly say that, or apply to the whole Bible. (See my treatise for a full explanation and analysis) The funny thing is that Christians heavily emphasize Biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration, while the Bible itself does not. But even if it did make that claim, so what? I could write a book and at the beginning start with, "This is the word of God..." But that does not make it so.

- As to the Bible agreeing with history, archaeology and science, see my treatise. In short, just because a written work contains real places and cities, does not make it all true, especially the extreme parts. Greek mythology includes Mt. Olympus, which is a real place, but that doesn't mean all the stories about the Greek Gods were true. Any book can include historical events and places, but that doesn't make it God's word or infallible in any way. It is easy to mix fact and fiction together. This is a no-brainer. For example, the story and film, "The Wizard of Oz" features Dorothy in Kansas. Now, just because Kansas is a real place does not make the entire story true and accurate. You see what I mean? Plus many historical events described in the Bible are unproven and ambiguous, such as the captivity of the Israelites in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection, King Herod's census in Bethlehem, etc.

- Lots of lives have been changed by other religions and belief systems too. Christianity is not unique in this regard. They always forget that, conveniently. Why is a Christian's testimony any better or more valid than a Muslim's or Mormon's? Christian's never address the testimonies of people in other religions, except by saying, "Satan can come as an angel of light", which is their typical copout.

- Plenty of people have died for lies throughout history. Many soldiers died for the war propaganda that they were fed. In Vietnam, 60,000 American troops died for a lie for example. And many cult members have died for their beliefs too (Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, David Koresh, etc). And in the Middle East wars, many Muslims have died over petty religious feuds. So this is a silly argument. Many throughout history have died for things that often were not true. Therefore, dying for something is not proof that it is right or true. People are easily brainwashed and deluded. Plus we are not even sure that the Apostles did die because we do not even know whether they existed or were just myths themselves, which Christians fail to consider.

Now I know Christians will respond with "I meant no one would KNOWINGLY die for a lie that they knew to be a lie."

My response to this would be: Well now, how do you know they weren't deceived? But most importantly, how do you know that they even died or existed at all? You see, you are assuming that everything in the Bible is true and that all events in it are a given as stated, when in fact that has not been proven to be so. That's the big catch you missed. Anyone can write anything. You gotta remember, there is no historical basis for these events outside the Bible. Thus, your assumption is totally circular and unsupported. It is like taking a fiction book and automatically assuming that everything in it is a given as stated, and then using each part of it to support the other parts, using "fiction to support fiction, so to speak". That's the CHIEF problem you overlook.

- As to the resurrection of Jesus, the same as above goes. No one knows who wrote the Gospels. There are different theories. So you gotta ask, "Why would anyone writing such an important book to save the world be anonymous rather than put his full name to it?!" Does such an anonymous writer expect to be taken seriously? Again, just because it's written in a book, doesn't mean it's true. Why not take the Koran or Book of Mormon as truth by default too? I can write a book that says that you gotta believe in me to go to heaven too. But would that mean it's true?

As to the resurrection witnesses, well they simply exist only in the Gospels. There is no independent verification of them, or of the resurrection itself. No non-Christian sources attest to them. Paul says that there were 500 witnesses. But one man claiming that there were 500 witnesses is not the same as 500 people claiming to be witnesses.

Again, this is a classic case of Christians "using fiction to support fiction". I could use the same arguments to prove that Superman had super powers. For instance, I could say that Superman stopped a runaway train according to one story, by grabbing it and slowing it to a halt. When he did so, there were many passengers on board who were eyewitnesses to what Superman did. This proves that Superman had super powers. See how easy that is?

Moreover, even if a person with supernatural powers were to come and do amazing things, including seemingly dying and rising again, that doesn't mean he is God or infallible or controls the eternal souls of everyone. Magicians could do such things (e.g. David Blaine, David Copperfield) and Extraterrestrials with advanced technology could come and amazing things with their technology that defy our explanation too. But that doesn't mean that they are Gods. I'm not saying that Jesus was an alien, but just saying hypothetically. The point is that just because someone has more technology than you, or more "powers" than you, does not make this person or being right about everything, nevertheless infallible.

- Christians forget one important thing. Jesus didn't write down anything, at least not that we have today. All that they know about him were written by others, his alleged followers. We do not even know if any of his direct disciples wrote anything down. Therefore, the stories about him are all hearsay by unknown sources. No one knows who Jesus really was, what he said, or if he even existed, since he has so many resemblances to ancient Pagan Gods and mythologies, and his teachings have so many parallels with Buddhism. This is why secular historians, while they believe in a historical Jesus, do not believe that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels existed. This was also the conclusion of the Jesus Seminar.

 

[PostmodernProph]

but if we go by the way you and most Americans define the terms: you're right.

I've always been comfortable going with the way most Americans define terms....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Make your point, because this post says nothing and your last one proved mine.

not that complicated....if an atheist denies the existence of deity and an agnostic does not, then they are not the same thing......

Once again, you are making an argument no one has made. That is a strawman.
They aren't the same thing. They are different.
That's why they can co-exist.
One is what you believe.
One is what you can know.
Completely different issues.
You are looking very, very silly here.

lol....if no one has made the argument, why are agnostics on the list of atheists?.......

 

[thebrucebeat]

not that complicated....if an atheist denies the existence of deity and an agnostic does not, then they are not the same thing......

Once again, you are making an argument no one has made. That is a strawman.
They aren't the same thing. They are different.
That's why they can co-exist.
One is what you believe.
One is what you can know.
Completely different issues.
You are looking very, very silly here.

lol....if no one has made the argument, why are agnostics on the list of atheists?.......

What does your sentence even mean?
What list?

 

[HUGGY]

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise
cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith

Just like folks believing in abiogenesis or macroevolution without any significant evidence or undeniable proof. That takes LOTS of faith. First there was nothing then **poof** there was something for no particular reason or purpose.

"First there was nothing" is biblical creation, thank you for admitting it is BS.

Every scientific clue that has evolved to proof has been contested tooth and nail by the godsquad. Everything that has not yet been decided is supposed to go in god's corner don't ya know..

God don't have even one teeny weenie piece of proof yet somehow we are supposed to concede he did all this shit as if there could be no other possible explaination.

Still the errosion proceeds and gods pile keeps getting smaller.

If the scientists had any balls they would all just call it like they do in little league because so far it's a shut out and in fairnress to the weaker team and everything..... No point in running up the score.

 

[Politico]

No and neither are you chuck.

 

[HUGGY]

Atheists DO have a certain amount of "faith". Otherwise they would never set foot into a helecopter or airplane.

We don't have to study the laws of physics on every questionable or curious application of those "laws" before proceeding through life....even in cars or other forms of transport that can achieve speeds capable of kiling people.

I usually have faith and trust that the scientists and engineers got it right.

Atheist's threshold of faith IS a lot higher than the theists though as we do not have faith in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy...even though much has been written about them.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Once again, you are making an argument no one has made. That is a strawman.
They aren't the same thing. They are different.
That's why they can co-exist.
One is what you believe.
One is what you can know.
Completely different issues.
You are looking very, very silly here.

lol....if no one has made the argument, why are agnostics on the list of atheists?.......

What does your sentence even mean?
What list?

post #13....its why we've been having this conversation.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

lol....if no one has made the argument, why are agnostics on the list of atheists?.......

What does your sentence even mean?
What list?

post #13....its why we've been having this conversation.....

The two, for the fourth time, are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive.
This goes to the most basic form of logic from Philosophy 101.
The syllogism.
All A are B.
X is B.
Therefore, X is A.
For the conclusion to be true, both the preceding premises must be true.
In this case, they categorically are not.
All agnostics are NOT atheists.
Shall I post the definition AGAIN?
I honestly don't know why you are having a hard time with this.
I contend that the VAST majority of believers are agnostic, because they know that the truth can not be known and their beliefs rely on faith, not proof.
Theism is about what you believe.
Gnosticism about being able to know.
Why does this confuse you?
You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist or an agnostic that has no opinion.
Is this truly over your head?

 

[thebrucebeat]

lol....if no one has made the argument, why are agnostics on the list of atheists?.......

What does your sentence even mean?
What list?

post #13....its why we've been having this conversation.....

Here are multiple citations so you will know it's not an outlier.

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable." Wiki

": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable". Merriam-Webster

"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience". Dictionary.com

"An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings. " Urban Dictionary

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena" Oxford Dictionary

Tell me if you need some more. They are available.

Or maybe just read my signature quotation by Einstein. He sums up the position pretty well.

 

[PostmodernProph]

What does your sentence even mean?
What list?

post #13....its why we've been having this conversation.....

The two, for the fourth time, are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive.
This goes to the most basic form of logic from Philosophy 101.
The syllogism.
All A are B.
X is B.
Therefore, X is A.
For the conclusion to be true, both the preceding premises must be true.
In this case, they categorically are not.
All agnostics are NOT atheists.
Shall I post the definition AGAIN?
I honestly don't know why you are having a hard time with this.
I contend that the VAST majority of believers are agnostic, because they know that the truth can not be known and their beliefs rely on faith, not proof.
Theism is about what you believe.
Gnosticism about being able to know.
Why does this confuse you?
You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist or an agnostic that has no opinion.
Is this truly over your head?

no need to post your definition again....being wrong successively does not function in the same way as a double negative, miraculously making you right.....

what you seem incapable of understanding is that one cannot simultaneously NOT deny the existence of deity on the grounds of not having sufficient knowledge AND deny the existence of deity.....why does this confuse YOU?......