Are Atheists Free Thinkers?

[thebrucebeat]

how do you do these two things simultaneously?


if they say there is no way to know they aren't going to say he doesn't exist.....
by the way, I do want to thank you for providing evidence backing up my earlier statement that atheists do not think......

Perhaps an analogy will help.
Claim: There is a U.S. mailbox buried on Titan, one of Saturn's moons.

You cannot currently show, one way or another, if this is true or not. So you cannot know for sure.
That's agnosticism.

But do you believe that it's true? No, you don't. Do you believe it might be true? No. And you shouldn't have any problem saying it's not true.
That's atheism.

If something can't be shown or strongly supported to be true (note that I'm not saying proved," and there is no strong reason to think it might be, where's the problem in saying it doesn't exist (until any credible evidence is shown)?

help?.....this should help......draw a circle.....label it all people who say that there is no God......draw another circle.......label it all people who say they don't know whether there is a God or not.......next, realize the two circles never overlap........

why is it that atheists are so desperate to not be alone that they pretend they are someone else?.........

/chuckles.....I wonder if the reaction would be the same if I tried to argue that Christians and agnostics are the same thing because Christians say there is a God and agnostics have said they don't know if there is a God or not.....

And that is the crux of your confusion.
You think "I don't know" means "I have no opinion or belief".
dblack nailed it pretty well in his post.
Almost all Christians are agnostic. They bristle at that because they, like you, don't understand what the term means.
It's funny that the early years of the faith included a group called the Gnostics who said that god could be known absolutely through special revelation and they died out in the long run, being considered heretics.

 

[HUGGY]

I consider myself a free thinker.

I do not believe anyone resigned to believe in any god to be a free thinker.

I do not believe that someone that believes that "anything is possible" to be a free thinker.

Someone suggesting "it is possible" that there is a U S Postal Mail Box on some moon on some distant planet ... blah...blah...blah.. is simply a fool.

Anyone that believes that atheism is a religion is just attempting to justify the existance of religion. Atheism can not be a religion based on faith of the existance of any higher power including all dieties.

I suppose one could form a group of like minded people that subscribe to an agreed definition of "Atheist" but if "faith in these principals" is needed then in my way of thinking they would be defeating the core value of being an atheist.

Being an atheist, to me, requires that one trust one's own judgement and rejects support from any group thinking.

There may be several levels of atheism purity like how much an individual needs validation or support. The most pure atheist needs no reference book or document save a good dictionary.

I present my two cents here not for your approval but strictly for yours and my entertainment and amusement so as to not dilute my atheism.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Most believers operate by faith, not by knowing.
They don't necessarily claim non-existence. Some do, some don't. What they believe is a separate issue from what they know.
Just like it is for you.

interesting.....I've never had an atheist admit atheism is a religion before.....

meanwhile, atheists DO claim non-existence.....its what separates them from agnostics, who don't........

You're really just not paying attention, or you're just stubbornly refusing to accept the actual definition of 'agnostic'. Once more, for old time's sake, agnosticism is a statement on the provability of the existence of gods. Proof is different that belief (and belief is different than faith, but I don't want to confuse your further). Anyway, to say you are agnostic is just to say you don't think that god's existence can be proven one way or another. You can hold that view and believe that, nonetheless, god exists (a theist). You can also hold that view and lack any belief in a god (an atheist). Likewise, you can hold the opposite view - you can maintain that it IS possible to prove that gods exist - and be either a believer or a non-believer. The point is, the provability of god's existence has nothing to do whether you have a belief in a god or not.

Now, it's fair to say that most people see agnosticism erroneously, as you are, as 'not sure', but that's actually a mistaken over-simplification of the term. It wouldn't be a problem if everyone used it that way, but it creates problems when the two definitions are mixed. When smart people who do understand the meaning (like Einstein) use the term, they probably mean it accurately, which only confuses people who don't know what it really means.

I'm not the one ignoring the actual definition of agnostic......that would be atheists pretending they're cross dressing as agnostics.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

interesting.....I've never had an atheist admit atheism is a religion before.....

meanwhile, atheists DO claim non-existence.....its what separates them from agnostics, who don't........

You're really just not paying attention, or you're just stubbornly refusing to accept the actual definition of 'agnostic'. Once more, for old time's sake, agnosticism is a statement on the provability of the existence of gods. Proof is different that belief (and belief is different than faith, but I don't want to confuse your further). Anyway, to say you are agnostic is just to say you don't think that god's existence can be proven one way or another. You can hold that view and believe that, nonetheless, god exists (a theist). You can also hold that view and lack any belief in a god (an atheist). Likewise, you can hold the opposite view - you can maintain that it IS possible to prove that gods exist - and be either a believer or a non-believer. The point is, the provability of god's existence has nothing to do whether you have a belief in a god or not.

Now, it's fair to say that most people see agnosticism erroneously, as you are, as 'not sure', but that's actually a mistaken over-simplification of the term. It wouldn't be a problem if everyone used it that way, but it creates problems when the two definitions are mixed. When smart people who do understand the meaning (like Einstein) use the term, they probably mean it accurately, which only confuses people who don't know what it really means.

I'll also note that 'atheism' suffers from similar erroneous interpretation. It simply means a lack of belief in a god or gods. "A (without) - theism (belief in gods)". It doesn't mean, as is often popularly misconceived, a belief that gods do not exist. That's a subtle, but important, distinction that often comes up in response to claims that atheism is a statement of 'faith', which it isn't.

just out of curiosity, have you ever actually met an atheist who would acknowledge that their claim is nothing more than a belief, in other words, a faith choice?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Perhaps an analogy will help.
Claim: There is a U.S. mailbox buried on Titan, one of Saturn's moons.

You cannot currently show, one way or another, if this is true or not. So you cannot know for sure.
That's agnosticism.

But do you believe that it's true? No, you don't. Do you believe it might be true? No. And you shouldn't have any problem saying it's not true.
That's atheism.

If something can't be shown or strongly supported to be true (note that I'm not saying proved," and there is no strong reason to think it might be, where's the problem in saying it doesn't exist (until any credible evidence is shown)?

help?.....this should help......draw a circle.....label it all people who say that there is no God......draw another circle.......label it all people who say they don't know whether there is a God or not.......next, realize the two circles never overlap........

why is it that atheists are so desperate to not be alone that they pretend they are someone else?.........

/chuckles.....I wonder if the reaction would be the same if I tried to argue that Christians and agnostics are the same thing because Christians say there is a God and agnostics have said they don't know if there is a God or not.....

And that is the crux of your confusion.
You think "I don't know" means "I have no opinion or belief".
dblack nailed it pretty well in his post.
Almost all Christians are agnostic. They bristle at that because they, like you, don't understand what the term means.
It's funny that the early years of the faith included a group called the Gnostics who said that god could be known absolutely through special revelation and they died out in the long run, being considered heretics.

lol, you people are hopeless.....look, if you don't want to admit you deny the existence of God, then just acknowledge that you are agnostics.....why try to drag agnostics into the same pit you're mired in?......

 

[thebrucebeat]

help?.....this should help......draw a circle.....label it all people who say that there is no God......draw another circle.......label it all people who say they don't know whether there is a God or not.......next, realize the two circles never overlap........

why is it that atheists are so desperate to not be alone that they pretend they are someone else?.........

/chuckles.....I wonder if the reaction would be the same if I tried to argue that Christians and agnostics are the same thing because Christians say there is a God and agnostics have said they don't know if there is a God or not.....

And that is the crux of your confusion.
You think "I don't know" means "I have no opinion or belief".
dblack nailed it pretty well in his post.
Almost all Christians are agnostic. They bristle at that because they, like you, don't understand what the term means.
It's funny that the early years of the faith included a group called the Gnostics who said that god could be known absolutely through special revelation and they died out in the long run, being considered heretics.

lol, you people are hopeless.....look, if you don't want to admit you deny the existence of God, then just acknowledge that you are agnostics.....why try to drag agnostics into the same pit you're mired in?......

I am an agnostic.
What brain fart are you experiencing now?

 

[alan1]

Are Atheists Free Thinkers? - YouTube

He is absolutely correct.

Oh wait, he isn't. In fact, he is a manipulative, lying asshole.

What he did was describe his opinion of what an atheist is, his opinion of how atheists act, then debunk his own definition about them. It's the classic strawman argument to define somebody as how you perceive them, then argue your position from that false definition that you created.

 

[HUGGY]

Alan1's analysis of the OP and the video is spot on.

Same as labeling an atheist philosophy as a religion.

Self serving nonsense.

Oh ya..and lying.

 

[pinqy]

You're really just not paying attention, or you're just stubbornly refusing to accept the actual definition of 'agnostic'. Once more, for old time's sake, agnosticism is a statement on the provability of the existence of gods. Proof is different that belief (and belief is different than faith, but I don't want to confuse your further). Anyway, to say you are agnostic is just to say you don't think that god's existence can be proven one way or another. You can hold that view and believe that, nonetheless, god exists (a theist). You can also hold that view and lack any belief in a god (an atheist). Likewise, you can hold the opposite view - you can maintain that it IS possible to prove that gods exist - and be either a believer or a non-believer. The point is, the provability of god's existence has nothing to do whether you have a belief in a god or not.

Now, it's fair to say that most people see agnosticism erroneously, as you are, as 'not sure', but that's actually a mistaken over-simplification of the term. It wouldn't be a problem if everyone used it that way, but it creates problems when the two definitions are mixed. When smart people who do understand the meaning (like Einstein) use the term, they probably mean it accurately, which only confuses people who don't know what it really means.

I'll also note that 'atheism' suffers from similar erroneous interpretation. It simply means a lack of belief in a god or gods. "A (without) - theism (belief in gods)". It doesn't mean, as is often popularly misconceived, a belief that gods do not exist. That's a subtle, but important, distinction that often comes up in response to claims that atheism is a statement of 'faith', which it isn't.

just out of curiosity, have you ever actually met an atheist who would acknowledge that their claim is nothing more than a belief, in other words, a faith choice?......

"Faith choice" are not other words for "belief."
Knowledge, belief, and faith are quite different.

 

[MaryL]

Hmm. Are Christians free thinkers? I am an atheist. Ask away. As a kid, I waited for GOD to show himself, like Santa. You yourself are a free thinker because you believe in something you can't prove? Umm..,Ok. Meanwhile , reality happens. No need to argue about Gods.

 

[HUGGY]

Hmm. Are Christians free thinkers? I am an atheist. Ask away. As a kid, I waited for GOD to show himself, like Santa. You yourself are a free thinker because you believe in something you can't prove? Umm..,Ok. Meanwhile , reality happens. No need to argue about Gods.

Is that even possible after one gives themself over to a god or jesus?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Free thinkers???

 

[Politico]

If you believe something you cannot prove exists you are not a free thinker. Same goes for people who deny something does not exist.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'll also note that 'atheism' suffers from similar erroneous interpretation. It simply means a lack of belief in a god or gods. "A (without) - theism (belief in gods)". It doesn't mean, as is often popularly misconceived, a belief that gods do not exist. That's a subtle, but important, distinction that often comes up in response to claims that atheism is a statement of 'faith', which it isn't.

just out of curiosity, have you ever actually met an atheist who would acknowledge that their claim is nothing more than a belief, in other words, a faith choice?......

"Faith choice" are not other words for "belief."
Knowledge, belief, and faith are quite different.

faith is believing in something without proof....
no one has proof that God does not exist.....thus, stating that there is no God is a statement of faith....
or do you prefer "world and life view".......it all amounts to the same thing.....

 

[amrchaos]

By the way, there are Christian Free thinkers. Their presupposition is God/ Jesus based and not wholly dependent on naturalistic causes.

In fact, classic free thought originated with the catholics and their curiosity about the natural world.
i think the person in the audio is mistakenly defining a form of modern free thought (or should it be called Neo-modern?) that may not encompass all atheist and definitely not most agnostics.

In other words, the first free thinkers in the west were christian. In fact, for awhile, the only free thought was christian based free thought.

Research the history of free thought and free thinkers and then re watch the video.

Also note that if you do not make some basic presupposition, then how can you form an intelligent argument about anything? Any declaration becomes a form of hand waving and its truth is wholly based on your instincts and emotions. The process to verify if a statement is true or false by some logical process is gone.

 

[thebrucebeat]

By the way, there are Christian Free thinkers. Their presupposition is God/ Jesus based and not wholly dependent on naturalistic causes.

In fact, classic free thought originated with the catholics and their curiosity about the natural world.
i think the person in the audio is mistakenly defining a form of modern free thought (or should it be called Neo-modern?) that may not encompass all atheist and definitely not most agnostics.

In other words, the first free thinkers in the west were christian. In fact, for awhile, the only free thought was christian based free thought.

Research the history of free thought and free thinkers and then re watch the video.

Also note that if you do not make some basic presupposition, then how can you form an intelligent argument about anything? Any declaration becomes a form of hand waving and its truth is wholly based on your instincts and emotions. The process to verify if a statement is true or false by some logical process is gone.

"Freethought or free thought is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4]"

"The year 1600 is considered the beginning of the era of modern freethought, as it is marked by the execution in Italy of Giordano Bruno, a former Dominican Monk, by the Inquisition.[8]"

"The term free-thinker emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible. The beliefs of these individuals were centered on the concept that people could understand the world through consideration of nature. Such positions were formally documented for the first time in 1697 by William Molyneux in a widely publicized letter to John Locke, and more extensively in 1713, when Anthony Collins wrote his Discourse of Free-thinking, which gained substantial popularity."

Free Thinkers is a defined movement of thought that was anti-thetical to the theological traditionalists.
You are attempting to reinvent the term to something less condemning.
The pre-suppositions that Free Thinkers operate under is the body of knowledge that has been collected from inquiry and experiment.

 

[amrchaos]

By the way, there are Christian Free thinkers. Their presupposition is God/ Jesus based and not wholly dependent on naturalistic causes.

In fact, classic free thought originated with the catholics and their curiosity about the natural world.
i think the person in the audio is mistakenly defining a form of modern free thought (or should it be called Neo-modern?) that may not encompass all atheist and definitely not most agnostics.

In other words, the first free thinkers in the west were christian. In fact, for awhile, the only free thought was christian based free thought.

Research the history of free thought and free thinkers and then re watch the video.

Also note that if you do not make some basic presupposition, then how can you form an intelligent argument about anything? Any declaration becomes a form of hand waving and its truth is wholly based on your instincts and emotions. The process to verify if a statement is true or false by some logical process is gone.

"Freethought or free thought is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4]"

"The year 1600 is considered the beginning of the era of modern freethought, as it is marked by the execution in Italy of Giordano Bruno, a former Dominican Monk, by the Inquisition.[8]"

"The term free-thinker emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible. The beliefs of these individuals were centered on the concept that people could understand the world through consideration of nature. Such positions were formally documented for the first time in 1697 by William Molyneux in a widely publicized letter to John Locke, and more extensively in 1713, when Anthony Collins wrote his Discourse of Free-thinking, which gained substantial popularity."

Free Thinkers is a defined movement of thought that was anti-thetical to the theological traditionalists.
You are attempting to reinvent the term to something less condemning.
The pre-suppositions that Free Thinkers operate under is the body of knowledge that has been collected from inquiry and experiment.

Am I trying to re invent the term?
Or am I arguing against how the person in the video has over generalized the term from a specific and very narrow viewpoint of how he defined free thought?

 

[thebrucebeat]

By the way, there are Christian Free thinkers. Their presupposition is God/ Jesus based and not wholly dependent on naturalistic causes.

In fact, classic free thought originated with the catholics and their curiosity about the natural world.
i think the person in the audio is mistakenly defining a form of modern free thought (or should it be called Neo-modern?) that may not encompass all atheist and definitely not most agnostics.

In other words, the first free thinkers in the west were christian. In fact, for awhile, the only free thought was christian based free thought.

Research the history of free thought and free thinkers and then re watch the video.

Also note that if you do not make some basic presupposition, then how can you form an intelligent argument about anything? Any declaration becomes a form of hand waving and its truth is wholly based on your instincts and emotions. The process to verify if a statement is true or false by some logical process is gone.

"Freethought or free thought is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4]"

"The year 1600 is considered the beginning of the era of modern freethought, as it is marked by the execution in Italy of Giordano Bruno, a former Dominican Monk, by the Inquisition.[8]"

"The term free-thinker emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible. The beliefs of these individuals were centered on the concept that people could understand the world through consideration of nature. Such positions were formally documented for the first time in 1697 by William Molyneux in a widely publicized letter to John Locke, and more extensively in 1713, when Anthony Collins wrote his Discourse of Free-thinking, which gained substantial popularity."

Free Thinkers is a defined movement of thought that was anti-thetical to the theological traditionalists.
You are attempting to reinvent the term to something less condemning.
The pre-suppositions that Free Thinkers operate under is the body of knowledge that has been collected from inquiry and experiment.

Am I trying to re invent the term?
Or am I arguing against how the person in the video has over generalized the term from a specific and very narrow viewpoint of how he defined free thought?

Along with centuries of other people who know what this clearly defined movement refers to.

 

[amrchaos]

"Freethought or free thought is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4]"

"The year 1600 is considered the beginning of the era of modern freethought, as it is marked by the execution in Italy of Giordano Bruno, a former Dominican Monk, by the Inquisition.[8]"

"The term free-thinker emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible. The beliefs of these individuals were centered on the concept that people could understand the world through consideration of nature. Such positions were formally documented for the first time in 1697 by William Molyneux in a widely publicized letter to John Locke, and more extensively in 1713, when Anthony Collins wrote his Discourse of Free-thinking, which gained substantial popularity."

Free Thinkers is a defined movement of thought that was anti-thetical to the theological traditionalists.
You are attempting to reinvent the term to something less condemning.
The pre-suppositions that Free Thinkers operate under is the body of knowledge that has been collected from inquiry and experiment.

Am I trying to re invent the term?
Or am I arguing against how the person in the video has over generalized the term from a specific and very narrow viewpoint of how he defined free thought?

Along with centuries of other people who know what this clearly defined movement refers to.

I think you may need to clarify how what I've rewritten is different from the definition given for free thought.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Am I trying to re invent the term?
Or am I arguing against how the person in the video has over generalized the term from a specific and very narrow viewpoint of how he defined free thought?

Along with centuries of other people who know what this clearly defined movement refers to.

I think you may need to clarify how what I've rewritten is different from the definition given for free thought.

Sure. It began as a pushback against the church and its presuppositions.