Lies

[Eon]

Here's some answers for you, MP.

First of all, I don't like the word Freethinker, as it suggests that it's some sort of club or organisation that you can join, which requires you to hold certain beliefs. When I use the term it doesn't have a capital letter and it solely means someone who thinks objectively, holds an open mind and is always willing to consider fresh evidence when making up his mind about the veracity of a belief or statement.

Secondly, almost anything is evidence, however not all evidence is equal. The bible is a piece of evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a piece of evidence. Witnessing from other Christians is a piece of evidence. The experiences of DV and I are pieces of evidence. Personally speaking, for me to be much swayed by a piece of evidence it must be internally consistent with itself and externally consistent with things I believe to have been proven true.

Thirdly the correlation between freewill and independence is clear from the dictionary definitions of the words.

Freewill - done of one's own accord. Voluntary.

Independence - the state of being independent. (A bit of a cop out answer, the definition of independent is to be free of external control or restraint).

Here we see that you can exercise your freewill without being independent. For example, if one chooses to place oneself in service to another, one ceases to be independent, but has exercised ones freewill. One might be capable of leaving that servitude at any time, at which point one would regain ones independence.

Freewill is always to be desired - but true independence is a very scary thing. Few people are truly independent to any great degree.

 

[Dark Virtue]

The rules are simple. I have said it a few times. You claim you cannot prove a negative. If you cannot prove a negative then your stance on God cannot logiclaly stand since you say God doesn't exist. Since you can't prove a negative then the only logical conclusion is the God does exist.

It's obvious that you are not paying attention to anything I am saying.

Pull the plank out of your eye and take a good look at this discussion.

For the umpteenth time, I am a weak atheist, meaning I lack a belief in gods. I have never, ever claimed that gods do not exist. I do not take that stand because it is just as equally impossible to prove that a god exists as it is to prove that one does not. I don't know how many times I need to remind you of my position, I'm not sure if you are forgetting or if you are simply ignoring it.

Stop saying things that aren't true or deliberately put words in my mouth.

You speak of rules and try to use logic only when it suits you, or in this case, when you think (incorrectly) that it does. If you are going to use logic, then use it correctly. Embrace it all, or not at all. You can't choose to use it and then ignore the ramifications.

You can't claim that the inability to prove that something doesn't exist automatically validates its existence.

You have continually ignored many of my points because you know I am right. You can't prove leprechauns don't exist...yet according to your "logic" that means they do. You can't prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, therefore, according to your "logic" it must exist. Since you can't disprove the existence of any god, according to you, they must ALL exist. You know you're wrong, but you simply won't accept it.

Now, what I think...I hope, you are trying to say is that by not being able to prove that something does not exist, there remains the possibility that it does. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable. It is possible that I could win the lottery if I play it, but it's not very probable.

Since I can't prove that your god doesn't exist, then there remains the possibility that it does. Herein lies the difference between a weak and a strong atheist. I don't claim that your god doesn't exist, I simply harbor a lack of belief in your god. You, however, claim that your god DOES exist. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove that he does. If you claim a positive then you better be able to back it up.

As you said, the rules are simple. You just aren't willing to follow them.

I don't know how many times I need to remind you of my position. I'm not sure if you are forgetting or if you are simply ignoring it.

I suggest that you take the time to actually respond to ALL the points in my post and not erroneously rehash the same portion. Ignoring simple points repeatedly isn't helping your case.

 

[Master~Plan]

Thankyou Eon for your well thought out post. I picked up a little irony in the answeres to your first and second answeres:

When I use the term it doesn't have a capital letter and it solely means someone who thinks objectively, holds an open mind and is always willing to consider fresh evidence when making up his mind about the veracity of a belief or statement.

Personally speaking, for me to be much swayed by a piece of evidence it must be internally consistent with itself and externally consistent with things I believe to have been proven true.

These are two very interesting statements. I like the second as it is true for me as well. But how does the second statement contrast with bieng totally objective? Objective by definition is totally uninfluenced. Doesn't that mean that your past expierences and things you believe to have been proven true have to be put aside for the sake of bieng objective?

Everytime someone brings something that contradicts your thought to the table, your established beliefs of truth are in jeopardy. Your established ideas do not factor into whether or not the new matirial is valid.
OR
are the past expierences and things that are found to be true the largest and most influential evidence that you hold up to new ideas given?

Either way, I would fit under the category of freethinker. I have been subject to many beliefs and philosophies, and the conclution I have come to is based on the objective overwhelming evidence I have recieved.

Independence - the state of being independent. (A bit of a cop out answer, the definition of independent is to be free of external control or restraint

ahh, thankyou that clears up everything. You are talking about Independant will(and I take it DV was also) I was talking about physical needs that make us dependant.

 

[Master~Plan]

heh, I know its not a label. You didn't make up the theory of evolution any more than I made up Christianity. So how are you different from me? What have you done to be a "free thinker"?

The very question indicates you are unfamiliar with the definition of "freethinker"

I don't see the corrilation between independance and free will

And without seeing the correlation, you have no hope of understanding. Let's start by having you define both terms and we'll go from there.

well, diverting back to post 50 I still have quite a few unanswered questions if you don't mind
first I was wondering what you guys have done differently than me to deserve the title of "freethinker"

That's a simple answer if you understand what the definition of freethinker is. Given that I have defined the term many times here, would you mind telling me what YOU think a freethinker is?

See any consistencies with the past answers I get? You don't directly answer anymore of my questions DV... Why might that be?

 

[Dark Virtue]

See any consistencies with the past answers I get? You don't directly answer anymore of my questions DV... Why might that be?

Maybe because I'm tired of answering them over and over again?

Since you have proven, yet again, that you are unfamiliar with the term, and refuse to define it, I will, yet again, define it for you.

A freethinker is ne who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

If you are a Christian, or hold to any religious faction, you can not, by definition be a Freethinker, since a freethinker bases their opinions APART FROM and not BECAUSE OF religious dogma.

So to answer your first and third set of questions

So how are you different from me? What have you done to be a "free thinker"?

I am different from you because I base my opinions and decisions apart from religious dogma. I hold no religous views and therefore, the do no control my life.

As for your second set, I have already mentioned that the onus was on heiscomingsoon and referenced post 29. I suggest you reread it in context.

As far as the correlation between independance and free will, I suggested you define the terms, since it is necessary to the discussion. You, however, refused saying, "I don't see enough value in a discussion pivited on definition of words."

How can you have a discussion based on points that you haven't defined?

 

[Eon]

You know, you're right MP, I didn't express myself clearly enough. The only issue left to resolve between the two of us, I think, is this matter of objectivity.

When I said that in order for me to accept something it had to be internally consistent and externally consistent with matters I believed to have been adequately proven, I should have mentioned that I don't simply put a box around something when it has been "proven" and deem it inviolate from then on.

If you can attack an idea I believe in by stripping away the supporting evidence, then I will conclude that it has no longer been proven to the best of my belief - at that point it ceases to be included in the category of "things I believe to have been adequately proven".

A classic example of something in this category would be macro evolution. I still suspect that the theory is right, but I can't prove it - and I don't need to, it's still the most likely theory of the ones on offer. In my opinion.

 

[Eon]

I have already settled this for you. Weak Atheism is a belief that something is not proven - this point has already been made. Ask a strong Atheist where his proof of God's non-existence is!

 

[Dark Virtue]

I am simply rehasing the one area you have refused to adress. God or Gods the logic is the same. if you cannot prove a negative then your stance that God Himself cannot exist is a logical fallacy. Simple logic says..by your own statement a while back..if you cannot prove a negative then your stance that God Himself cannot exist is logically incorrect. Therfore using simple logical concepts it means that God Himself must exist.

You SAY you are using logic, but you are not. What you are doing is putting words in my mouth, thus creating a strawman argument.

You said, "then your stance that God Himself cannot exist is logically incorrect". My stance has never been that God CANNOT exist. I have never said this, never implied it, and never inferred it.

One more time...I lack a belief in gods. I don't go around claiming that God doesn't exist.

What "logical" concepts are you using to infer that not being able to prove something doesn't exist automatically makes it exist? Just saying you are using logic doesn't mean that you are. You have continually failed to acknowledge the problems with this assumption. Remember the Leprechauns, Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc. Why have you continually dodged this part of the discussion?

Let me ask you now, point blank, in front of everyone here: If you cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, does that mean that it does? If you use your "logic" then you have to agree that it does. That would also mean that every god in every religion exists as well, because you can't disprove any of them. Stop avoiding and address this topic. You have built a shaky argument on top of a house of cards and it's getting ready to crumble all around you.

 

[Master~Plan]

Maybe because I'm tired of answering them over and over again?

Since you have proven, yet again, that you are unfamiliar with the term, and refuse to define it, I will, yet again, define it for you.

woa hey, You never answered those questions to me before, much less again. I"m not trying to be a nusance to talk to....

A freethinker is ne who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

If you are a Christian, or hold to any religious faction, you can not, by definition be a Freethinker, since a freethinker bases their opinions APART FROM and not BECAUSE OF religious dogma.

ah, so its safe to conclude from your statement that a freethinker, is someone who automatically throws out any religion....
Your definition of "freethinker" I would equate to my definition of "biased"
However Eons definition of "freethinker" I can relate to

I am different from you because I base my opinions and decisions apart from religious dogma. I hold no religous views and therefore, the do no control my life.

well, I hope it works out for you, I base my beliefs on life experience and unbiased evidence presented to me.

How can you have a discussion based on points that you haven't defined?

because the whole point of freewill and independance was in refference to people's lives, not the dictionary. I was talking about how we are dependant on other people, including thier ideas, and thats all history now, so I'll leave it. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[Master~Plan]

I should have mentioned that I don't simply put a box around something when it has been "proven" and deem it inviolate from then on.

Do you believe absolute truth is out there? Truth so pure you can simply put a box around it and say it has been proven?

If not, why do you not believe in such a concept?

 

[Eon]

He's trying to explain the difference between not proving something and proving it.

He's "failed" to prove that God doesn't exist - you haven't yet succeeded in proving that He does.


On a more sensible and productive note, MasterPlan, there may well be an ultimate Truth out there. The Physicists are persuing the Grand Unified Theory - essentially an equation that can solve any problem.

Theoretically it should be possible to develop it.

 

[Dark Virtue]

woa hey, You never answered those questions to me before, much less again. I"m not trying to be a nusance to talk to....

I DID answer them, just not to your liking

ah, so its safe to conclude from your statement that a freethinker, is someone who automatically throws out any religion....
Your definition of "freethinker" I would equate to my definition of "biased"
However Eons definition of "freethinker" I can relate to

Sorry, but you have misinterpreted what I said. This isn't about "throwing out" religion, it's about basing your opinions APART FROM religious dogma. What you said and what I said, are two very different things.

well, I hope it works out for you, I base my beliefs on life experience and unbiased evidence presented to me.

Guess what? I base MY beliefs on life experience unbiased evidence presented to me. If you truly had "unbiased" evidence that led you to believe in god, I would love to hear it.

Here's one thing to keep in mind that many Christians tend to ignore. If you truly believe that you have been given evidence/proof/reason to believe in God, why do you condemn those of us that haven't been given any evidence/proof/reason to justify our belief in God? This is why I am a atheist...I lack a belief in your god...why? Because I don't have any evidence/proof/reason to believe in him. Give me those things and I will believe.

because the whole point of freewill and independance was in refference to people's lives, not the dictionary. I was talking about how we are dependant on other people, including thier ideas, and thats all history now, so I'll leave it. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Hey, misunderstandings happen

 

[Dark Virtue]

Yu have not adressed hte point that's very obvious. You said you can't prove a negative...i'll spare you repeating hte rest..

What, exactly, haven't I addressed? I have addressed it quite clearly.

You, on the other hand, contiue to deny that your entire argument is faulty.

Why won't you directly answer my questions posed to you?

 

[Master~Plan]

On a more sensible and productive note, MasterPlan, there may well be an ultimate Truth out there. The Physicists are persuing the Grand Unified Theory - essentially an equation that can solve any problem.

Thats pretty neat. Lets assume they discover the real, ultimate and universally true equation. Do you believe they will know right away that it is indeed undeniable truth? Do you believe anyone will be able to convince them otherwise?

Sorry, but you have misinterpreted what I said. This isn't about "throwing out" religion, it's about basing your opinions APART FROM religious dogma. What you said and what I said, are two very different things.

How could you base a descision on the validity of a religion apart from hearing what the religion adresses?
How could you tell the weather apart from reading the signs of the atmosphere?
I don't see the difference, all I see is "throwing out"
When you address an issue and seperate influence from one aspect, that is bieng biased. From what I read, you seperate yourself from religious "dogma".

If you truly had "unbiased" evidence that led you to believe in god, I would love to hear it.

That I do remember sharing with you, but what good is the testamony of a schmoe like me over the internet?

Give me those things and I will believe.

Proverbs 8:11 says Wisdom is more valuable than rubies. It goes on to state that nothing you can desire on this earth can compare to it.
Like a fine rubie, you are not going to just stumble over wisdom one day. It won't appear before you.
What if I said, "I really would like a diamond ring, but I haven't found one". Its really something you have to work for. Or something you work towards...

Maybe finding God takes a little more effort? More effort than previously invested? I don't know thats between you and God. I only spent a little time as a kid in preschool looking for leprechauns(sp?). That is because I don't believe in the possiblility leprechauns. If I really did believe in even the possibility of leprechauns, I would still be looking for them. I don't think you really do believe in the possiblility of God, though you say otherwise.

 

[Dark Virtue]

You are looking at the wrong part. I am focusing on your statement that you can't prove a negative and then using simple logic from that statement. YOu simply have not addressed you can't prove a negative.

Maybe if you would ask a specific question I would give you a specific answer.

I would be more than happy to address any questions you have, although as I mentioned, I believe I have already addressed this subject.

BUT...why should I bother answering your questions when you are being so evasive to my specific questions.

How many times do I have to pose these questions to you?

 

[Dark Virtue]

How could you base a descision on the validity of a religion apart from hearing what the religion adresses?
How could you tell the weather apart from reading the signs of the atmosphere?
I don't see the difference, all I see is "throwing out"
When you address an issue and seperate influence from one aspect, that is bieng biased. From what I read, you seperate yourself from religious "dogma".

Sorry, but you're still not getting it. Being a freethinker has nothing to do with the validation of religions. It doesn't matter which religion is "right" and which religion is "wrong". Being a freethinker is about basing your decisions and forming opinions apart from religious conventions.

You seem to think that I am "throwing out" religions because I think they're all idiotic. Instead, it's more of an objective approach rather than a subjective one.

I don't have to BE a follower of Islam in order to understand that religion. I don't need to be Hindu in order to understand that religion. I don't need to be a meteorologist to understand how weather works.

That I do remember sharing with you, but what good is the testamony of a schmoe like me over the internet?

Anecdotal evidence.

Proverbs 8:11 says Wisdom is more valuable than rubies. It goes on to state that nothing you can desire on this earth can compare to it.
Like a fine rubie, you are not going to just stumble over wisdom one day. It won't appear before you.
What if I said, "I really would like a diamond ring, but I haven't found one". Its really something you have to work for. Or something you work towards...

Maybe finding God takes a little more effort? More effort than previously invested? I don't know thats between you and God. I only spent a little time as a kid in preschool looking for leprechauns(sp?). That is because I don't believe in the possiblility leprechauns. If I really did believe in even the possibility of leprechauns, I would still be looking for them. I don't think you really do believe in the possiblility of God, though you say otherwise.

Your insinuation is insulting. You don't know how much effort I put in, or the state of my heart as I knelt, crying, begging to a god that never revealed himself to me. Ask and you shall find. I asked and found nothing. For you to presuppose that my heart wasn't in the right place or I didn't try hard enough is extremely insulting.

 

[Eon]

As someone who isn't a parent I feel slightly unqualified in this arena, but...

If freewill is supposed to be the deal then if you blanket your child in Christianity and don't allow them a free and open choice, aren't you going against God's will?

Just a thought.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Sometimes the truth hurts. If you want to lead them on a path to unbelief which the bible clearly states is a ticket to hell..that's your choice.

You supporting the bible's belief of condemning innocents to hell doesn't make it, or you, any less evil.

 

[Dark Virtue]

But it's not just me alone. This is the view you present to the world.

Now, would you mind going back and answering the questions I posed to you?

 

[Master~Plan]

Sorry, but you're still not getting it. Being a freethinker has nothing to do with the validation of religions. It doesn't matter which religion is "right" and which religion is "wrong". Being a freethinker is about basing your decisions and forming opinions apart from religious conventions.

No, I don't get it. I think its the first time I have no idea what you are trying to convey.
To me it does matter what is truth and what is not. ("right""wrong")
when I look at this statement you made:

If you are a Christian, or hold to any religious faction, you can not, by definition be a Freethinker

This quote just proves that because you have drawn a different conclution than me, you label yourself as a "freethinker". I guess your free to call yourself whatever you want, I don't really care. The title is misleading though....
I think Eon gave a more rational definition.

Anecdotal evidence.

pretty much a nice way of calling someone a liar