If you have time, please visit this site.

[Mr.Bill]

I think it's because people are scared of my dancing badger.

 

[Dark Virtue]

So THAT'S what that thing is.

I thought a panda and a skunk had a kid

 

[Mr.Bill]

Baaaah..everyone thinks it's a skunk.. Or a panda. Rarely a badger, how ironic. But I assure you sir, that's what it is.

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

 

[Genesis1315]

So my next question would be....

Can one truly be a freethinker and embrace the established beliefs of being a free thinker? Would one only nullify the definition of being a freethinker?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Genesis1315 @ Sep. 20 2004,7:47)]So my next question would be....

Can one truly be a freethinker and embrace the established beliefs of being a free thinker?  Would one only nullify the definition of being a freethinker?

What? That hurt my brain

Let's look at the defnition again:

Someone who speculates or forms opinions independently of the authority of others.

One can speculate and form opinions with the help/research/education of others. It is an opinion formed by logic, reason and study. It is, however, created in an area that is free of opinions that are dicated by others.

A freethinker is one who thinks unbiassed by revelation or ecclesiastical canons

This is self explanatory, is it not?

A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.

This is why I embrace the notion of "freethinker". It's about forming opinions about religion from a solid foundation of reason, being able to step back and look at tradition and beliefs with an unbiased eye.

So can one truly be a freethinker? Yes.

 

[Jim]

Freethinker? I wish.

Compared to DV, my opinions seem sadly childish. I am an atheist, mainly because I seek ways to DISprove that which I don't agree, rather than prove that which I support.

Sad case is it not?

 

[Avesther]

Its not that anybody killed this forum. It has its ups and downs. I have higher priorties in my life. Posting on this forum usually ranks about 78th.

Freethinkers is nothing more then a form of relativism. There is no correct though in freethinking, only that if through freethinking logic you find religion (in its more general sense), then you must be wrong. Which is an oxymoron of freethought.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Peon REALLY hates the term "Freethinker"

There IS correct thought as a Freethinker, it's about asking honest questions out from under the umbrella of authority and tradition. It's about taking a step back and honestly looking at religion. It can either lead you to or away from religion. For most people it leads them away from religion because that is the LOGICAL course. Why? Because logic and reason cannot validate Faith. And faith is required for all regligous belief.

There is no oxymore or contradiction in Freethought. If there is something you don't understand, I will try and explain.

 

[Avesther]

You claim to not yeild to the authority of man or men. But, you yeild to a method created by men and said to be authoritative by men, the scientific method. You claim that if science can't explain it, it eventually will, but, is that not the definition of faith? To not understand something and live on in the hope that eventually you will? So how do you validate your faith in the scientific method?

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]You claim to not yeild to the authority of man or men.  But, you yeild to a method created by men and said to be authoritative by men, the scientific method.  You claim that if science can't explain it, it eventually will, but, is that not the definition of faith?  To not understand something and live on in the hope that eventually you will?  So how do you validate your faith in the scientific method?

To validate the faith in science, you need only hindsight. Simply look at what you are typing on. Think about what we are currently using to dicuss such matters. If you and I were talking face-to-face in the Dark Ages, or Medieval times, such things as discussing as we are now would be simply unthought of. Nuclear energy is a massive component in developed nations' energy grid. Back then, it was more fantasy, science fiction.

The thing is, to make assumptions of the origins of life, of the secrets of nature is simply not going to happen without many further years, perhaps centuries of study. We simply havn't the tools or knowledge. Faith in science has allowed instantaneous communications spanning the globe. Faith in religion has caused some of the most awful atrocities in history (This isn't a dig at religion).

My point is, faith in science is constantly bringing new marvels that would be fantasy into our world and turning them into everyday objects. In the past, religion has held back science for reasons from ethics (Which may or may not be acceptable, depending on your standpoint) to simple ignorance (Again, not a dig at Christians on this site, they are more informed than atheists on certain other boards could ever be.) eg, Galileo and his discovery of the Earth revolving around the sun.

Believing in God has brought happiness to those who have it, or at least, to those who are in a position to have both. Science has brought man near-century lifespans within a few centuries, destroyed boundaries and enhanced comfort. Yes it has its downsides, but would you honestly like to live a century before now?

Edit: Stupid grammar

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]To validate the faith in science, you need only hindsight.

To validate my faith in God, I need only hindsight. I look into my past and I see God throughout my life.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 21 2004,2:34)]

Stop playing twister with my words

Quote[/b] ]You claim to not yeild to the authority of man or men.

No sir, that is not what I said. What I said was, "A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief." Forming opinions devoid of authority is not the same as not yielding to authority.

Quote[/b] ]But, you yeild to a method created by men and said to be authoritative by men, the scientific method.

Again, I said, "A person who forms opinions about religion[/u] on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief." The term freethinker is used to explain theological and philisophical matters. In other words, this covers Christianity, Darwinian Evolution, et. al. This has nothing to do with contemplating the Theory of Relativity or mathematical theorums.

Quote[/b] ]You claim that if science can't explain it, it eventually will, but, is that not the definition of faith?

No, they are not the same thing. Once again, you are twisting my words and inferring things that I did not say nor mean. Science believes what it can prove. When new knowledge arrives that dispels the old beliefs, the old ones are wiped clean and the new are set as the standard. Science evolves to keep the most updated knowledge as a stanard. It ebbs, it flows, it changes when needed. If science can't explain something then science makes no qualms about saying, "Hey, right now, we don't know. This, however we do know and we can speculate on what we don't know because we have x, y and z as evidence to postulate theories." That's why you have theories and you have facts. Faith, on the other hand, has you believe with out any such reason or facts. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Quote[/b] ]To not understand something and live on in the hope that eventually you will?

If I don't understand something I work towards that understanding in a logical manner. I don't close my eyes and wait for a warm, fuzzy feeling to appear in my belly and have a far off voice whisper me the answer in my ear.

So how do you validate your faith in the scientific method?

Quite easily. The scientific method holds its truths to be verifiable and accoutable. I have faith in what science tells me about gravity, about motion about mathematics, about engineering. I know why the sun shines, the moon glows, the sky is blue and the grass is green.

Now here's the kicker, religion does something that science can not. Religion answers EVERY question. Can religion tell you how man and the universe came into existence? Absolutely without a doubt! Unfortunately there are many different religions with many different ideas here. Yet they all claim to be correct. Science, however, shrugs its shoulders and says, you know what, we really don't know how the universe started or how life came to be. But, here is what we know as fact, we can take this information, extrapolate and come up with some theories.

If you came to me and told me that your version of Creationism was a theory, I wouldn't fault you one bit. But Christians don't, they hit you hard and fast with their version of Creationism as FACT. THAT I have a problem with. Why? Because it doesn't hold up to the scientific method. It relies not on fact, but on faith.

I'm going to include a few thoughts and quotes about Freethinkers. I hope it sheds some light on the issue for those with questions.

Quote[/b] ](A freethinker is ) A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.

Freethinkers are naturalistic. Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the proper use of reason.

Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method. For a statement to be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it, and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character attacks?).

Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason. Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition.
Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful. It has been used to justify war, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance, and oppression of minorities. The totalitarianism of religious absolutes chokes progress.

Freethinkers see no pride in the blind maintenance of ancient superstitions or self-effacing prostration before divine tyrants known only through primitive "revelations."

Quotes are from Dan Barker.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 21 2004,3:44)]To validate my faith in God, I need only hindsight.  I look into my past and I see God throughout my life.

To validate your faith in God you choose to believe in the unbelieveable. You choose to believe in things that are unquantifiable and outside the realm of proveability.

Just because you believe in something with your whole heart does not make it true.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]Stop playing twister with my words

Quote[/b] ]Someone who speculates or forms opinions independently of the authority of others.

I am not playing twister with your words, you are playing twister with your own. If you are independant of the authority of others, you are not yeilding to their authority.

Quote[/b] ]This has nothing to do with contemplating the Theory of Relativity or mathematical theorums.

And I didn't say anythinhg about that either. I said scientific method. Which Dan Barker, the person you quoted then confirmed:

Quote[/b] ]Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method.

He didn't mention anything about Theory of Relativity either, yet you are not blasting him like you did me.

Quote[/b] ]As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. So you are right, faith is illogical, but, it is not wrong either. People by nature are not logical beings. People are emotional.

Quote[/b] ]"Hey, right now, we don't know. This, however we do know and we can speculate on what we don't know because we have x, y and z as evidence to postulate theories."

But, that is in a perfect world, but that is not what they do. Even Darwin hoped (not postulated) that evidence for his Darwinism evolution would be found one day. He had faith in the scientific method or that science or that evidence one day would prove him right.

Quote[/b] ]To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid,

Wiping out a whole realm of possibilities before you even start, no matter how impossible for you to believe, is far from free thinking. Its rather closed minded.

Quote[/b] ]Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method.

You would think a freethinker would run from any tool that limits the truth. Besides, what is truth?

Problem with saying you know the truth is that it is subjective. Have ten people witness a car accident and you will get ten true and different versions of it, and all will correspond equally to the reality of the accident from each persons perception.

Quote[/b] ]Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality.

Who judges which reality is the most accurate to judge the degree of truth? What happens if there are two realities? So which truth is more accurate? What happens if you don't know about the reality? What happens if you reject the other reality simply because you don't like it?

Quote[/b] ]Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason.

But reason is not a scientific method. And a persons reasoning is subjective.

Quote[/b] ]To validate your faith in God you choose to believe in the unbelieveable. You choose to believe in things that are unquantifiable and outside the realm of proveability.

Just because you believe in something with your whole heart does not make it true.

But the reality is, it does. Doctors and scientist have been studying the role of faith in healings and results are not suprising. Faith is a real, might well be unquantifiable by our standards, but within the realm of provable reality.

The Power of Belief

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 22 2004,12:52)]

Quote[/b] ]
I am not playing twister with your words, you are playing twister with your own. If you are independant of the authority of others, you are not yeilding to their authority.

One more time, shall we?

Someone who speculates or forms opinions independently of the authority of others.

At no time did I say exist or live independently of authority, now did I? I said FORMING OPINIONS independently of authority. Come on Peon, there's a huge difference here and you know it.

Quote[/b] ]And I didn't say anythinhg about that either. I said scientific method. Which Dan Barker, the person you quoted then confirmed:

Quote[/b] ]Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method.

He didn't mention anything about Theory of Relativity either, yet you are not blasting him like you did me.

But you are using it in a different way. You said, "But, you yeild to a method created by men and said to be authoritative by men, the scientific method." You are using that as an end all means and it is not, it is simply a tool, which is what Dan Barker said.

Quote[/b] ]Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. So you are right, faith is illogical, but, it is not wrong either. People by nature are not logical beings. People are emotional.

Faith in and of itself is not wrong, but when it is used to justify a religion or deity, then it becomes whole new ball game. Your assertion that people are logical beings only underlines the need for a LOGICAL approach. It's easier to rely on our emotions now isn't it?

Quote[/b] ]But, that is in a perfect world, but that is not what they do. Even Darwin hoped (not postulated) that evidence for his Darwinism evolution would be found one day. He had faith in the scientific method or that science or that evidence one day would prove him right.

Come come now, not all faith is the same. That is the first thing I discovered when I started doing research on it. You can't cover faith in a broad stroke like that. The dictionary has many definitions of faith. The faith that justifies your belief is defined as, "belief and trust in and loyalty to God, belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion, firm belief in something for which there is no proof." The faith that Darwin had in science is defined as, "something that is believed especially with strong conviction."

Quote[/b] ]Wiping out a whole realm of possibilities before you even start, no matter how impossible for you to believe, is far from free thinking. Its rather closed minded.

Now who's pulling things out of context? Barker asserts that revelation and faith are invalid to justify belief because there is no way to quantify something that does not exist. Revelation and faith are personal feelings that are held outside the realm of speculation and are therefore not subject to the scientific method. What is closed minded about needing proof to believe in something? If a freethinker were subjected to proof, real solid proof, then there would be no escaping believing in a religion and a deity. But that's the problem, there IS NO PROOF.

Quote[/b] ]You would think a freethinker would run from any tool that limits the truth.

Quite the opposite, a freethinker would embrace any tool that proves or justifies truth.

Quote[/b] ]Besides, what is truth?

Just like faith, truth has multiple definitions as well. There is scientific truth and religious truth. "Explanations and theories that correctly predict new results from new observations or experiments bring us closer to a true understanding of nature and the rules by which it operates. Scientific truths are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through observation. Certain religious truths are held to be true no matter what. That is okay as long as it is not considered to be a scientific truth. Some things like love, honor, honesty, and compassion are known to be right or true without the test of experiments. Confusion between the religious and scientific types of explanation has been, and still continues to be, the source of a huge amount of conflict between many people. It is possible to be a scientist and a devout member of a spiritual faith."--From astronomynow.com

Quote[/b] ]Problem with saying you know the truth is that it is subjective. Have ten people witness a car accident and you will get ten true and different versions of it, and all will correspond equally to the reality of the accident from each persons perception.

Correct, but only to a point. Though the witnesses have differing versions, there is still only ONE truth now isn't there? There is only one real cause of the accident that exists independantly of the witness accounts.

Quote[/b] ]Who judges which reality is the most accurate to judge the degree of truth? What happens if there are two realities? So which truth is more accurate? What happens if you don't know about the reality?

If you use the scientific method to justify your beliefs, then science sets your reality. Science also acknowledges that there are things that we can not test yet. That is why we extrapolate from our current knowledge. If science is unable to detect another reality then it remains hidden until science can detect it. If science never detects it does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it means that it is not detectable. Science has nothing to merit the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. Does that mean it doesn't exist or that we have yet to detect one?

Quote[/b] ]What happens if you reject the other reality simply because you don't like it?

Now this would be a problem and go against the scientific method. I don't like fireants, but I can't reject their reality.

Quote[/b] ]But reason is not a scientific method. And a persons reasoning is subjective.

Reason is not a scientific method, but reason IS SUBJECT to the scientific method. Part of the definition of reason is, "The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought" all of which are ingredients that make up the scientific method. Is it reasonable to believe in an invisible pink unicorn?

Quote[/b] ]But the reality is, it does. Doctors and scientist have been studying the role of faith in healings and results are not suprising. Faith is a real, might well be unquantifiable by our standards, but within the realm of provable reality.

Then prove it to me.

If the research on faith in healing holds merit then it will be proven to be true. However, be advised that the research that is being done isn't as objective as you think.

Quote[/b] ]A new study published in the premiere British medical journal The Lancet confirms what skeptics have been saying all along: that studies purporting to show the health benefits of religious belief and church attendance are flawed methodologically or statistically; and more importantly, that doctors who incorporate these studies into their practice might be stepping across the line into unethical medical practice. "Even in the best studies, the evidence of an association between religion, spirituality, and health is weak and inconsistent," said the study. Lead author Dr. Richard P Sloan of Columbia University noted that many of the studies finding health benefits for religion failed to take into account such obvious variables as "age, sex, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and health status." Sloan's team noted that when these variables were controlled for in several widely publicized studies, the health benefits for religious belief vanished.

LINK

And this is from webmd.com, "But as Richard P. Sloan, PhD, and colleagues reported in the journal The Lancet earlier this year, "even in the best studies, the evidence of an association between religion, spirituality, and health is weak and inconsistent." Sloan and colleagues took a systematic look at the methodology of several frequently cited studies of religion and physical health, and found significant flaws in most, noting that the studies failed to control for confounding factors and variables such as behavioral and genetic differences, age, gender, socioeconomic background, and health status. "We believe ... that it is premature to promote faith and religion as adjunctive medical treatments," they write. " LINK

And here's a good article from MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339654/site/newsweek/

 

[Avesther]

Again, lots of accusations. You better be sure that you interpreted my posts right before you go off accusing me of twisting your words.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I interpret them as best I can. If I'm incorrect, then I'm incorrect.

So what have I misinterpreted? Or are you going to make me guess?

Tell you what, why don't we just stop right now, back up and make sure we're both on the same page.

There have been times when I have been short with you but it's from the feeling that I get from you. You are short with me and accusatory, so that's what I give back. You seem to have taken personal offense to my use of the word "freethinker" and have sought to take it out on me.

Again, if I'm wrong, then I apologize, but let's get it out in the open shall we? I don't want there to be hard feelings here, but that's what I perceive from your posts. I've tried being light and joke around a little with you but you won't have any of it. But if you're going to front an attitude, then expect to get some back.

 

[Avesther]

I think we have come full circle. I think we have proven, we are exactly alike. And that is why we are so abrassive.

I know there are answers to all the questions, even if I don't know all the questions.
You know there are answers to all the questions, even if you don't know all the questions.

I don't need to understand the details of something to enjoy it, nor will it stop working because I don't understand it.

I have faith that God has all the answers, even if I don't know what the questions are or if I would even understand them.

You have faith that science will uncover the answers, eventually, even if you don't know the questions or if you would even understand them.

Does my faith answer all the questions? No. Does your faith answer all the questions? No.

Does my God have all the answers? Yes. Will science uncover all the answers? Eventually, yes.
Has God reveal all the answers? No. Has science revealed all the answers? No.

We are exactly the same, except on one point:

You used science to prove to yourself that Christianity is wrong.
I used God to prove to myself that Christianity is right.

Can science be used to prove God, no. So maybe science is the wrong tool for the job.



But in the end, I say the sunsets and so does science.

 

[Dark Virtue]

The fulcrum of these discussions is always Faith.

That one little intangible thing.

Just one point of clarification, I do not use science to prove that Christianity is wrong. Above and beyond that, I use the scientific method to deduce that religions in general, are not based on fact and reason. All belief systems rely on faith, that innocuous little thing.

So what do you suggest? We part ways and never intrude on each others' little worlds? Unfortunately our worlds will always collide and be at opposition.

That doesn't mean that you and I have to be at odds. I respect you and your opinions, I simply question your belief in Faith.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]I simply question your belief in Faith.

In your mind, I have no way to prove the reality of my faith.

In my mind, you have no way to disprove the reality of my faith.


So, why even question it?


---

I don't have beleif in faith. I believe in a God, I believe that God is the God of the Bible and I have faith in that God.

Just because I said,

I believe in God
I have faith in God

Doesn't mean you can do a mathematical equation substitution and drop God out of the equation and say that I believe in faith. My faith, to me is a tangable reality. Just because science can't measure it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.