Can a Christian really think freely?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Dictionary

 

free·think·er (frthngkr) KEY

 

NOUN:

 

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

 

 

 

In my honest opinion I think that from time to time everyone swallows uncriticaly a pet belief because it really appeals to us. I have done it and probably will do it again in the future...yet I am a freethinker. It takes time to work through our desires by using our reasoning abilities and discipline that comes from being open minded and not shutting out all the possibilities.

 

I think freethought has evolved to mean a little more than the dictionary definition anyways.

 

Yes, in my opinion Christians can be freethinkers if I take into consideration that it takes everyone time to sift through the bull that they have baught because of desires. Human beings are prone to believing based on desires from time to time in thier lives. We can exercise critical thinking in one area yet throw it out the window in another regardless of who we are.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Heres an example of my oopsies.

 

In another thread here I said that weed is physically addictive. Someone else said it wasn't. I could have researched it but it took me a while to do it because I wanted to hold on to the belief that I had a little bit of an excuse in my inabilty in my past to smoke without spending all my money on it all the time. I wanted to feel that it was the drug and not me. In reality weed is addictive mentaly for some people, and yes I can be weakminded just like everyone else can be about things.

[invictus1967]

Mr. Longing-for-death,

 

You said “all things” are “irrelevant”. That would include your thoughts and your name.

 

I am simply repeating what you say. I understand what “irrelevant” means. I understand what “all things” mean. However, I am beginning to wonder if you do.

 

I know it is hard to stand by “irrelevant” statements, but that is what you are faced with.

[Mr. Neil]

alright, it is evident i am dealing with a fucking nimrod mongoloid, so i will treat you accordingly..

The problem with the person with whom you are debating is that he's too stupid to realize how stupid his arguments are.

 

I officially award Invictus with his very own argument fallacy: argumentum ad exhaustion. He will literally keep beating a dead horse until you give up, at which point, he will declare his victory.

[invictus1967]

Mr. Neil,

 

You too have never produced any evidence or “freely” formed thoughts of your own. Your entire argument is like everyone else’s on this site.

 

“I am right and you are wrong simply because I DON’T believe”

 

You admit there are things in science that cannot be explained, yet you restrict your thinking to believe that only science can explain them.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Once you have rejected a Creator, how are you "free" to think of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution?

Enlighten me, please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heres an example of throwing critical thinking out the winder.

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that theories are not written in stone and can be replaced by better theories as well as current theories be improved on.

 

Your dogma can as well I suppose but it is totaly limited by scripture and you can't stray too far. In the case of your religious beliefs only you are resticted to shutting out evedences that are embarassing to your superstion. Here you are projecting. It is you in this case and just this case that is not thinking outside of the box you have built for yourself.

 

We can be open minded with new evidences but right now there are no evidences of any gods.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Mr. Neil,

 

You too have never produced any evidence or “freely” formed thoughts of your own. Your entire argument is like everyone else’s on this site.

 

“I am right and you are wrong simply because I DON’T believe”

 

You admit there are things in science that cannot be explained, yet you restrict your thinking to believe that only science can explain them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you demonstrate a better method than the scientific method in understanding and explaining things you let us know k.

 

The scientific method has earned confidence in it and religion never has.

 

We can believe in what has evidence and can be open minded with new evidences that we find and make theories based on these evidences.

 

In this case you however are a sandbagger and not us. We go were the evidence leads us. And right now there is no evidences of any gods.

 

We can reason on what has evedences but not on what is merely possible. Everything is possible, like Santa, Unicorns, pixies, vampires, all gods...

[Mr. Neil]

Look at what he says in Dogmatic's quote. I've never once made such an argument. Twice I've shown him evidence for evolution, and I've revealed to him the circularity of his logic countless times. Invictus has joined the lowly group of bad apologists to visit this site, like Jesus Freak and Goldy, that fall under the Too-Fucking-Stupid-To-Argue-With-Neil category with an honorary Intellectual Dishonesty award for relentlessly trying to shift the burden of proof to people who are not trying to make any claim whatsoever.

[invictus1967]

I have never once said that my beliefs were based on the Bible.

 

How can you say I am restricted to something I have yet to even reference?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I have never once said that my beliefs were based on the Bible.

 

How can you say I am restricted to something I have yet to even reference?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My apologies. Where do you get the notion that there is a god? Were do you get your definition of god?

[invictus1967]

Mr. Neil,

 

You have never shown any evidence of evolution. You throw out references to websites that are nothing more than homepages for blowhards spouting their beliefs the same as I am.

 

You give the opinion of others that are no more valid than mine.

 

I gave you concrete documented evidence:

----Einstein’s general theory of relativity

----Hubble’s Law

----Background radiation found in the 60s

----Smoot’s Berkley team’s discoveries in the 90s

 

What have you given in the way of documented science?

 

And what “freely” formed thoughts have you generated from your evidence other than my thoughts are wrong?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Mr. Neil,

 

You have never shown any evidence of evolution. You throw out references to websites that are nothing more than homepages for blowhards spouting their beliefs the same as I am.

 

You give the opinion of others that are no more valid than mine.

 

I gave you concrete documented evidence:

----Einstein’s general theory of relativity

----Hubble’s Law

----Background radiation found in the 60s

----Smoot’s Berkley team’s discoveries in the 90s

 

What have you given in the way of documented science?

 

And what “freely” formed thoughts have you generated from your evidence other than my thoughts are wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And were did you come by this info?

 

If websites aren't good enough for you then perhaps you should take some classes on evolution wich are taught by someone who isn't a creationist.

 

That would be what a truthseeker who wants to avoid any strawmen would do.

[dogmatically_challenged]

My apologies. Where do you get the notion that there is a god? Were do you get your definition of god?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bump.

[Mr. Neil]

You throw out references to websites that are nothing more than homepages for blowhards spouting their beliefs the same as I am.

Proof that you're a liar and you didn't even go to the link I provided. The link I gave you was not anyone's homepage. It was a multi-page essay on the multiple documented evidences of evolution, complete with references.

 

Everyone here knows what article I'm talking about. I don't even have to tell them what it is, but I will anyway. It was the 29+ Evidences For Macroevolution on the Talk.Origins archives, and it's right here. As you can see, it's not a "homepage", nor do you see any blowhards just pushing around their beliefs. What you see are referenced documentations of scientific discoveries. You were too much of a chicken to even go there and read it.

 

You know, Invict... I don't want to hijack this thread with evolution. But I think this is an excellent spot to show everyone how much of a liar and a coward you are. You didn't go to that site, and now everyone here knows.

 

You lose.

 

Check please!

[dogmatically_challenged]

Oh my! They left! heehee.

 

LOL Mr Neil! You need a lasso so they can't get away and escape into another thread to spew thier ignorance.

[dogmatically_challenged]

My apologies. Where do you get the notion that there is a god? Were do you get your definition of god?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bump.

 

Just to rub it in.

[DeathWorship]

alright, you want PROOF of freely formed thought outside of a godly mindset, well here goes..

 

*drumroll*

 

YOU CANT FUCKING PROVE IT! same thing with GOD, same argument you fucking retards use all the time. i can't see into your mind, and vice versa, how do you know my thoughts are formed on my own volition, and how do i know the same about you? WE CAN'T! you're debate is childish, it's RIDICULOUS.

 

EDIT: AH FUCK, i cant let you off that easy... back to my IRRELEVANCY problem, why the fuck do you even CARE whether or not people without a godly mindset can form free thought?

 

do we go to your forums and scream "GOD DOESN'T EXIST HAIL SATAN!" NO, so what gives you the idea that you can do the like, also, who the hell are you to tell us we can't think freely? how could you know that? what makes you so fucking DEFINITIVE about something that you don't even completely understand??</venom>

[dogmatically_challenged]

alright, you want PROOF of freely formed thought outside of a godly mindset, well here goes..

 

*drumroll*

 

YOU CANT FUCKING PROVE IT! same thing with GOD, same argument you fucking retards use all the time. i can't see into your mind, and vice versa, how do you know my thoughts are formed on my own volition, and how do i know the same about you? WE CAN'T! you're debate is childish, it's RIDICULOUS.

 

EDIT: AH FUCK, i cant let you off that easy... back to my IRRELEVANCY problem, why the fuck do you even CARE whether or not people without a godly mindset can form free thought?

 

do we go to your forums and scream "GOD DOESN'T EXIST HAIL SATAN!" NO, so what gives you the idea that you can do the like, also, who the hell are you to tell us we can't think freely? how could you know that? what makes you so fucking DEFINITIVE about something that you don't even completely understand??</venom>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some Christians can be extreme hypocrites. Thier arguments are just dripping with thier own projections.

[crazy-tiger]

We are not restricted to the authority of the Bible, we simply choose to accept it. We are “free” to think of a Creator, but we can also reject Him as you have done.

 

Once you reject the Creator, your thoughts are no longer “free”.

Oopsie... Someone just made a mistake.

 

If you accept the authority of the Bible, then you are not free to question it without denying that authority. By accepting the Bible as authority you are willingly restricting yourself and your thoughts to what the Bible says. By accepting the Bible as authority, you are restricting your thoughts to Dogma and denying any possibility of "free" thoughts.

In regards to our origin, you are not “free” to think in terms of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution. Your thoughts are restricted to those areas because anything beyond them implies God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In regards to our origin, we are free to think what we like as the "cause" but only because we don't have this dogmatic mind-block telling us what is the absolute truth.

 

Besides, evolution is the most likely reason for why we are like we are, while abiogenisis is the most likely explaination of where life came from. Only those with an inability to think freely will deny the astronomical amounts of evidence in favour of a belief that has been shown to be self-contradictory.

 

 

You sure you're able to think freely?

[Guest smoothmoniker]

HanSolo, I think you misunderstood my point, but DeathWorship is tracking with it, even though we disagree.

 

My point has nothing to do with this site, with DW, or with the value of arguing for a point. All I'm trying to do is point out what the entailed conclusions of DW's position that there is no possibility of free thought, that the mind is purely physical (or at least, only an emergent feature of physical properties).

 

If you a pure naturalist, then:

 

(1) The phrase "change your mind" has no operable meaning. It implies that there is a mind, a "you" identity apart from that mind that has operable control over it, and that the mind can maintain positions of thought that are not solely dependant on physical states.

 

(2) There is no "you" identity - you are purely a collection of physical materials, with no metaphysical controlling aspect.

 

(3) You have no free thought (as states above in 1), and therefore you can have no free will - what you do or do not do is contingent entirely upon the antecedent causes that you encounter.

 

(4) If you have no free will, no free thought, no mind, no "you" identity ... then our most basic of all human experiences, the sense of self, is a cruel deception, and life is absolutely meaningless.

 

Do you really believe that? I know DW does, and that's fine, but if you want to hold onto naturalism and yet still retain a sense of self, or meaning, you have to demonstrate how that would work.

 

Free-thought is difficult to defend for Christians. It is impossible to defend for Atheists.

[invictus1967]

Mr. Neil,

 

You said it your self, it is an “essay”. That is, “it is someone else’s interpretation (opinion) of the data”. It is not your opinion, nor is it raw facts.

 

The author even said himself “deduce predictions”. The author further admits “no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically”.

 

He admits he is restricting his “hypothesis” to known science. And everyone admit there are more unknowns to the origins of a species than there are knowns.

 

It has no move validity than anything I have said.

 

Where is your “essay” (that is opinion) and where are your evidences (not necessary proof) to support that opinion.

 

-----------------------

 

Mr. Longing-for-death,

 

I care because I view thoughts as being relevant. The question is, why do you care enough to post when you view “all things” as irrelevant?

 

In regards to why can I come here and post, because the section of this little board called “Debating with Christians” invited me. Next time you go to a Christians site with a section called “Debating with Atheists/Agnostics/People who worship death/ whatever” feel free to join right in.

[DeathWorship]

(3) You have no free thought (as states above in 1), and therefore you can have no free will - what you do or do not do is contingent entirely upon the antecedent causes that you encounter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i can somewhat agree with that, but like i stated earlier, my idea or no free-thought is a theory a friend who is a physics major and i are formulating, it makes much more sense when he explains it (im no physics major).

 

i shouldn't have said it was my "belief", it's more of an idea, and this is my main reason for it..

 

if all the world we know is made up non-sentient matter, including us, then where does sentience come from?? physics has already proven that all we experience are vibrations and waves. so my question is where does conciousness come into play??

[DeathWorship]

In regards to why can I come here and post, because the section of this little board called “Debating with Christians” invited me. Next time you go to a Christians site with a section called “Debating with Atheists/Agnostics/People who worship death/ whatever” feel free to join right in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what YOU are doing is hardly considered debating, you are twisting words to fit your liking and vomiting them back out as some kind of "point". also, i explained my username already you twit. stop acting like a 5 year old.

[Guest smoothmoniker]

if all the world we know is made up non-sentient matter, including us, then where does sentience come from??

 

That's a really good question to ask - from a naturalists perspective, sentience seems to be a deception.

 

physics has already proven that all we experience are vibrations and waves. so my question is where does conciousness come into play??

 

I'm interested to know how physics has proved this. This seems to be an unusually limited sense of the word 'experience'. I can experience emotions, ideas, memories, cravings, all sorts of things that seem to be features of human existence, and experienced (in the normal sense of the word) that are not reducable to waves and vibrations.

 

I think what you might be saying is that all we can perceive empirically can be reduced to vibrations and waves, or that the "furniture" of the universe (matter, physical laws, etc) can all be described in terms of vibrations and waves.

 

But that still leaves us with the question - why do we have human experiences that seem to depart from those strictures?

[Amethyst]

Once you reject the Creator, your thoughts are no longer “free”.

 

Do you realize that you're admitting that you're brainwashed?