New BookTalk Format: A discussion

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:59 am Post subject: Re: some thoughts

Quote:
Yes, of course, I have certain beliefs that cannot be explained with in a scientific/mathematical explanation - at least not at the present time; but as history has shown, the great thinkers/scientists of the past, first began with a hypothesis which can be simplified by a belief/idea - but can it be said that they had "faith in the belief"? I like to think it was just that - a faith that what they thought was true and they set out to make it a theorem;

Semantics as usual though, no? You may "like" to think it was faith, but maybe conviction, assuredness and confidence that what they thought was true is a more accurate assessment.

I just abhor when those who "believe" and have "faith" want to make everything thier own by applying religious sounding words to it and then going: "SEE!!!!". False argument.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

yellowlight

I'm sorry but I thought we could have a valid discussion without personal attacks, but obviously I was wrong.

Thanks for allowing me to join in the chat on Thursday.

I wish you all well in your pursuit of knowledge.

Chris OConnor

Thank you for the clarification of your position. I'm going to give a summary of my position so that I'm as clear as possible.

I don't think it is possible for a theist to be a freethinker. In a nutshell, and in my opinion, the theist that claims to be a freethinker, is not really using reason and is actually accepting religious dogma in the formation of their belief. In my opinion the belief in a God is so far removed from reason, that I cannot accept the claim that it was arrived at through the use of reason. Reason doesn't lead to theism; it confirms the default position, which is atheism.

This is my position and not necessarily that of all atheists. Just because a theist claims they formed their beliefs based on thinking deeply doesn't mean they actually did think deeply. Or at least, to me, their thinking was irrational. Either their conclusion was based on faulty evidence, no evidence, or lack of an education, or they didn't think through the situation clearly. I just cannot accept that people believe in a God after looking at the problem with an open and rational mind. NOTHING points towards a God.

Recently I heard a comedian on XM Radio say something that really made me think...and laugh. I actually wrote his name down while driving as his words had such an impact on me. Doug Stanhope was his name, and he said that the only reason why people believe in the Bible is because it was jammed into their heads when they were kids. If an adult, who was never exposed to Christianity, were to walk into a bookstore and pick up the Bible for the first time, and read it through, they would NEVER believe such nonsense. They would think, more than likely, that the story was poorly written and obviously a work of fiction.

But millions of people are walking around today thinking that entire book is factual, simply because they are accepting religious dogma, not thinking freely, and don't even know the difference between the two.

So you might be the exception. Only time will tell. As I stated earlier, I cannot fathom how anyone could argue that reason has led him or her to God. So this will be your challenge. Show me how you thought freely, and didn't base your belief system on antiquated books and stories first introduced as a child, and came to the conclusion that the evidence warrants the belief in a deity.

And even if you aren't a Christian you still have the same challenge. Show me how your beliefs are derived from reason and not from what charlatans have introduced to you. Show me how your belief isn't a product of physiological phenomenon, which neurologists can readily explain as common events. Please.... show me something.

As usual, the discussion winds down to the atheist demanding the theist demonstrate the validity of their belief. Why is this? Why hasn't the theist ever been able to defend their position and end the debate? I argue that the reason is simple. There is no evidence for a god of ANY sort, and only those that do not think freely fall for the myth.

Is this a personal insult? It sure isn't meant to be. This I promise. If you can show me how you've thought this subject out and have arrived at a different conclusion than me, all the while using the same tool as I used, reason, then please do. But I don't think you or anyone, even the Pope, could ever make a reasonable argument. To me, belief in God is ONLY a product of poor reasoning.

Chris

Edited to add a note:

Please know that we all have different communication styles. Any personal attacks by me or Nick or anyone on this thread are not acceptable and not intended. Give us some leeway as this is a difficult subject that stirs the emotions. I think we all need to be respectful, yet also tolerant of people when they get a bit excited.

Chris

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 1/8/05 2:44 pm

Tiarella

Reading the definitions you provided, Chris, I have to ask: is it possible for any human to be a freethinker in all areas of knowledge?

I think not. Do we not all take shortcuts in areas that hold little interest for us? We listen to an argument or two, accept a few apparent facts, decide which position we sympathise with most, and move on to something more interesting. No independent questioning, fact-finding, or freethinking going on there.

That's why I find the term 'freethinker' a bit, er, - vain? It tends to put me off. Very few humans have been true free-thinkers.

No insult intended, but no one here has met the definition in its fullest sense.

We all take our shortcuts, here and there.

I grant ya - many people here try, and I haven't run across that since I was at Swarthmore. Keeps me coming back!

edit: typo. And after I'd read it twice, too! :lol

Edited by: Tiarella at: 1/10/05 5:25 pm

Chris OConnor

Tiarella

To an extent I agree with you, but let me elaborate. Yes, we are all guilty of not being critical thinkers about a great deal we encounter in our everyday lives. We make assumptions by filling in the blanks when we have incomplete information.

With that said, we are not discussing everyday matters when it comes to belief in a deity. As it has been said many times, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Whether or not a God exists is not an ordinary claim or subject. The claim that an invisible being exists that defies the laws of physics and can do as he or she pleases is as extraordinary of a claim as imaginable.

So while we all MUST make assumptions and operate a great deal upon faith, or through inferential reasoning, we do NOT have to do this when it comes to wild ass claims. Nobody has enough time to truly be a freethinker in every arena of life, but we damn well ought to try our best to be freethinkers when it comes to claims that fly in the face of everything we observe and know about reality.

I'm not a freethinker when it comes to Person X claiming to be hungry. I know people get hungry, and from the size of Person X's ass, I can't help but assume Person X gets hungry quite often. The claim is ordinary and I risk very little in assuming the person is being honest. But when Person B claims he can eat a moose, and has done so on several occasions, I step back and say, "prove it."

When we use the term "freethinker" here at BookTalk, we're talking about extraordinary claims or claims with a good chance of being nonsense. Claims of Gods existing are something we all ought to think through before we accept. Likewise, political claims should also be subject to scrutiny. Why? …because experience tells us all that the world of politics is plagued with lies, deception and corruption.

Do we extend our freethinking to everything we encounter? Impossible. At some point we have to trust other people, our hunches, and even intuition. If we didn't we would essentially be paralyzed and unable to move forward.

Chris


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT