He could be a deist. That's not so much of a contradiction. As long as he doesn't think scriptures are authoritative, it's an unusual position but not outside the bounds. Freethinkers aren't required to be atheists, though most of them are.

(August 15, 2017 at 1:24 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: ...Real weapons too scary for ya?...

If I could tool up I would, but here in Britain guns are almost totally banned (sniffle).
Anyway I've got "bad paper" against my name (I was once jailed for 3 months on a vigilante rap) so if I tried to get a gun now I'd end up back in the slammer.
I'm a-tellin you boy, if I ever emigrate to America I'd head for the nearest gun shop the instant I stepped off the plane..

PS- speaking of "scary", it seems some of the pics I've posted in AF have scared some members real bad and I've just been warned by female mod Losty not to keep doing it.
Huh, and I thought you atheists were supposed to be tough..

(August 15, 2017 at 10:11 am)Dropship Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 1:24 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: ...Real weapons too scary for ya?...

If I could tool up I would, but here in Britain guns are almost totally banned (sniffle).
Anyway I've got "bad paper" against my name (I was once jailed for 3 months on a vigilante rap) so if I tried to get a gun now I'd end up back in the slammer.
I'm a-tellin you boy, if I ever emigrate to America I'd head for the nearest gun shop the instant I stepped off the plane..

PS- speaking of "scary", it seems some of the pics I've posted in AF have scared some members real bad and I've just been warned by female mod Losty not to keep doing it.
Huh, and I thought you atheists were supposed to be tough..

Sorry we can't all be pretend bad-asses like you.

(August 15, 2017 at 10:11 am)Dropship Wrote: PS- speaking of "scary", it seems some of the pics I've posted in AF have scared some members real bad and I've just been warned by female mod Losty not to keep doing it.
Huh, and I thought you atheists were supposed to be tough..

Nothing to do with being scared, tough guy. Check the Rules on graphic content - Rules to which you agreed when you signed up here.

(August 15, 2017 at 10:11 am)Dropship Wrote: PS- speaking of "scary", it seems some of the pics I've posted in AF have scared some members real bad and I've just been warned by female mod Losty not to keep doing it.
Huh, and I thought you atheists were supposed to be tough..

I bet that scared the shit out of you, if it haven't, well you know what's coming should you continue.

(August 15, 2017 at 9:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: He could be a deist. That's not so much of a contradiction. As long as he doesn't think scriptures are authoritative, it's an unusual position but not outside the bounds. Freethinkers aren't required to be atheists, though most of them are.

Regardless, there's no evidence that would point to that conclusion, so even a deist isn't exercising critical thought to believe in that.

(August 15, 2017 at 7:25 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 10:29 pm)Fr33Th1nker Wrote: Hi all. I am new here. I believe in God but I am a free thinker too.

I don't actually find the post funny since most of the statement are true and are facts except those statements about atheists. The statements are all true, the observations are correct but I'm sorry to say that the conclusion is wrong. There are scientific explanations for all those statements and has noting to do with God.

Here's a better example of what is funny:

A child was experimenting on a frog. He  put his face close to the frog and shouted jump! To his expectation, the frog did jump. Then he cut off 1 of its leg and again put his face near the frog and shouted jump! Again he was not surprised to see the frog jump. He then proceeded to cut another leg and put his face near the frog and shouted jump. In spite of the frog having two legs left, the frog still managed to jump. The third time he cut the frog's legs and shouted jump, the frog was not able to jump but was able to move. The child, still not satisfied with his experiment, decided to cut the last leg of the frog. So for the last time he put his face close to the frog and shouted jump several times. When the frog did not jump or move, the child smiled brightly and had a eureka moment. He observed that if you cut all the legs of the frog the frog will not be able to move. The observation is correct! He therefore concluded that if you cut off all of the legs of the frog and shout at the frog to jump, the frog becomes deaf that's why he can't move. The frog can't hear you shout.

Correct observation but wrong conclusion like the topic of this thread.

You believe in god, and are a freethinker.  This ought to be good.

BTW, I'm a huge midget.

I don't know if you  are being sarcastic but just in case you are and if you think that you are a free thinker or believe that free thinking should be exclusive to atheist only maybe you would want to consider what I will post below.

A standard dictionary defines a freethinker as “one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.” What this means is that to be a freethinker, a person has to be willing to consider any idea and any possibility. The standard for deciding the truth-value of claims is not tradition, dogma, or authorities — instead, it must be reason and logic.

The term was originally popularized by Anthony Collins (1676-1729), a confidant of John Locke who wrote many pamphlets and books attacking traditional religion. He even belonged to a group called “The Freethinkers” which published a journal entitled “The Free-Thinker.”

Collins used the term as essentially a synonym for anyone who opposes organized religion and wrote his most famous book, The Discourse of Free Thinking (1713) to explain why he felt that way. He went beyond describing freethinking as desirable and declared it to be a moral obligation:

Because he who thinks freely does his best toward being right, and consequently does all that God, who can require nothing more of any Man than that he should do his best, can require of him.
As should be obvious, Collins did not equate freethinking with atheism — he retained his membership in the Anglican church. It wasn’t belief in a god which attracted his ire, but instead, people who simply “take the Opinions they have imbibed from their Grandmothers, Mothers or Priests.”

WHY ATHEISM AND FREETHOUGHT ARE DIFFERENT
At the time, freethinking and the freethought movement was usually characteristic of those who were deists just as today freethinking is more often characteristic of atheists — but in both cases, this relationship is not exclusive. It is not the conclusion which differentiates freethought from other philosophies, but the process.

A person can be a theist because they are a freethinker and a person can be an atheist despite not being a freethinker.

For freethinkers and those who associate themselves with freethought, claims are judged based on how closely they are found to correlate with reality. Claims have to be capable of being tested and it has to be possible to falsify it — to have a situation which, if discovered, would demonstrate that the claim is false. As the Freedom From Religion Foundation explains it:

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?).

FALSE EQUIVALENCY
Although many atheists may be surprised or even annoyed by this, the obvious conclusion is that freethought and theism are compatible while freethought and atheism are not the same and one does not automatically necessitate the other. An atheist might legitimately raise the objection that a theist cannot also be a freethinker because theism — the belief in a god — cannot be rationally grounded and cannot be based upon reason.

The problem here, however, is the fact that this objection is confusing the conclusion with the process. As long as a person accepts the principle that beliefs regarding religion and politics should be based on reason and makes a genuine, sincere, and consistent attempt to evaluate claims and ideas with reason, refusing to accept those which are unreasonable, then that person should be regarded as a freethinker.

Once again, the point about freethought is the process rather than the conclusion — which means that a person who fails to be perfect does not also fail to be a freethinker. An atheist might regard the theist’s position as erroneous and a failure to apply reason and logic perfectly — but what atheist achieves such perfection? Freethought is not based on perfection.

(August 15, 2017 at 12:57 pm)Fr33Th1nker Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 7:25 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: You believe in god, and are a freethinker.  This ought to be good.

BTW, I'm a huge midget.

I don't know if you  are being sarcastic but just in case you are and if you think that you are a free thinker or believe that free thinking should be exclusive to atheist only maybe you would want to consider what I will post below.

A standard dictionary defines a freethinker as “one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.” What this means is that to be a freethinker, a person has to be willing to consider any idea and any possibility. The standard for deciding the truth-value of claims is not tradition, dogma, or authorities — instead, it must be reason and logic.

The term was originally popularized by Anthony Collins (1676-1729), a confidant of John Locke who wrote many pamphlets and books attacking traditional religion. He even belonged to a group called “The Freethinkers” which published a journal entitled “The Free-Thinker.”

Collins used the term as essentially a synonym for anyone who opposes organized religion and wrote his most famous book, The Discourse of Free Thinking (1713) to explain why he felt that way. He went beyond describing freethinking as desirable and declared it to be a moral obligation:

Because he who thinks freely does his best toward being right, and consequently does all that God, who can require nothing more of any Man than that he should do his best, can require of him.
As should be obvious, Collins did not equate freethinking with atheism — he retained his membership in the Anglican church. It wasn’t belief in a god which attracted his ire, but instead, people who simply “take the Opinions they have imbibed from their Grandmothers, Mothers or Priests.”

WHY ATHEISM AND FREETHOUGHT ARE DIFFERENT
At the time, freethinking and the freethought movement was usually characteristic of those who were deists just as today freethinking is more often characteristic of atheists — but in both cases, this relationship is not exclusive. It is not the conclusion which differentiates freethought from other philosophies, but the process.

A person can be a theist because they are a freethinker and a person can be an

So what?  If you're using Collins as an authority for Freethought/Deism, then you are going against the definition.  His opinion doesn't make it fact.

(August 14, 2017 at 11:48 pm)Astonished Wrote: Hoo boy...got a live one here. Well, FT...

That was a lot of...something? So you can take that as a 'considered, and rejected' as far as your reply. You literally defeated yourself with your own points and also injected a non sequitur into it. Don't much care for the rest, if people want to coin a phrase as something, that's fine, but as I pointed out, in order to believe what you believe, much thought must be suspended, ergo, not exactly a 'free' thinker in the literal sense. Your last few points also refute your position because there's no way you could have arrived at your conclusion in such a way as that which you describe. That's called a special pleading fallacy, if you wanted to say 'nuh-uh, I'm different'.

Forcing a restriction upon your critical thinking capacity logically precludes a completely free thinker in the literal sense. Try to weasel out of it all you want, you don't get to divorce yourself from the reality of it with friendly and disarming euphemisms. If you wanted to give the impression you were in some way superior to other theists in some bizarre way by masquerading as a critical thinker, I'm just telling you, don't insult our intelligence. If you truly believe you've got some inside knowledge or other pathway to arrive at your conclusion than anyone else, well, then that's even sadder and scarier.

The fact that you don't have the guts to address me directly means you are unsure of your answer. This is an atheist forum. You should feel safe here. You even sought the advice of your compatriot and his answer is sound. In spite of that you prefer to be stubborn in your belief just like an ignorant theist. Assuming that you are a free and critical thinker let me just say that you missed a point. Life is not just about believing or not believing in God. It is just an iota of the intricacy of life and the world we live in. Let's say you are correct that God does not exist, you can not conclude that a person who is wrong in believing this does not know how to think freely in other aspects of life. Do you know what my stand is regarding abortion, the government, pro gun or gun ban, antisemitism or LGBT etc? You know nothing because you never bothered to ask or use critical and free thinking. You already have formed an opinion and assumption about me without further investigating. You my friend are an example of an atheist who do not think for himself. You are not different from the ignorant and self righteous believers who are bible thumpers and only believe that they are right. You make statements without making reference and expect others to take it as truth. 

And knowing your kind, you probably go bonkers the moment you hear someone say he is a believer. Kudos to you for being a free  and critical thinker. Believers use the phrase "God moves in mysterious ways", "God has a plan". "In his time" when they do not know the answer or are unsure. In your case, it's looking for affirmations from others or resorting to derogatory remarks. 

I came here to learn. Unfortunately, I won't learn anything from you. So live your life and I will live mine.

---

(August 15, 2017 at 1:29 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 12:57 pm)Fr33Th1nker Wrote: I don't know if you  are being sarcastic but just in case you are and if you think that you are a free thinker or believe that free thinking should be exclusive to atheist only maybe you would want to consider what I will post below.

A standard dictionary defines a freethinker as “one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.” What this means is that to be a freethinker, a person has to be willing to consider any idea and any possibility. The standard for deciding the truth-value of claims is not tradition, dogma, or authorities — instead, it must be reason and logic.

The term was originally popularized by Anthony Collins (1676-1729), a confidant of John Locke who wrote many pamphlets and books attacking traditional religion. He even belonged to a group called “The Freethinkers” which published a journal entitled “The Free-Thinker.”

Collins used the term as essentially a synonym for anyone who opposes organized religion and wrote his most famous book, The Discourse of Free Thinking (1713) to explain why he felt that way. He went beyond describing freethinking as desirable and declared it to be a moral obligation:

Because he who thinks freely does his best toward being right, and consequently does all that God, who can require nothing more of any Man than that he should do his best, can require of him.
As should be obvious, Collins did not equate freethinking with atheism — he retained his membership in the Anglican church. It wasn’t belief in a god which attracted his ire, but instead, people who simply “take the Opinions they have imbibed from their Grandmothers, Mothers or Priests.”

WHY ATHEISM AND FREETHOUGHT ARE DIFFERENT
At the time, freethinking and the freethought movement was usually characteristic of those who were deists just as today freethinking is more often characteristic of atheists — but in both cases, this relationship is not exclusive. It is not the conclusion which differentiates freethought from other philosophies, but the process.

A person can be a theist because they are a freethinker and a person can be an

So what?  If you're using Collins as an authority for Freethought/Deism, then you are going against the definition.  His opinion doesn't make it fact.

It appears that your mind is closed and could not understand the message. I am not here to educate but to learn. I already made a similar response to Astonished so if you have time and if it is ok with you, maybe you would just want to read it. Otherwise, think what you will. It really doesn't matter to me. I'll just keep on looking until I find someone reasonable who I could talk to and learn from. Thank you for your time.

(August 14, 2017 at 11:12 pm)Fr33Th1nker Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 10:41 pm)Astonished Wrote: Actually that's also incorrect, if you know a bit more about the items in the statements that were made. Let me point out a few.

There is actually at least one tribe discovered that has no god concept. So that's at least one place in the world that religion hasn't been practiced in. So that's wrong.

Also men and women aren't all built with a desire for one another. There's homosexuals, and people who identify as asexual. Or bisexual. Lots of flavors out there, but of course if you're the kind of asshole who believes that any such sexual predilections are a choice, then of course that would be denied.

The 'automated' food chain didn't help 99% of every form of life that ever existed from going extinct, or large portions of the world from becoming deserts or frozen wastelands.

And the human body's functions can be fucked with and still function. Pancreas shutdown, colostomies, etc.

Scrutiny is a powerful tool against arrogance and bullshit. I know you're new but please remember that believing in god is not really a statement compatible with being a 'freethinker' since you have to suspend quite a bit of thought to be able to believe it. Just wanted to point that out.

I appreciate you adding more information on some of the statements that were made. There is always room for acceptance and learning.

However, as for your comment, "that believing in god is not really a statement compatible with being a 'freethinker'" you might want to consider this reply:

A standard dictionary defines a freethinker as “one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.” What this means is that to be a freethinker, a person has to be willing to consider any idea and any possibility. The standard for deciding the truth-value of claims is not tradition, dogma, or authorities — instead, it must be reason and logic.


The term was originally popularized by Anthony Collins (1676-1729), a confidant of John Locke who wrote many pamphlets and books attacking traditional religion. He even belonged to a group called “The Freethinkers” which published a journal entitled “The Free-Thinker.”

Collins used the term as essentially a synonym for anyone who opposes organized religion and wrote his most famous book, The Discourse of Free Thinking (1713) to explain why he felt that way. He went beyond describing freethinking as desirable and declared it to be a moral obligation:

Because he who thinks freely does his best toward being right, and consequently does all that God, who can require nothing more of any Man than that he should do his best, can require of him.
As should be obvious, Collins did not equate freethinking with atheism — he retained his membership in the Anglican church. It wasn’t belief in a god which attracted his ire, but instead, people who simply “take the Opinions they have imbibed from their Grandmothers, Mothers or Priests.”

WHY ATHEISM AND FREETHOUGHT ARE DIFFERENT
At the time, freethinking and the freethought movement was usually characteristic of those who were deists just as today freethinking is more often characteristic of atheists — but in both cases, this relationship is not exclusive. It is not the conclusion which differentiates freethought from other philosophies, but the process.


A person can be a theist because they are a freethinker and a person can be an atheist despite not being a freethinker.

For freethinkers and those who associate themselves with freethought, claims are judged based on how closely they are found to correlate with reality. Claims have to be capable of being tested and it has to be possible to falsify it — to have a situation which, if discovered, would demonstrate that the claim is false. As the Freedom From Religion Foundation explains it:

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?).
FALSE EQUIVALENCY
Although many atheists may be surprised or even annoyed by this, the obvious conclusion is that freethought and theism are compatible while freethought and atheism are not the same and one does not automatically necessitate the other. An atheist might legitimately raise the objection that a theist cannot also be a freethinker because theism — the belief in a god — cannot be rationally grounded and cannot be based upon reason.

The problem here, however, is the fact that this objection is confusing the conclusion with the process. As long as a person accepts the principle that beliefs regarding religion and politics should be based on reason and makes a genuine, sincere, and consistent attempt to evaluate claims and ideas with reason, refusing to accept those which are unreasonable, then that person should be regarded as a freethinker.

Once again, the point about freethought is the process rather than the conclusion — which means that a person who fails to be perfect does not also fail to be a freethinker. An atheist might regard the theist’s position as erroneous and a failure to apply reason and logic perfectly — but what atheist achieves such perfection? Freethought is not based on perfection.

Can't disagree with any of this.  Well said.

A word of advice though, don't argue for your bonafides.  Let them come indirectly and over time as people see how you express yourself on various points.

I personally don't have any doubt that a person can be both a free thinker, rational and a believer.  Though, if their belief is anything off the shelf where they wind up accepting the dogma of any organized religion whole cloth .. I will be very skeptical.