Isn't it funny...

[Fr33Th1nker]

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.