Atheism, as I perceive it, is the first bustop for youngsters in philosophy, whom basking in their new found freedom from restricted thought, fall prey to the logical abomination of reaching conclusions before conducting research.

The picture it paints is that of a man who says "God exists. How do I know? Faith". And after some time, he says "God doesnt exist. How do I know? Faith!"

In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?

Why can't we be honest with ourselves and admit that our knowledge ends where it does and to know more, we have to resort to that old, slow, but reliable means of human advancement called research? And maintain a widely open mind while at it?

I dont see how a person can be an atheist and a free thinker...The thought process of an atheist is already bent on proving the non-existence of a thing, as opposed to drifting in consonance with the random waves of facts, evidence, and logic, towards an unknown destination.

Atheism is not free thinking. Its just negative faith.

larisoft:


Atheism is not free thinking. Its just negative faith.

Why have faith in the first place?

Faith in an invisible almighty being that watches the world suffer?

Atheists are just a group of people with bad temper towards God. example, the guy above me, so they claim he doesn't exist. cos that just makes it easier for them.
while free thinkers are just....well, free thinkers.

xendra:
Atheists are just a group of people with bad temper towards God. example, the guy above me, so they claim he doesn't exist. cos that just makes it easier for them.
while free thinkers are just....well, free thinkers.

Are you so sure of your statement?


Are all atheists bad tempered? Was my statement an angry one?


A lot of atheists are in fact, freethinkers. You should check it out

larisoft:
Atheism, as I perceive it, is the first bustop for youngsters in philosophy, whom basking in their new found freedom from restricted thought, fall prey to the logical abomination of reaching conclusions before conducting research.

Nice perception and correct in some cases. But the new found freedom you talk about is as a result of personal research which the atheist has conducted. He weighed his findings against the ascertions of religion and found it to be of more credence. Any so called atheist who claims to be one without first seeking truth is just following blindly.

larisoft:

The picture it paints is that of a man who says "God exists. How do I know? Faith". And after some time, he says "God doesnt exist. How do I know? Faith!"

It rather paints a picture of a man who grew up to find himself in a society where everyone believes in one God or the other and is compelled to believe in one but later questions his believe on close examination and dismisses it due to insufficient proof.

larisoft:

In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?

Absence of evidence to prove existence of a thing doesn't constitute evidence to its non existence. It only stimulates unbelief in the existence of that thing. It depends on the individual. Belief in a thing doesn't make it exist; unbelief in a thing doesn't cause it to cease to exist either. Belief doesnt equal truth. Its your choice to belief or not belief with your reasons.

larisoft:

Why can't we be honest with ourselves and admit that our knowledge ends where it does and to know more, we have to resort to that old, slow, but reliable means of human advancement called research? And maintain a widely open mind while at it?

Admitting that our knowledge is limited is absolutely honest. While we may not know the ultimate truth about some issues, the question comes up. "Why do you believe in what you believe as true?" "Where's proof of what you believe in?". Admitting that you may be right or wrong is being open minded in a way. But people let their ego cloud their judgement (theist and atheist inclusive) especially on this forum

larisoft:

I dont see how a person can be an atheist and a free thinker...The thought process of an atheist is already bent on proving the non-existence of a thing, as opposed to drifting in consonance with the random waves of facts, evidence, and logic, towards an unknown destination.

A person can be an atheist and a freethinker. The freethinker has formed his opinion using enquiry, science and reason. If that leads him to a belief that God does not exist, then that's the case. However, it is largely dependent on the individual.

larisoft:

Atheism is not free thinking. Its just negative faith.

How is it negative faith. Define the terms here. 'Freethinker' 'Atheist' and 'negative faith' let's see how they correlate and differ.

larisoft:
.The thought process of an atheist is already bent on proving the non-existence of a thing, as opposed to drifting in consonance with the random waves of facts, evidence, and logic, towards an unknown destination.

Atheism is not free thinking. Its just negative faith.

Beautiful Sir, I have this beautiful thing I can not describe. It is everywhere and nowhere. It exists outside time and space. It can not be seen nor experienced with your normal senses. Please, what kind of evidence would support the non-existence of said thing?

sonofluc1fer:

Beautiful Sir, I have this beautiful thing I can not describe. It is everywhere and nowhere. It exists outside time and space. It can not be seen nor experienced with your normal senses. Please, what kind of evidence would support the non-existence of said thing?

Bro They don't Even understand how stupid they sound when they say God exist outside space... ABEG help me ask them Watin day outside space?

@Op u can be Anything at the same time For an atheist You can be
AN ATHEIST
A FREE THINKER
AN AGNOSTIC
A HUMANIST
SECULAR
at the same Goddamn time

larisoft:
Atheism, as I perceive it, is the first bustop for youngsters in philosophy, whom basking in their new found freedom from restricted thought, fall prey to the logical abomination of reaching conclusions before conducting research.

The picture it paints is that of a man who says "God exists. How do I know? Faith". And after some time, he says "God doesnt exist. How do I know? Faith!"

I dont see how a person can be an atheist and a free thinker...The thought process of an atheist is already bent on proving the non-existence of a thing, as opposed to drifting in consonance with the random waves of facts, evidence, and logic, towards an unknown destination.

Atheism is not free thinking. Its just negative faith.

You perceive it wrongly. I am open to the existence of other beings, but the proof of such doesn't really exist. There is no way to test a hypothesis about the existence of gods. The majority of atheists hold a position similar to my own. We are waiting for evidence that we can test ourselves. I have no faith in anything. In any case all religions are completely man-made--that I am sure of--and are not evidence of anything divine.

onetrack:


You perceive it wrongly. I am open to the existence of other beings, but the proof of such doesn't really exist. There is no way to test a hypothesis about the existence of gods. The majority of atheists hold a position similar to my own. We are waiting for evidence that we can test ourselves. I have no faith in anything. In any case all religions are completely man-made--that I am sure of--and are not evidence of anything divine.

Does it then mean that because you have not discovered a way to verify a thing, that thing does not exist? I am an agnostic. I am not convinced of the existence of these Gods either... But I realize that the situation is that I am not convinced... Not that they don't exist.

Several phenomenon exist which even though will eventually get discovered, cannot be discovered now due to our limited observatory capacity.

I think sincere atheists should shift from negative faith, to keeping an open mind to receive and ruminate on facts. There's a whole lot out there to learn! That's the beauty of fee thinking!

larisoft:
Atheism, as I perceive it, is the first bustop for youngsters in philosophy, whom basking in their new found freedom from restricted thought, fall prey to the logical abomination of reaching conclusions before conducting research.

@bolded, is that a bad thing? Do you mean to say that it is much better to be restricted from using your own brain and be led by a book written 2000 years ago by people who were illiterates and who did not make any meaningful contribution the world?

The picture it paints is that of a man who says "God exists. How do I know? Faith". And after some time, he says "God doesnt exist. How do I know? Faith!"

The primary reason for not believing in god is the nonexistence of evidence that such an entity exists

In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?

The absence of evidence is the evidence of the absence of evidence. We need evidence. Simple

Why can't we be honest with ourselves and admit that our knowledge ends where it does and to know more, we have to resort to that old, slow, but reliable means of human advancement called research? And maintain a widely open mind while at it?

And religious people do this, how? By spreading fabricated stories?

I dont see how a person can be an atheist and a free thinker...The thought process of an atheist is already bent on proving the non-existence of a thing, as opposed to drifting in consonance with the random waves of facts, evidence, and logic, towards an unknown destination.

How many atheists do you know personally that led you to this conclusion?

Atheism is not free thinking. Its just negative faith.

At least before you comment on a subject, have knowledge of it

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is the ONLY definition.

If atheism is not free thinking, then what about theism?

xendra:
Atheists are just a group of people with bad temper towards God. example, the guy above me, so they claim he doesn't exist. cos that just makes it easier for them.
while free thinkers are just....well, free thinkers.

You have a wrong impression about atheists, and you seem not to know who a freethinker is.

larisoft:


Does it then mean that because you have not discovered a way to verify a thing, that thing does not exist? I am an agnostic. I am not convinced of the existence of these Gods either... But I realize that the situation is that I am not convinced... Not that they don't exist.

Several phenomenon exist which even though will eventually get discovered, cannot be discovered now due to our limited observatory capacity.

I think sincere atheists should shift from negative faith, to keeping an open mind to receive and ruminate on facts. There's a whole lot out there to learn! That's the beauty of fee thinking!

It's virtually impossible to disprove the existence of something, especially if that something is presumed to be able to hide itself. I cannot disprove there is a flying pink unicorn circling my house, but I see no reason to believe that there is one because I have zero evidence to prove its existence. I am agnostic like you but my opinion is that there is no all-powerful, omniscient god watching us do horrible things to each other, which is where the 'atheist' part comes in.

larisoft:
Atheism, as I perceive it, is the first bustop for youngsters in philosophy, whom basking in their new found freedom from restricted thought, fall prey to the logical abomination of reaching conclusions before conducting research.

The picture it paints is that of a man who says "God exists. How do I know? Faith". And after some time, he says "God doesnt exist. How do I know? Faith!"

In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?

Why can't we be honest with ourselves and admit that our knowledge ends where it does and to know more, we have to resort to that old, slow, but reliable means of human advancement called research? And maintain a widely open mind while at it?

I dont see how a person can be an atheist and a free thinker...The thought process of an atheist is already bent on proving the non-existence of a thing, as opposed to drifting in consonance with the random waves of facts, evidence, and logic, towards an unknown destination.

Atheism is not free thinking. Its just negative faith.

Freethought in many cases leads to atheism. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

DeSepiero:

Nice perception and correct in some cases. But the new found freedom you talk about is as a result of personal research which the atheist has conducted. He weighed his findings against the ascertions of religion and found it to be of more credence. Any so called atheist who claims to be one without first seeking truth is just following blindly.

It rather paints a picture of a man who grew up to find himself in a society where everyone believes in one God or the other and is compelled to believe in one but later questions his believe on close examination and dismisses it due to insufficient proof.

Absence of evidence to prove existence of a thing doesn't constitute evidence to its non existence. It only stimulates unbelief in the existence of that thing. It depends on the individual. Belief in a thing doesn't make it exist; unbelief in a thing doesn't cause it to cease to exist either. Belief doesnt equal truth. Its your choice to belief or not belief with your reasons.

Admitting that our knowledge is limited is absolutely honest. While we may not know the ultimate truth about some issues, the question comes up. "Why do you believe in what you believe as true?" "Where's proof of what you believe in?". Admitting that you may be right or wrong is being open minded in a way. But people let their ego cloud their judgement (theist and atheist inclusive) especially on this forum

A person can be an atheist and a freethinker. The freethinker has formed his opinion using enquiry, science and reason. If that leads him to a belief that God does not exist, then that's the case. However, it is largely dependent on the individual.
How is it negative faith. Define the terms here. 'Freethinker' 'Atheist' and 'negative faith' let's see how they correlate and differ.

Indeed your mind is very logical. I (in my characteristic open-mindedness) chewed on every point, and am convinced that here 'Here is a thorough mind'. However, while I didnt find a section of your response that addresses this point squarely, I hope we can both agree that in the absence of evidence, research is just inconclusive. Anything other than that, is deviating from free thought, to cling to an idealogy.

hahn:


@bolded, is that a bad thing? Do you mean to say that it is much better to be restricted from using your own brain and be led by a book written 2000 years ago by people who were illiterates and who did not make any meaningful contribution the world?

The picture it paints is that of a man who says "God exists. How do I know? Faith". And after some time, he says "God doesnt exist. How do I know? Faith!"

The primary reason for not believing in god is the nonexistence of evidence that such an entity exists

In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?

The absence of evidence is the evidence of the absence of evidence. We need evidence. Simple



And religious people do this, how? By spreading fabricated stories?



How many atheists do you know personally that led you to this conclusion?



At least before you comment on a subject, have knowledge of it

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is the ONLY definition.

If atheism is not free thinking, then what about theism?

Another brilliant mind. But I was not positing the conventional definition of atheism. I was showing the thought process that leads me to the conclusion that one cannot be free-in-thought, and at the same time, hinged on a conclusion for which the only evidence, is poverty of evidence.

By the by, am glad to see so many bright minds, spitting logic like it should be spat in response to the fluctuations of my own mind.

larisoft:


Another brilliant mind. But I was not positing the conventional definition of atheism. I was showing the thought process that leads me to the conclusion that one cannot be free-in-thought, and at the same time, hinged on a conclusion for which the only evidence, is poverty of evidence.

FREE thinking as the name implies the freedom to think freely. Atheists simply do not believe in god and are therefore free to think about any other possibility for the origin of the earth, mankind etc. Theists on the other hand do no believe such. Their god is the right one despite the amount of gods in existence.

By the by, am glad to see so many bright minds, spitting logic like it should be spat in response to the fluctuations of my own mind.

larisoft:


Indeed your mind is very logical. I (in my characteristic open-mindedness) chewed on every point, and am convinced that here 'Here is a thorough mind'. However, while I didnt find a section of your response that addresses this point squarely, I hope we can both agree that in the absence of evidence, research is just inconclusive. Anything other than that, is deviating from free thought, to cling to an idealogy.

Thank you bro.
I can agree with you that in the absence of evidence to proof beyong reasonable doubt, research currently is inconclusive on the existence of God/gods. Scientific research has only succeeded in debunking several religious beliefs and myths which was held by many as divine.

Our level of scientific inquiry perhaps hasn't reached the sophistication needed to solidly provide proof and answer questions bothering on the non existence of God/gods.
Its wise to keep an open mind

You are right.

hahn:


FREE thinking as the name implies the freedom to think freely. Atheists simply do not believe in god and are therefore free to think about any other possibility for the origin of the earth, mankind etc. Theists on the other hand do no believe such. Their god is the right one despite the amount of gods in existence.

Is it then not logical to say that both are fixed on conclusions already. The first; that no matter what evidence is discovered later on, it will always prove that there is no God. The second; that no matter what evidence exists already, or will be discovered later, that they know with unflinching certainty that there is God.

Is it also not logical to derive that none of the parties has a completely open mind?

Ranchhoddas:
Freethought in many cases leads to atheism. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Lol...I would say free thought is a journey, of which atheism is just the first probable bus stop. However, any traveller who remains at this bus stop is a lazy one. For absence of evidence, if anything, calls for a more thorough search. Not a conclusion!

larisoft:


Lol...I would say free thought is a journey, of which atheism is just the first probable bus stop. However, any traveller who remains at this bus stop is a lazy one. For absence of evidence, if anything, calls for a more thorough search. Not a conclusion!

Atheism is also probably just the last bus stop.

You should rather argue that atheism restricts free thought which I believe to a large extent is correct.

larisoft:


Lol...I would say free thought is a journey, of which atheism is just the first probable bus stop. However, any traveller who remains at this bus stop is a lazy one. For absence of evidence, if anything, calls for a more thorough search. Not a conclusion!

I have taken the liberty of assuming that you have carried out a 'thorough search'. What pray tell did you find?

[s]Atheists are people who don't believe in any god. Usually it's as a result of the lack of any good evidence for the existence of any god. Only a small minority of atheists would say that they are 100% sure that there is no god. Your thread is founded on a misunderstanding of atheism.[/s]
(Just repeating what others have already said. )

JackBizzle:



Are you so sure of your statement?


Are all atheists bad tempered? Was my statement an angry one?


A lot of atheists are in fact, freethinkers. You should check it out

don't forget I added towards God, and yes they are

I used to believe in God, as a child. That's what indoctrination will do to you.

"In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?"

That's like the dumbest argument ever.

The answer to it, is it doesn't. But that's besides the point. Because atheists are more about assessing the initial claim to the evidence of that thing.

If I tell you that the Giant Spaghetti Monster watches us, you'd say no. At which point I'd tell you:
"In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?"

And don't mention the Bible.

In 10,000 years, let's hope future civilizations don't think that Voldemort held the world at ransom.

larisoft:

first offs, I'm not an Atheist, Buh thr are some largely erroneous perspective u got here.
What makes one a freethinker is the ability of reasoning without dogma. Juz coz a freethinker arrives at a conclusion(which is highly necessary) doesn't negates his though pattern. Ur definition of a freethinker is aimless thinking..nah..
The adjective free affixed to the noun thinker only emphasises the individual's power to reason independent of any religious or whatever authority. He simply is subjected to a conclusion drawn from his perceptivity.
Every thought pattern must definitely arrive at a conclusion, sooner or later. Whatever is being derived from this thought pattern is what becomes the ideology..
The ideologies of a freethinker is however dynamic or else dogma may set in.
So don't be swayed by the free term.. No matter how freely something flies or flows..Remember, there's always an orientation/direction which serves as the conclusion at every point in time.

DeSepiero:


Atheism is also probably just the last bus stop.

You should rather argue that atheism restricts free thought which I believe to a large extent is correct.

plz I'm curious as to the reasons that makes you fink Atheism restricts free thought...

0ubenji:
first offs, I'm not an Atheist, Buh thr are some largely erroneous perspective u got here.
What makes one a freethinker is the ability of reasoning without dogma. Juz coz a freethinker arrives at a conclusion(which is highly necessary) doesn't negates his though pattern. Ur definition of a freethinker is aimless thinking..nah..
The adjective free affixed to the noun thinker only emphasises the individual's power to reason independent of any religious or whatever authority. He simply is subjected to a conclusion drawn from his perceptivity.
Every thought pattern must definitely arrive at a conclusion, sooner or later. Whatever is being derived from this thought pattern is what becomes the ideology..
The ideologies of a freethinker is however dynamic or else dogma may set in.
So don't be swayed by the free term.. No matter how freely something flies or flows..Remember, there's always an orientation/direction which serves as the conclusion at every point in time.

I beg to disagree, in the hope that you might make your argument more aptly put. For I think that when 'arriving at a conclusion' becomes more important than arriving at a 'universally verifiable truth', an atheist becomes no different from a theist, who supplants absence of explanation with the most convenient fiction available to him.

Answers are simply not available now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't be available later. Every free thinker is supposed to leave a room in their minds for the possibility that there might be a God of sorts somewhere, since it has not been proven that there isnt one. Now, the existence or not of this God, the nature of this God, his reasons, and capabilities, are to be determined by further questioning and research. Not denial or hasty conclusions!

larisoft:


Is it then not logical to say that both are fixed on conclusions already. The first; that no matter what evidence is discovered later on, it will always prove that there is no God. The second; that no matter what evidence exists already, or will be discovered later, that they know with unflinching certainty that there is God.

Is it also not logical to derive that none of the parties has a completely open mind?

All I need to believe in god is a knock on my door from him/she/it.

It is supposed to know my address

larisoft:


In what world does the absence of evidence to prove a thing constitute evidence to prove its absence?

didn't get this.

0ubenji:
plz I'm curious as to the reasons that makes you fink Atheism restricts free thought...

May I add; restrictions are especially on the existence of god.
Atheism isn't necessarily seeking answers to proof or disprove Gods existence.