TammieJo:


Why would anyone need to give you a reason for not accepting ridiculous claims?

To support your response further: no one should be asked to prove a negative.

DeepSight:


While I cannot for all practical purposes find any quarrel with what you say, with those persons for whom the search for the meaning of life is a foundational object of the said life itself, such questions cannot be avoided. Sadly for me, I fall into this melancholy and probably Sisyphean category.

You tone does sound really melancholy, you don't see a way out?

Let me guess. Some of you think you're free thinkers because you don't believe in the existence of a deity. How do you manage to deceive your brain. I'll love to learn. Since practice makes perfect.

LordReed:


It's not about being advanced in knowledge. The skeptic asks "how can I ascertain that this is true?", if you have this attitude about everything you'll find superstitions easy to ignore.

I also live with Christians who believe in all these tales of spirits and evil powers but with this attitude I am able to show that many of their concerns are unfounded.

Interesting!

So how does the skeptic find answers to the question, "How can I ascertain that this is true?"...
Like seriously, I'm a very deep person and I feel things very deeply, though I have this inner conviction that these beliefs are merely metaphorical but still, occuring circumstances really affect me and can make me brood for days.

So how does the skeptic find answer or answers to the above question?

LordReed:


You aren't properly applying your skepticism if a story makes you inclined to belief before you have explored the truth of it. The first thing a skeptic should do upon hearing a story is ask how can I verify it, if you start with belief you end up with religion.

So probably, I gave myself a wrong label though

But again, as I wrote in my former reply before this, I'm convinced that these beliefs are just metaphorical but humans are affected by their surroundings and I'm highly sensitive.
So even as I try to wave off these beliefs and take them for what they are, my inclinations to be sensitive to happenings around me makes me somewhat doubtful of my convictions.

Probably that's why some people who started with atheism end up with agnosticism or deism or pantheism, etc. Or even theism. Personality differences at play.

MaxInDHouse:
There's nothing like FREETHINKERS because we humans are influenced by things we see, hear or feel.
Our feelings controls only 10% of what we do while the remaining 90% is based on what we see and hear. Before anyone can claim to be a real freethinker his actions must depend on 99% of his feelings not things he heard or saw others doing!

You know who a freethinker is?

A freethinker is a person who has formed their opinions using reason and rational enquiry; somebody who has rejected dogma, especially with regard to religion.


If you read further about freethinkers, you'll find out that some Christians/Muslims are freethinkers. Freethinkers don't fully accept dogmatic teachings, they use their minds to search for truth.

Anyone who acts based on his feelings fully is not a freethinker but a rigid person.

Infact I don't want to write further, as I was writing this I remembered this Leo Tolstoy's definition and I think I like it;

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs, This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless.

LordReed:


Our forebears in the wilderness didn't have the luxury of contemplating "suppositional reality", they had to determine if those waving grasses was a predator or not, that was the reality they need to determine and if they determined wrong they were going to be some beast's lunch. My attitude is not much different from them, I need to live and so must determine the things that are real for my continued existence. The luxury of contemplating "suppositional reality" only comes when I have assured my continued existence (for awhile at least).

I admire this way of thinking!

TammieJo:

It's not all doom and gloom for us UK skeptics. England isn't really that much of a religious country although we have plenty of part timers who pretend to be religious.

And what annoys me the most is that the country that gave us these religions are not so much religious and we've clinged unto these religions like magnets! Chai!

TammieJo:

Why would anyone need to give you a reason for not accepting ridiculous claims?

My concern is that these 'ridiculous claims' have lasted a long while and are really having adverse (or positive as some claim) effects on people's lives, that's why I need reasons.

Niflheim:

You said you are feeling alone in a world filled with superstitious people.

You might want to join a Facebook or WhatsApp Group for Nigerian skeptics, maybe that will make you feel a bit better.

I've been looking for such groups but though, I value personal/close connections than groups.
But perhaps, I could find such connections in these groups. I'm not active on Facebook, can you give any WhatsApp group suggestions?

Niflheim:

You also asked for "proof", that juju is not real!!!

Proof exists only in the realm of logic, mathematics and ogogoro!!! What you should be asking for is "EVIDENCE"!!!

I'm not really asking for proofs, I'm asking Freethinkers who either don't believe or are doubtful how they manage to thrive living in the midst of superstitious believers and what convictions (especially those who don't believe at all) they have not believing at all.

DeepSight:


While I cannot for all practical purposes find any quarrel with what you say, with those persons for whom the search for the meaning of life is a foundational object of the said life itself, such questions cannot be avoided. Sadly for me, I fall into this melancholy and probably Sisyphean category.

I felt this!

Olayoo:
Let me guess. Some of you think you're free thinkers because you don't believe in the existence of a deity. How do you manage to deceive your brain. I'll love to learn. Since practice makes perfect.

You don't fully know who a freethinker is.

AuthenticKing:


You don't fully know who a freethinker is.

U came up with the conclusion that I don't know what a freethinker it without even understanding what I posted. Cool. Your deduction is beyond my expectation. So tell me, when in my post did I define a freethinker and if u will my king, can u give me an authentic definition. Or I'll just assume boredom made you write this.( I'm starting to think I'm right)

Olayoo:

U came up with the conclusion that I don't know what a freethinker it without even understanding what I posted. Cool. Your deduction is beyond my expectation. So tell me, when in my post did I define a freethinker and if u will my king, can u give me an authentic definition. Or I'll just assume boredom made you write this.( I'm starting to think I'm right)

Sorry boss . Can you make me understand what you posted?

AuthenticKing:


So probably, I gave myself a wrong label though

But again, as I wrote in my former reply before this, I'm convinced that these beliefs are just metaphorical but humans are affected by their surroundings and I'm highly sensitive.
So even as I try to wave off these beliefs and take them for what they are, my inclinations to be sensitive to happenings around me makes me somewhat doubtful of my convictions.

Probably that's why some people who started with atheism end up with agnosticism or deism or pantheism, etc. Or even theism. Personality differences at play.

I was like this too especially when I first gave up religion. I was still inclined toward believing that the universe had some kind of mystical aspect to it that responds like a wish granting genie, you might have heard of this type of philosophy from the likes of Deepak Chopra or the guy who wrote The Source. I had to ask myself, if you concluded that the evidence for a god is lacking how can you then believe in this one? Where is the evidence for it? This is how I really had my skepticism rooted in only that which can be shown to be real consistently.

You are going to need a very honest conversation with yourself if you want to get to this point. To be clear there is nothing wrong with intuition, the problem is your intuitions are not always correct and you must be ready to discard it whenever it rings false. You also must be ready to be wrong, don't think you know it all or that you can't be wrong. It is when you are open to learning that you will grasp the tools required to figure things out.

AuthenticKing:


Interesting!

So how does the skeptic find answers to the question, "How can I ascertain that this is true?"...
Like seriously, I'm a very deep person and I feel things very deeply, though I have this inner conviction that these beliefs are merely metaphorical but still, occuring circumstances really affect me and can make me brood for days.

So how does the skeptic find answer or answers to the above question?

Contrary to what most people think the skeptic is open to learning, that is the way the skeptic acquires the tools required to discern what is true and what is false. There is no magic to it, you need to acquire knowledge and have a sense of critical analysis. One of the important tools is learning how to separate bullshìt information from real information because sometimes real information is wrapped up in bullshit. One of the ways is to consult multiple reliable sources so that you can get a clearer perspective of the topic or event. Don't become a fanboy or fall into the trap of taking everything some authority on a subject says, authorities aren't always correct but when you have multiple authorities to consult you'll see things much more clearly.

Olayoo:

U came up with the conclusion that I don't know what a freethinker it without even understanding what I posted. Cool. Your deduction is beyond my expectation. So tell me, when in my post did I define a freethinker and if u will my king, can u give me an authentic definition. Or I'll just assume boredom made you write this.( I'm starting to think I'm right)

He was quite correct, your post revealed that you don't know who a freethinker is. Maybe you should look up who a freethinker is so you stop assuming you know.

AuthenticKing:


Interesting!

So how does the skeptic find answers to the question, "How can I ascertain that this is true?"...
Like seriously, I'm a very deep person and I feel things very deeply, though I have this inner conviction that these beliefs are merely metaphorical but still, occuring circumstances really affect me and can make me brood for days.

So how does the skeptic find answer or answers to the above question?

You don't have to find answers to a made-up belief.

As a skeptic, you have to always follow the evidence where it leads irrespective.
From previous conversations with people, I realized that alot of them really do not understand how evidence works: that's why a typical believer will conclude that the air we breath is evidence that God exist. This is illogical and flawed reasoning.

Follow evidence, not just evidence, it has to be testable and repeatable. If you master how to do this then you can be free from thr belief system.

I'm going to give you an example: there's a popular belief between conservatiionists that vaccines are bad and harmful. Their argument usually stem from some cases of vaccine adverse effect. While it's true that vaccines can have adverse effect in some patients but is this evidence that vaccines are bad?
Is this evidence repeatable and is it statistical significant?
If we administer a vaccine to 1000 patience and 10 had adverse effects, does that make the vaccine bad?
The ability to hear a story and dig more into it by asking salient questions is what makes you a Freethinker. Conservationists do not have the mental capacity to dig deep before believing and that's why they are religious.

Do not believe it until you see a testable and reproducible evidence and you will be fine

LordReed:


He was quite correct, your post revealed that you don't know who a freethinker is. Maybe you should look up who a freethinker is so you stop assuming you know.

Spot where I defined a freethinker. BTW, sorry to break it to you late, but I know who a freethinker is. Or let me rephrase that. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that a freethinker can objectively give a resounding definition without appealing to authority or follow other peoples definition of it?( now if u understand English you'll notice that the preceding statement was a question, b4 u assume I redefined it again)

Olayoo:

Spot where I defined a freethinker. BTW, sorry to break it to you late, but I know who a freethinker is. Or let me rephrase that. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that a freethinker can objectively give a resounding definition without appealing to authority or follow other peoples definition of it?( now if u understand English you'll notice that the preceding statement was a question, b4 u assume I redefined it again)

Yes and your question reveals your deficiencies. You can choose to look at it as a negative or choose to learn that is up to you. Asking someone to go look up the meaning of a word or phrase is not an appeal to authority so now go look up what appeal to authority means so you can learn.

This here:

Olayoo:
Let me guess. Some of you think you're free thinkers because you don't believe in the existence of a deity.

Was you attempting a definition of freethinker with no reason to make such a guess. The OP hasn't even said he doesn't believe in a god but you jumped in with this conclusion.

LordReed:


Yes and your question reveals your deficiencies. You can choose to look at it as a negative or choose to learn that is up to you. Asking someone to go look up the meaning of a word or phrase is not an appeal to authority so now go look up what appeal to authority means so you can learn.

This here:



Was you attempting a definition of freethinker with no reason to make such a guess. The OP hasn't even said he doesn't believe in a god but you jumped in with this conclusion.

Please tell me you speak English so that I can disprove it. First, forming conclusions based on a question is quite delusional. Couldn't you just ask why I said this? Your logic is quite resounding ( I'm just messing with you).
And by attempt you mean I was making an effort to define it. Oh I think I get it now, without the question mark, you couldn't tell it was a question. My bad. Maybe next time for English sake I'll forget to put it again, so that I can confuse you. I really like talking to you ( I mean it, no offense)

Olayoo:

Please tell me you speak English so that I can disprove it. First, forming conclusions based on a question is quite delusional. Couldn't you just ask why I said this? Your logic is quite resounding ( I'm just messing with you).
And by attempt you mean I was making an effort to define it. Oh I think I get it now, without the question mark, you couldn't tell it was a question. My bad. Maybe next time for English sake I'll forget to put it again, so that I can confuse you. I really like talking to you ( I mean it, no offense)

It's quite easy to spot empty barrels since they write a whole lot just to say nothing.

LordReed:


It's quite easy to spot empty barrels since they write a whole lot just to say nothing.

Dude I actually liked you. Why are you saying this. Awww. Hope I didn't anoy u. Plus empty barrels don't write things. They are not conscious. And I want to learn. Please . But is it possible to say nothing? Isn't that contradictory?

Olayoo:

Dude I actually liked you. Why are you saying this. Awww. Hope I didn't anoy u. Plus empty barrels don't write things. They are not conscious. And I want to learn. Please . But is it possible to say nothing? Isn't that contradictory?

Yep, it's a hallmark of empty barrels to sound off loquaciously and loudly while conveying nothing useful. The contradictory nature of it is inherent in the behaviour.

LordReed:


Yep, it's a hallmark of empty barrels to sound off loquaciously and loudly while conveying nothing useful. The contradictory nature of it is inherent in the behaviour.

Yes o bro you are right. That's how empty barrels work. Do you you wanna switch topic about empty barrels because you've lost track of the free thinkers stuff. I understand, I'm with you.

Olayoo:

Yes o bro you are right. That's how empty barrels work. Do you you wanna switch topic about empty barrels because you've lost track of the free thinkers stuff. I understand, I'm with you.

You had no reasonable reply to what I said so here we are. When you can assemble a reasonable response then we'll be on track again.

DeepSight:


To support your response further: no one should be asked to prove a negative.

Exactly. Ideally, too much analysis isn't even needed. The god of Christianity is claimed to be Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. The rules by which the universe works say: "No! You can't do that!"

TammieJo:

Exactly. Ideally, too much analysis isn't even needed. The god of Christianity is claimed to be Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. The rules by which the universe works say: "No! You can't do that!"

Ah well - But on this they may have at least two possible defenses: someone has said to me before that those attributes are not stated in the Bible, and for my own part, if I were of that persuasion, I would simply say, well, Yahwehsco transcends the universe! Notwithstanding being a bloodthirsty genocidal maniac. . . !

AuthenticKing:

My concern is that these 'ridiculous claims' have lasted a long while and are really having adverse (or positive as some claim) effects on people's lives

Whether religion has a positive or negative effect on people's lives is irrelevant to the original question. If you had asked me what negative effects religion has on people, I'd have answered accordingly.

"Lasting a long while" is still not evidence. This is an appeal to antiquity. The notion that since something is very old it therefore must be true. This is not evidence. What theists need is unbiased evidence. All holy books are books written by people who believed a god existed but writing stories about a god is not evidence otherwise Homer's The Odyssey would be proof of Zeus. The Bible is not evidence, it's a book that claims a god exists. You cannot use a book of claims as evidence because you're simply making more claims. The Bible is like Homer's Odyssey except on steroids. Sure, it makes people feel good about life but that still is not evidence a god exists. It's a plecebo effect.

There are always religious rule books. If they follow all the rules and regulations correctly they get to go to a nice place while those other believers in those other religions are going to burn up and be tortured. Gods were invented when ancient human brains developed enough to became aware of their own death. Notice aminals don't worship gods. Some religions make you wear certain kinds of clothing and if you don't you are banished or flogged or even murdered. These rules mostly apply to women. Religions often teach women to be ashamed of their bodies because, gee wiz, men can't be trusted to not be overcome by temptation.

Religion puts a cage around the mind. Anything that conflicts with god belief is deemed suspicious or evil. We're seeing this today with Evangelicals, Conservative Jews and Muslims who refuse to get vaccinated. Religion makes people hate other cultures and races. Religion makes people feel self important. Religion has caused wars and tribal upheavel. Millions have died in religious wars. And all this is because people don't want death to be final. They want to ride off into the sunset with a god at their side - a god which has never had any evidence it exists.

Does that answer your question?

LordReed:


You tone does sound really melancholy, you don't see a way out?

Alas, not really, save perhaps by throwing oneself wholly into the many distractions the world has to offer. Perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere in the midst of that, one day. one may just stumble upon an epiphany.

TammieJo:

Whether religion has a positive or negative effect on people's lives is irrelevant to the original question. If you had asked me what negative effects religion has on people, I'd have answered accordingly.

"Lasting a long while" is still not evidence. This is an appeal to antiquity. The notion that since something is very old it therefore must be true. This is not evidence. What theists need is unbiased evidence. All holy books are books written by people who believed a god existed but writing stories about a god is not evidence otherwise Homer's The Odyssey would be proof of Zeus. The Bible is not evidence, it's a book that claims a god exists. You cannot use a book of claims as evidence because you're simply making more claims. The Bible is like Homer's Odyssey except on steroids. Sure, it makes people feel good about life but that still is not evidence a god exists. It's a plecebo effect.

There are always religious rule books. If they follow all the rules and regulations correctly they get to go to a nice place while those other believers in those other religions are going to burn up and be tortured. Gods were invented when ancient human brains developed enough to became aware of their own death. Notice aminals don't worship gods. Some religions make you wear certain kinds of clothing and if you don't you are banished or flogged or even murdered. These rules mostly apply to women. Religions often teach women to be ashamed of their bodies because, gee wiz, men can't be trusted to not be overcome by temptation.

Religion puts a cage around the mind. Anything that conflicts with god belief is deemed suspicious or evil. We're seeing this today with Evangelicals, Conservative Jews and Muslims who refuse to get vaccinated. Religion makes people hate other cultures and races. Religion makes people feel self important. Religion has caused wars and tribal upheavel. Millions have died in religious wars. And all this is because people don't want death to be final. They want to ride off into the sunset with a god at their side - a god which has never had any evidence it exists.

Does that answer your question?

Beautifully written and I wholly agree - save to add two little thoughts again. I would not say that a longing for immortality is all there is to the instinct which has driven mankind to religion. I feel certain that a search for meaningfulness is central to it, and that this need for meaningfulness is pretty important to the average human being. Religion has served that need for most, even if I am compelled to add that it must take a significant degree of thoughtlessness to be satisfied with that which is offered up by most religious thought.

The second thought is that while one can quite validly discount the gods conjured by most religious thought, I doubt that one can as easily discount the philosophical imperative of something sitting at the root of this reality, rather than nothing. And it is this simple thought - which springs quite naturally even to the minds of little children - which forms the basis for the larger idea of GOD.

DeepSight:


Ah well - But on this they may have at least two possible defenses: someone has said to me before that those attributes are not stated in the Bible, and for my own part, if I were of that persuasion, I would simply say, well, Yahwehsco transcends the universe! Notwithstanding being a bloodthirsty genocidal maniac. . . !

The religious use the term "transcend" an awful lot. It's nothing more than a flim flam expression, a magic wand that spreads pixie dust and renders their arguments unfalsifiable, and as we know, anyone who attempts to make their arguments unfalsifiable is not interested in honest debate.