larisoft:


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!

1. Every individual, irrespective of their thought form nd world-view, leaves a room in their minds for possibility of the contrary..this is by default..aw big dis room is determines the concreteness of the evidence needed to proselytize him/her. So don't attack atheists as such cause they refuse to accept what u bliv
2. Sufficient Answers are not available now and may never be available..but, before that answer bcums available(if it will), a perspective needs be held onto..for the sake of further research..
u cnt mk further studies on something if u don't av a perspective to it beforehand which wud either be reinforced or quashed upon the advancement of such research... So if atheists, by their perceptivity bliv as of then and now, amidst countless researches, that thrz no God, so be it..until whatever evidence dey need is supplied..
Now, their wanting of that sufficient evidence is the room dey av in their minds for anything contrary to their current conclusions..when d evidence comes(as it has always been coming)..it goes into that room in their minds for examination before its being dismissed or accepted therein..
3. If u say Atheists are not freethinkers, u v simply accused dem of zealotry.. It's religion dat promotes dat.. Not atheism...
Atheism gives u a mind of ur own(and arrive at conclusions based on observation)..religion doesn't necessarily gv u a mind of urs unless u take it by force of reasoning.
4. A universally verifiable truth is an illusion as far as religion is concerned..until every human see life from d same window..which is 100% impossible..well, unless God comes in person or spirit to end all doubt and get mankind convinced irrefutably..
This is what the atheists earnestly want..dey seek undeniable truth.
5. If we see it as inept to dismiss something for lack of evidence, is it not more inept to admit something wen thrz zero evidence?
It's even the most inept when one has no perspective whatsoever irrespective of its authenticity

DeSepiero:


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

U confuse me the more.
For clarity sake, So what does Atheism necessarily do?

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!

brother, u keep missing the point. Their refusal to accept dat thrz no God is not a total assertion dat Thrz none.
You say Atheists arrive at a rigid conclusion, yet u wud agree with me that further research mostly by Atheists are goin in this respect...
What is the need of further research, if u bliv dey concluded already?

0ubenji:
U confuse me the more.
For clarity sake, So what does Atheism necessarily do?

Are they necessarily supposed to do something? They arrived at a state of unbelief from their enquiry and that's it. Unless the atheist is agnostic.
Please don't be confused bro. What are you driving at?

Definition of Atheism:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Larisoft: Draw the attention of your discussants to this. I am mildly surprised that you regard them as logical or even remotely intelligent. There is not a single one that is - except perhaps - and I still say perhaps - Despierio.

DeSepiero:

Are they necessarily supposed to do something? What would you have them do? They arrived at a state of unbelief from their enquiry and that's it.
Please don't be confused bro. What are you driving at?

their arrival at their state of unbelief is that something they do.

0ubenji:
their arrival at their state of unbelief is that something they do.

Rephrase

DeSepiero:

Rephrase

U asked if they dey necessarily need to do something

DeepSight:
Definition of Atheism:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Larisoft: Draw the attention of your discussants to this. I am mildly surprised that you regard them as logical or even remotely intelligent. There is not a single one that is - except perhaps - and I still say perhaps - Despierio.

bro...sentiment is bou to get a hold on u..
Plz let's strip dis interesting debate off of it

0ubenji:
:DU asked if they dey necessarily need to do something

Despierio...Oubenji is on point.

Mind you, there was a terrible contradiction in something else you said above.

You rephrase.

0ubenji:
bro...sentiment is bou to get a hold on u..
Plz let's strip dis interesting debate off of it

Okay.

0ubenji:
:DU asked if they dey necessarily need to do something

And what's your response?

DeepSight:


Despierio...Oubenji is on point.

Mind you, there was a terrible contradiction in something else you said above.

You rephrase.

Put it to me

DeSepiero:

And what's your response?

I stated wat it is, they do

0ubenji:
I stated wat it is, they do

Arrh!! You're regressing o.

hahn:


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

It is supposed to know my address

Some one like you will clearly require the Ocean to give a personal handshake to the droplet of water on your tongue, in order that you may grant the Ocean the special privilege of your acknowledgement that it exists.

DeSepiero:

Arrh!! You're regressing o.

No, he is not. I fear you are not reading properly.

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.

DeSepiero:

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

Despiero - The above are the contradictions you asked I put to you.

DeepSight:


No, he is not. I fear you are not reading properly.

He has lost me.

larisoft:

I think you first have to define what God is...

Atheists dont claim there are absolute no Gods, because God is a relative term, so when you start the conversation, you have to define God.

Some people take money as God, well obviously God exists in that scenario and i can believe in that.

Einstein said God is the summation of the laws of physics, i agree because there is evidence, so God exists.

Christians say God is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial intelligent being, No evidence for that God, so belief is withheld.

I really dont see how this process affects how i am a free thinker

DeSepiero:

Are they necessarily supposed to do something? They arrived at a state of unbelief from their enquiry and that's it.

That is doing something.

That is what Oubenji has been telling you.

Indeed, the quote shows a third contradiction from you.

I am worried about my earlier assessment of you.

Perhaps it was too hasty.

DeepSight:




Despiero - The above are the contradictions you asked I put to you.

My point is 'free thinking lead many to atheism'.

Then having arrived at this state, the individual most likely won't bother about trying to seek logical answers and evidence to prove that God exists or not.
ie He doesn't exercise free thinking in trying to prove or disprove the existence of God.

But he exercises freethinking in justifying his unbelief.

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.

You do realize that Atheism is anti-existence of a creator god. And free thinking is the ability to think without belief system blocking your level of thoughts.I would personally say free thoughts is formed based on personal opinion,logic and reasoning. What is not Free-thinking is thoughts formed based on religion,tradition and culture or political views.

You are right in a way that Atheism is not free thinking. Well, many atheist I have had met on nairaland are still subjected to traditional,authorities and political views,hence not really free thinkers. But an Atheist is more likely to have more free thoughts on general issues.

Regarding religion,free thinkers think there isn't enough evidence to support the existence of a god.Blind faith is a no no because it is subjected to respecting authorities like;parental views,community views on god.

Event scientifically,some people have no proof themselves but are subjected to the scientific books. I personally do not agree with 50% of what science books say. Why? Because I reason with every bit of information most times.

My views on Homosexuality is the same. Is it possible for someone to be gay? If you ask 10 Christians,they will most likely say No,Atheists may give a mixed view,some negative due to Traditional influence or family,while a true free thinker will say yes.

Another question is the rights of women. you will find lots of Atheist basing their decision of women being 2nd class to a man due to Cultural/traditional reasons. Basically means free thinkers ain't that much. But one thing is right,A true christian is no free thinker.

0ubenji:
I stated wat it is, they do

Are we clear?

DeepSight:


Some one like you will clearly require the Ocean to give a personal handshake to the droplet of water on your tongue, in order that you may grant the Ocean the special privilege of your acknowledgement that it exists.

*yawns*

JackBizzle:



Why have faith in the first place?

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

What about conscience?

Do you have conscience? Is conscience visible? Why believe in the invisible conscience? Is that NOT FAITH? This is why atheism is rot with dishonesty!

Would you judge the reality of conscience on the basis of the rights and wrongs people do?

When you see people who are SO WICKED BEYOND your imagination. Would you conclude that there is nothing like conscience.

Dishonesty the foundation of atheism!

EyeHateGod:

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?

How would you understand this? When it is beyond your knowledge!

That's where logic leads, just wake up please!

promise10:

How would you understand this? When it is beyond your knowledge!
That's where logic leads, just wake up please!

what bullsheeet logic leads there?

1 look at the unknown

2 create a wild guess story about what happens in the unknown

3 claim anyone who doesn't believe it without evidence is not logical

EPITOME OF STUPIDITY

By your definition, a freethinker cannot truly ever have an opinion on anything. If lack of evidence always requires further research, then good luck finding Russell's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster since we have no way of dismissing their existence apart from 'absence of evidence'. The truth is that outlandish claims should be dismissed unless there is an outlandish amount of evidence supporting them.

By your definition, an agnostic cannot be a freethinker since they don't believe it is possible to know whether god exists or not. Neither can the agnostic atheist, since their default setting is non-belief.

Are you implying that a true freethinker is one with no previously held opinion and who accepts all opinions without any measure of doubt? We call those people children.

promise10:

How would you understand this? When it is beyond your knowledge!

That's where logic leads, just wake up please!

Promise10 What is Outside Space? Show us that u have Sense & knowledge! Am tired of u quoting me just for Quoting sake Without making any sense.