Freethinkers Myth
One of the things that bugs me the most about Atheism is that they have successfully integrated the term “Freethinkers” into their identity as a group. Some have even identified Atheists as “The Brights” implying that only Atheists can be intelligent.
A reader recently writes:
It’s hard to “backslide” from atheism to Christianity because you have to go from thinking to not thinking (at least if you become a born-again Christian, like Cameron & Comfort). Granted, it happens, but not often.
Backsliding from Christianity is also hard. Because you have to learn how to think. But as an ex-Christian, I must say that I moved forward and grew more — emotionally, intelectually, [sic] and even spiritually — after I stopped believing than I ever did when I was a Christian.
We are a little bit tired of this dogma/rhetoric and are taking this opportunity to speak out against the notion that only Atheists can be intelligent and free thinkers. The battle between Atheism and other organized groups that have a set of beliefs about god is bigger than I fear most people think and this is a way that Atheists can brainwash people into thinking that Spirituality is your ticket to unpopularity and non-mainstream.
Atheists use the same tactics as most companies that have something to sell. They are selling you a dogma that on the surface looks better, more popular, more intelligent so that people who are concerned about their appearance, about being popular, about what others think and about fitting in with the “in crowd” will join the movement. This is anything but freethinking. This is pure manipulation and nothing more than emotional abuse. Atheism preys on people’s emotions and desire to do what’s popular.
Is it possible to be spiritual and still think for oneself? Of course. Is it possible to be an Atheists simply because you are following the popular crowd and be brainwashed, not thinking for oneself? Of course. So why do Atheists proclaim the idea that they and only they are “freethinkers” and “Bright”? For only one purpose. For the express purpose of recruiting people to their belief system and to promote their belief system to the world in order to fulfill their agenda. Who wouldn’t want to be associated with a group that has the identity of being smarter than everyone else?
Atheists are hypocritically doing the same things that they accuse spiritual religions of doing. They are manipulating people into thinking the way they want you to think so that they can spread their lies and false doctrine of humanism and secularism to the world.
I’m so tired of hearing Atheists claim that they are “free thinkers”. Contrary to what Atheists preach, Atheists are NOT the ONLY “Freethinkers” around. Atheism does not have the patent on free thinking. Many, many Atheist are simply blindly following the popular view of a secular, liberal society that pushes Atheism on them and brain washes them with intellectualism and faulty science that is often fixed in order to support the theory of evolution and the Atheistic world view.
If you happen to be one of the billions of people who disagree with the Atheism left, then you are a bigoted, “anti-science” “religious nut.” And by extension, you, your beliefs, relevant portions of the Bible, Creation Science or anything else which might even be perceived as slightly “anti-Atheism” or “pro-spirituality” must either be forced to conform to the Atheists’ view of things or be done away with altogether.
Atheists follow the teachings of their crowd just as any other religion. Atheists, don’t think freely at all. All they do is find the information that supports their beliefs and then promote them. They push their beliefs on people and try and convert people to their way of thinking just like they hypocritically accuse other religions of doing. Don’t believe me? Just put up a website like this one speaking out against Atheism and see how many loving emails and blog posts you get from the Atheists. I can’t publish half of the emails I get because this site is listed as child friendly.
In the first place I think that the source of the quote is evincing the idea that one would have to regress from a position based on the assessment of evidence (thinking) to one based on the uncritical acceptance (not thinking) of unsupported claims, i.e. faith.
Then I think you’re projecting the ambition of religions upon atheists who are not recruiting as religions do. Although there are organizations atheists can join, they are more of a support group than any organizational teaching of dogma or dictate from an absolute authority. Besides, atheists find uncritically thinking atheists just as obtuse as uncritically thinking spiritualists, religionists, or those swayed by pseudo-science.
This straw man that you have built to represent atheism is not at all accurate, impressive, or convincing. This is why you have no responses up to the date of this comment.
“Atheists follow the teachings of their crowd just as any other religion. Atheists, don’t think freely at all.”
This is a prime example illustrating your confusion. Atheists examine the evidence individually. That is why they are like herding cats. They assess the evidence, i.e. think, individually. That is they think freely. We do not accept the claims which are not supported by evidence. It’s the evidence.
We atheists are actually attempting to free you from the dogmatic shackles of religion. As James Madison, a Founding Father and author of the US Constitution, said, “Religious bondage shackles & debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
Take the initiative.
Even intelligent people can be completely delusional, but they are still no less delusional. Believing in gods is a delusion.
Exactly what I was looking for. I’m a bit tired of atheists claiming to be “freethinkers.” Guys like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, David Silverman and Dan Barker have all been avatars of the “freethought” ideology. And frankly, it’s getting old. There are atheists who think for themselves, just as there are religious people who think for themselves. But many atheists I’ve conversed with are not open-minded at all. They simply don’t want to do their homework. They just use the same arguments that guys like Dawkins, Hithcens, Harris and company use, and they use insults and figure that helps them win the argument. Of course atheists will mock me, and say I’m a hypocrite and guilty of the same thing.
“atheists who are not recruiting as religions do” – false. Atheism recruits more than religions do. In the college town I live in, the local humanist chapter is bigger than any of the campus ministries. In my experience with college, atheist professors will (inadvertently or not) feed their world view to their students. In some classes, it is more obvious than others. Ironically, it is the atheist professors who talk more about God than their theist counterparts.
“This is a prime example illustrating your confusion. Atheists examine the evidence individually. That is why they are like herding cats. They assess the evidence, i.e. think, individually. That is they think freely. We do not accept the claims which are not supported by evidence. It’s the evidence.” – Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. There are some rank and file atheist that just go along with their peers without examining the evidence, especially among laypersons.
“We atheists are actually attempting to free you from the dogmatic shackles of religion.” – Ironic. The irony is that some of you guys want to ban religion from everything, which violates the first ammendment. While the government can not and shall not compel people to worship a particular god, it does outright ban religion. Also, the people that run the website are just as against organized religion as atheists are (you didn’t read the “About Us” section, did you?).
“Believing in gods is a delusion.” – On what authority do you speak to make such a statement? It’s mere subjective opinion. In fact, with different presuppositions, I can state that not believing in gods is a delusion.
Athiest Freethinkers = Free from thinking
Fact: humans are all born a-theist (that is lacking the knowledge or conception of deities) therefore lacking belief in their existences.
Fact: ‘God’ as an explanation for phenomena is no more helpful in understanding reality than aliens or unicorns. God makes no testable predictions and hence escapes falsifiability. And that being the case, there is no reason to assert ‘gods’ exist. There is nothing worth believing that makes no testable predictions.
Also believing something on authority alone the polar opposite of freethinking. So religious people can be freethinkers but remember every claim made by your chosen authority must be accepted on the evidence alone and if the claim escapes falsification then it deserves to be discarded. Practically speaking, then, religions tend to be opposed to freethinking instead relying upon authority.
1. That’s simply an impossible claim to knowledge. There’s no way that you can know that as fact.
2. Lacking knowledge is not equal to “a-theist” nor is it equal to “lacking belief”. All of us limited human beings “lack knowledge” about things. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a truth beyond knowledge. We take the evidence and formulate a belief. Theists and atheists alike do this.
3. This is a circular reasoning fallacy. You claim that “There is nothing worth believing that makes no testable predictions.” yet you state as fact something that can neither be tested nor falsified.
That’s opinion not fact.
Falsifiability is but ONE test of OBSERVABLE truth. But to hang all your belief on observable truth is to miss inductive categorical inferences. Even Popper admits to that.
Also, lack of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. That’s philosophy 101 stuff.
Plus, that argument is nothing more than an Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) fallacy. Just because something hasn’t been proved false doesn’t mean that one should automatically accept the opposite.
Again, you’re missing out on inductive reasoning. Testable science isn’t the end all be all of knowledge. There are philosophical underpinnings of logic and reason (and even science) that have no foundation on observable science.
Lets take the “Big Bang Theory” for example. That hasn’t been observed nor falsified, yet it’s accepted as truth by most naturalistic scientists.
Atheists are very emotional. They don’t really use reason or logic when they come to their conclusions. They spend more time denying counter-evidence rather than researching with all evidence presented and comparing to find the final truth to an argument. Atheism is irrational because its based on how they FEEL about the existence of God rather what they KNOW. Here’s why:
Feelings react to what the mind says is true and therefore can be swayed. Thoughts dictate feelings and feelings turn into action. You cannot act until you think about what you FEEL is true. This includes believing in lies despite facts being presented. As an example: An abused wife has been stewing over the FEELINGS of anger against the husband in her MIND for a while, and decides to ACT on those FEELINGS by killing the husband in his sleep. If she FEELS that her husband needs to pay for what he did is TRUE in her mind, that truth becomes action despite the consequences she was SWAYED from because of her subjective truth taking over her feelings. This is why opinions and feelings can never be used as a means to believe something to be true or not. This is also why many atheists are predisposed to being anti-Bible no matter what anyone proves or says. You have to weed out the enthusiasts, whose emotion for their position causes them to stop short in their investigations for the truth and just push their points. This is the fallacy of credulity at its finest.
Atheist are indeed “free thinkers” because they are “free” to let their mind “think” of anything illogical, confusing and distorted. It is true, atheists are more free than christians and don’t have to focus on one established set of laws and facts laid out in one book that claims to be all truth. Atheists would rather search the world and the universe to “discover” truth and use a materialistic approach that leads to chaos, confusion, multiple conflicting theories, and endless searching for answers to questions that are answered right in the Bible.
Here is an atheist who has claimed to find parallels in Genesis to scientific discoveries.
The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate
And another atheist who did deep honest research and has find that a God logically has to exist in order to explain the complexities of life. He calls the “no cause” theory illogical compared with his convincing scientific experiments that there has to be an “intelligent cause” to all this.
The G.O.D. Experiments: How Science Is Discovering God In Everything
Believing in something not false is delusional, especially if you devote large amounts of time to it, and since there are many religions and most are incompatible with each other that means that everyone but the true one has delusional believers and since i have yet to find a religion that gives evidence beyond read this book it’s true cause it says so i think its safe to say no current religion is the true religion and currently religious people are delusional
It’s very interesting to me how you conflate populations of people with one another, assert quite a few Sweeping Generalizations, then finally try and pin all the shortcomings and irony of your false assertions on all atheists. You talk of hypocrisy and double standards, yet forget the very basic tenet that most atheists adhere to: Evidence, not opinion, is the arbiter of truth.
If you want to argue that “inductive” reasoning or other such nonsense is at all equal to tested, repeatable, obversable measurements than by all means, bring forth your evidence. No one would deny that there are surprising amounts of knowledge or discovery that have come about by strange or seemingly “instinctive” ways, but the beauty of science is its ability to dissect and examine every step on the way to creating a theory to explain a phenomenon.
I also find it laughable you would consider any atheistic position to be “popular” or “mainstream”. To be an atheist in most sociesties is to be hounded by fear, misinformation, hatred, and outright explusion from culture. If by “popular”, you merely mean the tendency of any group to form similiar opinions and to hold those opinions as a form of doctrine or dogma, I fear you are barking up the wrong tree in the case of atheists, as other than their shared disbelief in a recognized deity, their diversity is legendary.
Alas, I’m leaving this comment not in the hope that I will stir your mind to perhaps rethink (“freethink” one might say) your opinion of some more enthuastic members of our atheist breed, but rather that whatever readers you may have can see for themselves that your utter lack of scale in dealing with religious (and non) groups is almost bordering on offensive.
The whole concept of a “free” thinker is someone who thinks for themselves. Someone who does not allow majority or even well-accepted opinions to sway their thoughts. The only thing such a person uses is the evidence of their own senses. Your assertions that anything other than observable science can prove a concept as “true” is laughable at best. Your example of the Big Bang is even more mirthful, as you seem to have a patent misunderstanding of what it means to “falsify” something. The Big Bang not only has been “observed” (look up in the sky!!!) but beautifully demonstrated by our scientific instruments.
Perhaps if you spent more time worrying about how to make more people, religious and atheist alike, to be true to their own senses and minds, you wouldn’t find yourself spewing your hilariously shallow and ill-informed opinions across the Internet.
“Atheism recruits more than religions do” – false (and you know it)
@Jake_R: you seem to be projecting a bit there. Also, I’d like citations on your claims. Scientists research & study evidence every day, and new discoveries are being made at an astronomical rate. Most of the “counter-evidence” you mentioned is no such thing (since making claims without facts to back them up or claiming a text to be true because the text says so are not “evidence”); even if it were, most of the people debating against it either do so in their spare time away from actual research & testing, or are laymen posting on the internet.
n neither case do you see scientists spending the majority of their time arguing against detractors & unqualified laymen rather than working. They’d be fired for sure if that were the case. Not only that, but part of a scientist’s job is to disprove the hypotheses of others, or to improve upon them by correcting errors. That is what happened with evolution, after all.
@Dopey: You’re painting all atheists with a very wide brush. Not all atheists have the same opinions, ideologies, or follow the same rules. Buddhists are atheist, yet are very different from the sort of atheist you’re talking about.
Furthermore, a humanist group being larger than each of many Christian groups does not mean that “atheists are recruiting.” Unless you have solid evidence that they are converting people a la Mormonism, then it’s more likely that there are just more people who already have an interest in that one group (and that the large number of religious people are split up among the other groups, instead of being cohesive). Are you aware, by the way, that it is possible to be part of a “humanist” group and still belong to a religion? They are not mutually exclusive.
@the OP: If the Bible is entirely scientifically accurate, then explain why it mentions bats being “fowl” & rabbits chewing cud. I will personally write a letter to the Nobel Academy if you can provide actual evidence of a global flood – including the disappearance of the billions of gallons of extra water necessary to perform such a feat, yet that do not exist on the planet.
*Disclaimer: I am theist, so don’t bother slapping an “atheist” label on me. Neither side is made entirely of like-minded replicas.
I’m so glad to see you deleted my earlier comment. I guess seeing a wall of text full of concise, articulate debunking of nearly every fallacy and point in your post was just too much for you to handle. I’m sure you appreciated my candor in relying on the intelligience and reasoning ability of your readership, rather than attempting to bludgeon them over the head with irrelevant and erroenous soapbox spewing. I wrote it with no profanity, no insults (calling some of your opinions “nonsense” is not an insult, FYI), and with a sincere attempt to be as respectful as possible. It just goes to show that, no matter how many times a deluded, dogmatic neanderthal such as yourself is shown to be stuck in the 4th century when it comes to reality, you police your own house with more vigor than a Taliban insurgent at a school to ensure that nothing resembling truth or fact is allowed to free someone of your whining, incesscant blather.
With best regards, Nyuushin. Perhaps someone will see this before you delete it also, and understand finally what it means to get your information from someone who, like a paranoid, destroys any outside dialogue and debate. Also, please choke on a dick. Thank you.
My apologies for this latest comment. I did not see my first post when i came back to the page, and I am sincerely sorry for jumping to the conclusion that you would stifle dialogue in such a way. Feel free to delete all 3 comments if you choose, its no more than I deserve for flying off the handle like that.
With best regards, Nyuushin
@ Latitude: While it may be true that the opinions, idealogies, etc. of the idividual atheist are different, there are some similarities, the obvious one being a strong disbelief in God. Also, at the risk of generalizing, I tend to lump Atheism with Budhism because the underlying philosophy of life is very similar as shown with the four noble truths of Budhism 1.) Life is full of suffering, 2.) suffering is caused by ignorance and fueld by base cravings, 3.) the solution to ignorance is enlightenment, 4.) with enlightenment in mind, one can be detached from the suffering by rooting out ignorance. (CAVEAT: College was 10 years ago for me, so I’m a bit rusty in Eastern Philosophy.) The problem comes in when, somewhere in the thought process, belief in God and ignorance are equated.
Moving on to your second point. (I’m responding to you and TomH-to an extent) You say that because the humanist group is larger, does not necessarily mean that atheists are recruiting. That may or may not be true, but there seems to be a correlation between education levels and atheism. Let’s examine this and make some assumptions. Even at the simplest level, you can treat college education as a “black box” process in which a student goes in, assuming a default position of theism, goes through the education process, and then, 75% of the time (according to crossexamined.org, and refuting TomH’s comment) comes out agnostic or atheist. Assuming your base case of a theist student going through college, and then changing their position on theism is attributed to one of two things (CAVEAT: this is a simple explaination, I know that there are more factors than this, but for simplicity, let’s go with these two factors): 1.) weak faith on the part of the student due to lack of apologetics training 2.) bombardment of athiestic messages from the educational system that undermines the student’s worldview (e.g. creation vs evolution). My point to this excercise was to illustrate that while there are many variables to humanist chapters being larger than church campus groups, there is no shortage of atheistic propoganda in academia.
Your third point: the possibility of being a humanist and a religious person… it depends on the religion, but for Judaism and Christianity, it is nil. The first of the 10 commandment is “you shall have no other gods before me”. Jesus Christ even stated exclusivity “the first commandment is love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength”. He also said “No one can serve two masters”. If you try to incorporate the humanist doctrine into the Christian doctrine, you will find that the two will be incompatible when you explore the fundamentals of both doctrines. Prima facie, the doctrines would appear completely compatible with each other, and humanism would be a nice compliment to religion, but upon study into the doctrines, one will find them divergent.
Your fourth point @ the OP: have you even bothered to visit creationist and apologetics websites with an open mind? A lot of the YEC sites have increasing numbers of PhD’s on their staff. If you have not, then someone has introduced bias in your thinking.
“Believing in something not false is delusional” – hilarious. Let’s follow the logic.
1.) Believing in something not false is delusional
2.) not false = true
3.) Therefore, believing in something true is delusional
Nice.
Wow… Now please tell us how you really feel.
Not going to bother trying to refute any points or change any minds because a small post has almost no chance of doing that. However, Dopey clearly has not gone to university. First, universities do not spew atheistic propaganda. Over the course of a normal 4 year degree, the average student takes around 40 different classes. These classes usually cover a wide range of topics that help students critically think and work through problems with logic. Over my university career, I have only had ONE professor even make a comment about god, and that was in an anthropology class. It is very rare for a professor to bring up god. The main reason people lose faith in god after university is that they have learned how to think for themselves and make decisions based on evidence and logic. This isn’t the biggest problem I have with your comment though. Young earth creationism is the modern day equivalent to believing the earth is flat. Radiometric dating and radioactive decay are very well known. How do you think the smoke detector in your house works? You should at least read the wikipedia page on radiometric dating to get an understanding of what it is.
My biggest problem with all religions: they cause their believers to give up on scientific discovery by filling gaps in the current understanding of the world with god and saying good enough. It removes almost all desire to ask questions and know more, especially if knowing more conflicts with their religious understanding of the world. Then, instead of trying to progress the theories and understanding of the world, they spend all their time trying to prove why science is wrong and where it says so in the bible. A good example is YEC. The whole theory relies on trying to make radiometric dating sound ridiculous and false, and then counting the age of the Earth based on references to people in the bible. One doesn’t even have to use radiometric dating to prove YEC false. We have dated the earth to at least 11,000 years old based on tree rings alone.
I agree that science needs to be questioned, as all good science is, but to constantly fight against it because it doesn’t fit with what you believe to be true is ludicrous.
@ MalRod
Regarding universities: You’ve given your perspective about one university and generalized it to all universities. You only know what happened to you in your university. To discount Dopey’s experience based on your limited experience is to commit the fallacy of cherry picking. Dopey may have had an entirely different experience.
The same could be said of science. “My biggest problem with science is that they cause people to focus on scientific discoveries by filling gaps with ‘science’ and saying good enough.” Science discounts the supernatural just as religions discount science. There needs to be a balance. Science and religion/philosophy would work in a concerted effort rather than in opposition to each other.
If one were to take a stand that there is no god, then that’s not a scientific observation but a biased belief. Just the same as if one were to take a stand that there is a god and allow that belief to effect his/her judgment about science.
Again: “I agree that religious belief needs to be questioned, as all good religion is, but to constantly fight against it because it doesn’t fit with what you bleieve to be true is ludicrous”
See, it works both ways.
Bobby, no, there doesn’t need to be a balance, people who complain that science has too much authority can shut up. I would have no problem living in a world with too much science compared to one with too much religion or not enough science. Yes, it’s a real dichotomy. There’s no need to balance the 2, not unless you or somebody can tell me what’s wrong with too much science or not enough religion.
“If one were to take a stand that there is no god, then that’s not a scientific observation but a biased belief. ”
Really? Is there a scientific observation that is ever “that there isn’t a _____ “? Or are all denials of existence of something “biased belief”? Do you admit your denial of leprechauns and whichever God you don’t believe in is a “biased belief”?
This is so Ray Comfort, point out where your opponent is allegedly wrong and never talk about your own side. Because you’ll either have to admit you are no better, or admit to being a hypocrite. Don’t dodge this one, try to answer, thanks!
“I agree that religious belief needs to be questioned, as all good religion is, but to constantly fight against it because it doesn’t fit with what you bleieve to be true is ludicrous”
So is fighting against religion because it doesn’t fit scientific evidence ludicrous?
I don’t recall anyone saying that science has too much authority. I simply think that science is unbalanced because it largely discounts philosophy and spirituality. Scientific knowledge doesn’t make up 100% of all knowledge. Science gives us some pieces to the puzzle. We need other sources to provide other pieces to the puzzle. These different disciplines need to work in a concerted effort rather than in opposition to each other. I’m not sure how to say it more clearly than that.
So that’s your solution, those of us who feel science is biased can just shut up? I applaud your logic. How did you ever come up with that argument. Very scientific of you. Haha.
You can live in that world then. I prefer a more balanced approach to knowledge (by the way I never argued a need for more religion than science. Do you even understand the concept of balance?).
I did say what’s wrong (it’s unbalanced because it discounts other sources of knowledge), but you refuse to acknowledge it.
You should refresh your memory of what a dichotomy is. You admit there’s “a real dichotomy”, but then in the very next sentence you deny that there needs to be a balance. A dichotomy by its very definition calls for a balance – cooperation may be a better term, finding common ground, working together instead of in opposition, etc.
I simply think that science can learn from religion just the same as religion can learn from science. If you disagree then that’s fine, you’re welcome to your opinion. No need to be hostile about it. Just share your opinion – you’re entitled to it.
Yes really. Do you not understand what scientific observation is? If science doesn’t observe something the most it can do is claim that they don’t know. You can’t make a scientific claim about something that you can’t observe and factualize. Since one can’t observe whether there’s a god or not then making the claim that there is no god is based on opinion not fact. That opinion is biased if one discounts other avenues to knowledge such as religion.
I think you missed the point though. If someone says all knowledge is gained by scientific observation then makes a claim that there is no god then that’s a belief not science since it’s impossible to know if there’s a god or not. Same with leprechauns.
Ray Comfort? I don’t see the connection. That’s your association not mine. You can think that if you want.
Don’t dodge what? What question would you have me answer that I haven’t already? I don’t see another question in that paragraph.
Nope.
@Malrod,
To address your ad homeneim, My education was sufficient for me to get a STEM job… and being a YEC doesn’t disqualify you from those jobs either. YEC isn’t just one theory, it’s a whole model based upon assumptions that Genesis 1-11 can be taken literally… and the ministries have made a good case out of it. In fact, the founder of the YEC movement had a PhD in Civil Engineering.
We can argue this, but if you had read my previous posts and assumptions, I can make a pretty good case for it. Apologists such as Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, and Johnathan Sarfati would agree.
Lastly, your quote “The main reason people lose faith in god after university is that they have learned how to think for themselves and make decisions based on evidence and logic” is typical atheist rhetoric that this blog post addresses, and apologists would disagree with you.
You should make an eBook with this post.