Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (5998)	5/29/2010 2:11:04 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

"By your arbitrary Humpty Dumpty definition a "freethinker" is whatever you want it to be. Yet we see that many people who are considered to be great freethinkers are among the most despicable sociopaths of all history." You are a liar. I've never changed the definition. A sociopath CANNOT be a freethinker: I have said repeatedly...it is the PROCESS, not the conclusion. "Collins used the term as essentially a synonym for anyone who opposes organized religion and wrote his most famous book, The Discourse of Free Thinking (1713) to explain why he felt that way. He went beyond describing freethinking as desirable and declared it to be a moral obligation: Because he who thinks freely does his best toward being right, and consequently does all that God, who can require nothing more of any Man than that he should do his best, can require of him. As should be obvious, Collins did not equate freethinking with atheism — he retained his membership in the Anglican church. It wasn’t belief in a god which attracted his ire, but instead people who simply “take the Opinions they have imbib’d form their Grandmothers, Mothers or Priests.” At the time, freethinking and the freethought movement was usually characteristic of those who were deists just as today freethinking is more often characteristic of atheists — but in both cases this relationship is not exclusive. It is not the conclusion which differentiates freethought from other philosophies, but the process. A person can be a theist because they are a freethinker and a person can be an atheist despite not being a freethinker. For freethinkers and those who associate themselves with freethought, claims are judged based on how closely they are found to correlate with reality. Claims have to be capable of being tested and it has to be possible to falsify it — to have a situation which, if discovered, would demonstrate that the claim is false. As the Freedom From Religion Foundation explains it: For a statement to be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it, and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character attacks?). Although many atheists may be surprised or even annoyed by this, the obvious conclusion is that freethought and theism are compatible while freethought and atheism are not the same and one does not automatically necessitate the other. An atheist might legitimately raise the objection that a theist cannot also be a freethinker because theism — the belief in a god — cannot be rationally grounded and cannot be based upon reason. The problem here, however, is the fact that this objection is confusing the conclusion with the process. As long as a person accepts the principle that beliefs regarding religion and politics should be based upon reason and makes a genuine, sincere, and consistent attempt to evaluate claims and ideas with reason, refusing to accept those which are unreasonable, then that person should be regarded as a freethinker. Once again, the point about freethought is the process rather than the conclusion — which means that a person who fails to be perfect does not also fail to be a freethinker. An atheist might regard the theist’s position as erroneous and a failure to apply reason and logic perfectly — but what atheist achieves such perfection? Freethought is not based upon perfection." atheism.about.com