Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Voice of Reason and Faith Issue 1

Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anyway, this is a new weekly "blog" I have decided to start up on the Religion Forums of DDO. I doubt very many people will see this for the first few weeks, but I would like to get this out to at least a few people on this website. Without further delay, here is the first issue of "The Voice of Reason and Faith".

"Take the risk of thinking for yourself; much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. I promise."

These were Christopher Hitchens' final remarks in the Hitchens-Dembski debate for all of you who remember it. Along with that in what I believe to be another time and place he also said:

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks."


I believe the statements were right; but what about the ideas and thought behind them? Hitchens, as we all know, along with others like him and organizations inspired by these thought processes, have always encouraged "free thought". Or in other words, by what seems to be their definitions of free thinking, "freedom from the tyranny of religion." Which leads me to write about this week's topic, which is:

What Constitutes a Truly Free Mind?

What Hitchens and the rest of the "free thinkers" have always preached for the spans of their careers is that free thought was essential to the well-being of humanity.

I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind? To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

With their usual level of confidence, people like him would argue that it most certainly does. But I don't think this is true in the slightest. To ignore all the good people have done with religion, to ignore all the lives that have been turned around with it and saved, to just portray to our children absolutely nothing but the evil religion has been abused for, and then indoctrinate children with this mindset and never let them choose between theism and atheism without having their sanity questioned by their peers; that goes against the very essence and definition of free thought. That's what we call indoctrination. This is an alarmingly widespread paradigm in our country and world today. So with that in mind, how can someone say reasonably that atheism would encompass free thought? They can't. They're automatically guilty of the exact same kind of indoctrination they accuse the faithful of, yet refuse to admit it.

So does free thought still equal atheism and/or agnosticism? I don't think so. We, as a society, community, and individuals, still owe very much to religion and the sets of ideals and morals it provides for humans to live by, and the good people have used it for and the beauty it's inspired in our world.
If you're going to say we should get rid of religion because it's been used for evil, we should just get rid of cars because drunk drivers crash in them and kill people, right? Do you see any campaigns or billboards saying we should get rid of cars? Of course not, because that would be plain ridiculous. The same thought process (Or whatever is behind it) applies to the campaigns to be free from religion and to be "free thinkers". So, let me outline their basic message for you without sugar-coating it:

"Religion is evil and kills, brainwashes and removes and stifles literacy and intelligence in its followers, regardless of all the good people have used it for, so we should get rid of it and protect it from our children so they can think freely; just without something as ridiculous as religion in the way of their minds. We don't want them to have to choose between religion and atheism at the expense of free thought."

And believe it or not, I don't even need to exaggerate to outline it for you. These people have convinced themselves and many others that free thought will lead to what they define as free thinking, which is atheism for them. All at the same time while lambasting religion and saying we should get rid of it permanently and we'd be better off without it. The painful reality we all need to face at some point in our lives is that free thought will lead to whatever you want it to; not atheism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. Hence the term "free" thought.

"Free thought" doesn't lead to what these people or that group or religion will tell you regardless of what people will tell you; free thought, by definition, will lead it to whatever you want it to. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Thanks for reading and feedback, from atheists and theists, is appreciated.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Anyway, this is a new weekly "blog" I have decided to start up on the Religion Forums of DDO. I doubt very many people will see this for the first few weeks, but I would like to get this out to at least a few people on this website. Without further delay, here is the first issue of "The Voice of Reason and Faith".


"Take the risk of thinking for yourself; much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. I promise."

These were Christopher Hitchens' final remarks in the Hitchens-Dembski debate for all of you who remember it. Along with that in what I believe to be another time and place he also said:

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks."


I believe the statements were right; but what about the ideas and thought behind them? Hitchens, as we all know, along with others like him and organizations inspired by these thought processes, have always encouraged "free thought". Or in other words, by what seems to be their definitions of free thinking, "freedom from the tyranny of religion." Which leads me to write about this week's topic, which is:

What Constitutes a Truly Free Mind?

What Hitchens and the rest of the "free thinkers" have always preached for the spans of their careers is that free thought was essential to the well-being of humanity.

I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind? To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

With their usual level of confidence, people like him would argue that it most certainly does. But I don't think this is true in the slightest. To ignore all the good people have done with religion, to ignore all the lives that have been turned around with it and saved, to just portray to our children absolutely nothing but the evil religion has been abused for, and then indoctrinate children with this mindset and never let them choose between theism and atheism without having their sanity questioned by their peers; that goes against the very essence and definition of free thought. That's what we call indoctrination. This is an alarmingly widespread paradigm in our country and world today. So with that in mind, how can someone say reasonably that atheism would encompass free thought? They can't. They're automatically guilty of the exact same kind of indoctrination they accuse the faithful of, yet refuse to admit it.

So does free thought still equal atheism and/or agnosticism? I don't think so. We, as a society, community, and individuals, still owe very much to religion and the sets of ideals and morals it provides for humans to live by, and the good people have used it for and the beauty it's inspired in our world.
If you're going to say we should get rid of religion because it's been used for evil, we should just get rid of cars because drunk drivers crash in them and kill people, right? Do you see any campaigns or billboards saying we should get rid of cars? Of course not, because that would be plain ridiculous. The same thought process (Or whatever is behind it) applies to the campaigns to be free from religion and to be "free thinkers". So, let me outline their basic message for you without sugar-coating it:

"Religion is evil and kills, brainwashes and removes and stifles literacy and intelligence in its followers, regardless of all the good people have used it for, so we should get rid of it and protect it from our children so they can think freely; just without something as ridiculous as religion in the way of their minds. We don't want them to have to choose between religion and atheism at the expense of free thought."

And believe it or not, I don't even need to exaggerate to outline it for you. These people have convinced themselves and many others that free thought will lead to what they define as free thinking, which is atheism for them. All at the same time while lambasting religion and saying we should get rid of it permanently and we'd be better off without it. The painful reality we all need to face at some point in our lives is that free thought will lead to whatever you want it to; not atheism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. Hence the term "free" thought.

"Free thought" doesn't lead to what these people or that group or religion will tell you regardless of what people will tell you; free thought, by definition, will lead it to whatever you want it to. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Thanks for reading and feedback, from atheists and theists, is appreciated.

This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 6:21:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I decided not to quote the whole text :)

I am totally against religion, not because of what you pointed you though. I mean to be a free thinker and come to any conclusion is fine. The reason I am so against religion is that it makes people do things based on false sets of morals that are not applicable in the world we live in. i.e. gay rights.

One more thing, free thinking still requires evidence otherwise its free thinking but not rational thinking.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:28:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I'm sorry but a theory is a theory for a reason. Furthermore, there is evidence to back to back up what the Bible says. For example, all the chariots and skeletons down at the bottom of the Red Sea still there to this day!
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:03:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:28:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I'm sorry but a theory is a theory for a reason. Furthermore, there is evidence to back to back up what the Bible says. For example, all the chariots and skeletons down at the bottom of the Red Sea still there to this day!
There ain't none. Provide REAL evidence. In fact provide evidence that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt and escaped, there's a good fella.

Learn what a scientific theory is and come back, because atm you are just proving how ignorant you are.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:39:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 9:03:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:28:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I'm sorry but a theory is a theory for a reason. Furthermore, there is evidence to back to back up what the Bible says. For example, all the chariots and skeletons down at the bottom of the Red Sea still there to this day!
There ain't none. Provide REAL evidence. In fact provide evidence that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt and escaped, there's a good fella.

Learn what a scientific theory is and come back, because atm you are just proving how ignorant you are.

The fact you didn't even take my words into consideration is what is the problem. Furthermore, I will not get engaged with emotive dialogue.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:52:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Anyway, this is a new weekly "blog" I have decided to start up on the Religion Forums of DDO. I doubt very many people will see this for the first few weeks, but I would like to get this out to at least a few people on this website. Without further delay, here is the first issue of "The Voice of Reason and Faith".


"Take the risk of thinking for yourself; much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. I promise."

These were Christopher Hitchens' final remarks in the Hitchens-Dembski debate for all of you who remember it. Along with that in what I believe to be another time and place he also said:

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks."


I believe the statements were right; but what about the ideas and thought behind them? Hitchens, as we all know, along with others like him and organizations inspired by these thought processes, have always encouraged "free thought". Or in other words, by what seems to be their definitions of free thinking, "freedom from the tyranny of religion." Which leads me to write about this week's topic, which is:

What Constitutes a Truly Free Mind?

What Hitchens and the rest of the "free thinkers" have always preached for the spans of their careers is that free thought was essential to the well-being of humanity.

I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind? To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

With their usual level of confidence, people like him would argue that it most certainly does. But I don't think this is true in the slightest. To ignore all the good people have done with religion, to ignore all the lives that have been turned around with it and saved, to just portray to our children absolutely nothing but the evil religion has been abused for, and then indoctrinate children with this mindset and never let them choose between theism and atheism without having their sanity questioned by their peers; that goes against the very essence and definition of free thought. That's what we call indoctrination. This is an alarmingly widespread paradigm in our country and world today. So with that in mind, how can someone say reasonably that atheism would encompass free thought? They can't. They're automatically guilty of the exact same kind of indoctrination they accuse the faithful of, yet refuse to admit it.

So does free thought still equal atheism and/or agnosticism? I don't think so. We, as a society, community, and individuals, still owe very much to religion and the sets of ideals and morals it provides for humans to live by, and the good people have used it for and the beauty it's inspired in our world.
If you're going to say we should get rid of religion because it's been used for evil, we should just get rid of cars because drunk drivers crash in them and kill people, right? Do you see any campaigns or billboards saying we should get rid of cars? Of course not, because that would be plain ridiculous. The same thought process (Or whatever is behind it) applies to the campaigns to be free from religion and to be "free thinkers". So, let me outline their basic message for you without sugar-coating it:

"Religion is evil and kills, brainwashes and removes and stifles literacy and intelligence in its followers, regardless of all the good people have used it for, so we should get rid of it and protect it from our children so they can think freely; just without something as ridiculous as religion in the way of their minds. We don't want them to have to choose between religion and atheism at the expense of free thought."

And believe it or not, I don't even need to exaggerate to outline it for you. These people have convinced themselves and many others that free thought will lead to what they define as free thinking, which is atheism for them. All at the same time while lambasting religion and saying we should get rid of it permanently and we'd be better off without it. The painful reality we all need to face at some point in our lives is that free thought will lead to whatever you want it to; not atheism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. Hence the term "free" thought.

"Free thought" doesn't lead to what these people or that group or religion will tell you regardless of what people will tell you; free thought, by definition, will lead it to whatever you want it to. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Thanks for reading and feedback, from atheists and theists, is appreciated.
Great post Pitbull! I was thinking of adding something to this post, but I don't think I need to.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:59:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:21:23 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I decided not to quote the whole text :)

I am totally against religion, not because of what you pointed you though. I mean to be a free thinker and come to any conclusion is fine. The reason I am so against religion is that it makes people do things based on false sets of morals that are not applicable in the world we live in. i.e. gay rights.

One more thing, free thinking still requires evidence otherwise its free thinking but not rational thinking.
The gay rights issue started out as the right for 2 individuals of the same gender to do what they prefer in privacy, just like what heterosexuals do in private. And it's been honored. Whatever homosexuals wish to do in the privacy of their bedroom is their right. It had nothing to do with marriage. Now it's become an issue of legal marriage. So the question may become, what rights are ministers going to have when they choose not to marry a gay couple due to their religious conviction? What rights are cake bakers going to have when they choose not to create a wedding cake for a gay couple due to religious conviction?
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:04:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I thought I reported you already...

Don't have the balls to attack my post, so you have to sink yet another level and attack the people that like it. That's evidence of your stupidity and arrogance, which reeks in almost every post you've made on this site. If you're going to claim that books that were written over the courses of many years, and found later and put together into what we know as the Bible, has no significance at all and is only for the deluded, you are beyond hope.

Now go to the Yahoo! Answers and Google+ atheist communities where you belong.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:06:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:21:23 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I decided not to quote the whole text :)

I am totally against religion, not because of what you pointed you though. I mean to be a free thinker and come to any conclusion is fine. The reason I am so against religion is that it makes people do things based on false sets of morals that are not applicable in the world we live in. i.e. gay rights.

One more thing, free thinking still requires evidence otherwise its free thinking but not rational thinking.

Exactly what laws and morals are you talking about?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:13:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

Then why not discount all of history? After all, cave drawings and paintings and such made by the Egyptians have no evidence to support that they happened, as we weren't there. The Bible is not a book that was plopped down in Moses' lap, it's many books written over long periods of time and combined into one volume later. You know the letters in the New Testament? They were actually written. Do you know why? Because we found them. The Bible wasn't intended or written as a work of fiction. I'm sure no people group would take that long to write that many books over that much of a period of time, to combine it all thousands of years later with the goal in mind of creating a work of fiction. It was written by more than one person, you know.

I probably just wasted a wall of text on you. But a guy can always dream that you'll be able to think one day...
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:42:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind?

I haven't seen all that much of Hitchens, but this sounds like one big strawman. First of all you seem to be implying "always" in the most strict of senses, which would be absurd and you would need him saying that explicitly to justify alleging that that is what he meant.

And even if it was what he meant, it still would not justify your implication that he and others are considering them one in the same. We all for example know that working out regularly leads to a toned body yet no one argues that they are the same thing, just as no one argues that you can always tell how often a person works out simply by looking at their body. We all understand that just like the mind, it all depends on the person. I am not sure why you seem to think that Hitchens and others don't understand this as well.

To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

Free thinking encompasses the ability of the individual to think on their own without being spoon fed his or her worldview by others using threats of eternal punishment unless he/she blindly accepts their views, which is something that only comes from religion. And yes, atheists tend to think that the world would be better off without that. That doesn't mean they are actually against free thought.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:21:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:42:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind?

I haven't seen all that much of Hitchens, but this sounds like one big strawman. First of all you seem to be implying "always" in the most strict of senses, which would be absurd and you would need him saying that explicitly to justify alleging that that is what he meant.

I had a feeling someone was eventually going to say something like that. Read his book "God is Not Great". It may make you think otherwise.

And even if it was what he meant, it still would not justify your implication that he and others are considering them one in the same. We all for example know that working out regularly leads to a toned body yet no one argues that they are the same thing, just as no one argues that you can always tell how often a person works out simply by looking at their body. We all understand that just like the mind, it all depends on the person. I am not sure why you seem to think that Hitchens and others don't understand this as well.

To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

Free thinking encompasses the ability of the individual to think on their own without being spoon fed his or her worldview by others using threats of eternal punishment unless he/she blindly accepts their views, which is something that only comes from religion. And yes, atheists tend to think that the world would be better off without that. That doesn't mean they are actually against free thought.

Once again, read the literature of New Age Atheism and you'll see what they really think and believe about religion. Hitchens and others most certainly thought this way as far as the public could detect.
I also said that free thought wouldn't lead to religion either; it leads to wherever you want it to regardless of what's out there. And religion today doesn't gain most of its followers that way contrary to popular belief.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:23:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 9:52:22 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Anyway, this is a new weekly "blog" I have decided to start up on the Religion Forums of DDO. I doubt very many people will see this for the first few weeks, but I would like to get this out to at least a few people on this website. Without further delay, here is the first issue of "The Voice of Reason and Faith".


"Take the risk of thinking for yourself; much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. I promise."

These were Christopher Hitchens' final remarks in the Hitchens-Dembski debate for all of you who remember it. Along with that in what I believe to be another time and place he also said:

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks."


I believe the statements were right; but what about the ideas and thought behind them? Hitchens, as we all know, along with others like him and organizations inspired by these thought processes, have always encouraged "free thought". Or in other words, by what seems to be their definitions of free thinking, "freedom from the tyranny of religion." Which leads me to write about this week's topic, which is:

What Constitutes a Truly Free Mind?

What Hitchens and the rest of the "free thinkers" have always preached for the spans of their careers is that free thought was essential to the well-being of humanity.

I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind? To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

With their usual level of confidence, people like him would argue that it most certainly does. But I don't think this is true in the slightest. To ignore all the good people have done with religion, to ignore all the lives that have been turned around with it and saved, to just portray to our children absolutely nothing but the evil religion has been abused for, and then indoctrinate children with this mindset and never let them choose between theism and atheism without having their sanity questioned by their peers; that goes against the very essence and definition of free thought. That's what we call indoctrination. This is an alarmingly widespread paradigm in our country and world today. So with that in mind, how can someone say reasonably that atheism would encompass free thought? They can't. They're automatically guilty of the exact same kind of indoctrination they accuse the faithful of, yet refuse to admit it.

So does free thought still equal atheism and/or agnosticism? I don't think so. We, as a society, community, and individuals, still owe very much to religion and the sets of ideals and morals it provides for humans to live by, and the good people have used it for and the beauty it's inspired in our world.
If you're going to say we should get rid of religion because it's been used for evil, we should just get rid of cars because drunk drivers crash in them and kill people, right? Do you see any campaigns or billboards saying we should get rid of cars? Of course not, because that would be plain ridiculous. The same thought process (Or whatever is behind it) applies to the campaigns to be free from religion and to be "free thinkers". So, let me outline their basic message for you without sugar-coating it:

"Religion is evil and kills, brainwashes and removes and stifles literacy and intelligence in its followers, regardless of all the good people have used it for, so we should get rid of it and protect it from our children so they can think freely; just without something as ridiculous as religion in the way of their minds. We don't want them to have to choose between religion and atheism at the expense of free thought."

And believe it or not, I don't even need to exaggerate to outline it for you. These people have convinced themselves and many others that free thought will lead to what they define as free thinking, which is atheism for them. All at the same time while lambasting religion and saying we should get rid of it permanently and we'd be better off without it. The painful reality we all need to face at some point in our lives is that free thought will lead to whatever you want it to; not atheism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. Hence the term "free" thought.

"Free thought" doesn't lead to what these people or that group or religion will tell you regardless of what people will tell you; free thought, by definition, will lead it to whatever you want it to. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Thanks for reading and feedback, from atheists and theists, is appreciated.
Great post Pitbull! I was thinking of adding something to this post, but I don't think I need to.

Thanks! =D This is going to be a weekly thing, too.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:25:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Anyway, this is a new weekly "blog" I have decided to start up on the Religion Forums of DDO. I doubt very many people will see this for the first few weeks, but I would like to get this out to at least a few people on this website. Without further delay, here is the first issue of "The Voice of Reason and Faith".


"Take the risk of thinking for yourself; much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. I promise."

These were Christopher Hitchens' final remarks in the Hitchens-Dembski debate for all of you who remember it. Along with that in what I believe to be another time and place he also said:

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks."


I believe the statements were right; but what about the ideas and thought behind them? Hitchens, as we all know, along with others like him and organizations inspired by these thought processes, have always encouraged "free thought". Or in other words, by what seems to be their definitions of free thinking, "freedom from the tyranny of religion." Which leads me to write about this week's topic, which is:

What Constitutes a Truly Free Mind?

What Hitchens and the rest of the "free thinkers" have always preached for the spans of their careers is that free thought was essential to the well-being of humanity.

I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind? To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

With their usual level of confidence, people like him would argue that it most certainly does. But I don't think this is true in the slightest. To ignore all the good people have done with religion, to ignore all the lives that have been turned around with it and saved, to just portray to our children absolutely nothing but the evil religion has been abused for, and then indoctrinate children with this mindset and never let them choose between theism and atheism without having their sanity questioned by their peers; that goes against the very essence and definition of free thought. That's what we call indoctrination. This is an alarmingly widespread paradigm in our country and world today. So with that in mind, how can someone say reasonably that atheism would encompass free thought? They can't. They're automatically guilty of the exact same kind of indoctrination they accuse the faithful of, yet refuse to admit it.

So does free thought still equal atheism and/or agnosticism? I don't think so. We, as a society, community, and individuals, still owe very much to religion and the sets of ideals and morals it provides for humans to live by, and the good people have used it for and the beauty it's inspired in our world.
If you're going to say we should get rid of religion because it's been used for evil, we should just get rid of cars because drunk drivers crash in them and kill people, right? Do you see any campaigns or billboards saying we should get rid of cars? Of course not, because that would be plain ridiculous. The same thought process (Or whatever is behind it) applies to the campaigns to be free from religion and to be "free thinkers". So, let me outline their basic message for you without sugar-coating it:

"Religion is evil and kills, brainwashes and removes and stifles literacy and intelligence in its followers, regardless of all the good people have used it for, so we should get rid of it and protect it from our children so they can think freely; just without something as ridiculous as religion in the way of their minds. We don't want them to have to choose between religion and atheism at the expense of free thought."

And believe it or not, I don't even need to exaggerate to outline it for you. These people have convinced themselves and many others that free thought will lead to what they define as free thinking, which is atheism for them. All at the same time while lambasting religion and saying we should get rid of it permanently and we'd be better off without it. The painful reality we all need to face at some point in our lives is that free thought will lead to whatever you want it to; not atheism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. Hence the term "free" thought.

"Free thought" doesn't lead to what these people or that group or religion will tell you regardless of what people will tell you; free thought, by definition, will lead it to whatever you want it to. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Thanks for reading and feedback, from atheists and theists, is appreciated.

This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

Thanks! Although personally I don't believe the Rapture's going to be any time soon. If it isn't in the near future, we're going to be in for a real roller coaster ride when it hits in the future considering the conditions today. But I could be wrong. There's no way of knowing for sure.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
ethang5
Posts: 4,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:37:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:04:24 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I thought I reported you already...

Don't have the balls to attack my post, so you have to sink yet another level and attack the people that like it. That's evidence of your stupidity and arrogance, which reeks in almost every post you've made on this site.

Yikes bully! Yet another poster who, after only 2 posts or less, concludes that you are an arrogant idiot. Does it not give you pause that all these people came to the same conclusion about you so quickly?

Nah. I know it doesn't bother you.

If you're going to claim that books that were written over the courses of many years, and found later and put together into what we know as the Bible, has no significance at all and is only for the deluded, you are beyond hope.

Now go to the Yahoo! Answers and Google+ atheist communities where you belong.

He'll stay here of course. He can't troll there.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:47:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:37:51 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:04:24 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I thought I reported you already...

Don't have the balls to attack my post, so you have to sink yet another level and attack the people that like it. That's evidence of your stupidity and arrogance, which reeks in almost every post you've made on this site.

Yikes bully! Yet another poster who, after only 2 posts or less, concludes that you are an arrogant idiot. Does it not give you pause that all these people came to the same conclusion about you so quickly?

I didn't. And I think he responded with the same amount of velocity as the previous poster did before him. Even though it isn't necessarily right, you have just condemned yourself as an arrogant idiot too. I don't know why you would do that, but you did.

Nah. I know it doesn't bother you.

If you're going to claim that books that were written over the courses of many years, and found later and put together into what we know as the Bible, has no significance at all and is only for the deluded, you are beyond hope.

Now go to the Yahoo! Answers and Google+ atheist communities where you belong.

He'll stay here of course. He can't troll there.

And why is it I hardly ever see any religious people trolling any atheist communities on the internet unless, they are directly mocking religion.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 3:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:37:51 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:04:24 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I thought I reported you already...

Don't have the balls to attack my post, so you have to sink yet another level and attack the people that like it. That's evidence of your stupidity and arrogance, which reeks in almost every post you've made on this site.

Yikes bully! Yet another poster who, after only 2 posts or less, concludes that you are an arrogant idiot. Does it not give you pause that all these people came to the same conclusion about you so quickly?

Nah. I know it doesn't bother you.

He's been attacking and mocking religious people for no good reason whatsoever on this website forever. And what really gets me is that it's seemingly unprovoked.

If you're going to claim that books that were written over the courses of many years, and found later and put together into what we know as the Bible, has no significance at all and is only for the deluded, you are beyond hope.

Now go to the Yahoo! Answers and Google+ atheist communities where you belong.

He'll stay here of course. He can't troll there.

Actually, they're full of his kind and worse.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:35:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:06:47 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:21:23 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I decided not to quote the whole text :)

I am totally against religion, not because of what you pointed you though. I mean to be a free thinker and come to any conclusion is fine. The reason I am so against religion is that it makes people do things based on false sets of morals that are not applicable in the world we live in. i.e. gay rights.

One more thing, free thinking still requires evidence otherwise its free thinking but not rational thinking.

Exactly what laws and morals are you talking about?

Things like don't eat seafood, or homosexuality is a sin. For that matter I suppose we first need to define what is sin.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:38:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 9:59:27 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:21:23 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I decided not to quote the whole text :)

I am totally against religion, not because of what you pointed you though. I mean to be a free thinker and come to any conclusion is fine. The reason I am so against religion is that it makes people do things based on false sets of morals that are not applicable in the world we live in. i.e. gay rights.

One more thing, free thinking still requires evidence otherwise its free thinking but not rational thinking.
The gay rights issue started out as the right for 2 individuals of the same gender to do what they prefer in privacy, just like what heterosexuals do in private. And it's been honored. Whatever homosexuals wish to do in the privacy of their bedroom is their right. It had nothing to do with marriage. Now it's become an issue of legal marriage. So the question may become, what rights are ministers going to have when they choose not to marry a gay couple due to their religious conviction? What rights are cake bakers going to have when they choose not to create a wedding cake for a gay couple due to religious conviction?

The question rather is "is homophobia rational?" Is there any reason to fear what is a very natural behavior. As such anyone promoting irrational beliefs should not be tolerated, otherwise we should tolerate racism, pedophilia, rape etc.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:42:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:28:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I'm sorry but a theory is a theory for a reason. Furthermore, there is evidence to back to back up what the Bible says. For example, all the chariots and skeletons down at the bottom of the Red Sea still there to this day!

I have seen this so called evidence for chariots at the bottom of the red sea. I would say its not rational and definitely not real. Think about it, why have more archeologists not been interested in it except for unqualified amateur theists? Probably as its not real.

I have blogged about it in a little more detail here.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:42:27 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:28:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I'm sorry but a theory is a theory for a reason. Furthermore, there is evidence to back to back up what the Bible says. For example, all the chariots and skeletons down at the bottom of the Red Sea still there to this day!

I have seen this so called evidence for chariots at the bottom of the red sea. I would say its not rational and definitely not real. Think about it, why have more archeologists not been interested in it except for unqualified amateur theists? Probably as its not real.

I have blogged about it in a little more detail here.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

Why? Because more archaeologist are secularists and secularists don't even try to look at what the Bible says happened in history. To deny something because of it's cover is pure ignorance. And where is your evidence that they aren't real? Besides, even if they were amateur archaeologist as you claim they are in your blog post, it doesn't mean they aren't to be taken lightly. Andrew Carnegie was an amateur in all that he did, but didn't he prove to be well respected? I think he did.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:25:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:35:29 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:06:47 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:21:23 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I decided not to quote the whole text :)

I am totally against religion, not because of what you pointed you though. I mean to be a free thinker and come to any conclusion is fine. The reason I am so against religion is that it makes people do things based on false sets of morals that are not applicable in the world we live in. i.e. gay rights.

One more thing, free thinking still requires evidence otherwise its free thinking but not rational thinking.

Exactly what laws and morals are you talking about?

Things like don't eat seafood, or homosexuality is a sin. For that matter I suppose we first need to define what is sin.

It looks like you're referring to the laws in the Old Testament. Those don't apply to us today for a very simple reason: they were only given to the children of Israel back then, and not to Christians or anyone today for that matter. If you look carefully at the beginnings of the law books in the OT, it always mentions that Moses was giving the laws to those people specifically. It doesn't mention what will always please God, they just had laws to live by while they were wandering in the desert. Proverbs, for example, is relevant today because it talks about what will always please God, and many of the morals in there are relevant today. Same applies to the New Testament and Christ's teachings there.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:27:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:42:27 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:28:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I'm sorry but a theory is a theory for a reason. Furthermore, there is evidence to back to back up what the Bible says. For example, all the chariots and skeletons down at the bottom of the Red Sea still there to this day!

I have seen this so called evidence for chariots at the bottom of the red sea. I would say its not rational and definitely not real. Think about it, why have more archeologists not been interested in it except for unqualified amateur theists? Probably as its not real.

I have blogged about it in a little more detail here.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

Whether or not it's popular doesn't have much to do with it being true or relevant or useful.

The Wright brothers were thought to be crazy when they are experimenting on what we know as the airplane today, and they were thought of that way years after their discovery. But time wore on and they became famous for one of the greatest inventions of all time.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 12:01:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Anyway, this is a new weekly "blog" I have decided to start up on the Religion Forums of DDO. I doubt very many people will see this for the first few weeks, but I would like to get this out to at least a few people on this website. Without further delay, here is the first issue of "The Voice of Reason and Faith".


"Take the risk of thinking for yourself; much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. I promise."

These were Christopher Hitchens' final remarks in the Hitchens-Dembski debate for all of you who remember it. Along with that in what I believe to be another time and place he also said:

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks."


I believe the statements were right; but what about the ideas and thought behind them? Hitchens, as we all know, along with others like him and organizations inspired by these thought processes, have always encouraged "free thought". Or in other words, by what seems to be their definitions of free thinking, "freedom from the tyranny of religion." Which leads me to write about this week's topic, which is:

What Constitutes a Truly Free Mind?

What Hitchens and the rest of the "free thinkers" have always preached for the spans of their careers is that free thought was essential to the well-being of humanity.

I agree with the statements I outlined at the beginning of this post, but I think the ideas behind them are just plain false. What these people were really trying to get across is that free thought would always lead to atheism. But since when does that really makes a free mind? To be convinced and to not be provided a choice to come to religion? That's another thing Hitchens spoke about; how we'd all be better off without religion and that it damaged children and all that other stuff. Is it really what free thinking encompasses?

With their usual level of confidence, people like him would argue that it most certainly does. But I don't think this is true in the slightest. To ignore all the good people have done with religion, to ignore all the lives that have been turned around with it and saved, to just portray to our children absolutely nothing but the evil religion has been abused for, and then indoctrinate children with this mindset and never let them choose between theism and atheism without having their sanity questioned by their peers; that goes against the very essence and definition of free thought. That's what we call indoctrination. This is an alarmingly widespread paradigm in our country and world today. So with that in mind, how can someone say reasonably that atheism would encompass free thought? They can't. They're automatically guilty of the exact same kind of indoctrination they accuse the faithful of, yet refuse to admit it.

So does free thought still equal atheism and/or agnosticism? I don't think so. We, as a society, community, and individuals, still owe very much to religion and the sets of ideals and morals it provides for humans to live by, and the good people have used it for and the beauty it's inspired in our world.
If you're going to say we should get rid of religion because it's been used for evil, we should just get rid of cars because drunk drivers crash in them and kill people, right? Do you see any campaigns or billboards saying we should get rid of cars? Of course not, because that would be plain ridiculous. The same thought process (Or whatever is behind it) applies to the campaigns to be free from religion and to be "free thinkers". So, let me outline their basic message for you without sugar-coating it:

"Religion is evil and kills, brainwashes and removes and stifles literacy and intelligence in its followers, regardless of all the good people have used it for, so we should get rid of it and protect it from our children so they can think freely; just without something as ridiculous as religion in the way of their minds. We don't want them to have to choose between religion and atheism at the expense of free thought."

And believe it or not, I don't even need to exaggerate to outline it for you. These people have convinced themselves and many others that free thought will lead to what they define as free thinking, which is atheism for them. All at the same time while lambasting religion and saying we should get rid of it permanently and we'd be better off without it. The painful reality we all need to face at some point in our lives is that free thought will lead to whatever you want it to; not atheism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. Hence the term "free" thought.

"Free thought" doesn't lead to what these people or that group or religion will tell you regardless of what people will tell you; free thought, by definition, will lead it to whatever you want it to. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Thanks for reading and feedback, from atheists and theists, is appreciated.

You've voiced some really good thoughts here. I mean, free-choice is free-choice, no matter where it leads. The idea that it will always lead to atheism is as absurd as the idea that it will always lead to theism. Glad you brought the subject up . . .
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 12:05:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:27:14 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:42:27 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:28:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:01:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:42:51 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:36:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/27/2014 3:20:56 AM, Haroush wrote:
This is a great writing you did here Pitbull! Great Job! To add on to your point, it even talks about in the Bible that there will be a day when good is evil and evil is good.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Moreover, understand this: in the acharit-hayamim (last days) will come trying times. 2 People will be self-loving, money-loving, proud, arrogant, insulting, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, 4 traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than God, 5 as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power.

And to prove his free thought he quotes the book that does all his thinking.

Now that is funny.

Just because I quote scripture doesn't mean it's not free thought, just like if someone were to use a science textbook to show evidence of a scientific theory.

No deary, if someone quotes from a legitimate book of science or a published and peer reviewed paper, then their is absolute evidence to support such.

The bible has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Anyone who quotes from an ancient goat wrangler as his truth is well beyond a capacity for independent/free thought.

I'm sorry but a theory is a theory for a reason. Furthermore, there is evidence to back to back up what the Bible says. For example, all the chariots and skeletons down at the bottom of the Red Sea still there to this day!

I have seen this so called evidence for chariots at the bottom of the red sea. I would say its not rational and definitely not real. Think about it, why have more archeologists not been interested in it except for unqualified amateur theists? Probably as its not real.

I have blogged about it in a little more detail here.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

Whether or not it's popular doesn't have much to do with it being true or relevant or useful.

The Wright brothers were thought to be crazy when they are experimenting on what we know as the airplane today, and they were thought of that way years after their discovery. But time wore on and they became famous for one of the greatest inventions of all time.

I just think that if there was any real evidence it would have been looked at, the problem is that the evidence is lacking. The only wheel ever brought to the surface has disappeared, and no serious archeologists are getting involved, so I have to wonder if its not a conspiracy theory.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 12:06:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:21:23 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:51:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I decided not to quote the whole text :)

I am totally against religion, not because of what you pointed you though. I mean to be a free thinker and come to any conclusion is fine. The reason I am so against religion is that it makes people do things based on false sets of morals that are not applicable in the world we live in. i.e. gay rights.

One more thing, free thinking still requires evidence otherwise its free thinking but not rational thinking.

It's funny how we often tend to separate ourselves based on meaningless criteria. I, too, am anti-religious. I compare it to law instead of justice. I am all for free-thinking, although it comes with responsibility. And yet I would never label myself an atheist. So are we mostly alike, or totally different? I bet if we met in a group of friends those questions would never come up, and we'd get along just fine.