Atheism Denies Freedom Of Thought, And Therefore Freedom Itself

[VIDEODROME]

Atheists who believe in ghosts? Okayyyy. I'd like to come across one and see how they would explain their conception of the world. My bet is it would be very inconsistent.

Well I think Buddhists are Atheists but they believe in Reincarnation or the effect of Karma.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Atheists who believe in ghosts? Okayyyy. I'd like to come across one and see how they would explain their conception of the world. My bet is it would be very inconsistent.

You'd be surprised how many do. Atheism only requires that one does not believe in a God or Gods. But just like Christianity, or religion in general, there is a very broad spectrum of belief. Surprisingly, there are atheists who believe that there IS a supernatural element to the Universe, and even life after death, just no centralized intelligence or "God."

Of course on the other end of the spectrum you have atheists who say "If you believe in ghosts, you're not a real atheist. Real atheists don't believe in ANYTHING supernatural." And then the ghost-believing atheist replies, "No, atheism just means I don't believe in God, and I don't. And there is no such thing as supernatural, because the fact that people's consciousness continues on after death, that is a natural phenomenon and we just haven't caught up in our understanding of the laws of nature yet." And the debate rages on. I have watched this very debate many times on the Internet and a couple times in person.

It may seem very inconsistent, and most people would probably agree with you, because the vast majority of atheists fall into the "nothing supernatural at all" category.

Most atheists who believe in ghosts would point out that it is no more inconsistent than believing in a God who will promptly damn you to Hell for all eternity, i.e. for an INFINITE amount of suffering, even though you only were able to commit a finite amount of evil or sin in this life...

And all this because you refused to believe in his Son, and maybe you even lived in a part of the world where you were raised with some other religion and so naturally you didn't even have a fair opportunity to learn much about let alone believe in his Son, but yet you are banished to hell forever for eternal torment,

AND THIS IS A JUST AND LOVING GOD.

That right there seems pretty inconsistent as well. Seems neither just nor loving. Just sayin'.

This short video explains the inconsistency of Christianity better than I can; it's always been one of my favorites.

 

[tttppp]

Atheists who believe in ghosts? Okayyyy. I'd like to come across one and see how they would explain their conception of the world. My bet is it would be very inconsistent.

.

I would be considered an atheist and I believe there can be ghosts. Reason is the universe is infinite. Infinity includes everything, including ghosts. The only thing that is not included in infinity is God.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Do Agnostics have free thought...... sort of?

 

[WhistlinDave]

Do Agnostics have free thought...... sort of?

They might but they're not really sure.

 

[VIDEODROME]

lol

 

[PierzStyx]

First, free will is not Biblical, so therefore it is not true. God is the sovereign Lord, He does what He pleases in the heavens and the earth. There is no autonomous will...no autonomous molecule that is not a part of His predestined decree. I don't "believe" in free will because it is not Biblical or logical.

Secondly, there is an element of determinism in every worldview. My argument isnt against determinism per se, but against the atheist conception of impersonal biological fatalism. God's decree, whereby He accomplishes His holy will, is not fatalism, since His ultimately good purpose is what He intends and fulfills.

Thirdly, yes, I do believe in freedom of thought. In fact, I think Christianity alone provides a foundation for the mind of man to be free. Not autonomous of course, because only God is autonomous. But free from impersonal biological fatalism.

But being "free from impersonal biological fatalism" is not freedom of thought. You're just replacing one slave master for another by replacing biological instinct with the will of God. If you're being forced to think and act in any way by some other force, whether it be instinct or God, you do not have freedom of thought.

Free thought, true free thought, requires mental autonomy. It requires that there me an actual "me" who is defined separately from everyone else. I have to have the ability and power to say he/she believes "this" while I believe "this different thing, or I could thing this different thing but actually agree with him/her." If I cannot do that, then I don't have freedom of thought.

So why don't you say what you mean. You aren't arguing that atheists don't believe in freedom of thought, what you're saying is they need to replace their belief in personal slavery to biological instinct with personal slavery to the will of God.

As for the Biblical truth of free will, we have argued this over and over. There is no point in beating a dead horse. My only comment is that it amazes me that you limit the power of God so much that you think His power or sovereignty are threatened by an autonomous will such as mine. He could force me to obey His will, but that would not give Him "more power" any more so than my independent mind threatens his Godhood and power.

One thing Calvin was almost right about. Man is disposed to sin. We cannot save ourselves. If it were not for the Atonement of Jesus Christ we would all end up damned because we follow our baser nature at least once in our lifetime. But because of the Atonement we are saved from that base nature, saved from the Fall's damning effect and made free, free to use our agency (our ability to self-determine and act) to choose Christ and eternal life, having that sinful nature overcome by His sacrifice and grace. As Lehi put it around 600 BC:

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." (2 Nephi 2:26-27)

 

[WhistlinDave]

But being "free from impersonal biological fatalism" is not freedom of thought. You're just replacing one slave master for another by replacing biological instinct with the will of God. If you're being forced to think and act in any way by some other force, whether it be instinct or God, you do not have freedom of thought.

Free thought, true free thought, requires mental autonomy. It requires that there me an actual "me" who is defined separately from everyone else. I have to have the ability and power to say he/she believes "this" while I believe "this different thing, or I could thing this different thing but actually agree with him/her." If I cannot do that, then I don't have freedom of thought.

So why don't you say what you mean. You aren't arguing that atheists don't believe in freedom of thought, what you're saying is they need to replace their belief in personal slavery to biological instinct with personal slavery to the will of God.

As for the Biblical truth of free will, we have argued this over and over. There is no point in beating a dead horse. My only comment is that it amazes me that you limit the power of God so much that you think His power or sovereignty are threatened by an autonomous will such as mine. He could force me to obey His will, but that would not give Him "more power" any more so than my independent mind threatens his Godhood and power.

One thing Calvin was almost right about. Man is disposed to sin. We cannot save ourselves. If it were not for the Atonement of Jesus Christ we would all end up damned because we follow our baser nature at least once in our lifetime. But because of the Atonement we are saved from that base nature, saved from the Fall's damning effect and made free, free to use our agency (our ability to self-determine and act) to choose Christ and eternal life, having that sinful nature overcome by His sacrifice and grace. As Lehi put it around 600 BC:

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." (2 Nephi 2:26-27)

+Rep. Very well said!! Personally I don't agree with the Christian doctrine of salvation in your post, but I can even appreciate that portion of it, and man's inherently sinful nature, within the context of my own beliefs. (It would be ridiculous to argue that man is not born into a world where we inherently have a deeply ingrained, impure mentality that separates us from the spiritual component within ourselves. Or we still have remnants of that monkey brain leftover from our evolution which separates us from the purest moral intentions within, for the atheists among us who prefer no spiritual component... Any way you slice it we're born flawed and have to use our free will to overcome that and strive for a higher consciousness, in whatever context you prefer to state it.)

Anyway, great observation. One is no more free than the other, if both assume the absence of free will.

 

[austin944]

Unfortunately, Pre-Determinism does not take into consideration quantum mechanics, which has proven to us that there is a certain amount of uncertainty built into the fabric of the Universe. Things do not necessarily happen the same way every time on a quantum level. And the synapses in our brains, and the meaningful computations taking place therein, are most likely occurring on a quantum level. There are no certainties in how things will happen, only probabilities.

I'm not going to pretend I fully understand this myself but the main point is, there IS such a thing as free will regardless of whether there is a supernatural component to the Universe or not, because quantum physics has shown us that Pre-Determinism is inherently a false concept.

If biological uncertainty influences the reasoning in our brain, then how does that allow for completely free thought? It seems like that would reduce us to being stringed puppets, with our strings being pulled in random directions and at random moments by quantum processes outside of the mind's control. How would the mind be able to control these random quantum processes?

 

[jj-]

Atheists who believe in ghosts? Okayyyy. I'd like to come across one and see how they would explain their conception of the world.

It's quite simple to explain that view. Ghosts are the spirit of dead people. They believe that there is something about each person that is eternal, their spirit. So, some people, when they die, hang around. But regarding God, unlike people, I haven't seen anything about him. So it's perfectly consistent with not believing in God, so atheism does not imply naturalism.

 

[mczerone]

Not really. Hmmm.

If you don't think it is important that the mind be free, why do you try to change people's minds who want to coerce you with taxation? Why reason at all with people if their brain cannot be free from the biological processes that determine it?

If people's minds are deterministic, then why hasn't it been determined that I am the one who is going to change their thoughts?

 

[WhistlinDave]

If biological uncertainty influences the reasoning in our brain, then how does that allow for completely free thought? It seems like that would reduce us to being stringed puppets, with our strings being pulled in random directions and at random moments by quantum processes outside of the mind's control. How would the mind be able to control these random quantum processes?

There is a school of thought in the world of quantum physics that says, based on observations of quantum mechanics, "Physicality does not beget consciousness. Consciousness begets physicality." Personally I subscribe to this belief. It's basically modern science agreeing with the religious or spiritual concept that consciousness is the lowest common denominator, the core of reality, the basic underpinnings of all physical existence.

In other words, your brain doesn't produce your consciousness, but is rather a necessary vehicle for it, in order for you to be able to exist on this level in this space experiencing and interacting with this world at this vibrational level.

If you believe that there is a "Holy Spirit" or "Prana" or "Chi" or "The Force" or "Universal Mind" or "Central Living Consciousness Behind it All" then what this means is, everything that happens on the physical level is simply an expression of energy. Recently they just found evidence of the Higgs Boson, which they always theorized. This particle is what gives energy mass. Quantum physics has been saying for quite a while all matter is energy.

I take that one step further (as do some quantum physicists) by saying all energy is One Consciousness.

I believe we, and all life, miraculously evolved over millions of years from a combination of rocks, water, and sunshine because the living Universe wanted to experience itself. From as many different angles as it could. So here we are in these amazing bodies with these amazing brains in this infinitely complex matrix of energy whizzing about in this intricate fabric that is mostly empty space, and here on this gross level it all seems so solid and so real, and that is our brains and our bodies interpreting it all in the way we do...

In Buddhism the term for this experience is "Maya," the grand illusion, the world pulled over your eyes. You could also call it the "carnal world" as opposed to the Spiritual reality.

I could go on but I don't want to bore anybody. But bottom line is, I do not believe we are "puppets on strings," I believe that everything that happens on the physical level is an expression/substrate/condensation of what is happening on the level of consciousness. You may have heard the saying "Your thoughts create reality" and I believe this is true both on an individual level and on a group, mass scale as well... And it is for this reason that quantum uncertainty exists. Because consciousness is alive, ever changing, flowing, moving... It is the law unto itself.

In Liberty!

 

[WhistlinDave]

If biological uncertainty influences the reasoning in our brain, then how does that allow for completely free thought? It seems like that would reduce us to being stringed puppets, with our strings being pulled in random directions and at random moments by quantum processes outside of the mind's control. How would the mind be able to control these random quantum processes?

I just want to add one other thing, more to your point.... Most of the time, we WILL react the same way to the same stimulus, because our personalities are, for the most part, the sum of all our experiences and we are therefore playing out our programming. So I do believe that we do have a component of our personhood that seems to imply determinism most of the time. But it is not absolute.

But I also believe that through sheer will, and through paying attention to our habits of thought and emotion, and making an effort to stand back and observe them before speaking and acting, we can begin to alter our programming, to break free from our conditioned responses, and to actually experience true free will more and more... To NOT react the same way we normally would when something upsetting happens or when whatever happens.

 

[mczerone]

To the video in the OP:

This is a non-philosophical argument that is couched in philosophical language. He doesn't make any real argument beyond saying that "If naturalism is true" (read: The brain has no supernatural influence) "then naturalists have no reason to proclaim naturalism."

This statement is wrong on a number of levels.

First, being subject to the laws of physics does NOT mean that outcomes are strictly predictable. There is nothing incompatible between the laws of physics and an electrical/biological brain being FREE to choose between different possible courses of action. It is known that many of the synapses of the brain are based on quantum signals that have many different possible outcomes, realized as a single outcome only after further observation is made, either by the brain itself or an outside observer.

Second, because this man believes that there is some supernatural force that gives rise to consciousness, then there is a reason to (a) doubt that naturalism alone is insufficient to produce our acting selves, and (b) promote and believe the opposite, that the brain is entirely natural in its functioning.

Third, his whole premise is absurd. Replace "naturalism" with "If you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground." His statement becomes "If you believe that if you drop a ball it will fall to the ground, then it is meaningless to believe that if you drop a ball it will fall to the ground. Certainly the result is in the realm of physics, and certainly you could ascribe the process as a "supernatural" one. But it is still reasonable to believe it, and the REASON to believe it is to better plan your life based on the experiences you have observed in the past.

Fourth, even taken as true, I'm reminded of the Sagan quote: Humanity is just the Universe's way of understanding itself. I'm not sure that it's exactly the right quote, but still, isn't there some value in a piece if nature being able to understand that it is merely a piece of nature itself? To be able to progress and plan and make a better existence for this self-aware entity, wouldn't it be required to understand that it is a PART of the world around it?


BTW, I don't consider myself an "atheist," though I'm usually more sympathetic to their worldview than that of the theists.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I just want to add one other thing, more to your point.... Most of the time, we WILL react the same way to the same stimulus, because our personalities are, for the most part, the sum of all our experiences and we are therefore playing out our programming. So I do believe that we do have a component of our personhood that seems to imply determinism most of the time. But it is not absolute.

But I also believe that through sheer will, and through paying attention to our habits of thought and emotion, and making an effort to stand back and observe them before speaking and acting, we can begin to alter our programming, to break free from our conditioned responses, and to actually experience true free will more and more... To NOT react the same way we normally would when something upsetting happens or when whatever happens.

Sounds like developing "Mindfulness".

Otherwise, recently I've been interested in Pantheism and your previous post kind of reminds me of that.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Sounds like developing "Mindfulness".

Otherwise, recently I've been interested in Pantheism and your previous post kind of reminds me of that.

Yep, and yep.

If you think about it, actually Pantheism is exactly what we were taught as little children: God is everywhere. God sees everything. God knows everything. God is in everything. God is in your heart and in everyone's heart. Etc. In my opinion, the easiest way to explain a Supreme Being that is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent, is if that Being IS everything and the sum total of everything IS that Being.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well sometimes I can imagine that God is the Universe, and our existence is only incidental to God's existence. Kind of an impersonal God that is almost nature itself.

Now I wonder if "Free Thought" still hangs in the balance even with that view? Someone who is more in awe of deep space Hubble pictures, or the Ocean, or geology and biology. I also like listening to Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson drop some deep thoughts about how we are all made from the expelled guts of stars.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Well sometimes I can imagine that God is the Universe, and our existence is only incidental to God's existence. Kind of an impersonal God that is almost nature itself.

Now I wonder if "Free Thought" still hangs in the balance even with that view? Someone who is more in awe of deep space Hubble pictures, or the Ocean, or geology and biology. I also like listening to Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson drop some deep thoughts about how we are all made from the expelled guts of stars.

Yea, as a kid I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos and he talks about the same thing. He would say, "We are all made of stardust." Really interesting stuff.

That's the thing about the Universe: Creation is ongoing. We are creating our experiences as much as our experiences are creating us. So while I tend to agree that God is the Universe and on the grandest scale it is very impersonal, at the same time we are the personal component of the Universe and so our experiences and our existence is every bit as integral and important to the whole tapestry as everything else is.

Every cockroach, every dove, every atom, every person, every star, every galaxy, every drop of rain, every piece cannot exist without the whole and the whole cannot exist without every piece. It is all inseparable. It is all God.

Do we have more free will than any other little piece? I still don't know for sure, but in my explorations of creativity and spontaneity I have come to the conclusion I think we do.

I think we have the ability to delve deep into our heart of hearts, beyond the clamor of the chatterbox mind, beyond the conditioned responses of our programming, and access the part of our consciousness deep within where true free will is real and alive.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Yea, as a kid I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos and he talks about the same thing. He would say, "We are all made of stardust." Really interesting stuff.

That's the thing about the Universe: Creation is ongoing. We are creating our experiences as much as our experiences are creating us. So while I tend to agree that God is the Universe and on the grandest scale it is very impersonal, at the same time we are the personal component of the Universe and so our experiences and our existence is every bit as integral and important to the whole tapestry as everything else is.

Every cockroach, every dove, every atom, every person, every star, every galaxy, every drop of rain, every piece cannot exist without the whole and the whole cannot exist without every piece. It is all inseparable. It is all God.

Do we have more free will than any other little piece? I still don't know for sure, but in my explorations of creativity and spontaneity I have come to the conclusion I think we do.

I think we have the ability to delve deep into our heart of hearts, beyond the clamor of the chatterbox mind, beyond the conditioned responses of our programming, and access the part of our consciousness deep within where true free will is real and alive.

I still like the idea that it's give and take. The material world affects us, but we can also make decisions that affect the material world we live in.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

Atheists who believe in ghosts? Okayyyy. I'd like to come across one and see how they would explain their conception of the world.

I am an atheist. I have seen things, shadows of things that are not here, things I would call ghosts.
I am not alone in this.. 2 of my friends also have seen them here..
All I know is that from time to time a darkness moves through my house..
It is the opposite of what you think of a typical white ghosts.
These are things are shadow, shadows cast by nothing.

Does this mean there is a god? Not to me..
More likely that I am perceiving some strange natural phenomenon, or an alternate reality, or a parallel dimension, or an imprint.