Atheism Denies Freedom Of Thought, And Therefore Freedom Itself

[torchbearer]

No. This isn't about Paul, it is about you not giving authority to the Word of God. There are no "more authoritative" and "less authoritative" parts of God's Word..

the council at nicea may disagree with you.
so would those who redacted the catholic bible for the protestant one.

 

[Sola_Fide]

the council at nicea may disagree with you.
so would those who redacted the catholic bible for the protestant one.

Ah, so you have been reading the redaction critics. I knew you have. Why didn't you just tell me up front? The arguments are all the same. Here's the council of Nicea argument, which is so historically wrong its laughable. But hey, these redaction critics are not known for their church history or logic for that matter.

The Canon Was Not Decided At Nicea!
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2729

Even atheist critics who know their church history like Bart Ehrman will tell you that the Canon was not decided at Nicea. All of this comes from a work of fiction called The DaVinci Code. It's not historically accurate!

 

[torchbearer]

Ah, so you have been reading the redaction critics. I knew you have. Why didn't you just tell me up front? The arguments are all the same. Here's the council of Nicea argument, which is so historically wrong its laughable. But hey, these redaction critics are not known for their church history or logic for that matter.

The Canon Was Not Decided At Nicea!
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2729

Even atheist critics who know their church history like Bart Ehrman will tell you that the Canon was not decided at Nicea. All of this comes from a work of fiction called The DaVinci Code. It's not historically accurate!

apparently Martin Luther didn't get the message.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

One thing that I want answered by every atheist on here:

If what some people believe in doesn't exist, and/or you simply don't believe in it, why do you all take such offense to a few words printed on a dollar bill, and insist on nitpicking any and every religious context you can find?

If I were an atheist, believing that a higher power does NOT exist, I would simply sit back and laugh and let the people believe whatever they want, it wouldn't bother me that there is "In God We Trust" on a dollar bill. Because I wouldn't believe in God.

So, what's the big deal? Why are so many atheists (not all, and not particularly the ones on RPF, but, in general) so adamant and militant when it comes to bashing religions? Why can't you all take a chill pill and ignore some words or people praying?

Now, don't take my post too personally. I have serious questions and I want serious answers. It boggles my mind that a group of people act the way they do towards something that isn't supposed to exist.

I will answer your questions.

#1, I could care less about "In God we Trust" on money and crap. It is a just a saying of hope and stability for the future..
#2, We bash on religion because we see it as a form of control and a way to divide people into groups. You are sheeple, we want to wake you up and free you.
#3, You want to pray, do it on your own time. Your religion does not give you the right to force me to stand quietly and wait while you pray.

 

[austin944]

The truth of a proposition does not depend on whether or not there is freedom to believe in the proposition. Determinism could still be true even if one is forced by determinism to believe in it. There could be reasons other than human belief which makes determinism true.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The truth of a proposition does not depend on whether or not there is freedom to believe in the proposition. Determinism could still be true even if one is forced by determinism to believe in it. There could be reasons other than human belief which makes determinism true.

This makes no sense. If someone was forced by determinism to believe in determinism, then by definition it would be the case.

 

[austin944]

This makes no sense. If someone was forced by determinism to believe in determinism, then by definition it would be the case.

Right, but the speaker in the video makes the claim that if determinism is true, then the believers in determinism do not have the freedom to believe determinism is false. But the freedom to believe in something is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the proposition in question. I can accept the argument that determinism requires me to believe in it, and that I am not free to believe otherwise. But it does not follow that determinism is false.

Suppose there was a drug which forced people to believe in the Christian religion. Does the existence of drugged believers have any effect on whether or not Christian tenets are true? Of course not. Even if there are drugged believers, Christian tenets could still be true.

The speaker in the video seems to be implying that if one cannot make a free choice to believe in a proposition, then the proposition must be false. But that's clearly an invalid argument.

 

[jj-]

This is more of a thread against determinism/materialism than atheism. An atheist does not have to be a materialist or a determinist. Claiming that is ridiculous. Not buying the argument for the existence of God and not believing in such a being does not require one to believe in determinism, just like not believing in the argument that there exists something more delicious than chocolate does not imply a belief in determinism.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Right, but the speaker in the video makes the claim that if determinism is true, then the believers in determinism do not have the freedom to believe determinism is false. But the freedom to believe in something is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the proposition in question. I can accept the argument that determinism requires me to believe in it, and that I am not free to believe otherwise. But it does not follow that determinism is false.

Suppose there was a drug which forced people to believe in the Christian religion. Does the existence of drugged believers have any effect on whether or not Christian tenets are true? Of course not. Even if there are drugged believers, Christian tenets could still be true.

The speaker in the video seems to be implying that if one cannot make a free choice to believe in a proposition, then the proposition must be false. But that's clearly an invalid argument.

No, the speaker isn't arguing that a "free choice" (whatever that is) is required for a proposition to be true. He is saying that naturalists proceed on the idea that they have freedom of thought despite their worldview being one of biological fatalism. It is the inconsistency that he is pointing out.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This is more of a thread against determinism/materialism than atheism. An atheist does not have to be a materialist or a determinist. Claiming that is ridiculous. Not buying the argument for the existence of God and not believing in such a being does not require one to believe in determinism, just like not believing in the argument that there exists something more delicious than chocolate does not imply a belief in determinism.

1. I'm not against determinism per se. All worldviews have an element of determinism. I am against the biological fatalism of naturalistic worldviews.

2. Atheists are naturalists (i.e. non-supernaturalists), so atheists of every kind would fall in to the category I'm describing.

 

[VIDEODROME]

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-body.html

MR. DAWKINS: I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free will. Indeed, I encourage people all the time to do it. Much of the message of my first book, "The Selfish Gene," was that we must understand what it means to be a gene machine, what it means to be programmed by genes, so that we are better equipped to escape, so that we are better equipped to use our big brains, use our conscience intelligence, to depart from the dictates of the selfish genes and to build for ourselves a new kind of life which as far as I am concerned the more un-Darwinian it is the better, because the Darwinian world in which our ancestors were selected is a very unpleasant world. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. And when we sit down together to argue out and discuss and decide upon how we want to run our societies, I think we should hold up Darwinism as an awful warning for how we should not organize our societies.

 

[SisCyn]

Do a quick study on the evolutionary position of psychopaths. They are a small, but common occurrance among all populations. You probably know a few. At my age, I've met several.

This study will lead you to find that for the majority of normal people, the innate ability to empathize and have genuine feelings of love is what makes a society work. That is what is lacking in the psychopath or anti-social.

Both the psychopath and the non-psychopath are evolutionary developments. Whether or not you believe in a god does not compel you to be moral, to empathize, to do unto others as you would that they do unto you. You can believe in a higher power, a specific god of a specific creed or path, or not. The psychopath cannot change and the non-psychopath's ability to love is an inborn trait.

It should be noted that hyper-religiosity can be the sign of psychopathy or other personality disorder as illustrated throughout history in story upon story of the evangelist or priest who milks his congregation for money while living a secret life.

So that is a false statement, that atheism denies freedom of thought and therefore, freedom itself.

http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/AntisocialandHistrionicPersonalityDisorders.htm

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-body.html

MR. DAWKINS: I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free will. Indeed, I encourage people all the time to do it. Much of the message of my first book, "The Selfish Gene," was that we must understand what it means to be a gene machine, what it means to be programmed by genes, so that we are better equipped to escape, so that we are better equipped to use our big brains, use our conscience intelligence, to depart from the dictates of the selfish genes and to build for ourselves a new kind of life which as far as I am concerned the more un-Darwinian it is the better, because the Darwinian world in which our ancestors were selected is a very unpleasant world. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. And when we sit down together to argue out and discuss and decide upon how we want to run our societies, I think we should hold up Darwinism as an awful warning for how we should not organize our societies.

Right. What he's saying is contradictory. How is it possible to think in any other way than what the biological forces make you think? In atheism, there is no force above the forces of physics. The brain is mush filled with chemical impulses that are being acted on by the chemical, biological, and physical forces of the universe. The brain is an element of this natural world, and therefore it is subject to the forces in the natural world. Biological determinism.

 

[mmink15]

Just watched OP video. As ridiculous an argument as if I said that due to certain biblical verses on predestination, Christians were incapable of freedom of thought, therefore freedom itself. After all if your god knows your choices before you make them, you can't truly be free to think your way out of them.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Right. What he's saying is contradictory. How is it possible to think in any other way than what the biological forces make you think? In atheism, there is no force above the forces of physics. The brain is mush filled with chemical impulses that are being acted on by the chemical, biological, and physical forces of the universe. The brain is an element of this natural world, and therefore it is subject to the forces in the natural world. Biological determinism.

It seems like some of this discussion is coming down to belief.

Now it seems like you would prefer people follow a whole religious belief system. What if an atheist just takes a short cut and says they believe in free will?


Or for all intents and purposes, we feel like we have a free will, (even if stuffy philosophers want to dispute that) so lets just conduct our lives based on the idea we have free will.


Personally, I do think we are influenced by many natural things like our biology or hormone driven urges, but typically that's not all a person is. I mean we're a little more then just eat, sleep, fvck. We have imagination and inspiration. We can solve very difficult problems and I think that shows we are thinking beings and more then just a sum of our physical parts.

 

[austin944]

No, the speaker isn't arguing that a "free choice" (whatever that is) is required for a proposition to be true. He is saying that naturalists proceed on the idea that they have freedom of thought despite their worldview being one of biological fatalism. It is the inconsistency that he is pointing out.

I don't think a naturalist is the same as a determinist. A naturalist could believe the underlying laws of physics are based in whole or part on random quantum events (e.g. totally non-deterministic outcomes). A naturalist could be completely opposed to the idea of determinism in that sense.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I am going to preface this with a few things: 1. I watched the video, 2. I have not read this whole thread, so I apologize if I'm being redundant and this was already said, and 3. I am not atheist myself but I am married to one and I know a lot of atheists.

OK, here's the problem with the video and the premise in it: This guy makes the mistake of confusing "Naturalism" with "Pre-Determinism." Under Naturalism, there isn't any requirement that the neurons of one's brain would behave exactly the same way every time when given the exact same stimulus. That requirement only happens when you take Naturalism to the extreme of Pre-Determinism.

Now, obviously, this hypothesis isn't able to be tested one way or the other because the only way you could exactly duplicate the experiment would be to literally re-live that same exact moment in time with the same person, and see if they ended up thinking the exact same thought and having the same exact experience every time. The only way to test that would be if you could observe the same exact moment in time in multiple parallel Universes.

Pre-Determinism would say, yes, the neurons of one's brain would respond exactly the same way every time according to the laws of physics and chemistry. (Like the guy in the video says.) The Universe is one big machine set into motion and there was only one possible outcome from the beginning of time; it is all playing out exactly according to pre-programmed laws and free will is therefore an illusion.

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.

Furthermore, I know a lot of atheists and I don't know a single one of them who believes they do not have free will, nor do I know any of them who feel they would have more Liberty in a state that was intertwined with one particular religious belief.

People must be free to believe whatever they want, and practice any form of religion they choose (or none at all). Anything else is a threat to Liberty and I don't care what kind of silly argument you make to justify it. Atheists deserve freedom of thought every bit as much as the next person, even if you disagree with their thoughts.

 

[jj-]

2. Atheists are naturalists (i.e. non-supernaturalists), so atheists of every kind would fall in to the category I'm describing.

That's wrong. An atheist might believe in ghosts. Being atheist just means one doesn't believe in God. Also, haven't you denied freedom of thought by denying free will?

 

[Sola_Fide]

That's wrong. An atheist might believe in ghosts. Being atheist just means one doesn't believe in God. Also, haven't you denied freedom of thought by denying free will?

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.

Freedom of thought is not dependent on free will. There is no such thing as free will anyway, so it is ridiculous to talk about it as a possibility. Predestination is not the same as biological fatalism. Fatalism teaches that the forces of the universe do all things arbitrarily and without purpose or without regard to those which it controls. There is no compassion or motive in it.

The Bible teaches that God is personal, that he rules and governs all things for his glory and out of love for his elect. He works all things for their good. Even the reprobate have a purpose in glorifying God. But the God of the Bible is one who loves, and loves sovereignly. So, as you can see, this is not fate. The difference is in the personality and purpose.

Free will is not possible. It doesn't exist. Every worldview has an element of determinism in it, including atheism and Arminianism.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I'm curious about what the ultimate direction of this discussion should be. Aside from favoring the presence of religion somewhere in society does the OP want it to play a bigger role in government?

Isn't that where morality experiments come from like Prohibition?