jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (298 posts)

Free thinkers?

  1. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 5 years ago

    I constantly see the accusation on this forum of believers not having the ability to think for themselves. IE Think freely.
    Does this imply, then, that ONLY non-believers, and atheists are the ONLY ones who are "free thinkers"?
    What does free thinking mean to you, if you are one who says/thinks that?
    Why are believers NOT free thinkers? hmm

    1. 0
      klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Free thinking, to me, is your ability to think what you want and not get upset when someone tells you your wrong. Which is the reason why I comment in the religion forums and everyone ignores what I write. lol

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Firstly, I don't get upset, because those who say I'm wrong, are wrong! lol
        Second, I comment, regardless of what they think! big_smile

      2. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A free thinker, to me, is one who is curious, does his own, independent study and based on "reason'" creates logical concepts, opinions and beliefs upon which to guide his life.

        I think that the "religious," represent the opposite definition of free thinking.

        Qwark

        PS I changed it for you Jachs..smile:

        1. jacharless profile image82
          jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          no such thing as "logical reasoning". It is either "logic" or it is "reasoning".
          and, if that "melding" fashions such concepts, opines and beliefs, that makes "logical reasoning" religion too!

          think about it...

          wink

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I changed my comment for ya Jachs...scroll up...smile:

            1. jacharless profile image82
              jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              wink cool

            2. 0
              Marie-AnneLeClercposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I totally agree here with you Quark. I have "always' been a free thinker...
              Free thinkers are not oppressed, rather the opposite...  To speak your mind shows 'individuality' freedom from the shackles of 'mainstream' society... Free thinkers in history have been the 'catalyst' for 'revolutionary' ideas & political & social movements  of our time....

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But Qwark, these processes are not unknown to believers at all.  Many, many study the bible in depth their whole life.  They reason about it as long as that reason and logic do not take them down the path of non-belief.  They use that reason and study to provide concepts, opinions and beliefs that they then use to guide their life.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            untrue, wilderness. the processes of reason are used equally by both sides of Theos, science & sensation. The applications different. both of the same rootstock -reasoning- called the human mind. No escape clauses. That is perhaps the only rational fact in all of human thinking.

            How many theists do you know who have reasoned their way out of religion? MANY!

            How many equations or sensations have reasoned their way to logic. Nearly Zero.

            think about it...

            big_smile

            James.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmm.  Apparently I did not make myself very clear.  My point was that theists can and do these things as theists, they just use a slightly different method guaranteed to come up with a pre-ordained conclusion.

              Yes, many theists have reasoned themselves out of belief, but they are not theists then.  Even during the process they are not very good theists; their belief is severely shaken and although they may claim belief it is but a shadow of their former belief.

              1. jacharless profile image82
                jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                words like "guaranteed", "pre-ordained", "not very good" and "conclusions" are subjective to the parameters of reason --of the ideology engaged or being viewed. Thoroughly biased. Which renders that ineffective at determining the difference between the theistic approach to reason v the "non" or "un-theistic" approach. Cannot be done using subjective parallels of the same construct. Know what I mean?

                James.

          2. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yep, they sure do Wild.
            The problem is that the extent of their studies ends inside the binders of the book of fairytales that is resting on the tips of their noses.
            They have no peripheral vision, Their world of reason and the concepts created are restricted to their understanding of a fairytale world.
            The "free thinker" is "curious" about EVERYTHING and tries to study all of his surrounding world.
            The "free thinkers" sphere of "reality" consists of everything he an imagine and sense.
            The religious are frustrated by limiting their experiences to just those within their "good book."
            They are ignorant and fearful of a world existing beyond their preconceived, religious notions of the REAL world.
            The "free thinker"is an "explorer!"
            The religious are fettered to "fear!"
            Qwark

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, their reasoning is restricted to reaching conclusions that coincide with their beliefs.

              And yes, the free thinker is an explorer, but the believer can also be an explorer as long as the exploration is not in religion.

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ...Wild:

                "...but the believer can also be an explorer as long as the exploration is not in religion."

                Pls break this down for me: "...an explorer as long as the exploration is not in religion."

                I may be a little dense. I don't understand that?

                Thanks..smile:

                Qwark

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  S/he may be a truly top notch engineer, which often requires free thinking out of the box.  Or something similar, that's all.  I mean to say that except for the field of religion a believer may be willing and able to reason, to explore the world around them. 

                  Most people have a blind spot somewhere (I have absolutely perfect grandchildren, after all!) - that happens to be (one of) theirs.

                  1. qwark profile image60
                    qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Wild:

                    Oh sure!

                    I didn't say that they didn't have aptitudes of inumerable variety and they don't become expert in those fields, regardless of subject.

                    I have a close friend who is a physicist! he has a Ph.D in physics but is such a rabid bible fundie that it's hard for me not to laugh when we chat 'cause he always ends a complex explanation about cosmology, QM, et al with the same words the pope used when he had the last word with Hawking i.e. "but god is responsible for it all."...arghhhhh!  lol
                    Their ending comment is a short quote from scripture.

                    There is something missing in their ability to separate fiction from reality regardless of the logic involved in math and science.

                    The truly open minded, will separate the wheat from the chaff and come to a realistic understanding of all that he exists within.

                    The religious fundie can be highly educated and brimming with knowledge of a specific subject, but, ALWAYS, relates the purpose and end result to a supernatural divinity.

                    Qwark

              2. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Poppycock!

                The very reason for so many different religions is because of free thinking.  It very much does exist in religion.  Matter of fact, it thrives in that environment.  Religion is full of philosophical debate.  It is packed to the brim in ideology.  Which is all "free thinking" stuff.

        3. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Which "group" would be best described by your definition here?

          I suggest that theists.
          For one (most obvious reason) in that you (non-believers) completely deny, ridicule and dismiss the Spiritual possibilities. There is ABSOLUTELY no such thing to even consider. This three dimensional,material world is all there is (for you), ad so YOU limit yourselves to it, (alone).

          At least any theist will go beyond that limited perception, and allow for something beyond what can be proven, or tested in this (three dimensional) world.

          Therefore, they (we) are capable of (greater) free thought, for we are prepared to consider/include, what you OUTRIGHT reject.

          I do, however agree with you, that those who have been indoctrinated since childhood, can often be "locked into" a mindset, that is "blind faith".

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There comes a time in a rational mans life when certain thoughts and concepts need to be forgotten as a lost cause.  If this means the loss of "free" thinking, then so be it.

            Mankind has tried for millenia to find that the spiritual world is real and exists.  All such efforts have come to nothing; there has been no indication found.  While the supernatural concept may be fun to play with, and "what if" games can be interesting to indulge in, the true free thinker has come to the only rational conclusion possible and moved on. 

            If the believers ever come up with evidence, most atheists would be willing to look at it, but not at old, old reruns of the same arguments they have heard 1000 times. 

            The faithful, on the other hand, are tied to the notion that the supernatural exists with a chain.  They want it so badly that it has become real in spite of all indications to the contrary.  There is no "free thinking" possible to them; the chain is too strong to even truly consider any other option.

            The problem may be that the existence of an undetectable supernatural is impossible to disprove.  To the believer that means it is not only possible but, given how badly they want to believe, is actually factual.  It is termed rationalization, however, not free thinking.

          2. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            logic and reason have nothing to do with religion.

            That was easy to answer..smile:

            Qwark

            1. pylos26 profile image76
              pylos26posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              yo qwark...you doing any fishing these days?

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ....too damned hot to go out!
                It hit 100 here a couple days ago and it felt like 115 in Happycamp!
                e-mail me.
                Qwark

            2. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Nice OPINION!

              So, you ARE locked into this 3D world.
              Thanks for admitting it (in your unique, beat around the bush, kinda way!)
              lol lol

          3. getitrite profile image81
            getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This is one of the most dishonest and absurd things I have heard from a believer.  Your indocrination is stunning!

            And since YOU are from the theist group of free thinkers, I suppose you have no problem with considering/including the possibility that the Fying Spaghetti Monster is God, and should be worshipped daily.  lol

            Lest you be like a closed minded atheist...lol

        4. 0
          klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are referring to what you think would make a "rational" free thinker, and the whole idea of "rational" can't be pinned down. What might be rational to one person might be completely irrational to another. But the question asked was "what does it mean to be a free thinker?" and that just means to be free to think without any limitations, in accordance to your own analysis and your own experiences, not others. smile

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ...I didn't mention "rational?'

            Regardless,"rational" just means using reason to come to logical conclusions.

            Of course "RATIONAL" has to do with survival in whatever culture/society you decide to live in.

            Free thinking is allowed in any culture but acting on results may be forbidden.

            Reason and logic depends upon the laws, mores, and morals one
            must abide by to survive in a specific culture/society.

            Not too long back it was "reasonable, logical and legal" to destroy a newborn female child at birth in China.

            If you are a recluse living in a cave and are not constrained by any action you take referring to what ever your "free thinking" concocts, there may or may not be repurcusions if you act on them.

            Those who' are not "free thinkers" are bigots who have been conditioned (programmed)with preconceived notions and will not consider the truth of info/data beyond/outside their limited conditioning.

            As I said before, the "open minded" are explorers.
            The closed minded are fettered to fear and superstition.

            Qwark

            1. 0
              klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with what you're saying, but the point I'm trying to make is this... you can be open-minded, consider truth of real scientific evidence, and still opt to believe that there is more to life than what science can offer as an explanation. And this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with preconceived notions and a superstitious upbringing, otherwise, there would be no cases of scientists who become believers. A lot of people are born into non-religious families, and still, they choose to believe that there is a higher power at work, one that can't be explained by science (not yet, anyways).

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Klara:

                Of course there are higher powers workin' out there!

                I'm sure there's life out there that both excedes and lags our evolution.

                We can imagine higher metaphysical forces at work...and I'm sure there are forces we have not yet encountered and haven't dreamed of.

                But in thinking about things like that ya must understand that our universe is only 13.7 billion yrs old, so that puts other life that exists in this universe on the same time frame we are.

                9.7 billion yrs passed b4 life appeared on planet earth.

                It is possible that life appeared on other habitable planets before it happened on ours, putting them ahead of us by...who knows how much time. There may be life just appearing on other worlds.

                There may be forms of life consisting of pure intelligent energy that ply the abysses of space far outside the confines of the universe we know.

                There are unlimited possibilities.

                I can imagine all this and the metaphysical too. Imagining doesn't make 'em real, it just makes 'em a curiosity.

                If the "Big bang" happened in empty space, why couldn't "big bangs" be happening every moment in the cosmos far beyond our feeble ability to dream? And why couldn't eternal life forms have evolved and still exist in facets of space and time that is beyond our childish ability to understand?

                WE know so little!

                Qwark

                1. 0
                  klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with everything you're saying, and we'll leave it at that before we find the point where we start disagreeing. smile
                  I just started watching Ancient Aliens, a documentary series... it's very interesting, and like I said before... to me, it makes perfect sense. smile

                2. mathsciguy profile image60
                  mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  How Socratic of you, qwark!

                  I refer, of course, to the whole "I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing" quote.  I agree with you in that respect, for sure.
                  Now, in terms of what is practical and useful for application in our world, I think that it's probably not worth the effort chasing after all the things that "could be" just because they "might be."  Right?

            2. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What a HUGE load of opinion, and subjective bias!

              If you were truly an explorer, you would not be afraid of exploring God.
              Let Him prove himself to you, rather than asking us to prove "it" to you.

              You are not an explorer of all things, but a lazy thinker, settled comfortably in your biases and prejudices.
              So sad. sad

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol DJ: I had to laugh! You are slow!

                My goodness man, I've told you and many others that, by golly, if you can provide this "seeker" with a definition of this "god thing" you chronically mention, as if you know "it," that isn't comprised of just your "baseless" opinion, there's a possiblity that I could be converted!!

                To my great diappointment, ya've never been able to do it! But ya sure are quick to judge the one who just asks for you to share the "implicit" unequivocally correct definition you can produce.
                Just pleeeeease define this god thing ya want me to consider in a form other than a biased opinion with no basis in fact, and by golly we can then chat about the possibility of "its" existence.

                Do I ask too much of one who is trying to convince me that he has the answers?

                BE christly magnanimous DJ! Create an epiphany above my empty head and enlighten me! Can ya do that for a poor suffering infidel?  smile:

                Qwark

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I think i told you, but it may have been someone else, so I will repeat myself.

                  I never offered to give you proof. For one good reason. The kind of proof you want/ask for is not available. (Unless God chose to suspend His MO just for you!) I'm not sure how SPECIAL He thinks you are. But, I can't say. He has been known to reveal Himself in unusual ways before.

                  But, one thing I can say, is that He WILL reveal Himself to those who honestly, genuinely seek Him.

                  I can't make you HONESTLY GENUINELY SEEK Him. That's up to you.

                  Thanks for the well wishes.I do ENJOY my (deluded wink ) relationship with Hm. big_smile

                  1. qwark profile image60
                    qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    DJ:

                    I'm wondering about your ability to understand what ya read.

                    Seriously! I never once asked you to PROVE anything! Why do you use the word proof when ya respond to me?

                    I can't consider anything you say when you refer to this "god thing" until you can produce what I ask for. don't you understand that?

                    "Just pleeeeease define this god thing ya want me to consider in a form other than a biased opinion with no basis in fact, and by golly we can then chat about the possibility of "its" existence. OK?

                    Whew! You are not payin' attention!

                    Qwark

                  2. 0
                    Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    thing is I did HONESTLY GENUINELY SEEK him for many years.  Was a waste of my time and effort

    2. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Some believers ARE free thinkers, but these are generally moderates and deists. Firm believers, those convinced that there absolutely is a God and it's specifically the one they believe in, are generally not Free Thinkers. In fact in some more fundamentalist styles of religion questioning God or Allah or the established religion could easily lead you to Hell. Doubt is frowned upon in favor of unwavering blind faith.

      So it isn't that only non-believers can be free thinkers, it's that religion and its supernatural claims lend themselves to being believed by faith, and faith really has no place in the mind of anyone who truly wants to know the truth.

      1. lone77star profile image92
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Titen-Sxull, very nicely put. You surprise me sometimes. This is pure genius, but it's incomplete. Good show, though. Thumbs up!

        Why incomplete? I guess I'm a rare breed of believer, who doesn't take the literal hook, line and sinker (that's fisherman talk for gullible).

        I think most, if not all Christians have it wrong! So many, as Baileybear will attest, are following ego rather than Christ. I've run into many Christians who fit that description.

        And perhaps the phrase "blind faith" is an oxymoron. "Blind belief" would be more appropriate. Faith is transcendant (you know, where miracles exist even without video tape), and such faith is never blind. In fact, this is where perception and creation are one (like the Zen Buddhist "one-sided coin"). Belief, however, is frequently blind. Like the belief of some that there is no God.

        For me, I don't know! How refreshing is that? But I think God may exist as the sum of all spiritual beings, including you and me. That would tie into what the Nazarene teacher talked about when he said that he and his Father were one. He never claimed to be God. See the difference? You can be "one" with something without being that thing. Some racecar drivers are "one" with their vehicles; that's how they win races.

        Free thinker? I don't buy most of the dogma I hear in churches, these days. But I do believe in karma and reincarnation. When you've had several spiritual experiences, memories from more than a century ago, miracles and other fun stuff, you tend to take such church dogma with a grain of salt.

        Most Christians don't believe in reincarnation, but their founder did. Imagine that! Their founder, Jesus, knew about karma, too. Remember, "live by the sword, die by the sword?" He didn't have to use the word "karma." He described it perfectly.

        Faith is about rising above the physical and taking charge, again. Remember a few million years ago, when we did such things easily, long before Homo sapiens? Oh, I'm sorry. So many here think that they are their physical bodies or their egos? That limits things a bit.

        I don't believe in such things. I know such things, just as you know the sun rises each morning. But the curious thing is that true faith (not the mamby-pamby, blind belief that so many try to pass off as "faith") is a pre-requisite to experiencing such things. Faith precedes such "proof." And once you have it, such proof is unnecessary.

        Your physical ego won't fit through the opening. Ego contains space-time and perhaps lots of energy (the driving force of karma?), and such physicality cannot exist in the discontinuous realm where creation originates. This is all so logical, if you care to look. But it takes humility.

        How's that for "free thinking." Not your usual Christian.

        And I believe in Allah, Mohammed, Buddha and Hubbard, too. And let's not forget Lao Tzu. He was also a pretty enlightened thinker.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Personally, I do not consider simply imagining a lot of supernatural conclusions as true to reality to be free thinking.

          You indicate that you know certain (supernatural) things to be true rather than believe them.  I highly doubt that - No one else has ever managed to shown them to be true - why would we think you can?  Interesting here is that true faith (I read that as absolute belief) is necessary to experiencing such things, but absolute belief will always get in the way of actual experience as it causes the mind to "see", "feel" and in other ways "experience" what is not happening.  It's called hallucination or simple rationalization.  And of course, proof is unnecessary to those that have faith in something; proof either way is immaterial to the believer in such things as it will affect neither reality nor the believers perception of reality.

          Neither do flat statements of the existence or attributes of conceptual things make them real.  Ego is a concept only and has no basis in physicality, yet to some it has definite physical form and attributes such as (occupying?) space time and containing large amounts of energy (electromagnetic?  Radiation?  Gravitational?).  Nor does free thinking allow the instant belief in other "discontinuous realms where creation originates" - while it may allow the concept of such a place it neither requires nor permits instant belief without evidence.

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It really isn't thinking at all, it's just belief wrapped up neatly in a different package, with the capacity for critical thought void of existence. The details of the belief are irrelevant.  smile

    3. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I watched some of a documentary about christianity.  One of the believers said that they believe by faith, not try to understand (ie think)

      1. lone77star profile image92
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I know some Christians confuse "faith" with "belief." They're not walking on water and such, so I don't think they've reached faith, yet... at least in the biblical sense.

        But don't you use a bit of faith every day? Or do you think of every step you take, every muscle contraction to maintain your balance as you walk?

        I agree: too many Christians are blind and are not humble enough. Heaven knows, how hard I've tried to be humble. My ego won't let me... not yet, at least. I keep trying.

    4. Shadesbreath profile image90
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Believers can be free thinkers. There are lots of them. The difference is that many believers didn't come to their beliefs by free thinking. They were indoctrinated as children or conscripted in the time of great sorrow and need by predatory church recruiters, and never looked back. That said, belief in God does not preclude free thinking.

      It's just that many believers haven't actually challenged their faith in any meaningful way, often for fear of losing it, which they don't want to happen because of how their faith makes them feel. Which is totally reasonable; I totally get not wanting to risk something that you love, that makes you feel good and safe etc. However, that does not constitute "free thinking" the way I believe most people use the phrase, because "free thinking" often is expected to mean the same or similar thing as does "critical thinking," i.e., seeking knowledge through challenging assumptions and that sort of approach.

      I'm sure there are plenty of religious people who have genuinely dug into every possible thing they could find to test their faith (Aquinas and Milton wrote on that idea a lot) and for the effort found their faith stronger. It's been my experience, however, that typically that is not how it goes.

      1. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        sB, I agree in part. One very visible issue

        free thinking v critical thinking
        blind faith v rational faith

        Most assume 'believing unconditionally' is jumping off a cliff, eyes closed and hoping for the best. Yet over 2,300 references regarding faith in theist text, expressly demand -if not commands- rational, well thought out, understood and unwavering applied action as that thing called faith. That same  unwavering action is identical to critical thinking -thinking that doesn't change course with every new circumstance, but sees things from all points possible (and in some cases impossible).

        My opinion is to consider this impulsiveness is quite equal on both the equation and sensation platforms. Where is logic in either? No where to be found. There is a storm of reasoning, conjecture, theory, but nothing truly critical coming from either.

        James.

        1. Shadesbreath profile image90
          Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We are in total agreement, I think. While I don't come to the same conclusions, I totally and completely respect the arguments of Aquinas and Milton (mentioned in my post). As examples, they totally and completely did ALL the work any human could do with staggering genius and concluded, not only brilliantly, but beautifully, that faith was the only reasonable conclusion. I love both of them, dearly, as a reader, scholar and amateur philosopher. I couldn't agree with you more, despite my lack of faith.

        2. lone77star profile image92
          lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting, Jacharless. Very thought-provoking.

          There was a teacher in the rabbinical court of Saragossa, Spain in the 12th century who said that bliss not founded in reality was not bliss, but delusion. I think most religious folk miss this point by a mile when they "believe."

          "Faith" is something of a different animal. Sure it has many definitions, some which look a lot like "belief," but I'm talking about the state of mind of someone like Moses when he parted the sea, or Peter when he stepped out of his storm-tossed boat onto the Sea of Galilee. What? Are they crazy? How unreasonable of them!

          Talk about unreasonable... How could an underage soldier in World War II become the most decorated person of the entire war. Certainly, he was a hero. He did some things which seem to some as downright crazy (unreasonable). Did he have a measure of "faith?" He put himself in harms' way numerous times and survived where other, more fearful joes fell victim to the monster of war. His name was Audie Murphy. His humility focused on saving his friends' lives.

          I remember seeing on a television program a story about a parachutist who survived though his parachute failed to open. On the way down, his thoughts focused on giving it all up to God. That's humility and faith. Several days later, he went up again, cockily to attempt a repeat of his miracle. The ingredients were different. No humility, but a confidence which was somehow selfish, not transcendant. This time he received far more than a few scratches.

          As you can see from these examples, there are different kinds of unreasonableness. Some take reality by the horns, but with humility, and some merely jump at the bull without looking. Ouch!

          On miracles, I have more than mere conjecture. I've experienced several, cause-and-effect miracles, and repeated some of them. It's not always easy to gain the right state of mind, but when it arrives, the results are instantaneous.

          This isn't your usual Christian stuff. But I couldn't stand my Southern Baptist minister grandfather's church that much. I loved logic and science too much. I enjoyed critical thinking too much. Perhaps that's why I became a software engineer. Creating software requires some imagination along with the logic. So does finding bugs. And there are plenty of bugs in religious dogma, and not enough humility to find the right answers.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Mr. lonestar, a pleasure to meet you! James.

    5. Jerami profile image79
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Free thinkers ?  ?  ?   unhindered,having no parimenters, without controll,  FREE Thinkers ?   Each go in their own direction yet confine themselves within a tiny parimeter while agreeing with other free thinkers. 
         disagreeing with non free thinkers. What ????

         who was that again?  free thinkers do not think like anyone else.   

        And who does that?     No body realy!   but us free thinkers can think thaT we do!  Cause we are freely thinking just like them other people were thinking when they wrote the book that I read that wasn't the bible.   Which means that I am a Free thinker.    THAT'S ME ! A FREE THINKER.   Gotta have company,   if not I'm all alone, which invalidates my assumed selfrightiousness in my disbelief if I'm the only one free thinking the way that I do ????   What did I just say ?   please some of yawl free thinkers come and tell them that you think the same way I do.    To validate me and my free thinking cause I'm starting to think my free thinking is wrapped up in something that I cain't get out of.


          There isn't anything existing in reality (truthfully) as a free thinker.    We kid ourselves.   You know that don't cha!
      Help!       Is anyboby really free thinkers?
                 Can anyone really think anything that hasn't been thunk before.  I not ?    Are ya really ree?

    6. Gaizy profile image93
      Gaizyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Believers are not considered free thinkers, because religious faith requires you to accept whatever mindset that faith is promoting, in it's entirety, without question or proof. Free thinking leads to questioning, and questions require answers in the form of proofs. Such thinking is anathema to religious systems because it would quickly prove them to be nonsense, which is why questioning one's religion is regarded as "lack of faith"

    7. autotoolsmall profile image60
      autotoolsmallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      To my understanding, free thinking is based on personal condition, the situation is a good stimulstor to free thinkers

    8. smith624 profile image60
      smith624posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It seems to me that a lot of the answers you are getting are not answering the question you asked. Believers are just as much of a free thinker as anyone else. The thing is, unless your brain has been altered to where you are unable to actually think for yourself, everyone is a free thinker, because everyone has the right and capability to think for themselves. It is whether they choose to or not. I am definitely a believer that the bible is the written word of GOD. However, I have disagreed many times with what was taught by pastors I admire. Simply put, I think differently about some things than they do.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Religious indoctrination does not really 'alter' the brain, but instead does not allow the brain to develop the capacity for critical thought or understanding; ie. thinking. It trains the brain to accept beliefs without question or criticism.

        To alter the brain would mean to break the indoctrination so that one can develop the capability to think for themselves.



        That would most likely be based on indoctrination, in which you "choose" to accept the bible as the written word of god based on belief and not on critical thought.



        There are at least 38,000 reported Christian sects, which means they disagree with each other based on their beliefs and not due to critical thinking. smile

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    Believers can be, and often are, free thinkers.  They think outside of the box, they look for new answers and new things.  Many are engineers, finding new solutions to old problems or old solutions to new problems.  Many are scientists, finding new facts and data about our world and working hard to fit them into what we already know.

    Once the discussion, internal or external, turns to religion however, that seems to usually cease.  No thought is permitted that could cast doubt on their belief.  Their belief is all too often set in concrete and is not to be questioned.  They are rigidly tied to pre-existing ideas and thoughts.

    Why?  Only the believer could answer that one.  It may be fear of hell.  It may be a desire for eternal life.  It may be an emotional "feeling" that there is more than they can see and touch and they like the feeling too much to let go of it.  It may be a strong desire to remain part of the believers community and a willingness to freely question those beliefs will almost surely result in expulsion.  It may simply be the warm, fuzzy feeling that someone is watching over them and taking care of them - that someone cares about them and will help them when needed.

  3. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    DJ,
    Atheists do in fact claim supernatural knowledge; an astute hierarchy of verba sequentur which they dub 'free thinking'. Self appointed guardians of knowledge is one of the roots of atheism (also Free Masonry). A superiority based on some empirical knowledge or the result of a set of systematic practices (rituals) leading to an assumed god-like status, in fact. Atheism, therefore believes beyond simple semiotics or textually based disambiguation.
    Thus, they coin free thinking as sensible and anything else nonsensical.

    James.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why so angry James? Atheism makes no claims whatsoever other than the fact that you are talking nonsense. Sorry - we tend not to buy into 800 year old men and majik dinosaurs who got killed in "The Flood"

      1. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Case in point.
        You assume my explanation/definition is anger, when it is quite realistic, calm and rational. Thus, confirming my statement regarding: "your knowledge" is sensible and everything else nonsensical. Thank you, Marcus for participating in that experiment.

        Who is 'we'? I have been told by you and others, that none of you are in agreement, save one thing: the unbelief in something greater than yourself or what you can touch, hear, see, taste, smell, eat and [****] --well you know.

        That last thing you mentioned is just plain stupid and makes absolutely no sense (even by your parameters of what is sensible); You reiterating it, makes even less sense. lol  So I'll just leave it to you. Thanks.

        James.

      2. lone77star profile image92
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't know that atheism as a body of thought "knew" of James and the quality of his arguments. I've never before heard of Atheism arguing that "James talks nonsense." lol

        And Mark, I don't buy into 800-year-old-men, either. I never could buy most of the shallow interpretations in my Southern Baptist minister grandfather's church. The 969 years of Methuselah referred to his tribe, not the individual. But because science tells us that man has been around far longer than 6000 years, then Methuselah's age is too short! Imagine that!

        I don't believe in "majik dinosaurs," either. Dinosaurs died out at the T-K boundary, 65 Mya. And Noah's Flood, if it was a real and worldwide event, would've happened 27,970 BC, if it happened at all. Interesting that Neanderthal died out at the same time. Could Neanderthal have been the "daughters of men" and target of the Flood? Those naughty Homo sapiens messing around in the wrong gene pool. Tsk, tsk.

        How's that for "non-Christian-dogma" free thinking?

        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not very good actually. This is simply attempting to defend your personal variation of The Nonsense.

          There was no flood and the Neanderthals died out over an extended period of time. Nothing freethinking about making up stuff to defend your faith at all. Sorry. Not even much solid evidence that Neanderthals had anything other than a very rudimentary culture and some question as to whether or not they were capable of speech. That is not to say they could not have had some other way of communicating of course.

          "Wrong gene pool?" Oh - are you a "visiting aliens did it" type of Christian then?

          James does talk nonsense. lol

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            to your thinking, yes it would appear to be nonsense or better said nonsensitive, void of sensationalism, which we understand is one side of the Quality House. A side you once firmly were rooted and grounded. But, that is just a jibe. Now the other side you have swung to is equation or what you deem reason. And those same parameters of reason keep you under that roof of Quality. But it doesn't make you better or more knowing. It just made more Knowles ( lol get it Borg Knowles ).

            Time and again we go round and round. You claim me and everyone else who does not adhere to your MO of reasoning is nonsense. This just reaffirms my statement regarding atheists as believing they have some super natural knowing, a faux godlike ideology, superior to any other and justified by that ideology.

            Notice any similarities to that and what earnest calls megalomania, psychotic. In short 100% ego driven doctrine. Hmm, that sounds like religion, yes?

            Show us the empirical evidence of a difference between the reasoning of either! They are both from the root: Theos. Neither is logic/philos. Neither is rational faith ( meaning the action of logic/philos).


            Happy Fathers Day Marcus and a very merry un-birthday!

            James.

    2. Gaizy profile image93
      Gaizyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Superiority "based on some empirical knowledge"? This is the only kind of knowledge that is provable - What kind of knowledge would you prefer?  "systematic practices (rituals)"? by systematic practices I assume you mean things like the scientific process - These are not rituals. Rituals are pointles pre-determined practices used for religeous or superstitious purposes. Unlike the scientific process they have never put men on the moon, produced penicillin or resulted in the technological marvel of the computer you are now typing on. It is perfectly valid for a practice to be described as "superior" when it is, and all the big words in the world won't disguise the fact.

  4. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    What went on in the forums BB? I woke up and Cags is banned!

    Why would one of the most helpful people in the forums be banned? sad
    I know you will read this Cags. Sorry that happened to you mate, you must have been telling the truth again!

    It seems to happen to every person who goes up against the religiously infirm. smile

    Maybe they still gang up, get others banned then go around and vote all their hubs down.

    No morals, no decency.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image59
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      something to do with posts in the Is Gay Rights Overated thread. Did not see the post, but saw some discussion about it. Don't really know as I never went into that thread.

  5. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Well dj, it has been my observation that neither the far religious right or the far atheist left is capable of free thinking. They both appear to be single minded in purpose.

    I think their emotions get in the way of their ability to reason.

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Any person posting here, in the religion forum is guilty. (to a lesser, or greater extent.)

      No amount of appeal to reason and logic will exempt anyone from expressing emotional perspectives on this (emotive) topic. That's why it can be so heated at times.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that is true. But, the scope of possibilities the far ends can accept is harshly limited be their personal prejudices. Both ends have come to the conclusion that there is only one answer. Their answer. They've closed the book on any further contemplation on the subject and refuse to consider any   information outside of what they've already implanted in their heads. That is, by definition, the opposite of free thinking.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yupp!!

  6. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    aka-dj wrote:
    Which "group" would be best described by your definition here?

    I suggest that theists.
    For one (most obvious reason) in that you (non-believers) completely deny, ridicule and dismiss the Spiritual possibilities. There is ABSOLUTELY no such thing to even consider. This three dimensional,material world is all there is (for you), ad so YOU limit yourselves to it, (alone).

    At least any theist will go beyond that limited perception, and allow for something beyond what can be proven, or tested in this (three dimensional) world.

    Therefore, they (we) are capable of (greater) free thought, for we are prepared to consider/include, what you OUTRIGHT reject.

    I do, however agree with you, that those who have been indoctrinated since childhood, can often be "locked into" a mindset, that is "blind faith".
    ==============================================


    aka-dj   Yep     I second that.

  7. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I'm ready to change my beliefs in a heartbeat in light of better information, in fact I did so today for example. I traveled across town with my son to buy a ute, and met an old experienced motor engineer who I had met before.

    I have always hated the gearbox in one model of the Holden Rodeos for having a weakness in the output shaft.

    Today I discovered that I am wrong, the gearbox is sound, it is a problem in the rest of the drive train that causes the gearbox to blow.
    I had it explained to me, and had to accept the evidence presented.


    If I saw an ounce of truth in any religion I would sign on. Who wouldn't?

    All that extended life sounds marvellous! smile

    The problem is that in 2,000 years not one bit of evidence has emerged.

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You surprise me from time to time.
      This is one of those times.

      Let me just say, that NO MAN convinced me to believe.
      There was no empirical evidence, and there were no scientific proofs.
      I just MET Jesus Christ.
      That was enough of an experience for me. It settled it for me forever. smile

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        All right. Now you're scaring me dj. You actually met him? Flesh and bone?

        Or did you have a spiritual experience that left only one answer? That, I can see.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Fear not, my little one. smile
          The words that I speak, they are Spirit, and they are Life!

          I wrote a hub on it, if you want the whole story!

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sure.I'll read it. With 47 hubs though, it might help if you told me which one to look for. smile

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry. big_smile
              We're not supposed to self promote.
              It's "my story of faith".

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Oh. Sorry. I assumed, if asked, it was ok to share.

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I suppose you are right.
                  If you ask, I can answer.

          2. 0
            Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            what I gather from your hubs is you had a conversion experience - you described it as going pop on the inside. That was meeting Jesus?

            1. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs---often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality".

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So, let's recap. There are an estimated 2.1 billion christians in the world. 1.6 billion muslims. 851 million Hindus. 32 million Jews. That's 4,583,000,000. And there are, of course, other religions.

                There are only an estimated 157,529,444 atheists in the world. Looking at the numbers,  it is difficult to imagine that the lion's share of the world is psychotic. To imply that it is, would make one wonder at the sanity of the person making the accusation. Don't you think?

                1. 0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  if the majority are so delusional, is it any surprise the world is nuts?

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol Touche Baileybear. I suppose that might be a very reasonable argument.

                2. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why don't you follow the thread instead of making vicious personal attacks.

                  This was in response to DJ's experiences.

                  But as to your question:  It seems that you are saying that even if the Emperor is wearing no clothes and 4,583,000,000 said that he was...I'm suppose to see nothing psychologically wrong with this...lest I be insane myself?

                  Your statement is completely absurd, and it seemed the only intent was to launch a personal attack.

                  Maybe you should check your sanity!

                3. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  On the contrary Emile The world always has 30 or more wars running, we are on the edge of global war half the time and a lot of people have the vote. I'd say it's the minority that is more likely to have it right, or we would be living in a nicer world than we are today. smile

                4. Evolution Guy profile image61
                  Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Plus of course - the people who fudge these figures tend to be liars. Most religious people seem willing to lie in order to defend and promote their ridiculous beliefs.

                  Much of the world lives in ignorance and denial - that is for sure. This does not mean there is an Invisible Super Being in the sky. And it certainly does not mean they are not psychotic. Judging from most of the world's behavior most of the time - it is clear that believing nonsense makes people less likely to look after their fellow man and the planet.

                  The McDonalds argument does not make much sense. A lot of people eat at McDonalds, therefore the food is the best.

                  1. aka-dj profile image78
                    aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You have a one track mind.

                    Certainly not a free thinker mentality.

                    Broaden your horizons a bit. You just might surprise yourself as to what's possible "out there".

                    smile smile smile

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That could be true. I wouldn't know. I simply googled each one and grabbed the numbers listed. Google is owned by religious zealots so there's no telling what they do with information before it gets to the end user.



                    Agreed.



                    lol You are aware of the implications of this statement? It's kind of like saying you, alone, are sane. It's the rest of the world that is crazy. That sounds borderline delusional.



                    That would be a ridiculous argument on several levels, but I can think of one where it would apply. Why do people eat at McDonald's even though there is ample evidence they don't even use real meat? Because they've got the best marketing campaign of all of the fast food chains. People will follow anything they perceive as a winner.

                5. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Not really, that's exactly how indoctrination works, one wholeheartedly accepts the doctrines, without question or critical thinking. Of course, it's a vicious cycle in which the capacity to question or think critically never had a chance to develop due to the acceptance of the doctrine from early childhood.

                  The key is to break the cycle of indoctrination and you'll see those numbers change dramatically. smile

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sounds reasonable. I was simply picking anyway when I posted that. But, I don't see a chance of winning hearts and minds with a few of the tactics employed. It helps reinforce preconceived prejudices, imo.

                6. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I, a sane person, visit an insane asylum.

                  I step inside and everyone around me is insane!

                  I am the minority!

                  One of the insane walks up to me and says: "I talk to jesus!"

                  I reply: Really? I don't think so.


                  Now lets see if we can relate that to Emiles response:

                  "There are an estimated 2.1 billion christians in the world. 1.6 billion muslims. 851 million Hindus. 32 million Jews. That's 4,583,000,000. And there are, of course, other religions.

                  There are only an estimated 157,529,444 atheists in the world. Looking at the numbers,  it is difficult to imagine that the lion's share of the world is psychotic. To imply that it is, would make one wonder at the sanity of the person making the accusation."

                  What'd'ya think about the majority being right?   smile:

                  Qwark

                  1. Jerami profile image79
                    Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What do you think the chances are that both of you are right and both are wrong?

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know..did you step into the insane asylum of your own free will? (doubtful)

                    But to not answer your question, I may agree with your take on 'the god thing' as you put it. It doesn't make me right. Its an opinion. I'm no more psychotic than the opposing view.

      2. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well nothing is set in concrete for me DJ, I am willing to believe something right up to where I see it proved wrong, then I will accept the new belief until a better one replaces it. smile

      3. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is truly astounding the things the indoctrinated will claim to defend or support their beliefs.

        What's that you say? How can I know if I never met Jesus myself?

        By all means, feel free to introduce him to me the next time you have a chat with him. Tell him I await his presence in all earnest and I will be his most ardent follower.

        Uh-huh. lol

      4. Gaizy profile image93
        Gaizyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Next time you meet him, would you be able to invite him to the pub for a pint or two? would all your friends see him? would he laugh and joke with them and perhaps by a round of drinks? Or was he more like a child's "imaginary" friend - who insist's that he exists, whilst the other children regard him as a bit bonkers?

    2. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm, earnest, I think you're great. But I have two questions about this statement:

      1. Why the emphasis on 2,000 years
      2. What evidence were you expecting based on the parameters/applications you used? From what i know of you, the methods you used are identical in nature and application to nearly all other theists. Methods you and many others dismissed, yes?

      Could it be, just perhaps, the parameters people are using to obtain that evidence is incorrect. could it be that both science and religion (collective Theos) had/has it backwards?

      Something to consider, yes?
      Maybe new parameters are necessary to test (aka rational faith) that would provide that evidence...

      James.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        2,000 years ago is easy enough to work out. smile

        The problem with the religious tomes is they are psychotic.

        This makes it very easy to ignore.

        Who writes psychotic scripture? A psychopath.

        Very simple to deduce I would think.... unless one were to remain indoctrinated and frozen in a belief that glorifies fear hate and loathing.

        A no-brainer.

        I can easily prove it is psychotic, to anyone who can read, thus my belief.  smile

        The thing about psychosis is it remains psychotic no matter who it addresses and at any time in history. A demonstrable condition with known parameters.

        Here is proof positive from the "good book" itself.

          You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you.  Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods.  If you do, they will trap you.  Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?'  But don't be afraid of them!  Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt.  Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them.  You saw it all with your own eyes!  And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt.  The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear.  And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you!  "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God.  The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little.  You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you.  But the LORD your God will hand them over to you.  He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed.  He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all.   (Deuteronomy 7:16-24 NLT)

        Now you be the judge.
        Is this psychotic?

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How much killing took place in tribal warfare over the millenia, in the evolutionary timelines, BEFORE we became "civilised"?
          Or, was mankind peaceful right up until religion was born, and then it all went to hell?

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There is and probably always was psychosis. I am pointing out that the quote above attributed to god from the bible is psychotic.
            Psychotics write psychotic verse.

            No comparisons or qualifications can change the words in the bible and make them NOT psychotic.

            How can any sane educated person deny that and keep a straight face??
            Whatever happened before religion does not justify believing in a lunatic.

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That didn't answer my question.

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I did, perhaps it was not clear enough.

                The killing comes with the psychosis, which was probably always there in mankind. More psychosis as that in the bible is not a solution to it.

                I answered your question, you avoided my claim as you usually do when the going gets too tough. smile

                Why are you trying to wiggle out from under DJ?
                I am being truthful as you well know. It is psychotic!

                Show me how it is not. smile

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But which came first?
                  Killing?
                  Psychosis?
                  Religion?
                  I'm saying it was killing (IE Evolutionary timelines).
                  What do you say?

                  1. earnestshub profile image89
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Psychosis then killing, then religion with more killing would be the logical order I think. smile

                    Do you know what psychosis is and how it manifests?
                    The bible or quoran will give you a very clear picture of it. smile

                  2. earnestshub profile image89
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Why not deal with the little matter of a psychotic god?

                    The actual scripture and my claim that it is psychotic deserves a comment doncha reckon?

            2. jacharless profile image82
              jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Um, not really true. Translation can. Ever speak Russian to a Spaniard? Words are literal expressive. We elaborate constantly when we write, why would Moses or the others be any different in expressing themselves -especially given their time line and the need for strong verbiage?

              Heck, even 'manly men' talk strongly to each other in ways most people would consider 'over the top'.

              Words have a lot of power.

              Take for instance the word: satan. It has been misread for hundreds of years by millions of people from all religions!! And that is just one word. The compiled Torah and Letters contain over 250,000 words. Another example is Johns Letter of Revealing. It has been misread as a doomsday 'prophecy' for hundreds of years as well. The imagery and expression are amazing, but not a literal series of catastrophes. Those words are literal expressive.

              James


              ps, earnest, it also doesn't answer my question -psychotic or not- about a completely different method or parameters of testing to have that evidence come to light. Putting the book down or aside, is it realistic to consider a new method is in order. A method that does not include general Theos of science or religion?

              1. Gaizy profile image93
                Gaizyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So in addition to the Bible being massively edited and including many forgeries, many of it's meanings are lost in translation and what is left if eminently capable of being misinterpreted? - So why is it used as some kind of authoratative tome that we should live our lives by - After all there are hundreds of other "holy" books to chose from, all of which claim to present "the truth".

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Massively edited" ???

                  Source of your information on this accepted belief, please!

  8. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Here is another psychotic scripture.

      Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.   (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

    Is this another psychotic scripture?

    Yes or no and why please. smile

  9. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    {{ bangs head on desk }}

    logic and reason cannot occupy the same space.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Try banging it a little harder. smile

      1. 0
        klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Beely! Are we still talking about banging, as in The Big Bang theory? hmm I'm very confused! big_smile

        1. jacharless profile image82
          jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wait, what?! Banging is now a theory? Dang it! I have been duped again.

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I understand, there are several definitions and even slang references to "banging". Let me know if you want to discuss them in person sometime? smile

          1. 0
            klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            Happy Father's day, Beelzedad.

    2. Gaizy profile image93
      Gaizyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just checked out the dictionary -  Reason: Definition: Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic:" - Note the use of "logic" at the end there  smile

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Logic?
        What's the big deal about logic?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

        Note the word "philosophy" big_smile

        1. Gaizy profile image93
          Gaizyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's just that you said that Reason and Logic cannot occupy the same space - Most definitions would suggest that without Logic, there is no reason.

  10. Greg Sage profile image61
    Greg Sageposted 5 years ago

    I wrote a hub yesterday which started out being about instant karma, but ended up being about this exact subject... the difficulty believers in any faith have in opening their minds, and why.

    ... and I'm not a non-believer, I've just seen the coin from many more facets than most.  From dancing with the Sufis to meditating with the Buddhists, to kneeling with the Catholics, I've had a MUCH more inclusive view of religion than anyone I've ever met.

    The open-minded thing is not limited to any faith.  It is quite definitely tied, however, to a lack of direct experience with concepts foreign to the way one was raised... and that goes for all faiths around the world.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I find belief systems are localised. People's beliefs are mostly chance. If the christians were bought up and indoctrinated by muslims, they would be muslims, like the christians, they reflect where they were born and that indoctrination, not a reasoned belief.

      1. Greg Sage profile image61
        Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ding ding ding
        We have a winner.

        99% of the world's population holds religious beliefs so close to those of their parents as to be indistinguishable by those of much different faiths in other areas of the world.

        That alone may be the single most important fact if you wish to truly understand religious conflict.  If that doesn't make you step back and observe your own faith with the same lens you use to judge those of others, then you've not truly absorbed the fundamental truth it reveals.

  11. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    108. Christ is equal with God
               John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
              Christ is not equal with God
               John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
         109. Jesus was all-powerful
               Matt 28:18/ John 3:35
              Jesus was not all-powerful
               Mark 6:5
         110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation
               Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6
              The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation
               Matt 5:17-19
         111. Christ's mission was peace
               Luke 2:13,14
              Christ's mission was not peace
               Matt 10:34
         112. Christ received not testimony from man
               John 5:33,34
              Christ did receive testimony from man
               John 15:27
         113. Christ's witness of himself is true.
               John 8:18,14
              Christ's witness of himself is not true.
               John 5:31
         114. Christ laid down his life for his friends
               John 15:13/ John 10:11
              Christ laid down his life for his enemies
               Rom 5:10
         115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
               John 19:7
              It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
               John 18:31
         116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents
               Ex 20:5
              Children are not punished for the sins of the parents
               Ezek 18:20
         117. Man is justified by faith alone
               Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2
              Man is not justified by faith alone
               James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13
         118. It is impossible to fall from grace
               John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39
              It is possible to fall from grace
               Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:20,21
         119. No man is without sin
               1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10
             Christians are sinless
               1 John 3: 9,6,8
         120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead
               1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16
              There is to be no resurrection of the dead
               Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14
         121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world
               Prov 11:31
              Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world
               Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10
         122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind
               Job 3: 11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20
              Endless misery the portion of all mankind
               Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2
         123. The Earth is to be destroyed
               2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11
              The Earth is never to be destroyed
               Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4
         124. No evil shall happen to the godly
               Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13
              Evil does happen to the godly
               Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7
         125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly
               Prov 12:21/ Ps 37:28,32,33,37/ Ps 1:1,3/ Gen 39:2/
                Job 42:12
              Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly
               Heb 11:37,38/ Rev 7:14/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Luke 21:17
         126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing
               Mark 10:29,30/ Ps 37:25/ Ps 112:1,3/ Job 22:23,24/
                Prov 15:6
              Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward
               Luke 6:20,24/ Matt 6:19,21/ Luke 16:22/ Matt 19:24/
                Luke 6:24
         127. The Christian yoke is easy
               Matt 11:28,29,30
              The Christian yoke is not easy
               John 16:33/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Heb 12:6,8
         128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness
               Gal 5:22
              The fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury
               Judg 15:14/ 1 Sam 18:10,11
         129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked
               Job 21:7,8/ Ps 17:14/ Eccl 8:12/ Is 65:20
              Longevity denied to the wicked
               Eccl 8:13/ Ps 55:23/ Prov 10:27/ Job 36:14/ Eccl 7:17
         130. Poverty a blessing
               Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5
              Riches a blessing
               Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12
              Neither poverty nor riches a blessing
               Prov 30:8,9
         131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment
               Prov 3:13,17
              Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow
               Eccl 1:17,18
         132. A good name is a blessing
               Eccl 7:1/ Prov 22:1
              A good name is a curse
               Luke 6:26
         133. Laughter commended
               Eccl 3:1,4/ Eccl 8:15
              Laughter condemned
               Luke 6:25/ Eccl 7:3,4
         134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness
               Prov 22:15
              There is no remedy for foolishness
               Prov 27:22
         135. A fool should be answered according to his folly
               Prov 26:5
           A fool should not be answered according to his folly
               Prov 26:4
         136. Temptation to be desired
               James 1:2
              Temptation not to be desired
               Matt 6:13
         137. Prophecy is sure
               2 Pet 1:19
              Prophecy is not sure
               Jer 18:7-10
         138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years
               Gen 6:3/ Ps 90:10
              Man's life is but seventy years
               Ps 90:10
         139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast
               Gen 9:2
              The fear of man is not upon the lion
               Prov 30:30
         140. Miracles a proof of divine mission
               Matt 11:2-5/ John 3:2/ Ex 14:31
              Miracles not a proof of divine mission
               Ex 7:10-12/ Deut 13:1-3/ Luke 11:19
         141. Moses was a very meek man
                Num 12:3
              Moses was a very cruel man
               Num 31:15,17
         142. Elijah went up to heaven
               2 Kings 2:11
              None but Christ ever ascended into heaven
               John 3:13
         143. All scripture is inspired
               2 Tim 3:16
              Some scripture is not inspired
               1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Holy Moley Batman!

      That's too many contradictions to count!

      Why I'd be up until daylite counting them!

      ...and ya know the funniest part?  There are many many more lol

      I hope yer not gonna list 'em Earn!?  lol

      Qwark

  12. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    NAh! I'd need two rolls of dunny paper to list them! lol

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Earn: phew! Yer a gentleman and a scholar!...oh and I almost forgot,...KIND! smile:
      Qwark

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know how they wade through this crap. smile
        Oh that's right! They don't actually read all the book, just the bit they can twist to fit one of 30,000 beliefs and ignore the rest because they have the only truth.
        Megalomania is best with bone leve;l ignorance, they go together like cheese and crackers! lol

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      thing you'll need more than that

  13. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Free thinkers

    Thinking without restraint

              no boundaries  ( kinda like a wild hair)

    Free thinking
    don't cost nothing ..  and that is how much you can sell it for.

       Free thinking    free meal

      Aint no such thing as a free meal.

      Every word that proceeds out of your mouth has constructive  OR  destructive properties; which never gets tired.

      I've never read anything on the power of thought; ...   but somehow I think it carries a bigger punch.
      Thought is just more sneaky.

      What ever you think is ...  IS ...  if only in YOUR own world.

    That is about half of a thought.

      Can you guess the rest?

  14. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I've still got plenty of time. I'm not gonna go to my funeral. smile

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I won't be at yours either Earn.
      I'm gonna be dumped out of a can into the Pacific off the coast of Oregon and end up in the belly of a few nice big salmon or ling cod.
      Damn that's gonna be a long rest! hmm:

      qwark

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm confident you will rejoin the food chain with great success Qwark! lol

        I have drowned many worms in my lifetime. In fact in our house fishing is referred to as worm drowning. lol

        I feel I owe them!

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hey Earn, we call it drowning worms here too! I'll bet'cha I've drowned more worms than you ...I bet'cha....lol

          When I was a kid, I remember growing worms in my grampas horse and cow manure pile.

          Ya could ram yer hand in the hot shyte and come out with a handfull'a red manure worms that catfish love!  smile:

          Yep! I've drowned alota worms...lol

          I'm sure kids in Australia do that too..smile:

          Qwark

  15. 60
    mr peabodyposted 5 years ago

    I'm still waiting for you to explain the Darwin Theory of Evolution to me ......      seeing as how ....to you I only have a 10 year old level of understanding of it

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is that still burning you Peabody? lol

      I would only be pretending if I tried to explain it thoroughly to you, my memory does not hold that much information, and like all things that need to be refutable, duplicable, and comply across disciplines, I would refer you to any of the fine series that are available on your Television from sources that have more credibility than a mere layperson such as myself. smile

  16. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I did two things for recreation as a kid. Fishing and prospecting. smile

    By the sounds of it, you owe those worms big time Qwark! lol

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeh, I'm still owing 'em...'cause I'm still drownin' 'em...lol


      Qwark

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well in that case you need a proper burial in the soil to keep the worm cycle happening, although, I guess joining the food chain further up is an option I may have to consider. smile

        How in hell can you eat catfish!
        The other fish won't even eat the one's we have in Australia.
        ....except for puffer fish who will eat cigarette butts!

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ohhh Gosh ,finally someone who cant stand catfish!!
          Lived down south (USA) for over a year and you are odd if you didnt go ga ga over the ugly lookin buggars roll

          Guess its an aquired taste,mud n that.

          Imagine my delight when I saw Orange Roughy in the supermarket!! smile



          http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5174794_f248.jpg <Catfish

          1. Jerami profile image79
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't like cat fish much unless it is 5# or better,  clean it , stuffit with sweet onions and slow smoke it in the smoker.


               Set it in the middle of the table and everyone just fork it.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ok ,Im in smile

        2. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Earn;
          I can't speak for the taste of Australian catfish, but out of the lake here in Texas, these fish are fantastic! No fishy taste and we just skin 'em roll
          em in a beer batter put 'em on the bar'bee on foil and cook till done...then eat 'em like corn-on-the cob with chunks of sweet onion and french fries! DEELISHUSSSS! smile: Wash down with an ice cold bottle of yer fav beer....can't beat it! smile:
          WE Texans know what's good!!! lol
          Qwark

          PS We don't eat "puffers" here...they're poison..yuk!

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We don't eat the puffers here for the same good reason. lol
            They are the most annoying fish in the ocean as far as I'm concerned,

            Bait swipin poisonous little thugs! lol

  17. 60
    mr peabodyposted 5 years ago

    oh yeah... in response to your little "raise" where you will see my I.Q. raise me a hub point ......I'll keep the I.Q. and you can have all the hub points because they don't mean that much to me.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I thought I said your profile score, but you write to get read don't you?

  18. 60
    mr peabodyposted 5 years ago

    I have a Question for Evolution Guy, or anyone that can answer this ;

    So you believe in Evolution, and perhaps The Big Bang Theory. Would that be correct? If that is correct then here is the question: Where did all the matter that supposedly collided together to create the "Big Bang" come from?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Whatever gave you the idea that matter colliding created the big bang?

      The big bang originated in a singularity; a point of 0 dimension that certainly wasn't matter.  At that time there was not even "space" to hold any matter or energy; space and time were created at the instant of the big bang.

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image90
        Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So what was the cause? Nothing? So maybe the athiests are right, God is nothing?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I doubt that anyone will ever know what the cause was or even if there was a cause.  There is nothing in our understanding of physics or the universe that requires a cause for the big bang. 

          Understand that the conditions prior to the big bang were not what they are today.  Space did not exist, there was no energy or matter, there were no physical laws.  Time did not exist. 

          These were all created with the big bang, and although every action we see in everyday life has a cause, that cause is always an effect of the laws of the universe which did not yet exist and thus could not be the cause.

          1. Tumbletree profile image62
            Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's likely that in our lifetime we'll have some sort of understanding of what happened before the "big bang," already there are many speculations (the collision of two branes, the other side of a black hole, several others) and they are spending billions to investigate this speculations, that would hardly spend billions on something they didn't hope to get an answer from.

    2. Evolution Guy profile image61
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes - of course, there is ample actual evidence as opposed to biblical "evidence."
      No.
      It was already there.

      1. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really??? And by evidence you mean concrete, indisputable proof that humans lived 4 or 400 million years ago, or that the center of the planet is liquid iron, or that the universe came into existence by nothing and then bang, yes?

        And, pray tell, what secondary source provided agreement to those proofs? Did the stars tell you these things? Do you talk to stars? Do they answer? How about a protozoa, as it mutated itself into a guppy, into a tiger, into a human? Or maybe the Neanderthal left you a letter, an ancestry map perhaps, --or some pixie "star dust" trail to Shangri La?

        lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol pixie dust...by the way speaking of pixie dust, what do you have on that, I mean, there was a lot on dust in the Golden Compass, and that writer is as we would call it, "in on it" lot of of animal archetypes going on there and so on...

          I'm curious what "dust" is pertaining to in the book. You have any in depth knowledge on pixie dust? I'm serious...what is DUST?

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As opposed to the biblical version of creation, which has "ample actual concrete indisputable proof"? lol smile

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "as opposed to"? Meaning as opposed to something you say is completely false and does not exist??? lol lol

            you're killing me. lol

            Now, be a good humor -err- human and show us this "indisputable, concrete proof". Show us humans another (non-human) source that backs up your claims; that testifies to these 'facts' of science. lol lol

            James.

            http://static5.depositphotos.com/1001911/426/v/950/depositphotos_4261058-Laughing-emoticon.jpg

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Notice that computer in front of you, it's connected to the internet, both use the technologies discovered by science. Notice also, the many things around you that you obviously take for granted, they too were a product of scientific discovery.

              Or, is all you see are the walls of a cave? smile

              1. jacharless profile image82
                jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A computer is NOT PROOF OF EVOLUTION.
                Show me the proof so I can believe! I want to believe!!!

                lol

                Science hasn't "discovered" anything. Everything was there already, even the subatomic units that make up this computer aka plastic, metal, silica, electricity.
                Science didn't discover electricity either, Einstein, nor are humans products of scientific discovery.
                Technology is simply MANIPULATING WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.

                So, either show the proof to back up your claims or go back to that cave you keep talking about and beat your --- chest, yeah, that's it, chest. Because I see no difference between your lies, your claims of fact (which are nothing but fantasies) and religions types either. You know the funniest thing, though, the mentality is identical!

                lol unga-bunga lol

                fa love pa lol

                1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                  Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LOLOLO

                  Getting even more angry I see. Does it really bother you so much that humans like to learn and create things ? Doesn't seem to stop you using that scientific invention - the computer.

                  Aww - tell 'im about the flood and the majik dinosaurs. That should make youlive forever in grace. lol

                  1. jacharless profile image82
                    jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Marcus, I am falling off my chair i laughter, not anger. This is comedy at its finest -and I know many a stand up comic. I have a vested interest in a few.


                    This is comical.

                    What did the evolutionist say to the dinosaur?
                    "Just think, in 50 million years, you'll get 50 miles to the gallon!"

                    lol

                2. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I know you "want to believe" - that is exactly the problem because you don't want to understand.



                  Then, why weren't there computers and internet connections centuries ago if science didn't discover anything and it was all there to begin with?



                  Then, why didn't all the things we have today exist centuries ago if it already existed?



                  Obviously, no amount of evidence or proof of anything is going to make any difference to your opinions. You simply aren't interested based on your reasoning of science. What's the point?

                  You're free to take the time to read about evolution, no one here is going to teach it to you. But, at the very least, I can get you started.

                  Evolution requires two things, and two things only:

                  1. The generation of diversity.
                  2. Natural selection - culling of the "less fit".

                  Process number (1) is essentially a random process, entirely in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Process number (2), which involves the disproportionate death (or failure to reproduce) of the less fit. Processes (1) and (2) together produce all the forms of life we see on Earth. smile

                  1. jacharless profile image82
                    jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    -first, that is the biggest cop out ever! I would expect that from a first year theist.

                    -second, actually it will make a huge difference to all humanity.

                    Now, if you would be so kind, show me the source of this proof. Show me a non-human: document, cave drawing, collection of stars, hypothesis --anything-- that says clearly your claim of this evolution thing.

                    PS, showing me a picture of a tree frog and a picture of a tadpole with a cartoon balloon and TELLING ME this is evolution is NOT PROOF. If it is, then I am going to call every single theist on planet earth and tell them I was wrong, that the Bible IS in fact "infallible, complete and total word of God".

                    Why? Because that is what they are claiming as proof, just like your charts, graphs and made up time lines of millions of years, etc is.

                    Else, I can only believe! you are lying. And certainly I do not want to believe! that.

                    smile

                  2. jacharless profile image82
                    jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    natural selection does not explain the origins of creation. It only defines the possibility of how the process of nature within creation operates. and none of nature is 'random'.

        3. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How funny. You believe nonsense about people living to be 800 because of what it says in a majik book and refuse to see the evidence that all life on earth evolved. LOL

          So angry as well. Odd. Contradictory in fact.

    3. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is a huge difference between believing and understanding, which do you prefer to discuss?

      The matter originally came from the very hot ocean of radiation that was the early universe. smile

  19. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I have never eaten the American catfish, but mud does not sound good.
    I like fresh rainbow or mountain trout straight out of fast running pristine water, thrown in the pan and cooked on the spot best, or a big barramundi done in foil and butter, onions, lemon and tartar sauce

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't let 'em kid'ya Earn. These "cats" come out of a 21 mile long lake that is the drinking water reservoir for the city of Corpus Christi Texas.

      I love trout and salmon...been fishin' for 'em most of my life, but these "cats" have no muddy flavor like some of the river "cats" do.

      None at all.

      You'll never do it, but eaten' 'em with friends at a catfish cookout here in texas'd make a believer outa ya...yahoooo..smile:

      Qwark

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hard to know. I could get it in my head to go fishing. It's a small world. smile

  20. ceciliabeltran profile image86
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    got it charles:

    http://www.etzhaim.net/the-12-signs-of- … -of-libra/

    dust is the yetzer hara

    1. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      hmm, I didn't know of the connection between astrology and kabbalah. Interesting. I suppose yes though, as star or pixie 'dust' pertains to both. I need to read this deeper.

      smile

      James.

  21. Tumbletree profile image62
    Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago

    I was 9 years old and I looked around at adults who believed fervently in their "beliefs," but logic dictated that someone must be wrong since these adults believed opposite things. I vowed to always allow for the possibility of being in error with my beliefs. This is what a free thinker can do, he can doubt his own belief system. He can say to himself, "I think there is a God, but I could be wrong." Or "I don't think there is a God, but I could be wrong." Slowly with such doubts "reality" may come into focus, but "knowing" may actually be an impossibility for man, infinity is a pretty big space to fill up, and to try and understand. I thought for a long time like Socrates "I know nothing," but then one day, I realized listening to my father talk about Jesus coming back, and realizing that has nothing to do with the "real" world (unless we shift back and forth between similar universes) and then I know one thing, "Jesus was not going to drop out of the sky and remake the world," not in the literal manner most primitive Christian's believe.

  22. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Yeh! I was just praying to my motherboard about that! lol

    1. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol stop earnest, because that is what they do. They 'pray' to the weirdest things. Things I think theists would be scared to pray to nowadays. But hey 5,000 years ago, they were praying to meteors or comet leftovers, chiseled into half dog half men! Inanimate cyborgs? lol


      ps, how are things across the western pond?

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Calm and logical as always! Thanks for asking! smile

      2. Tumbletree profile image62
        Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's not illogical to believe in falsehoods, that's how science came about and moves forward, often by making shit up and believing in it, until a better belief comes along. It is somewhat irrational to resist the obvious, like the guys putting people in space and building atomic bombs, the scientists, understand the world better others. But its not completely irrational for someone to reject the truth because it doesn't serve their interest or survival. If people feel demeaned by a value, such as the left's social values of intelligence and knowledge, they are apt ti reject them. Why embrace a system of thought that demeans your person, because your not very smart? Or their our economic rewards to being dense, churches are little economic communities, that help their own kind out first and foremost. Doing so dumb job day in and day out, is a lot more bearable if you have heaven and church to look forward to and the knowledge that you are some how special.   And thousands of generations lived and died knowing nothing of "science." I suspect some of them were a lot happier in their mythic societies than we are in our so called truer times. I'm just saying....

        1. OutWest profile image61
          OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Funny but I thought "getting to heaven" was pretty tough.  I mean following God's word isn't easy but for atheists they only have to follow their own.

          1. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But god does not exist. So - you are following nonsense.

            No wonder it is so hard. Did you murder any witches today?sad

            1. OutWest profile image61
              OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Are you for real?..oh wait maybe you don't exist.

              1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes - I am real. Just because your Invisible Super Being does not exist - that will not make me majikally vanish.

                Still here. lol

                Disgusting religion. sad

                1. OutWest profile image61
                  OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You seem to post such ignorant messages.  If this God does not exist then what are you doing wasting your time telling everyone? And of course the biggest question...how would you know?  Of course you don't. To generalize about religion is such a cop out. And in fact I was talking about God, so because you cannot say anything about that you always seem to resort to this religion attack.  And yes you are real...a real piece of work.   It is so easy to ridicule something you know nothing about, which seems to be what you are very good at.  Why don't be on your merry way and leave the rest of us alone?  What is the reason you always want to rain on others' parade.  Is your atheist world so unsetting to you that you have no sunshine to spread? lol

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They are attracted to Christians because they want a great big fuzzy wuzzy squishy huggle  wink or its just my born again charisma..hehe

                  2. Tumbletree profile image62
                    Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Unfortunately, religion, no fundamentalism (Christian, Islam, Hindu, or other) has become a threat to all human lives. If you won't take your child to a doctor because you believe all you need to do is pray for that child, your endangering you child with ignorance; the same hold true with the our child life, and the Earth, and the future. There our rules and knowledge of science, that tell us what is happening and what will happen, and any religious belief that says other, needs to be put aside. Everyone is called to grow up sometime, to accept some cherished belief, can't be entirely true; if the person doesn't grow up they fly planes into buildings, or don't act to protect the web of life, because they believe God is going to remake the world (and God isn't) and so on...

            2. Tumbletree profile image62
              Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Evolution Guy, existence is a rather strange concept. There are so many arguments in science right now, and so serious scientist say "time" doesn't exist; some say cause and effect is an illusion. Fundamentally, when science finally figures out what the ultimate nature of reality is (if they can) I probably won't still be alive to believe in it, and if I am, I won't be smart enough to know what exist. I am smart enough and abstract enough, that my relatives, who are far simpler beings, have no clue of the world I live, of my perception of things, of who I am; so strangely I do not exist to them. I think you would be surprised to learn how much of your daily existence science says doesn't exist, except as a misinterpretation of your mind. Yes people have killed for God, but they kill for gold too, which you can't eat, you can't cloth yourself with, you do much at all useful with it (now modern technology allows you to); gold, diamonds, Van Goghs, the perceive super value of these is as much even more nonsense than God and does more harm to the world. God, can exist to a person n many ways, it can be a vehicle for tapping their intuition, or helping them over come circumstances, or give their life meaning, since science says it has no meaning and it's perfectly acceptable to kill everyone and everything, including yourself; stars and black holes do it all the time (I suspect)...if there is time.

              1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Odd. Sounds like the typical religious argument that it is OK to kill for god because people kill for money.

                I have access to all the supposed benefits of god existing in my head. But - without the nonsense and self deception that causes all the problems that come from believing that what exists in your head also exists outside and must therefore apply to everyone else.

                Therefore god does not exist as anything other than a subjective concept. Which is not the same as physical existence.

                Does that fact that believing in god gives you "purpose," negate the fact that you will burn witches and gays? Or does this not matter because you cannot prove witches exist? lol

                1. OutWest profile image61
                  OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I wish I could remember the last time I burned a homosexual or a witch, in fact I don't even know any witches.  Of course I have known of atheists who kill their spouses for the insurance.  Those atheists are so violent.  They all have sick beliefs.  Are you now proud to be an atheist?  And be part of such a sick and delusional group...I bet you are and I must say it really suites you too. lol

                  1. 0
                    Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    One couple from my parent's church resulted in murder-suicide, another resulted in the man murdering 2 women (one was his wife) and raping their corpses then burying them under the house.  The church had been trying to get their children back

                  2. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    How odd. My lack of belief in your Invisible Super Being has no bearing on how I behave. Your beliefs do have an effect on how you behave.

                    But - way to pretend Christians never burned witches and gays.

                    How is not believing in Invisible Super Beings sick and delusional exactly? If you are a representative member of Christianity - quite the opposite would seem to be true.

                  3. Gaizy profile image93
                    Gaizyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "Are you now proud to be an atheist?  And be part of such a sick and delusional group"
                    Delusional? - This is defined as believing in something that is not there. As Atheists have no beliefs, the term "dellusional" clearly doesn't apply to them.
                    Belief in fairies, goblins or gods, however fits the bill quite well.
                    On the subject of killing spouses (amongst others) Google the term "Borgias" they were "Holy" people (Popes no less!) and see what they got up to.

                2. Tumbletree profile image62
                  Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  This is no right a wrong, objectively. We have a moral sense, but everyone's moral sense is different (and coincidentally usually flattering to themselves, you meat eating bastard!), and some people don't have it at all. Our collective morality is an evolutionary product, because we survive as a group not as individuals(hence we have a need to shape the groups behavior), but those morals evolve too, there is no permanent right and wrong(right and wrong answer to the laws of survival too), and there in no consistent right and wrong within the group (genes compete and so do morals). Again people perceive right and wrong differently. But morality is like God; it's a creation of the mind, not a physical reality. If you argue that morality is real because we have a "sense" of it, well then God too must be real, because some people have a "sense" of God; actually many scientist believe that a sense of "spirituality or God" is hardwired into some people.

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Never argued any such thing actually. But - feel free to put words into my mouth. I agree - morality is a concept - as is god.

                    So - god  is not real. Thanks for agreeing.

        2. jacharless profile image82
          jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ..and rightly said. The two end of the humanism spectrum -religion and science are nothing really, but a lack of understanding. Religion does not understand the intangible being, so it creates doctrine. Science does not understand the tangible being so it creates doctrine. Both sides have their own doctrines/theories, what have you, but they cannot claim what is or is not, by the very core of their existence, meaning and purpose -that collective three is called the ego, the self.

          This is why religion and science -together or individually cause so many wars, conflicts, deaths. Compare the cumulative number of lives 'saved' by either compared to the lives lost. The former outweighs the latter nearly 10,000 to 1 (per capita).

          James.

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I can see why you would make that claim as you have already shown little to no understanding of science or theories and have been compelled to make stuff up to defend your position. smile

  23. 0
    Valemanposted 5 years ago

    It would depend on whether your beliefs have been arrived at independently or if they are the product of indoctrination by parents or a larger society.  If you by personal study and research have concluded that there is a god and that he created the universe, then this is free-thinking, because you will have made your own choice.  Very often though, the religious believe what their parents taught them to believe, without ever questioning it.

  24. Gaizy profile image93
    Gaizyposted 5 years ago

    It's not a belief; It's documented. The council of  Nicaea 325 AD - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A307487

    1. Tumbletree profile image62
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Council? So a bunch of people get together argue and argue and argue, take a vote and everyone walks away not getting their way and that makes it divinely perfect? Wow who knew that Obamacare was divine perfection.

  25. Gaizy profile image93
    Gaizyposted 5 years ago

    BTW Does this mean you are OK with the mistranslations, ambiguities and forgeries?

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      and that's only the ones they know about because they've been able to find records to compare

    2. Tumbletree profile image62
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fiction is constantly rewritten. The Bible's stories are largely based on older stories. There's little factual truth in them, mostly metaphoric truth. And so real ugliness too.

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree, totally.
        But I'm free to do that!
        The Bible actually has REAL historic truth in it.
        It depends on what you read and what you believe out of what you read, as to what conclusions you come too.

        1. Tumbletree profile image62
          Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, you can believe what ever you want to believe, and call it truth if you want to; but sadly in doing so, you deny yourself. Just like when someone has a disdain for "believers" they attack their ancestors, the people they come from; well you are attacking your ancestors, the people you come from. But that is an old story, people believing what they want to believe.  People like you have killed each other in the name of different gods for ten of thousands of years. Go on hating you reflection. Go on not believing in your existence, people who walk this earth, just like you, so long ago and who dreamed up the stories that were retold, and retold, and became something else over time. Why don't you try it. Try getting some people together. Take one story out of the Bible, tell it orally to another person, then have that person tell it to another and so on. Your not allowed to write it down. Your only allowed to pass it on orally. See how long it takes before the story changes. The Bible stories were oral before they were written. The epic of Gilgamesh predates the Biblical story of the flood by 5000 years (well something like that).

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So, what did you read that gave you this opinion of the Bible.

            Not reliable sources, most likely.

            But, if you are a free thinker, you can make up your own thoughts and just believe them instead of actual research.

            Which you are free to do, of course.

            1. Tumbletree profile image62
              Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Right, academia is all a vast conspiracy against the one truth of God. You don't have to have much observation of the world to realize that science explains it far better than religion; any...with the possible exception of some Eastern philosophies; that is if you take them metaphorically; but I guess that is true of the Bible too. It's a great tapestry of wisdom if one doesn't read it as a child does.

              This is the thing. The view fundamentalists teach of the Bible can be understood by a child; science takes decades to master, and no one can begin to know but a fraction of it.   

              I don't know what you want? If you want to go on believing what you believe, go ahead, my brother. It gives your life meaning and purpose, all the better. If it fills you with joy and love, what more can you ask?

              I know every little, but I've had to make my way in life, like others, and had to learn who to listen to, and who not. I've learned that if I have a heart problem a cardiologist is the one to go to. If I have a trouble with my truck, I go to a mechanic. My dad's a plumber and I'll listen to him about plumbing; but he's also a fundamentalist and when he speaks about science all he shows is his ignorance. I've many friends with PHD's. They are good people; they are skeptical people, they don't embrace an idea because it make them feel good, they look for proof. They've a lifetime of doing this, so I listen to them.

              Did you ever consider the possibility that God is bigger than you think he is; that truth is a well so deep that it has no bottom; that there is always a layer below the layer you think you know?  That God is beyond the infinite infinities science speculates on; even beyond its "zero; and that God can't be placed within any form or truth man had conceived?

            2. psycheskinner profile image79
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Um. It is pretty well established when different gospels got recorded and that they were, at best, hundreds of years after the alleged fact.  So suggesting that they follow an oral tradition is actually the most generous of the alternatives.

              I find it deeply weird that I seem to know more about the history and context of the Bible than many people who consider it their holy book.  And that is just because I like to watch PBS.

  26. Gaizy profile image93
    Gaizyposted 5 years ago

    I just know that you're going to ask for the information source on the "Forgeries" thing - There are loads - Try this one: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 919AAwpCvg

    You're welcome

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this
  27. Cagsil profile image83
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Free thinkers?

    This is the first time I have actually posted to this thread and I am not surprised at most of the things I have read in this, what presently is 13 pages long, thread.

    Every human being on the planet is a free thinker, simply because they have gained consciousness(awareness of themselves, which gave them the ability to recognize their own thoughts).

    The biggest problem is with the practice and perpetuation of mysticism type philosophies, which are at the basis of many ideological/theological explanations. Mysticism is dishonesty in action. Thus, making it morally wrong or immoral, as some like to say.

    Many will argue, from a religious stance, some from a mystic's stance and even some will attempt to argue about what truly is factual. They will even go to the extend to dismiss truth, to get to their arrived destination(feeding their own ignorance).

    Humankind has many concepts, theories, philosophies, religions and sciences, and they are all backed by one self-fulfilling dogma. They are all bound by Free Thinkers.

    So far, there happens to be one person on this thread, which I don't think anyone caught on to?, which made the claim that science discovers nothing which isn't already in existence. So, in essence, science only reveals that which it looks for, using it's method.

    From what I gather, the information people seek, the real truth they want is inside their own head already, it's just that they haven't figured out how to access that information at this particular time. Now, this train of thought would be nice, and has creditability, only because humans do not presently use all of their brain's power. So, the possibility of it be true? Sure, why not. The likelihood it is true, is as far fetch as the existence of a god. It would be like saying, "everything you learned over the course of your life, was already known to you, but by you experiencing for the first time during your life, you come to know it. It was there already, but you discovered it. The only example I can give, would be related to talented people and their ability to do their talent.

    However, last time I checked, the talent aspect of humans, come from the right side of the brain, which doesn't reason. It's a sponge on steroids, with regards to learning and retaining. How could a child have the ability(talent) to draw a picture, just by looking at it? There would be no real foundation fundamentally, for that child to draw the picture? So, how did the child draw the picture? Talent. It requires no conscious effort. But, where did the drawing(talent) come from? Could the knowledge, experience and previously practiced ability already be known? Just a thought for you free thinkers.

    Everyone is a free thinker. It cannot be avoided. There are just some who choose ignorance over learning.

    1. Tumbletree profile image62
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You can't change the definition of "free thinker" to mean something else and then argue from there; which your argument makes the term meaningless, and we should remove it from the our language and never ever use it. But we do because it doesn't mean everyone. It means among other things, people who are not bound by dogma.

      While science does indeed define what is already their to doesn't describe everything, yet. What we know floats on a sea of unknowns. Human perception may yet still be looking beyond it's capacities. I was long torn between my ability to see the future, to glimpse it occasionally, and my rational understand that it doesn't exist yet, and hence can't be seen. Now science is finally starting to prove that it is possible to glimpse the future. Who know what else the mind sees of senses that seems nonsense but has an underlying truth. Our future selves or future intelligences may be nothing less than Gods to us, and what if that are less bound in time than we are in space? I'm just saying....

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I guess then you don't know what "Free Thinker" actually is. You just know the distorted version.
        lol Maybe you should look up the word "dogma". lol
        I didn't say it did. Science has covered a lot of knowledge, but yes we don't know everything. Did you plan on making a point with this statement, or did you type it for some mysterious reason? roll
        Actually, that would be a misrepresentation of what we know. Shame, you cannot tell the difference.
        I would say that "perception" isn't properly used by more than 80% of the world's population. But, I don't expect you to understand.
        I am not sure what this has to do with anything. If people want to see their future, then I would suggest that they put their life on a path, which allows them to do so.
        Science has nothing to do with it actually. It's an individual power of conscious thought, but a little more complex than that simple explanation. However, conscious thought is the basis.
        The conscious mind absorbs all information, as long as perception is used properly.
        If you would like to take it to the extreme, then do so. Einstein did, but to him it was his imagination at work.

        However, I am curious what made you post a reply to my post, when you NEVER touched on what I actually said, with anything substantial? Then again, it doesn't actually matter. So, don't bother. It was my only post to this thread and I was pointing out something that someone else said. Ironically, you didn't bother to read all of the post, before replying with your supposed response. Good to know you jump before you look where you're jumping. It will help my learning curve in future conversations with you.

        1. Tumbletree profile image62
          Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You can define the word "free thinker" to mean "thinker" if you wish. For myself though, it then become a perfectly meaningless phrase. I define "free thinker" as a relative phrase; identifying within some group members who's thinking is more imaginative, broader, or less bound by common assumptions, morals, and norms. But if you want a flat-Earther, Nazi, and Einstein all to be equal in their "free thinking" so be it. define the concept however you choose.

          My point was a bit abstract. You accused mysticism and so forth as being immoral, which is to say, all our ancestors were immoral, that people with low IQ's are immoral since they can't understand "truer" abstractions. But morality is just a myth. The point I was alluding to while also trying to defend the virtue of all our ancestors. was that science has a limited knowledge. People tend to think it defines what isn't was well as what is. But science only defines what is can define, and those definitions rest in a sea of the unknown.

          Now I apologies for doing a little cutting and pasting here but I hate trying to rewrite a protracted thought that I just wrote (similar) somewhere else.

          I don't think I can wade in on a discussion of epistomology and not look like a fool; I don't have a PHD in philosophy, but again I will say that all we have are "concepts" that allow prediction of "other," but that our concepts are not other, and there is no way to make certain our concepts for other are accurate. "You can't open the watch." I could be a brain in a jar being fed sensations; this whole world could be a virtual world (there are very smart scientists argue this possibility), or I could be a God dreaming, and so many other possibilities. "Absolute knowledge" maybe an impossibility but "practical knowledge" is what empowers (not certain if that is the right word) us day to day. We can believe the heavens are Heaven and walk about, hunt, plant food, and survive. But to get to the moon, we need at least the Newtonian knowledge of gravity, but the Newtonian knowledge of gravity will not work for GPS. And Einstein's knowledge of gravity may not be true at other extremes; it doesn't play well with quantum mechanics (as everyone knows); So in the absolute sense science has been this long sequence of "useful" but mistaken beliefs. Further, this so called knowledge well I don't know it. I experience light as a sensation not a mathematical/physics concept. I can't understand relativity, no one can who can't do the math. I don't know what an electron is. I don't know what time is. I don't know.

          Actually putting one self on a path, does not determine their future; choas still applies, and much is beyond their control or influence, but it does of course increase the odds; it it probabilities that govern rational choices. You can have an illness and choose to go to a doctor, choose to research the doctors and find the best one, and best hospital, but regardless of how properly you choose your path, you can still die from the common cold- it is possible. 

          "Actually, that would be a misrepresentation of what we know. Shame, you cannot tell the difference." I don't know what you are referring to here. 

          Anyways....

        2. Tumbletree profile image62
          Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You can define the word "free thinker" to mean "thinker" if you wish. For myself though, it then become a perfectly meaningless phrase. I define "free thinker" as a relative phrase; identifying within some group members who's thinking is more imaginative, broader, or less bound by common assumptions, morals, and norms. But if you want a flat-Earther, Nazi, and Einstein all to be equal in their "free thinking" so be it. define the concept however you choose.

          My point was a bit abstract. You accused mysticism and so forth as being immoral, which is to say, all our ancestors were immoral, that people with low IQ's are immoral since they can't understand "truer" abstractions. But morality is just a myth. The point I was alluding to while also trying to defend the virtue of all our ancestors. was that science has a limited knowledge. People tend to think it defines what isn't was well as what is. But science only defines what is can define, and those definitions rest in a sea of the unknown.

          Now I apologies for doing a little cutting and pasting here but I hate trying to rewrite a protracted thought that I just wrote (similar) somewhere else.

          I don't think I can wade in on a discussion of epistomology and not look like a fool; I don't have a PHD in philosophy, but again I will say that all we have are "concepts" that allow prediction of "other," but that our concepts are not other, and there is no way to make certain our concepts for other are accurate. "You can't open the watch." I could be a brain in a jar being fed sensations; this whole world could be a virtual world (there are very smart scientists argue this possibility), or I could be a God dreaming, and so many other possibilities. "Absolute knowledge" maybe an impossibility but "practical knowledge" is what empowers (not certain if that is the right word) us day to day. We can believe the heavens are Heaven and walk about, hunt, plant food, and survive. But to get to the moon, we need at least the Newtonian knowledge of gravity, but the Newtonian knowledge of gravity will not work for GPS. And Einstein's knowledge of gravity may not be true at other extremes; it doesn't play well with quantum mechanics (as everyone knows); So in the absolute sense science has been this long sequence of "useful" but mistaken beliefs. Further, this so called knowledge well I don't know it. I experience light as a sensation not a mathematical/physics concept. I can't understand relativity, no one can who can't do the math. I don't know what an electron is. I don't know what time is. I don't know.

          Actually putting one self on a path, does not determine their future; choas still applies, and much is beyond their control or influence, but it does of course increase the odds; it it probabilities that govern rational choices. You can have an illness and choose to go to a doctor, choose to research the doctors and find the best one, and best hospital, but regardless of how properly you choose your path, you can still die from the common cold- it is possible. 

          "Actually, that would be a misrepresentation of what we know. Shame, you cannot tell the difference." I don't know what you are referring to here. 

          Anyways....

    2. Tumbletree profile image62
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You can't change the definition of "free thinker" to mean something else and then argue from there; which your argument makes the term meaningless, and we should remove it from the our language and never ever use it. But we do because it doesn't mean everyone. It means among other things, people who are not bound by dogma.

      While science does indeed define what is already their to doesn't describe everything, yet. What we know floats on a sea of unknowns. Human perception may yet still be looking beyond it's capacities. I was long torn between my ability to see the future, to glimpse it occasionally, and my rational understand that it doesn't exist yet, and hence can't be seen. Now science is finally starting to prove that it is possible to glimpse the future. Who know what else the mind sees of senses that seems nonsense but has an underlying truth. Our future selves or future intelligences may be nothing less than Gods to us, and what if that are less bound in time than we are in space? I'm just saying....

    3. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is a myth. The brain is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. We can look at any one portion of the brain to see that. The hypothalamus releases hormones and controls many biological routines, the Medulla controls motor functions and deals with sensory information, etc. etc.

      You would need to explain what part of the brain is not working to it's capacity or function? smile

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, I don't, but I don't expect you to understand and I don't have the inclination to help you understand, considering from many of your posts, it shows that you're not actually up for learning anything. roll

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi cagsil. Nice to see you back in rare form after your sabbatical. Unfortunately, I must inform you it is commonly agreed that Beelzedad is right on this one. That 10% thing is just a myth. Unless you're speaking of something else, which would be very interesting to hear.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Can be right on occasion. However, "commonly agreed"? is a stretch to say the least. You would be lucky if 10% of the population would agree on anything. lol
            Yes, if you were only talking about the brain by itself, however, the mind is part of the brain, and the mind's capacity is the limited part of the brain that isn't used to it's fullness.
            The brain and the mind work in combination with one another. But there are limits to usage of both, because the brain limits the mind and the mind limits the brain.

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It isn't about an appeal to popularity fallacy, it is about posting a myth.



              Really? Can you explain the differences between the mind and the brain and how exactly one capacity is limited from the other? Or, are you talking philosophy?




              Please explain yourself. Tell us exactly how that works and explain what the mind is compared to the brain, how the two are not the same thing? How does one limit the other?

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You have amazed me cagsil. I wouldn't have thought you would argue a duelist approach when speaking of the mind and body.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                hmm

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It was a compliment. I like the way you think. smile

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you have some personal issue, Cagsil? You posted a myth and this is the behavior you exhibit? What is your problem, pal?

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. But, most of the posters on Hubpages know you do, just by reading your posts.
            Myth? In your mind maybe. The "behavior" you supposedly see? Isn't actually anything. I simply stated truth about your actions, nothing more.
            I don't have a problem, but from your posts, seen by many, shows you do. lol

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ah yes, the appeal to authority fallacy.



              That's odd, seems more like a personal rant based on the fact you posted a myth and are attacking me instead of dealing with your claim.



              Again, appeal to authority fallacy. Explain yourself. Tell my what problems I have. I have no problem taking you on in any subject or topic without posting myths. smile

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No appeal to authority fallacy. Your actions speak for you. No further explanation needed.
                Actually, it's not a personal rant. You answered a post, which I was talking about someone else. You interjected based on your own ego, when you haven't even a clue who I was talking about.
                I am sure. Your ego would love it, however, I am not a sadist, to attempt to battle wits with someone who is unarmed to begin with. Like the old saying goes "don't converse with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Enough said.

  28. Shadesbreath profile image90
    Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago

    Cagsil, are you chanelling your inner Jung a little today? Thought I saw some flashes in there about mid way.  lol.  smile

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really Shades? You're joking I hope. I don't even know who that is, much less, channel anything. I seem to be in tune though. lol

  29. getitrite profile image81
    getitriteposted 5 years ago

    A book is just a book, is just a book.  Think outside the book.

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That goes for ANY book.
      Try telling your professor your answer to his exam was not wrong, you were just thinking outside (his text) book.

  30. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Do you ever listen?

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course he does.

      To HIMSELF! lol lol lol

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That was aimed at you Mr dj. sad

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I see!

          Well, when you have something worth listening to, I will.

          Wars, conflict and fights plug my ears REAL quick.
          Just because you repeat yourself, doesn't mean you're actually saying anything.

          1. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I do have something worth listening to. You are too busy defending your belief system to do so. sad

            1. Jerami profile image79
              Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are too smart to NOT know that you are doing the same thing as everyone else.

                You are defending your belief system as if your life depended on it.

                Everybody is doing it to some degree.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hey Jerami, again you speak for other people and you shouldn't be doing it, because you do not know what beliefs are actually being spread, or if the people are simply offering opinions, and/or if someone is speaking based on knowledge and experience.

                So, for you to claim that EVO is expressing a belief? Is you assuming something without actually knowing or understanding.

                Just a thought.

                1. Jerami profile image79
                  Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If people are expressing their opinions is that not the same as expressing their beliefs?

                     I also think that everyone has knowledge based upon their knowledge and experience?

                     And yes I was expressing my belief of what I thought EVO was doing based upon my knowledge and experience.

                     It seems like everyone is doing that because no matter how hard we try ;   we just don't seem to be able to Quiddit.

                  Everybody is doing it.

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    But, how do YOU know the difference? Which is my point.
                    I'm sure you think something.
                    Apparently, your knowledge and experience has failed you. Your own words defeat you, as per usual.
                    Actually, that's just your ill-conceived perception.
                    Untrue.

              2. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No. I am not. I do not "believe" that your religion causes conflicts. I know it for a fact. How is this defending a belief system?

  31. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    It seems that the act of "listening"  is not contagous here on the forums.
       I know we have been exposed cause some people are doing it. But not many.


      The act of listening is an art form, which requires much efort to master.

    1. Tumbletree profile image62
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I stand guilty as charged!

  32. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 5 years ago

    I see neither of you actually revealed the sources of your opinion about the historical accuracy of the Bible.
    Tumbletree skirts around it by citing science is the key, not religion.
    Whilst psycheskinner watches PBS to get the history of the Bible.

    My question was about the authenticity, accuracy and reliability of the Bible, (historically speaking, not whether you believe it to be "the Word of God" or not).

    1. Tumbletree profile image62
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't have to site anything. I won't. I won't argue with a flat-Earther. I don't have to be able to do trig and measure shadows to know the Earth is round. If you want to argue against science go to a university and argue with scientists. Believe who you want to believe. I choose to believe science and history. The world was never flooded. Moses couldn't have lived in the time of Ramesses. References to god only go back 5000 years or so, while the mother Goddess is over a 100,000 years old. All the miracles in the Bible are just stories or their day. Ten thousand years from now, who know, maybe people will think Spider Man was real, because there are ancient evidence of it.

      I'm sorry dude, but that's the end of this conversation, for me. Good luck.

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You carry a lot of baggage.
        BTW, I'm not a flat earther. big_smile

 
working