[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by Type R

Animals are pretty moral within their own groupings - lephants, lions, etc, they take care of their families and do not abuse children, elderly.

There isn't any probable degree of truth that even the animals have influence from God to behave thus? The bible seems to say that even the birds give glory to God-that at times man need to learn lessons from the animals for morality sake.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Jibril Cessay

Religion doesn't give anyone the chance to be a free thinker. Religion is not very rational especially when it come to deciding whether a deed should be done to save money or assuage a pain.

Jibril, is it possible for me to choose to be a religious person without being told I'm falling into the trap of mental slavery?

Originally Posted by Jibril Cessay

Did u hear the case a month ago of an 11 year diabetic girl who died from Diabetic shock? Her parents were fervent Christians. Instead of reviving their daughter with sugar water or orange juice, they insisted on praying for their daughter. ANy rational being would have revived their child but someone took PRAY UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS a step further, causing the death of their loved one.

ABC News: Parents' Faith Fails to Save Diabetic Girl

I heard about it, it was sad. But you don't blame the map if a driver gets lost.

Originally Posted by Jibril Cessay

As for homosexuality, let people be. There are different kinds of love and we should not be the judges of what is right between people who share a special chemistry.

Jibril, you first have to show that is acceptable behavior before telling us its okay to let them be. Otherwise why view incest between two consenting adults an unacceptable act?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by truuth

In this world there's only you. You have to find a place where you fit despite the (what I call the noise) of the world. It doesn’t matter what the world thinks of anything, ie homosexuality or abortion or life in general. What I think matters is what and how you think and feel about this.

This works only in theory. If I feel I have a right to do cocaine or heroine, then it shouldn't matter what anybody else thinks, right?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Type R

To answer your question, the moment you decide "I am religious" then you have closed the door. The door can't be open and closed at the same time. Make up your mind.

That's a great analogy, but let's say you weigh as many options as you can before you enter the door and close it. Are you still a free thinker?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Type R

Ndigila's problem is that of morality without God. I have indicated before that morality - ie a social standard of behaviour - does not need religion. Animals are pretty moral within their own groupings - lephants, lions, etc, they take care of their families and do not abuse children, elderly.

Not necessarily, my problem is that majority of those who call themselves free thinkers, despite their diversity, always come to similar conclusions with similar arguments (even if those arguments are emotional and would otherwise be considered irrational).

Originally Posted by Type R

"God" was appended to morality and made to seem as its essence. Morality preceded the concept of "god". Man has to live in society, and there must be rules.

That is an unproved assertion. Man has always attributed morality to a god. To prove your statement, you first have to show how the concept of morality evolved before the concept of a god.

Originally Posted by Type R

Morality" is a fiction, it should be "moralities" ... plural!!! For example, in Maasailand, a young man can just plant a spear in front of his brother's hut and ravish his sister-in-law. Imagine trying that out in Buru Buru, or Los Angeles!!!

So, do the people in LA have the right to tell people in Maasailand that that particular action is wrong?
If yes, why?
If no, then why do societies 'impose' their moralities on others? Why should certain societies in Kenya be told to seize FGM? Why are those Mormons in Texas been hassled because of their polygamy?

[t.D.A.]

Originally Posted by ndigila

The following post is based on my observation and interactions. As a result it may appear to be an over-generalization.

Time and time again, people have attributed my belief in God to some sort of mental slavery. I've even been told once on this forum that it's impossible to be a Christian without being a mental slave. These people claim that freedom from religion allows someone to fully utilize his critical thinking skills. So the question is, is this critical thinking ability being used?

Drunkenness: Can anybody justify the act of getting drunk, apart from the fact that it feels good? And does this good feeling outweigh the negatives that drunkenness has on your body?

The following are the main arguments I've heard defending homosexuality.
1. Homosexuals are born homosexuals
2. Consenting adults can do whatever they want in their privacy
Can someone tell me why these arguments are valid?

The following are the main arguments for abortion.
1. The baby is not human yet.
2. A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body
Are these as a result of critical thinking or are they emotional subjective arguments?

Why is it that majority of free thinkers, despite their diversity, share similar opinions about these issues? Why do many free thinkers don't have a problem with fornication in a country in which AIDS is a national disaster? Are these people really free?

I think mental freedom is impossible if mental freedom is defined as:

"The ability to make judgments on everything from an objective, unattached vantage point."

My personal opinion is that a lot of what we believe in or stand for, we get an emotional attachment to first and then we backward rationalize - create reasons for why we feel the way we do - afterwards.

I do find it rather odd when people point the finger at Christians as "restricted" when clearly every human being has standards and restrictions in not only what they think about but what they do, not just legal and moral ones but things such as:
a) Most people don't just kill people they don't like; in spite of the fact that once upon a time this would have been perfectly normal in many parts of the world.
b) With the exception of a very small minority, that I must say I don't wish to understand, most people would not consider having a romantic relationship with a child while an adult....amongst others.

Personally I feel that the whole "mental slavery" thing is just the result of people developing negative associations to Christians and Christianity at some point in their lives and adding reasons and justifications for feeling the way they do.

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by t.D.A.

Personally I feel that the whole "mental slavery" thing is just the result of people developing negative associations to Christians and Christianity at some point in their lives and adding reasons and justifications for feeling the way they do.

It is arguably justified that no atheist can arrive at the mental acceptance of atheisms irrationally. That facts about all religious believes are first presented, then out of deductions they rationally accept the concept of a no god.

The same fundamental reasoning could be applied to an agnostic individual who deduces facts and decided to remain in an ignorance position..

So, if finally anyone arrives at the final destination of a belief system acceptable to him/her, it wouldn't be rational to point fingers that some are mental slaves.

[ATLian]

Let's first define a freethinker. A free thinker is someone who subscribes to the notion of free thought, which (to quote Wikipedia since they seem to have the best definition) "is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma." A freethinker will tell you it's wrong to stone a woman to death because she had sex with someone she wasn't married to. A Christian and a Muslim will tell you it's the right thing to do because their gods said so. One arrived at his conclusion by logically thinking things out, while the other blindly followed the dogma written in his religion's holy books.

From the definition alone, I'd assume that most intelligent people would like to be freethinkers in all aspects of their lives. You want to buy Car X because you have rationally researched it's pros and cons, and not because you have a gut feeling that it's the best car. You want to have the doctor properly diagnose that discomfort in your body, and not just use emotions to assume what it is. You want to elect your next leader coz you have carefully scrutinized him and not just because you blindly follow the rhetoric dogmas issued by his party. etc.

A major difference between atheists and Christians is atheists are freethinkers in all aspects of their lives including religion, while Christians are freethinkers in all aspects of their lives apart from religion. It's therefore funny for them to take shots at atheists when they are essentially 99.999% alike!

[ATLian]

Why is it that majority of free thinkers, despite their diversity, share similar opinions about these issues?

Because, like the definition says above, they have most likely arrived at that conclusion "on the basis of science and logic" and not through "emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma".



The following are the main arguments I've heard defending homosexuality.
1. Homosexuals are born homosexuals
2. Consenting adults can do whatever they want in their privacy
Can someone tell me why these arguments are valid?

I assume that by asking your question (Can someone tell me why these arguments are valid?), it means that you view the two reasons as being invalid. Just wondering why the thought of someone being born homosexual seems invalid to you. Or why you'd have an issue if two adult men consensually had gay sex in the privacy of their own homes.



Why do many free thinkers don't have a problem with fornication in a country in which AIDS is a national disaster?

How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion?

I have absolutely no issue with sex at all, as long as it is between consenting adults. The sex, number of people involved, as well as their marital status, doesn't matter to me. There should be no government laws prohibiting it. That said, I know that there are very many negative repercussions that come from wanton fornication, especially between the uneducated. By uneducated, I mean uneducated in terms of how disease is spread, pregnancy, etc, and not ati having a college degree.

So as much as I have no problem with sex, I do have a problem with (for lack of a better term) uneducated sex, because of the negative repercussions that arise from it. If all those people f.ucked each other with condoms (thus limiting the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies), and if those who were dogging did it discretely (thus preventing their spouses from finding out and the problems that arise from the families then breaking up), sex really wouldn't be an issue.



Are these people really free?

Yes, free from religious shackles! You have absolutely no idea how it feels to think for yourself and view things rationally instead of dogmatically until you leave religion behind! Free to hold my baby girl and tell her she'e beautiful and innocent, and not do like the Christian and tell her she's an evil monster who will burn in hell forever unless she repents her sins and accepts Christ as her personal saviour!

[ATLian]

Why would atheists insist therefore that religious thinkers are not free thinkers? I am a religious thinker out of rational thoughts...is it a slavery still?

Grip,

because you believe in something whose conclusion you did not arrive at through science and logic, but through tradition and dogma! Again, like I wrote a while back, you believe in what the Bible says only because the Bible says it.

You are a rational thinker but not when it comes to your religion! You actually believe that women are inferior to men only because your bible said so! etc.