# Freethinking



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Freethinking is a different way of thinking. Instead of allowing yourself to believe in tradition, religion, or higher authority, you believe in logic and reasoning to solve everyday problems.
This way of thinking is foreign for many, and indeed, may even be foreign to the human brain. We are wired to make purely emotional decisions, which explains partially why religions exist in such abundance. Humanity needs it's soul fed, otherwise we stagnate. This is perhaps obvious, and organized religion can serve this purpose, but for the most part it merely controls people lives, tells them they are evil, and gives them a useful scapegoat called the Devil. 
However, freethinking, from what I've read so far, requires a huge amount of dedication and responsibility. Instead of taking a religious figures word for anything, you're obligated to find all the answers, and the questions, yourself. 
OK, I think I have irritated all the religious folk. Let the fur fly!


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Logic, reasoning and not emotional that makes the government problematic and I certainly agree nothing that comes from government should be accepted at face value. Any and all actions should be questioned.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

In a way you've described Buddhism. While many people may worship Buddha, he's not to be worshiped.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Buddhism is different from freethinking in that it embraces some irrational beliefs. Freethinking doesn't do that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

FourDeuce said:


> Buddhism is different from freethinking in that it embraces some irrational beliefs. Freethinking doesn't do that.


What's the difference between mindfullness and freethinking? They're both parts of a whole. What's the difference the between conscious and unconscious thought?

Thinking isn't free at all. It's tightly bound no matter how out of the box you think it is.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Darren said:


> In a way you've described Buddhism. While many people may worship Buddha, he's not to be worshiped.


Sort of, because Buddhism is much looser than Christianity or Islam. But freethinking is similar to empiricism (?), using only quantifiable data for answers. Obviously, it doesn't answer everything. For example some people say they've seen ghosts.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Darren said:


> What's the difference between mindfullness and freethinking? They're both parts of a whole. What's the difference the between conscious and unconscious thought?
> 
> Thinking isn't free at all. It's tightly bound no matter how out of the box you think it is.


There are many different degrees of "tightness".


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Freethinking is a different way of thinking. Instead of allowing yourself to believe in tradition, religion, or higher authority, you believe in logic and reasoning to solve everyday problems.
> This way of thinking is foreign for many, and indeed, may even be foreign to the human brain. We are wired to make purely emotional decisions, which explains partially why religions exist in such abundance. Humanity needs it's soul fed, otherwise we stagnate. This is perhaps obvious, and organized religion can serve this purpose, but for the most part it merely controls people lives, tells them they are evil, and gives them a useful scapegoat called the Devil.
> However, freethinking, from what I've read so far, requires a huge amount of dedication and responsibility. Instead of taking a religious figures word for anything, you're obligated to find all the answers, and the questions, yourself.
> OK, I think I have irritated all the religious folk. Let the fur fly!


Well then use your free thinking to explain rationally to me how life could arise spontaneously from non living matter.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Also, freethinking would hold that you find the answer yourself. In order to believe creationism, one must reject evolution systematically, and vise versa.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well then use your free thinking to explain rationally to me how life could arise spontaneously from non living matter.


You are mistaking freethinking with your Straw Man arguments. Freethinking doesn't mean a person claims to know everything. That's religion.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> You are mistaking freethinking with your Straw Man arguments. Freethinking doesn't mean a person claims to know everything. That's religion.


What Straw Man arguments did I make ?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Lots of speculation there....


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> Freethinking is a different way of thinking. Instead of allowing yourself to believe in tradition, religion, or higher authority, you believe in logic and reasoning to solve everyday problems.
> This way of thinking is foreign for many, and indeed, may even be foreign to the human brain. We are wired to make purely emotional decisions, which explains partially why religions exist in such abundance. Humanity needs it's soul fed, otherwise we stagnate. This is perhaps obvious, and organized religion can serve this purpose, but for the most part it merely controls people lives, tells them they are evil, and gives them a useful scapegoat called the Devil.
> However, freethinking, from what I've read so far, requires a huge amount of dedication and responsibility. Instead of taking a religious figures word for anything, you're obligated to find all the answers, and the questions, yourself.
> OK, I think I have irritated all the religious folk. Let the fur fly!


Get in touch when you have the answers.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> What Straw Man arguments did I make ?


The one I quoted where you asked somebody to "use your free thinking to explain rationally to me how life could arise spontaneously from non living matter."
That Straw Man.:stars:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Lots of speculation there....


Yeah, that's what science does when the answers to some questions are not known, as opposed to what religion does when answers are not known- just base guesses on old books of stories.:hysterical:


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I'm not sure what the difference is between "freethinking" and what people who don't have religious beliefs practice every day. I would also argue that even most logical, rational decisions need to have some thought put into the emotional part of the equation, or we all turn into a bunch of self-serving sociopaths. 

As an aside, some of the most annoying people I know are "logical, rational, non-emotional" atheists. I've often found them to be even more (anti)bible-thumpy than religious bible-thumpers. There, now I've irritated almost everyone (except you agnostics, you're ok). One-upped you.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> The one I quoted where you asked somebody to "use your free thinking to explain rationally to me how life could arise spontaneously from non living matter."
> That Straw Man.:stars:


The op states that free thinking is logical and then it implied that belief in the supernatural is not logical.

So I simply asked for a rational explanation for the origin of life. 

.... and the answer i received was purely speculation.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Also, freethinking would hold that you find the answer yourself. In order to believe creationism, one must reject evolution systematically, and vise versa.


Well not really... the origins debate includes what is known as intelligent design theory. Intelligent design is free of religious content, is unable to identify who the creator or designer is, and does not exclude the possibility of evolution.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well not really... the origins debate includes what is known as intelligent design theory. Intelligent design is free of religious content, is unable to identify who the creator or designer is, and does not exclude the possibility of evolution.


It's a subject I typically avoid because of the amount of confusion and headache it entails. Oh look, I just countered my OP by saying I try not to think about it! Some take the ultra-science option, the Big Bang theory ( see the thread), others take the religious and traditional route of religious explanations. In any case, it requires a certain amount of faith to accept. Personally, I think creation is possible, and is the "prettier" option, and also I find evolution plausible, but most of me refuses to believe I evolved from a freaking monkey.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Well the intelligent design design argument is an old argument that goes way back at least to Aristotle. But there is a modern version of it which arose as a result of science's ability to look out into outer space and also to look inside living cells and fully comprehend the inner functioning at the molecular level.

Since back in the early 90's there has been a scientific revolution in the fields of molecular biology and molecular genetics. Scientific revolution occurs when significant new information challenges old orthodoxy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> It's a subject I typically avoid because of the amount of confusion and headache it entails. Oh look, I just countered my OP by saying I try not to think about it! Some take the ultra-science option, the Big Bang theory ( see the thread), others take the religious and traditional route of religious explanations. In any case, it requires a certain amount of faith to accept. Personally, I think creation is possible, and is the "prettier" option, and also I find evolution plausible, but most of me refuses to believe I evolved from a freaking monkey.


This is good .... because you are now free thinking .... you are being open minded.

You are open to reasonable possibilities.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> This is good .... because you are now free thinking .... you are being open minded.
> 
> You are open to reasonable possibilities.


One can safely assume it's much harder than it looks. Going against personal opinions, dogma, and tradition can be difficult. However, it is, I believe, the way we can learn and grow the best. Or is my opinion of freethinking based on emotion which renders this illogical?:knitting:


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

To be considered freethinking do you have to agree with other freethinkers? If so is your thinking really free? I am very freethinking simply because I will not allow myself to be pigeon holed by others who claim to be freethinkers.
As far as the denial of religion goes is that the same as the denial of faith?
I am not a religious person but I am a person of faith. The idea that a person of faith can not be a freethinker is in itself a bias that is as repressive as the religions the freethinkers seem to think they are free from. How can a biased person be a freethinker?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

There was a book written by an atheist back in the early 80's. The author is Michael Denton. Michael Denton is both a medical doctor and has a PhD in molecular genetics. The title of his book is Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. The purpose of his book was not to refute evolution as a viable theory but to demonstrate that the current evidence supporting the theory was significantly faulted.

I have studied origins since back in the mid 90's and interestingly you run across scientists who eventually converted from evolutionists to creationists because they read this book.

Now Denton just finished a new book titled Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. Denton is still an atheist or maybe becoming slightly agnostic ?
His first book was written prior to the scienitific revolution of the 90's which I spoke of in this thread. His second book was written after and addresses all of this new information that has been discovered.

I visit an intelligent design blog almost every day and have been doing so since 2005 when I first became computer literate. This blog is very scholarly and frankly I am not intelligent enough to post but I can read and comprehend the arguments. Most posters have advanced degrees from all the disciplines. There are philosophers astronomers mathematicians and 
geologists biologists and experts in information sciences etc. The posters are Agnostics, deists, friendly atheists, and representatives from all religions. Intelligent design is friendly to all beliefs because the creator of designer can not be identified.

Link to blog

http://www.uncommondescent.com/


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well not really... the origins debate includes what is known as intelligent design theory. Intelligent design is free of religious content, is unable to identify who the creator or designer is, and does not exclude the possibility of evolution.


Does intelligent design presume there is a creator or a designer?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Does intelligent design presume there is a creator or a designer?


Intelligent design infers that there is an intelligent manipulator of matter


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Intelligent design infers that there is an intelligent manipulator of matter


 Then it starts with a conclusion and *by that definition alone*, cannot be characterized as science. 

Science never starts with a conclusion. It goes where actual evidence leads.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

I want to discuss laboratory attempts to recreate life. Back in the 50's scientists began to experiment to recreate life in the laboratory. Those experiments were crude attempts to mix shake and bake the elements found in cells with hopes that they would somehow combine to form life. They were assuming or hypothesizing how life might have formed in nature and then mimicking those events in the lab.

Now the attempts to produce life are very sophisticated. Actually they are using a technique called reverse engineering. The molecular structure of a cell is now fully comprehended so they use careful laboratory techniques to attempt to make a copy of a cell.

But so far no luck .... and even if they made a functioning copy of a cell they would not have proved that it could be done as a result of random forces in nature operating on innate elements.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Then it starts with a conclusion and *by that definition alone*, cannot be characterized as science.
> 
> Science never starts with a conclusion. It goes where actual evidence leads.


Really !!!!

Well actually science starts with a conclusion.... The assumption that the physical world can be rationally explained.

Science is nothing more than assumed materialism

.... it is assumed atheism 

That is the conclusion


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> I want to discuss laboratory attempts to recreate life. Back in the 50's scientists began to experiment to recreate life in the laboratory. Those experiments were crude attempts to mix shake and bake the elements found in cells with hopes that they would somehow combine to form life. They were assuming or hypothesizing how life might have formed in nature and then mimicking those events in the lab.
> 
> Now the attempts to produce life are very sophisticated. Actually they are using a technique called reverse engineering. The molecular structure of a cell is now fully comprehended so they use careful laboratory techniques to attempt to make a copy of a cell.
> 
> But so far no luck .... and even if they made a functioning copy of a cell they would not have proved that it could be done as a result of random forces in nature operating on innate elements.


I just posted about this in another thread, the Big Bang Therory (sic) one.

In fact, science has made some rather significant strides since the 1950s.

Here's a link to my post in that thread. You can follow the link from there for some very interesting reading.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/547928-big-bang-therory-47.html#post7649254


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Really !!!!
> 
> Well actually science starts with a conclusion.... The assumption that the physical world can be rationally explained.
> 
> ...


Your understanding of the goals of science is mistaken, I'm afraid.

Science starts with no conclusion. It starts with observable data, then tests that data in every way possible to try and *disprove* it. It is neither religious or atheistic in nature. Its rules are very strict. Adherence to those rules is what brought the discoveries and knowledge in science that allow you to sit in a chair that doesn't collapse; to type on a computer that reaches potentially millions of other people; to confidently drive where your GPS device tells you to go, to drive over a bridge that withstands the stresses of weather, water and traffic; to measure the depths of the oceans or distance between stars.

Science never says there is no god. It says there is no evidence for a god. At least, not so far. You may not like it, but that's a very important distinction.

There are good scientists who believe in a god. But they understand that their belief is based entirely on faith -- not on evidence.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Your understanding of the goals of science are mistaken, I'm afraid.
> 
> Science starts with no conclusion. It starts with observable data, then tests that data in every way possible to try and *disprove* it. It is neither religious or atheistic in nature. Its rules are very strict. Adherence to those rules is what brought the discoveries and knowledge in science that allow you to sit in a chair that doesn't collapse; to type on a computer that reaches potentially millions of other people; to confidently drive where your GPS device tells you to go, to drive over a bridge that withstands the stresses of weather, water and traffic; to measure the depths of the oceans or distance between stars.
> 
> ...


Science says no god is needed to explain the material world... 

As for my understanding of science...

There are two types of science .... Hard and Soft

Hard science is the science which is observable and repeatable in the lab.

Soft science is more theoretical and speculative

Evolution is a soft science ... it is an attempt to study the history of life.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science says no god is needed to explain the material world...
> 
> As for my understanding of science...
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but again you are mistaken. Hard sciences are generally considered to be those such as physics, biology and geology -- all of which are involved in the study of evolution. Soft sciences are generally considered to be those to do with social matters, such as economics and psychology. They are those where it is somewhat harder to pin down measurable results. But the standards of proof are the same for each.

Evolution is not a soft science. It is a hard science. Wiki has a good working definition of the difference in terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The op states that free thinking is logical and then it implied that belief in the supernatural is not logical.
> 
> So I simply asked for a rational explanation for the origin of life.
> 
> .... and the answer i received was purely speculation.


Unless you have some evidence, belief in the supernatural is not logical. No need to imply anything.
Your question, in addition to being a Straw Man, is also a Red Herring, since freethinking makes no claim to being able to answer every question.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Science says no god is needed to explain the material world..."
Science also says it does not have answers for every question.

"Well actually science starts with a conclusion.... The assumption that the physical world can be rationally explained."
Another lie about science. Are you so logic-challenged that you believe lying about science helps you prove imaginary gods exist?

"Science is nothing more than assumed materialism"
"..... It is assumed atheism."

Another confused religious apologist who doesn't understand the difference between atheism and materialism.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Raeven said:


> I'm sorry, but again you are mistaken. Hard sciences are generally considered to be those such as physics, biology and geology -- all of which are involved in the study of evolution. Soft sciences are generally considered to be those to do with social matters, such as economics and psychology. They are those where it is somewhat harder to pin down measurable results. But the standards of proof are the same for each.
> 
> Evolution is not a soft science. It is a hard science. Wiki has a good working definition of the difference in terms.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science


Evolution is a soft science.... because it is not a hard science.... is not repeatable in a lab


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Intelligent design infers that there is an intelligent manipulator of matter


Too bad(for you) that nobody can prove that fairy tale.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well not really... the origins debate includes what is known as intelligent design theory. Intelligent design is free of religious content, is unable to identify who the creator or designer is, and does not exclude the possibility of evolution.


Too bad(for you) that lame argument keeps failing in courts, where they keep getting told that intelligent design is not science and it is religious.:hysterical:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> "Science says no god is needed to explain the material world..."
> Science also says it does not have answers for every question.
> 
> "Well actually science starts with a conclusion.... The assumption that the physical world can be rationally explained."
> ...


Science funcionally is atheistic .... science will not accept supernatural explainations.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Evolution is a soft science.... because it is not a hard science.... is not repeatable in a lab


LOL, please don't say that. You're wrong.

Ever watch a virus mutate under a microscope? That's evolution.

Even within one human lifetime, we have observed mutations in wildlife that change fundamental characteristics that favor survival. Again, that's evolution. It's observable and has repeated so many times it's silly to say otherwise.

The evidence is everywhere. I find it astonishing that anyone even doubts it any longer. Among those who understand it, there is no longer any debate. Just filling in the blank spots.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science funcionally is atheistic .... science will not accept supernatural explainations.


Sure it will. Many things that were once considered supernatural are now explained by natural phenomenon as determined by having applied the scientific method. What science will not accept is supernatural explanations without proof.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science funcionally is atheistic .... science will not accept supernatural explainations.


Science has no need to accept supernatural explanations, since nobody has ever managed to prove any of them.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Science funcionally is atheistic .... "

And neither of them is materialism.:cowboy:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> "Science funcionally is atheistic .... "
> 
> And neither of them is materialism.:cowboy:


Ok you have made your point ... thanks


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Try to remember that the next time you feel the urge to use that Straw Man/Red Herring combination.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Raeven said:


> Science never says there is no god. It says there is no evidence for a god. At least, not so far. You may not like it, but that's a very important distinction.
> 
> There are good scientists who believe in a god. But they understand that their belief is based entirely on faith -- not on evidence.


That right there. For a rare minority, religion is a guidebook for that which is good. Why they choose that and don't see that goodness does not have to be associated with any religion or belief is beyond me, but their choice. The rest of the great majority are just fools. They all say that they belong to the first group, but they don't. Religion and belief in gods was a way for primitive, ignorant man to explain the world around him. Now it all has been explained factually. How any free thinker can still cling to any of that hocus pocus is beyond me. Sure, it's fun to believe in Santa Claus too, but let's get real.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

After studying theoretical physics, quantum physics, particle/ wave duality, and interconnection at a distance, I have concluded that there is some kind of mind behind everything. The two slit experiment indicates that when something isn't observed it exists in wave form, the wave form collapses when observed. I don't imagine that my car in the drive way is in wave form while I'm observing something else, so something is observing everything all the time else reality would be continually popping in and out of existence. 

Time, "time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so"  At the sub quantum level the building blocks of particles are constantly popping in and out of existence yet the over all particles remain. To me each building block is like a frame of a movie. It exists at that point in time and then ceases. So the matter you see around you is constantly changing it's basic structure but the macro particles continue to remain constant. If you were to travel backward in time it would be like playing a 3D movie in reverse. The building blocks of particles would come back into existence at that moment recreating that point in time then disappear being replaced by another, and so on. I suspect the ability to influence the past by any physical entity would be appear to be prevented since the particles are already dedicated to their past forms. What this turns out to be is a perfect memory, and if a memory then who's memory is it? 

We could get into the coincidence of similarity of structure, I was taken by surprise when I saw a picture of threads of dark matter superimposed over galaxies, I had seen that structure else where. It turns out the dark matter structure of the universe is remarkably similar to the nerve structure of the brain. Coincidence?

So from a physics perspective it appears to me that an intelligent entity exists. 

Is that free enough thought for you?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Freethinking is a different way of thinking. Instead of allowing yourself to believe in tradition, religion, or higher authority, you believe in logic and reasoning to solve everyday problems.
> This way of thinking is foreign for many, and indeed, may even be foreign to the human brain. We are wired to make purely emotional decisions, which explains partially why religions exist in such abundance. Humanity needs it's soul fed, otherwise we stagnate. This is perhaps obvious, and organized religion can serve this purpose, but for the most part it merely controls people lives, tells them they are evil, and gives them a useful scapegoat called the Devil.
> However, freethinking, from what I've read so far, requires a huge amount of dedication and responsibility. Instead of taking a religious figures word for anything, you're obligated to find all the answers, and the questions, yourself.
> OK, I think I have irritated all the religious folk. Let the fur fly!


Ummm, No..

Here's a list of 100 great thinkers and Nobel winners that disagree with this presumption.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> else reality would be continually popping in and out of existence


Reading posts here leads me to believe that's a *very* common phenomenom


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"After studying theoretical physics, quantum physics, particle/ wave duality, and interconnection at a distance, I have concluded that there is some kind of mind behind everything."

Unless you have some evidence, that claim is worthless. It's a waste of time to try to study anything until you learn critical thinking skills.

"Is that free enough thought fo you?"
Free? Yes. Thought? Not really.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> I want to discuss laboratory attempts to recreate life. Back in the 50's scientists began to experiment to recreate life in the laboratory. Those experiments were crude attempts to mix shake and bake the elements found in cells with hopes that they would somehow combine to form life. They were assuming or hypothesizing how life might have formed in nature and then mimicking those events in the lab.
> 
> Now the attempts to produce life are very sophisticated. Actually they are using a technique called reverse engineering. The molecular structure of a cell is now fully comprehended so they use careful laboratory techniques to attempt to make a copy of a cell.
> 
> But so far no luck .... and even if they made a functioning copy of a cell they would not have proved that it could be done as a result of random forces in nature operating on innate elements.


I would add that even if they were to succeed in creating any form of life that it would be due to intelligent design rather than random forces of nature.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

You should learn what the False Dichotomy Fallacy means so you stop trying to use it.:yawn:


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

FourDeuce said:


> "After studying theoretical physics, quantum physics, particle/ wave duality, and interconnection at a distance, I have concluded that there is some kind of mind behind everything."
> 
> Unless you have some evidence, that claim is worthless. It's a waste of time to try to study anything until you learn critical thinking skills.
> 
> ...


So you believe the cat is neither dead or alive till the box is opened and some one looks at it?


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> Ummm, No..
> 
> Here's a list of 100 great thinkers and Nobel winners that disagree with this presumption.
> 
> http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html


I'm sure that list would call me Christian (I'm not). My Dad claims we are Christians. Why? Because his parents went to church and were serious about it. He didn't after he wasn't forced school-age. 
And I've Never been except weddings and while on bus tours in Europe. 

When he called me a Christian recently it kind of 'burned' a bit. Lol.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Charles Darwin was Unitarian, I'm assuming that is a Christian Denomination?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> So you believe the cat is neither dead or alive till the box is opened and some one looks at it?


Dead or alive, you'll smell it first


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

BlackFeather said:


> So you believe the cat is neither dead or alive till the box is opened and some one looks at it?


Since I have a working brain, I have no need to believe anything. That's part of the whole freethinking idea.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> Ummm, No..
> 
> Here's a list of 100 great thinkers and Nobel winners that disagree with this presumption.
> 
> http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html


Well... That just means we had a lot of great people who believed in God, Christianity, and other religions. It doesn't mean they were worse thinkers - obviously, they were the best thinkers. It means they had faith - but people like me consider faith to be different from regular aspects of life. One must conclude it takes a certain amount of faith to live life at all. Some of us, have greater faith in certain things. This is all part of a great, big, beautiful world; no?


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

While you are correct that religion provides a set of rules, they are essentially intended to enable a functional society to survive. Without law, you have very little society, and religion originally fulfilled that function. As to religion telling you what you can believe, that gets a little more complicated as there are many religions, many of which want you to study for yourself. As for science. nothing in science assumes that there is no god, it is instead focused on understanding the laws and actions/reactions of the world, without determining who/what/anything might have made or not made those rules.

Freethinking is just a repacked form of anarchist thought that claims that there are no rules besides what we set for ourselves. While anarchy may work if you exist by yourself, it does not function well with other people around.

Loki


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Why must people try to lump things together when they have no connection? If you can't deal with the idea of freethinking, piling straw on it won't help.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Well... That just means we had a lot of great people who believed in God, Christianity, and other religions. It doesn't mean they were worse thinkers - obviously, they were the best thinkers. It means they had faith - but people like me consider faith to be different from regular aspects of life. One must conclude it takes a certain amount of faith to live life at all. Some of us, have greater faith in certain things. This is all part of a great, big, beautiful world; no?


I have faith in many things. For example I have faith that if I mash a free thinkers toe with a hammer he will take up a belief or two of his own.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have faith in many things. For example I have faith that if I mash a free thinkers toe with a hammer *he will take up a belief* or two of his own.


I'd take up my own hammer and declare "A Toe for a Toe"


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have faith in many things. For example I have faith that if I mash a free thinkers toe with a hammer he will take up a belief or two of his own.


A good demonstration of how wrong faith can be.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> Then it starts with a conclusion and *by that definition alone*, cannot be characterized as science.
> 
> Science never starts with a conclusion. It goes where actual evidence leads.


I wouldn't say that. To me science is a bunch of conclusions that were later proven false by different conclusions. Not knocking science but a few come to mind like the world is flat. (a few people were branded as heretics for saying otherwise) or the moon revolves around the earth. I am sure you can think of a few too.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Religion was invented by man as an expression of his understanding of God.
Faith is a belief in something that one can not prove.

I am not a religious person, but I am a person of faith. I believe in God. It is a personal relationship I can not prove to anyone, but that's fine with me. I don't need anyone's approval to have faith.
I love my wife, my children, my dog, and I do not need anyone's approval for that either. Nor can I absolutely prove that I really do love them. My love is a matter of faith.
Some may question my faith in God, just as I question their faith in science.
Science is mans expression of what he sees. 
A professor of mine (held two Doctorates, Botany and geology) said that science is nothing more then a quess. That is one of the most elegant statements I've ever heard on the subject.
That is elegant in the scientific sense, not the evening gown sense. 

Realizing that all we are doing is arguing how many angels can balance on the head of a pin with no conclusion in sight is freethinking.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have faith in many things. For example I have faith that if I mash a free thinkers toe with a hammer he will take up a belief or two of his own.





FourDeuce said:


> A good demonstration of how wrong faith can be.


Right on, and a typical example of how most religious folks ultimately try to settle any argument against their beliefs..... with violence. Throughout history the worst wars, conquests and atrocities were committed in the name of or because of religion, and it continues today. The world would be much better off without religion. ISIS and radical muslims wouldn't exist, for starters.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Agriculture said:


> Right on, and a typical example of how most religious folks ultimately try to settle any argument against their beliefs..... with violence. Throughout history the worst wars, conquests and atrocities were committed in the name of or because of religion, and it continues today. The world would be much better off without religion. ISIS and radical muslims wouldn't exist, for starters.


That's not very free thinking of you. *All* wars are started in the name of money for someone at the top. The means to get it done has always been faith. "I will win this war for my ....God.....,Country.....,Beliefs, because the ones at the top know how to pull the strings. 

Isis or something like it would still be here because of this countries responsibilities in starting it from somewhere at the top. The means to keep Isis strong may be different though.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hoddedloki said:


> While you are correct that religion provides a set of rules, they are essentially intended to enable a functional society to survive. Without law, you have very little society, and religion originally fulfilled that function. As to religion telling you what you can believe, that gets a little more complicated as there are many religions, many of which want you to study for yourself. As for science. nothing in science assumes that there is no god, it is instead focused on understanding the laws and actions/reactions of the world, without determining who/what/anything might have made or not made those rules.
> 
> Freethinking is just a repacked form of anarchist thought that claims that there are no rules besides what we set for ourselves. While anarchy may work if you exist by yourself, it does not function well with other people around.
> 
> Loki


The US was founded originally as a Republic, and had relatively few laws. One might be able to consider it close to functioning anarchy. But, throughout history, some form of governance has always been required. Otherwise, the local group uses it's morality to make decisions, which may or may not be better than a King's verdict.

Science doesn't assume there is no god, but neither does it assume there is one. It seeks only the answers that we can quantify, in some way, even if the only quantification is in some brilliant person's head. However, there is always more than that to back it up, otherwise that would be the same as religion: One person claiming to have all the answers. That's what makes many religions different from science: science never claims to have all the answers. 

Religion is, in my opinion, not necessary for a functioning society. There is evidence it may have been constructed originally as a control method. When we escaped the wandering tribe way of living, it became harder to enforce a limit level of morality. Previously, if you lied, the only ten people you know in the whole world would find out quickly. In a town, with thousands around, the anonymity was much greater. Not as great as today, however, where we can bash people on forums and drive vehicles past broken down drivers, and no one ever knows.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Religion was invented by man as an expression of his understanding of God."

There is no understanding of things which can't even be proven to exist.

"I am not a religious person, but I am a person of faith. I believe in God."
Then you are a religious person.

"Some may question my faith in God, just as I question their faith in science."
Before you try to question somebody, you should first learn what they think. Your lies about what they think are not "their faith".

"A professor of mine (held two Doctorates, Botany and geology) said that science is nothing more then a quess."
Then he was a fool, and anybody who listens to him is a fool.

"That is one of the most elegant statements I've ever heard on the subject."
Too bad it's a lie.

"That is elegant in the scientific sense, not the evening gown sense."
No, it's not elegant in any sense.

"Realizing that all we are doing is arguing how many angels can balance on the head of a pin with no conclusion in sight is freethinking."
Lying about freethinking is not thinking.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> and organized religion can serve this purpose, but for the most part it merely controls people lives, tells them they are evil, and gives them a useful scapegoat called the Devil.


Some religions do that, not all.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> A good demonstration of how wrong faith can be.


I have faith that our freethinker will develope a belief that getting ones toe mashed with a hammer causes pain. I may have to demonstrate several times but in the end he will have some faith.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> "Some may question my faith in God, just as I question their faith in science."
> Before you try to question somebody, you should first learn what they think.


so true.... Many will insist there is no God, without understanding why others think there is.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

The fact that you feel the need to lie to yourself shows you have no good arguments. Many people spend their entire lives trying to avoid facing the truth, but when you try telling those same lies to other people it's impossible to force them to believe the lies. 
No amount of lying will force another person to have faith.:grumble:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> The US was founded originally as a Republic, and had relatively few laws. One might be able to consider it close to functioning anarchy. But, throughout history, some form of governance has always been required. Otherwise, the local group uses it's morality to make decisions, which may or may not be better than a King's verdict.
> 
> Science doesn't assume there is no god, but neither does it assume there is one. It seeks only the answers that we can quantify, in some way, even if the only quantification is in some brilliant person's head. However, there is always more than that to back it up, otherwise that would be the same as religion: One person claiming to have all the answers. That's what makes many religions different from science: science never claims to have all the answers.
> 
> Religion is, in my opinion, not necessary for a functioning society. There is evidence it may have been constructed originally as a control method. When we escaped the wandering tribe way of living, it became harder to enforce a limit level of morality. Previously, if you lied, the only ten people you know in the whole world would find out quickly. In a town, with thousands around, the anonymity was much greater. Not as great as today, however, where we can bash people on forums and drive vehicles past broken down drivers, and no one ever knows.





> Science doesn't assume there is no god, but neither does it assume there is one. It seeks only the answers that we can quantify, in some way, even if the only quantification is in some brilliant person's head. However, there is always more than that to back it up, otherwise that would be the same as religion: One person claiming to have all the answers. That's what makes many religions different from science: science never claims to have all the answers.


I do agree with you on this point. Science assumes that the physical world is comprehensible in terms of observed natural laws and chance.

However there are lots of scientists who are atheistic and they make it their life's work to understand evolution or otherwise resolve some of the unresolved issues. Some of these atheistic scientists are very militant and use the theory in their attempt to destroy religion. One man comes to mind and his name is Richard Dawkins .... It seems that Dawkins could not destroy religion to his satisfaction so he reverted to philosophy and joined the likes of Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens.

Most of science is not concerned much with evolution .... they are more interested in practical solutions to man's problems and not in evangelizing atheism.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

No one pays me to think any more.. that makes me a true free thinker.. 

It sure is nice not working for anyone


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Some religions do that, not all.


True. Mostly the monotheistic ones, like Christianity and Islam. Note I'm not bashing these religions, just pointing out that they are far more controlling than, say, the quiet religion of Buddhism. Ever hear of a Buddhist terrorist? And don't Google that. The point is that you probably haven't. 



Johnny Dolittle said:


> I do agree with you on this point. Science assumes that the physical world is comprehensible in terms of observed natural laws and chance.
> 
> However there are lots of scientists who are atheistic and they make it their life's work to understand evolution or otherwise resolve some of the unresolved issues. Some of these atheistic scientists are very militant and use the theory in their attempt to destroy religion. One man comes to mind and his name is Richard Dawkins .... It seems that Dawkins could not destroy religion to his satisfaction so he reverted to philosophy and joined the likes of Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens.
> 
> Most of science is not concerned much with evolution .... they are more interested in practical solutions to man's problems and not in evangelizing atheism.


All good points. Personally I am fully content to let others believe what they will. It is when they get high and mighty, and demand that the world conform to their views, that I take leave of their beliefs. Missionaries, for instance. All good intentions; save people's souls. But what is it ultimately? "Convert to our religion or be destroyed." This line of thinking was prevalent amongst early Muslim missionaries, when many converted to Islam because it was financially practical, and colonial Christianity, which sought to convert or wipe out many indigenous peoples. Well, not necessarily the missionaries, but definitely the colonists.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

FourDeuce said:


> "Religion was invented by man as an expression of his understanding of God."
> 
> There is no understanding of things which can't even be proven to exist.
> 
> ...


Well you're a happy little camper aren't you!
You definitely think very highly of yourself. It is ashame that you're so totally wrong. First off, having faith is not religion. Your statement proves you have no idea of what religion is beyond your limited understanding. 

It is also obvious that you do not understand the use of the term "elegant" in the scientific sense, thus proving that the remainder of your understanding is probably inept as well.

I do imagine that you have an incredible "Star Trek" collection.
You lucky dog.

Now as far as lying goes, was it actually lying? Or could it just be I presented ideas that rock your tiny little universe?

As far as my professor being a fool I have to question your assessment. I will not reveal his name but he is well known and respected in his scientific field.
Tell me my friend, what are your accomplishments in science? How many Doctorates do you have? How many books have you published?
Your blatant caustic statements has raised my curiosity to the wonderful fineness of being you.
Please, enthrall me. Tell me you're intellectual history to prove me wrong.

I can't wait.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Well you're a happy little camper aren't you!
> You definitely think very highly of yourself. It is ashame that you're so totally wrong. First off, having faith is not religion. Your statement proves you have no idea of what religion is beyond your limited understanding.
> 
> It is also obvious that you do not understand the use of the term "elegant" in the scientific sense, thus proving that the remainder of your understanding is probably inept as well.
> ...


You couldn't rock anybody's universe with your lies and logical fallacies.
If your professor told you that lie about science, he was a fool and you are a fool for quoting it.
I don't need to prove you wrong, child. You need to prove you right. That's how logic works. Too bad your professor didn't bother teaching you such things when they were educating you. If they had, maybe you wouldn't be here making a fool of yourself.:kung:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FourDeuce said:


> "Religion was invented by man as an expression of his understanding of God."
> 
> There is no understanding of things which can't even be proven to exist.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what a "quess" is but if I read it as "quest" I'd say your professor was a wise man. Science is a quest to gain knowledge and find answers.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not sure what a "quess" is but if I read it as "quest" I'd say your professor was a wise man. Science is a quest to gain knowledge and find answers.


I figured the OP of that comment meant "guess". Many of the people who don't understand anything about science say it's "nothing but guesses". That's one of those lies that has been repeated so many times many people believe it's true.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Twelve fallacies evolutionists use when arguing about the origin of life

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...s-make-when-arguing-about-the-origin-of-life/


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Johnny Dolittle*  
_Well then use your free thinking to explain rationally to me how life could arise spontaneously from non living matter.

_ 
Posted by FourFeuce :


> You are mistaking freethinking with your Straw Man arguments. Freethinking doesn't mean a person claims to know everything. That's religion.


Ah excuse me Mr FourDeuce but I never said that free thinkers claim to know everything ... I simply ask you to use your free thinking skills to explain how life could arise spontaneously.

You have created a straw man in order to accuse me of creating one !!!


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Twelve fallacies evolutionists use when arguing about the origin of life
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...s-make-when-arguing-about-the-origin-of-life/


 The biggest failure religious apologists make when TRYING to discuss evolution is failing to learn that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.:yawn:
You can't discuss evolution when you don't have a clue what it says.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> I wish I could call you any kind of thinker, but I can't do that while remaining honest.
> You are asking me to explain something I never claimed to know. That's either dishonest or foolish of you(or both). Before you can try to discuss philosophy, you need to learn something about it.


I wouldn't call your methodology thinking either. It's more of a string of insults; designed to what purpose? If you want to argue life was created in some way, do that. Arguing about who gets to explain what is pointless.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

I do love America. One of the few countries in the world where we can have a discussion about whether or not god exists, and if science is real or imagined. I respect your right to hold your opinion on the matter, and love a good argument, but at this point is has devolved into sophistry and semantic arguments.

Four, if you wish to discuss this coherently, than I am sure you are a bright man and can find a way to make your arguments in a manner that does assume that others are idiots. You might also wish to be a little more forgiving of figures of speech that are commonly understandable, unless both the figure of speech and the idea behind it are wrong. ex. 'science believes' - science is predicated on the assumption that...
Extend others the courtesy that they extend to you by not being an ass on every picayune detail.


Loki


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science does not accept supernatural explanations .... ????


Only on the X Files can we get to the bottom of the supernatural.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Also, freethinking would hold that you find the answer yourself. In order to believe creationism, one must reject evolution systematically, and vise versa.


Not true at all. Creationism deals with the origins of life, evolution is the beleif of changes to life after the fact. Apples can and do exist along side oranges in the supermarket, they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"evolution is the beleif of changes to life after the fact."

That's closer than most religious apologists get, but evolution is not a belief. It's science.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> The biggest failure religious apologists make when TRYING to discuss evolution is failing to learn that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.:yawn:
> You can't discuss evolution when you don't have a clue what it says.


I see you did not read the link. The title of it is "The dirty dozen: Twelve fallacies evolutionists make when arguing about the origin of life"

The article was posted on a blog where it is assumed that you would know that Darwinian Evolution and Cell Theory are separate theories.

One of the twelve fallacies presented in that link is this:

"The second fallacy committed by biologists when discussing the origin of life is the *fallacy of conflating the issues* â in this case, the issues of *abiogenesis* and *the evolution of life* (whether as a result of natural selection, as Darwinists believe, or a mutation-driven process, as Professor Masatoshi Nei contends, is irrelevant here). "

........... you should go back and read the link instead of making stupid presumptions.

I see you are good at making straw men !

Implying that I do not know that evolution and cell theory are separate theories so that you can attack me ... is creating a straw man !


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Evolution : a mixture of truth, half truths, lies and un testable hypotheses used for the purpose of projecting an illusion onto reality.

... my deffinition


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"I see you did not read the link. The title of it is "The dirty dozen: Twelve fallacies evolutionists make when arguing about the origin of life""

I did not need to read the link. This discussion was about evolution. Since the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, that link is irrelevant. You might as well post a link to the number of ways Wiley Coyote tries to catch the roadrunner.:sob:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"implying that I do not know that evolution and cell theory are separate theories so that you can attack me ... is creating a straw man !"

Lying about what I implied is another Straw Man. I didn't imply you know nothing about evolution. I just stated that obvious fact.:bash:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Evolution : a mixture of truth, half truths, lies and un testable hypotheses used for the purpose of projecting an illusion onto reality.
> 
> ... my deffinition


Lying about evolution: an exercise in futility engaged in by religious apologists who realize they can't prove any gods exist in an effort to distract attention from their failure and lack of critical thinking skills.:spinsmiley:
BTW, if you want to try to use the names of logical fallacies, you should learn what the Persuasive Definition Fallacy is so you can stop trying to use it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Twelve fallacies evolutionists use when arguing about the origin of life
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...s-make-when-arguing-about-the-origin-of-life/


Always be skeptical of your sources. There's no way I would accept any part of your source as "science." Their bias is obvious on its face.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommon_Dissent

_In a 2004 review on its Web site, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture describes Uncommon Dissent as "a summary of the widespread attack upon Darwinism by some of todayâs leading intellectuals." Mathematics professor and intelligent-design critic Jason Rosenhouse points out that the subtitle says "intellectuals", not "scientists", and adds that "[v]ery few of the contributors hold PhD's in any field related to biology. ... The ID folks are constantly telling us that evolution is failing as a scientific paradigm, and that scientists are jumping ship in droves. But when they have a chance to put together an anthology of testimonials authored by people who dissent from modern evolutionary theory, they have to resort to philosophers, lawyers or scientists who do not work in any field related to biology."_

So far as I can tell, you've just bought into whatever they're selling, throwing around their stock terms such as "materialist" and making assertions like, "science does not accept supernatural explanations." It's an assertion that in my opinion is ludicrous on its face. Many, many things for which science has shown natural explanations started as things that once were "explained" by the supernatural. Where did thunderbolts used to come from, again?

You're welcome to believe whatever you choose, of course. But please stop trying to prove it is science. It isn't.

As for your point about biologists conflating the terms of abiogenesis and evolution, I doubt they do -- since the very study of evolution is termed *evolutionary biology*. (Hard science!) Did you read the article I linked to earlier in this discussion about how simple chemicals may have transitioned into single-cell living organisms? Here, let me link it again:

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html#jCp

There's your possible explanation for abiogenesis. We'll see if it pans out, but it's a pretty interesting working hypothesis. If scientists are eventually able to recreate this little experiment in a lab, well...

By the way, did you know you share a significant amount of your DNA with a banana? And nearly 99% of it with chimpanzees? I mean, not you personally. We all do. Now that we've sequenced the genome, this is pretty easy to prove.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"he important thing here is that Heritage could not use free thinking to explain how life could have arose spontaneously !!!!!!"

That would only be important to somebody who was so ignorant that they would expect freethinking to "explain how life could have arose spontaneously".
Nobody with a working brain would do that. It would be like asking your doctor to explain the reason your car won't start.:sob:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

I got a working brain. That's why I don't take advice from people who aren't qualified to give it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

FourDeuce said:


> I got a working brain. That's why I don't take advice from people who aren't qualified to give it.


Working?? Interesting.

So, what are your qualifications?

I learned a long time ago that everyone, absolutely everyone, from scholars to wino's have something positive they can teach you. If you do not realize this, if your mind is so wrapped up in itself, you are the fool you accuse others of being.

Be happy my friend, with your "working" mind.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

You are right my friend, Your posts definitely speak for themselves.

Anyways, I critically think you are getting boring.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> "I see you did not read the link. The title of it is "The dirty dozen: Twelve fallacies evolutionists make when arguing about the origin of life""
> 
> I did not need to read the link. This discussion was about evolution. Since the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, that link is irrelevant. You might as well post a link to the number of ways Wiley Coyote tries to catch the roadrunner.:sob:


Hey there fruitcake ... or is it nutcake ?

I agree with JJ ... your act is getting old fast.

Way back in the beginning of this thread I began discussing cell theory.... or the origin of life or otherwise abiogenesis.

Really ... it is ok to discuss both theories on an "origins" thread

Origins of life

Origins of Species (BTW have you read Darwins book?)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> "evolution is the beleif of changes to life after the fact."
> 
> That's closer than most religious apologists get, but evolution is not a belief. It's science.


Of course evolution is a belief, science just happens to be the basis for that belief.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> You are mistaking freethinking with your Straw Man arguments. Freethinking doesn't mean a person claims to know everything. That's religion.


I never said that free thinking means a person claims to know everything.

And your assertion that religion claims to know everything is wrong also ... what religion claims to know everything.

You are one of the most devious posters that I have ever met online


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Raeven said:


> Always be skeptical of your sources. There's no way I would accept any part of your source as "science." Their bias is obvious on its face.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommon_Dissent
> 
> ...


Ok... Two points here. 
I've never heard of a "thunderbolt" much less where they come from... Lightening bolts are another matter.

Now to this thing about scientists recreating this little experiment in the lab.... I'm pretty sure if they were to pull this little trick off it will be the result of intelligent design.... Not a result of natural forces at work.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Really ... it is ok to discuss both theories on an "origins" thread"

I'm sure that is ok with religious apologists who can't or won't understand that they refer to completely different subjects. Rational people prefer to keep different subjects in different threads.

"You are right my friend, Your posts definitely speak for themselves."

So do yours, but they don't speak very well.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> You are right my friend, Your posts definitely speak for themselves.
> 
> Anyways, I critically think you are getting boring.


You've shown no sign of any kind of thinking. If you ever want to try some thinking, feel free to learn how it's done. A good place to start would be learning what the named logical fallacies are so you can stop trying to use them. Then you could learn some integrity.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> I never said that free thinking means a person claims to know everything.
> 
> And your assertion that religion claims to know everything is wrong also ... what religion claims to know everything.
> 
> You are one of the most devious posters that I have ever met online


You are just like many other posters I have seen online. All rhetoric. No substance.

"I never said that free thinking means a person claims to know everything."

Right. You just asked somebody for freethinking to give you an answer to a question completely unrelated to freethinking, revealing your ignorance of freethinking and logic.:bash:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Always be skeptical of your sources. There's no way I would accept any part of your source as "science." Their bias is obvious on its face.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommon_Dissent
> 
> ...





> In a 2004 review on its Web site, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture describes Uncommon Dissent as "a summary of the widespread attack upon Darwinism by some of todayâs leading intellectuals." Mathematics professor and intelligent-design critic Jason Rosenhouse points out that the subtitle says "intellectuals", not "scientists", and adds that "[v]ery few of the contributors hold PhD's in any field related to biology. ... The ID folks are constantly telling us that evolution is failing as a scientific paradigm, and that scientists are jumping ship in droves. But when they have a chance to put together an anthology of testimonials authored by people who dissent from modern evolutionary theory, they have to resort to philosophers, lawyers or scientists who do not work in any field related to biology."


Here is a quote from Bill Gates concerning DNA

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/336336-dna-is-like-a-computer-program-but-far-far-more

....Perhaps Biology needs to involve some scientists having degrees in the computer sciences and information sciences.

Also Philosophers are essential to science !!!!!

*Doncha know wika is full of bull .... anyone can edit a wika explanation*


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Perhaps Biology needs to involve some scientists having degrees in the computer sciences and information sciences."

Yeah, that sounds good. Then we could have physicists doing astronomy and engineers doing medicine.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

You wanna wiki

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedias-declining-stats/


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> You are just like many other posters I have seen online. All rhetoric. No substance.
> 
> "I never said that free thinking means a person claims to know everything."
> 
> Right. You just asked somebody for freethinking to give you an answer to a question completely unrelated to freethinking, revealing your ignorance of freethinking and logic.:bash:


Quoted from Heritagefarms OP :





> *Freethinking* Freethinking is a different way of thinking. Instead of allowing yourself to believe in tradition, religion, or higher authority, you believe in logic and reasoning to solve everyday problems.


So you believe in logic and reasoning to solve problems !!!!

.... then use logic and reasoning to solve this problem:

How can life spontaneously form ?


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

If this thread is an example of free thinking , it seems to me ya get what ya pay for.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Here is a quote from Bill Gates concerning DNA
> 
> http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/336336-dna-is-like-a-computer-program-but-far-far-more
> 
> ...


So... you accept a random quote from Bill Gates, computer expert and entrepreneur but certainly not a scientist, posted with no context given, on Goodreads... but you're skeptical about Wiki, which allows presentation of data from all sides and is continually subject to revision based on the most current information available? I'm certainly aware of Wiki's policies, but they actively prevent trolling or promulgation of blatantly false information. I've generally found them to be a good starting point for evaluating information. As a skeptical person, I won't accept your stand-alone assertion that "wiki is full of bull ...." Folks can decide for themselves.

You seem to accept only *one* source as "truth," meaning the book, Uncommon Descent. I see no reason to accept the *opinions* of some guy who blogs and pulls together an anthology, and who appears to have no particular qualifications for offering it except he is totally invested in his conclusion of ID. And again, starting with a conclusion and trying to bend facts to suit that conclusion is the exact opposite of real science.

There's nothing wrong with philosophers musing on the Great Questions, but it doesn't scientifically follow that simply because they can imagine an explanation, their explanation is true. In science, there are lots of steps to get from there to here. Imagination is only a starting point. Beyond that, can you please explain why you think philosophers are "essential" to science?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok... Two points here.
> I've never heard of a "thunderbolt" much less where they come from... Lightening bolts are another matter.
> 
> Now to this thing about scientists recreating this little experiment in the lab.... I'm pretty sure if they were to pull this little trick off it will be the result of intelligent design.... Not a result of natural forces at work.


I'm sorry you've not heard of thunderbolts. I suppose the term is rather colloquial, but...

Simple Definition of _thunderbolt:

_A flash of lightning that makes a loud sound of thunder and that hits someone or something. 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thunderbolt

Zeus, god of Greek mythology, hurled thunderbolts at those who displeased him.

http://www.greekmythology.com/Olympians/Zeus/zeus.html

Of course, now we understand the true science behind lightning.

As to your second point, in fact, conditions existed 4 billion years ago that may well have been favorable to eventually converting simple chemicals to a single-cell entity. It's a big discovery. Did you read the article?

Lab conditions are almost invariably crafted as a way to mimic what occurred in nature. Why do you think the Hadron Collider in Cern was built? It doesn't automatically follow that intelligent design had anything whatsoever to do with what may well have been a random occurrence. I'm not sure why you think it does.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Raeven said:


> So... you accept a random quote from Bill Gates, computer expert and entrepreneur but certainly not a scientist, posted with no context given, on Goodreads... but you're skeptical about Wiki, which allows presentation of data from all sides and is continually subject to revision based on the most current information available? I'm certainly aware of Wiki's policies, but they actively prevent trolling or promulgation of blatantly false information. I've generally found them to be a good starting point for evaluating information. As a skeptical person, I won't accept your stand-alone assertion that "wiki is full of bull ...." Folks can decide for themselves.
> 
> You seem to accept only *one* source as "truth," meaning the book, Uncommon Descent. I see no reason to accept the *opinions* of some guy who blogs and pulls together an anthology, and who appears to have no particular qualifications for offering it except he is totally invested in his conclusion of ID. And again, starting with a conclusion and trying to bend facts to suit that conclusion is the exact opposite of real science.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with philosophers musing on the Great Questions, but it doesn't scientifically follow that simply because they can imagine an explanation, their explanation is true. In science, there are lots of steps to get from there to here. Imagination is only a starting point. Beyond that, can you please explain why you think philosophers are "essential" to science?


I see you have not yet figured out why philosophers are necessary to science


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> I see you have not yet figured out why philosophers are necessary to science


Why would you not give me the benefit of your knowledge? Isn't this a discussion?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Why would you not give me the benefit of your knowledge? Isn't this a discussion?


It is a very strange discussion....

Ok I will help you out

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> It is a very strange discussion....
> 
> Ok I will help you out
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy


I think that's essentially what I said in my last paragraph of Post 133. 

I don't and never have discounted the importance of philosophy in attempting to frame questions. But simply because a philosopher can imagine a question doesn't mean they have answered it by merely making the query. Real science is required for that. Was there another point you thought you were making with the Quora article beyond that one?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

You said:




> There's nothing wrong with philosophers musing on the Great
> Questions


The necessity of Philosophers is to monitor the work of the scientists to insure his methods and conclusions are rational


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Right, because only philosophers can determine whether something is rational.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Not the part about beliefs. Freethinking doesn't require any belief.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Heritage,

Gotta agree with you on the best possible hypothesis for biogenesis. One of the beautiful things about science is that we can hypothesis about something like biogenesis, without removing any possibility of biogenesis being either random or divine. The fact that science can peacefully exist in concert with religion, without one defining the other, was one of the best lessons I ever learned.

Regards,
Loki


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Loki,
I agree. I do not think we need rabid anti-religious atheists any more than rabid anti pagan religious. I've never seen any reason why religion cannot exist for morality, while science exists for explaining the nature of the world. Infact, people used to have more respect for science. I suspect this was a time before the religious right became polarized in this country.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

It do have a lot to post concerning the challenges scientist face in their attempts to produce life.... 

My computer is slow during the day and I often get kicked off of the internet .... it is probably time to say good bye to Windows XP. I do better posting through the night


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> It do have a lot to post concerning the challenges scientist face in their attempts to produce life....
> 
> My computer is slow during the day and I often get kicked off of the internet .... it is probably time to say good bye to Windows XP. I do better posting through the night


Well, that is an older system. No longer supported by Windows etc. however you might try the cleanup tools first, such as defragmentation etc. Also never rule out a faulty modem/router.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Loki,
> I agree. I do not think we need rabid anti-religious atheists any more than rabid anti pagan religious. I've never seen any reason why religion cannot exist for morality, while science exists for explaining the nature of the world. Infact, people used to have more respect for science. I suspect this was a time before the religious right became polarized in this country.


As for better ways of problem solving or better ways of knowing ....

My religion is not just about adhering to some moral code. I have a spiritual relationship where I do spiritually experience God ... but He will not hear me unless I obey the moral code .... 

It takes significant prayer and fasting. But I have significantly experienced the supernatural.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, that is an older system. No longer supported by Windows etc. however you might try the cleanup tools first, such as defragmentation etc. Also never rule out a faulty modem/router.



Comcast just sent me a new modem .... they said it should speed things up .... thanks for advice


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Would someone elaborate on the definition of free thinking. The op definition was rather vague.

There is open minded thinking

unbiased thinking

objective thinking

possibility thinking

high minded thinking

Is free thinking kind of like when you stand off from yourself or be detached from yourself while you are thinking?

Do drugs help you do it ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Would someone elaborate on the definition of free thinking. The op definition was rather vague.
> 
> There is open minded thinking
> 
> ...


after reading through the comments here I have come to the conclusion that "free thinking" is a close cousin to not thinking.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Freethinking is a different way of thinking. Instead of allowing yourself to believe in tradition, religion, or higher authority, you believe in logic and reasoning to solve everyday problems.
> This way of thinking is foreign for many, and indeed, may even be foreign to the human brain. We are wired to make purely emotional decisions, which explains partially why religions exist in such abundance. Humanity needs it's soul fed, otherwise we stagnate. This is perhaps obvious, and organized religion can serve this purpose, but for the most part it merely controls people lives, tells them they are evil, and gives them a useful scapegoat called the Devil.
> However, freethinking, from what I've read so far, requires a huge amount of dedication and responsibility. Instead of taking a religious figures word for anything, you're obligated to find all the answers, and the questions, yourself.
> OK, I think I have irritated all the religious folk. Let the fur fly!





> Instead of taking a religious figures word for anything, you're obligated to find all the answers, and the questions,


Therefore freethinking supposedly is a better way for finding out all of the answers rather than rely on religious explanations for the answers...

*"is a better way for finding out all of the answers"*


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Therefore freethinking supposedly is a better way for finding out all of the answers rather than rely on religious explanations for the answers...
> 
> *"is a better way for finding out all of the answers"*



Post# 131 by FourDeuce :


> Logic and reasoning cannot solve every problem. That's one thing Mommy should teach you when you get older, IF you ever grow up. Maybe Mommy's just waiting until she thinks you are ready for adult things like that. :bash:


*Seems Heritagefarm says freethinking is a better way for finding all of the answers............. But FourDuece states logic and reasoning ( Which I assume he means free thinking) can not solve every problem

???????
*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Therefore freethinking supposedly is a better way for finding out all of the answers rather than rely on religious explanations for the answers...
> 
> *"is a better way for finding out all of the answers"*


I can live with that definition. To be honest, I haven't really looked into it very much. My primary motivation to to simply think more logically. I believe this happens when we acknowledge our shortcomings but strive for the truth in the world regardless. I'm sure freethinking has its own terms with its own rules, but it me it means being unbound by hindering thoughts, like emotions, traditions, etc. Obviously, this is not entirely possible.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> I can live with that definition. To be honest, I haven't really looked into it very much. My primary motivation to to simply think more logically. I believe this happens when we acknowledge our shortcomings but strive for the truth in the world regardless. I'm sure freethinking has its own terms with its own rules, but it me it means being unbound by hindering thoughts, like emotions, traditions, etc. Obviously, this is not entirely possible.


You defined freethinking to me and I responded by challenging you to use it to explain how life could arise spontaneously from non living matter.... You stated that freethinking is superior to religion in problem solving.

I do not agree with you on this point. I have this God of biblical religion who states that he created life. I can accept that by faith .... but I can prove that logically to myself If I can spiritually experience this God in real ways.

Science can not prove the spiritual and science has not proved that life could arise spontaneously.

I believe that the Biblical God pre planned this world before creating it.... and it was His intention to invent it in such a way that He could only be known through spiritual experience.

Therefore science can not prove God.

*I do intend to use the remainder of this thread to demonstrate that there are significant known challenges to proving abiogenesis.

I am requesting the moderators to keep an eye on this thread.
*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> You defined freethinking to me and I responded by challenging you to use it to explain how life could arise spontaneously from non living matter.... You stated that freethinking is superior to religion in problem solving.
> 
> I do not agree with you on this point. I have this God of biblical religion who states that he created life. I can accept that by faith .... but I can prove that logically to myself If I can spiritually experience this God in real ways.
> 
> ...


I will give this some thought and get back to you, when it's morning and I've had coffee. However, in my mind, I have separated the spiritual and the scientific parts of my mind. My creativity and spirituality do not sit well with the theory of evolution. In other words, every time I think of it, it results in cognitive dissonance. This enables my to live life logically while allowing my soul to remain in good condition. Or something like that. So, I can accept your viewpoint, but it is unlikely I will agree with it.
Good night,
HF


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Keep your discussion civil and directed at the topic.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

*freethinker*

http://static.sfdict.com/staticrep/dictaudio/F03/F0362400.mp3


[free-thing-ker] /&#712;fri&#712;&#952;&#618;&#331; k&#601;r/ 

noun 1. a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, especially a person whose religious opinions differ from established belief. 

From dictionary.com:goodjob:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> My creativity and spirituality do not sit well with the theory of evolution. In other words, every time I think of it, it results in cognitive dissonance.


 Maybe thats your mind telling you the evidence is in favor of evolution, despite what one line from an ancient scroll says. Personally I believe you can still have your faith in God and not have to take every line of scripture literally.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Maybe thats your mind telling you the evidence is in favor of evolution, despite what one line from an ancient scroll says. Personally I believe you can still have your faith in God and not have to take every line of scripture literally.


If one does take every line literally, one would be rather confused, in my opinion. But I do not believe in God in the traditional sense. I believe there is an energy force that is in all living things. This is not scientific, but neither is it unscientific. 
However, science dictates that it is logical to assume there is a reasonable explanation we are here. A spiritual energy force is not contradictory to evolution. 

I fear this this conversation has gone haywire. I apologize if I've said anything offensive. But I think I am all right.


----------

