Could this generation of creationists be the last?

Cabal said:

I checked it out for the best part of 20 years and left after realising it was a crock.

Click to expand...

It took you the 'best [sic] part of 20 years', and you want us to switch practically overnight?

AV1611VET said:

I'll use the KJV dictionary, thank you.

Click to expand...

Is this your new pet catchphrase to justify editing the meaning of words as you see fit?

Cabal said:

Firstly, grow up.

Click to expand...

Make me.

AV1611VET said:

The Cambridge Dictionary can take a hike.

I'll use the KJV dictionary, thank you.

Click to expand...

You really do live in your own deluded little dream world, don't you?

You stick with that, meanwhile the rest of us will continue speaking English and laughing at you when you keep getting things wrong.

AV1611VET said:

It took you the 'best [sic] part of 20 years', and you want us to switch practically overnight?

Click to expand...

The switch didn't take 20 years. The switch often doesn't take long once you permit yourself to actually think and question your beliefs.

Spoon hammer machine. Mountain wardrobe, jeep kite?

Planet grenade, hospital projectile the banana:

- Hankie.
- Paint.
- Zimbabwe.
- running.

Testes smashing rabid trees?

Ok, I think I understand why AV does it. Assigning meanings to words as and when you feel like it is actually kinda fun. Who cares if no one knows what you're on about? Comunication and language can take a hike.

VehementiDominus said:

You really do live in your own deluded little dream world, don't you?

Click to expand...

It's called the Kingdom of Heaven -- get a dictionary.

VehementiDominus said:

You stick with that, meanwhile the rest of us will continue speaking English and laughing at you when you keep getting things wrong.

Click to expand...

Who corrects who more often?

And don't think for one minute I'm not still laughing at you guys for getting Pluto wrong for 76 years.

VehementiDominus said:

Spoon hammer machine. Mountain wardrobe, jeep kite?

Planet grenade, hospital projectile the banana:

- Hankie.
- Paint.
- Zimbabwe.
- running.

Testes smashing rabid trees?

Ok, I think I understand why AV does it. Assigning meanings to words as and when you feel like it is actually kinda fun. Who cares if no one knows what you're on about? Comunication and language can take a hike.

Click to expand...

On a somewhat related topic, this is why claims that elevate God above logic totally muck up the notion of apologetics. Throw logic out the window with regard to something and there's no way to make a logical defense of that thing.

Cabal said:

The switch didn't take 20 years. The switch often doesn't take long once you permit yourself to actually think and question your beliefs.

Click to expand...

If I have you pegged correctly, you didn't question our beliefs, you questioned yours?

I somehow don't see you has having wondered about Embedded Age creation or dispensation theology.

I could be wrong, though.

AV1611VET said:

It's called the Kingdom of Heaven -- get a dictionary.

Click to expand...

No, it's called:

delusion noun
Definition

when someone believes something that is not true.

Who corrects who more often?

Click to expand...

Just about everyone here corrects you more times than I dare to count.

And don't think for one minute I'm not still laughing at you guys for getting Pluto wrong for 76 years.

Click to expand...

Reclassifying something doesn't mean we "got it wrong.".

AV1611VET said:

If I have you pegged correctly, you didn't question our beliefs, you questioned yours?

Click to expand...

It makes little difference to the point I was making - it's not inapplicable to you just because the beliefs themselves are different.

I somehow don't see you has having wondered about Embedded Age creation.

Click to expand...

It lasted as a viable idea for about as long as most personal interpretations created ex tushio are - not long.

VehementiDominus said:

Just about everyone here corrects you mroe times than I dare to count.

Click to expand...

It's "more" -- and ... um ... newbie, I don't even think the old-timers here would agree with you.

I could be wrong, though; they have integrity to uphold.

VehementiDominus said:

Reclassifying something doesn't mean we "got it wrong.".

Click to expand...

[roll eyes] No, of course not. [/roll eyes]

Cabal said:

It makes little difference to the point I was making - it's not inapplicable to you just because the beliefs themselves are different.



It lasted as a viable idea for about as long as most personal interpretations created ex tushio are - not long.

Click to expand...

Then I'll take your point with an ounce of FeS[sub]2[/sub].

AV1611VET said:

Then I'll take your point with an ounce of FeS[sub]2[/sub].

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point - and dismissing objections without reason is a perfect way to disobey God by not questioning everything.

Cabal said:

Thanks for proving my point - and dismissing objections without reason is a perfect way to disobey God by not questioning everything.

Click to expand...

cant be any worse than setting oneself up as inerrant.

mathclub said:

from the free dictionary

Adj.1.free-thinking - unwilling to accept authority or dogma (especially in religion)

from merriam-webster

Definition of FREETHINKER

: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

The whole term is completely incompatible with religion, especially christian religion

Click to expand...

Well, occasionally you guys give something useful in your posts. Thanks for the definition. Although, I am sure MOST people in the REAL world would not have understood or known that this was the actual definition (probably because most people would have no malicious intent like some in knowing or forming the word). I, for one, am very happy to now understand the word because now I can proudly and correctly and FREELY say I am not a "freethinker" as pertaining to this word, nor do I ever want to be!

I can see that it is a "limiting" word and not so "free" after all (as it's very composition would "seem" to express).

The above definition states

"unwilling" to accept "authority" or dogma

"one who forms opinions on the basis of reason INDEPENDENTLY of authority"

and therefore, puts people in a narrow minded and UNWILLING position to learn making them subject to error on every turn.

The composition of the word suggests quite the opposite of it's meaning, though, and thereby, causes people to possibly misuse it. It is made of the words "free" and "thinker."


FREE
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty (the right to NOT be insulted because one believes or thinks differently)
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty (to believe as one wants)
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government (freedom of religion)

THINKER
1. One who devotes much time to thought or meditation.
1. One who thinks or reasons in a certain way

I no longer consider myself a freethinker but I know for sure I am a FREE THINKER. I get to choose what I think and am not subject to the ridicule of those with limited thinking. I don't mind taking or listening to authority and yet I am not bound by what they say alone. I can move away from the error of some science because I am not worried about persecution or ostracism from those who are "unwilling" to think outside the "accepted" box of evolution and it's many errors.

Just because one is UNWILLING to accept authority or dogma does not necessarily show intelligence but can also be a sign of ignorance.

AV1611VET said:

It's "more" -- and ... um ... newbie, I don't even think the old-timers here would agree with you.

Click to expand...

Nope, the "newbie" is right -- just because you're too proud to accept correction from us old timers doesn't mean we don't do it often.

Cabal call me curious for asking this, but why did you convert to atheism?

Cabal said:

What's your problem with it? Pointing out your guff is report-worthy now?

Click to expand...

Not to mention that it's against forum rules to both report and respond to a post. So if he does report you, it's just too darn late.

Inan3 said:

Well, occasionally you guys give something useful in your posts. Thanks for the definition. Although, I am sure MOST people in the REAL world would not have understood or known that this was the actual definition (probably because most people would have no malicious intent like some in knowing or forming the word). I, for one, am very happy to now understand the word because now I can proudly and correctly and FREELY say I am not a "freethinker" as pertaining to this word, nor do I ever want to be!

I can see that it is a "limiting" word and not so "free" after all (as it's very composition would "seem" to express).

The above definition states

"unwilling" to accept "authority" or dogma

"one who forms opinions on the basis of reason INDEPENDENTLY of authority"

and therefore, puts people in a narrow minded and UNWILLING position to learn making them subject to error on every turn.

The composition of the word suggests quite the opposite of it's meaning, though, and thereby, causes people to possibly misuse it. It is made of the words "free" and "thinker."


FREE
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty (the right to NOT be insulted because one believes or thinks differently)
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty (to believe as one wants)
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government (freedom of religion)

THINKER
1. One who devotes much time to thought or meditation.
1. One who thinks or reasons in a certain way

I no longer consider myself a freethinker but I know for sure I am a FREE THINKER. I get to choose what I think and am not subject to the ridicule of those with limited thinking. I don't mind taking or listening to authority and yet I am not bound by what they say alone. I can move away from the error of some science because I am not worried about persecution or ostracism from those who are "unwilling" to think outside the "accepted" box of evolution and it's many errors.

Just because one is UNWILLING to accept authority or dogma does not necessarily show intelligence but can also be a sign of ignorance.

Click to expand...

well i'm glad one of 'us guys' could be of help.

You are right it is probably not a well known term. I knew it because a number of atheistic groups have the term free-thinker in their titles. Right from the emergence of the term (I believe it is several centuries old) it has been used to describe those opposed to religion.

To me the composition of the term makes a lot of sense. To put it another way, we are free to think what we like about any topic. And quite frequently free-thinkers do and will disagree with each other. Contrast that to religion, where there are a number of topics where what you think or believe is decided for you by someone else and you follow along, because the bible or koran or pope said so. I understand that different people will interpret the bible or whatever differently, but at the end of the day you believe what you believe because it is what you think the bible says. Note that free-thinking is different from free will. you have free will to choose what to believe, and you choose to believe in god, jesus and the bible. free will does not make you a free-thinker.

Also be clear that unwilling is different to unable. I am unwilling to believe anything from anyone simply because they are an authority, whether it's jesus, god or richard dawkins. I wll question and discover the evidence before deciding what to believe or what not to believe. But I am not unable to believe something from authority, it just depends on the reasons they give. I don't see this as limiting my thinking in any way whatsoever, quite the opposite.

This is another major difference between religious and non-religious thinking. I often see religious people make 'appeals to authority', whereby something is quoted and supposed to have impact because of who said it. Free thinkers tend to place value on WHAT was said, rather than WHO said it. I like Dawkins writings a lot. If he told me I needed to kill my children, and that he was not providing evidence as to why I would not listen to him. Sadly, there are many people in the world that believe if god or jesus wants them to kill their children then they would kill their children, and have done in the recent past. By placing emphasis on WHO said it, you are submitting to their authority, even if it's to god or jesus, and are severely limiting yourself more than any freethinker does.