Want to take a quick survey?

[Hitsumei]

I'm not sure what you want from me.

Well, answering the questions I asked you would have been nice...  :raised:

You seem to be a little frustrated me I don't mean to offend.

I'm not offended, though perhaps a little frustrated. I apologize if I came off as crass, or rude to you. It was largely unintentional.  

[Kevin]

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?
Yes. We're here, aren't we? I think no matter someone's opinion, you can't really say that's false.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?
Yes. Because we're all the same thing, and you're not perfect either.

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?
No. Depending upon the person's past actions. And if they believe in a giant sea monster below the Lincoln Memorial that eats Eggo's for breakfast, then I'm going to judge them on damn well being near retarded.

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?
Worse. Look at how young people are having sex now. What happened to waiting till marriage? (Not like I am)

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?
To live on to allow our species to evolve into the next species.

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?
We are buried (Depending upon the death), and our body lays there, and decomposes and becomes part of the Earth.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?
He/She/It/Whatever is not there.

[Tanker]

Hitsumi, I thought mabey I misunderstood the word subjective, so I looked it up.

subâ‹...jecâ‹...tiveâ€, â€,/sÉ™bˈdÊ'É›ktɪv/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [suhb-jek-tiv]  Show IPA
â€"adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.  
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.
7. Grammar. a. pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
b. (in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
c. similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative.  
 
8. Obsolete. characteristic of a political subject; submissive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of those deffinitions are apt to what I was trying to say, I did answer the question. I sorry you don't understand, but weather or not the US is more moral is in fact subjective.

[Hitsumei]

[curiosityandthecat]

Uh, derail much?

[Hitsumei]

Yeah Tanker, what the hell?  

[mbell31]

hey thank you for all your responses. I am sorry for the confusion caused by my putting "free-thinker". If I had known the common interpretation of this title was agnostic/atheist I wouldn't have used it. I thought free-thinker simply meant thinking freely and openly using my own reason and understanding. My free-thinking led me to share the traditional beliefs of Christianity.

[curiosityandthecat]

Yeah Tanker, what the hell?  

That was directed at you, too, Hitsumei.

[curiosityandthecat]

hey thank you for all your responses. I am sorry for the confusion caused by my putting "free-thinker". If I had known the common interpretation of this title was agnostic/atheist I wouldn't have used it. I thought free-thinker simply meant thinking freely and openly using my own reason and understanding. My free-thinking led me to share the traditional beliefs of Christianity.

Good for you. Please try to refrain from "sharing" them here. We don't respond well to that. And, when I say "we" I mean "I".

[NaturaLCalamity]

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

I think this question depends on what kind of "truths." In terms of religious truth, I think it's all up to the person. They are allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe but I do think some people are just insane. A man walking on water. A man living in a whale for 3 days. A man split a massive sea with a wooden stick. I mean I could go on but that's just a bunch of ficticious tales to me. As for other truths, science and research is increasing each year and although we may never had the answers to all the things on Earch that are "unexplainable," humans are working on it and always will.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

Yes, I do think racism is wrong. It promotes violence and prejudice. It takes away human moral values of treating everyone with respect regardless of color and race. It's a shame that many people like these exist today.

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

Yes. People are allowed to believe in anything they want with reason and under their own circumstances.

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

This is an odd question. I don't know the answer to this one and I would like to think it's always getting better.

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

To reproduce. It always has and always will be. While you're at it, I think it's best to live your life to the fullest, doing everything you like by trying everything once. It would be a terrible waste in my opinon, to have to live in vein, and repent their sins after everything they've done wrong. It's better to live your life using your brain, not following rules from a book.

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

I think nothing happens, just as it did before I even existed. I wouldn't know I wasn't alive because, simply I wasn't born yet. When I'm dead, I wouldn't know it because my ability to care and think would be gone. And so, the universe just spins on.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

I don't believe in any gods. If he did exist, I'd probably ask him for 2 cokes and a bag of chips right now. I'm hungry! =)

[Whitney]

No, I don't want to take another survey.  Every time someone posts a survey I ask that they promise to post the results.  Every time they promise yet never post the results.  I don't like providing information if I don't know how it is going to be used nor how much of it will be 'summarized' by the surveyor.  

As if I'm not picking enough fights already...but I couldn't help myself. Atheists and agnostics are freethinkers because they have defined themselves to be, and have defined "freethinker" to mean agnostic or atheist. It is merely self-proclaimed, and a word that has positive connotations. It is no different than homosexuals calling themselves "gay".

I think the term free thinker can include some theists (like JoeActor).  However, since freethinker is meant to refer to someone who basically evaluates truth based solely on reason and evidence; I don't see how many people with a religious faith could classify as freely thinking.  There might be some religious people who are a bit further outside of the dogma box than others, but you obviously have to value faith as a truth seeking tool if you believe something supernatural is real.  Of course, there are agnostic theists who still align themselves with a religion...they maybe could classify as a freethinker, but it would depend on why they consider themselves an agnostic (insert religious belief here).  Many, let's say, agnostic christians (in my experience) aren't thinking broadly enough to consider the possible correctness of other religions, deism, pantheism.

[Recusant]

...Atheists and agnostics are freethinkers because they have defined themselves to be, and have defined "freethinker" to mean agnostic or atheist. It is merely self-proclaimed, and a word that has positive connotations. It is no different than homosexuals calling themselves "gay".

If you want to do that, then knock yourself out, but it isn't as if it means much. I think I'll start using "amazingly attractive woman" to mean "Sort of Christian".

Self-allotted titles somehow don't impress me.

Hello, Hitsumei.  Welcome to HAF.  :raised:  
Once again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time perusing and posting here.

[Hitsumei]

I think the term free thinker can include some theists (like JoeActor).  

Not how it has been defined earlier in the thread. That seemed like a circle of self-gratification to this bunny!

However, since freethinker is meant to refer to someone who basically evaluates truth based solely on reason and evidence; I don't see how many people with a religious faith could classify as freely thinking.

No one evaluates the truth solely on reason and evidence, it isn't possible. Much is assumption. It is an assumption that reason is accurate -- a system cannot demonstrate the accuracy of itself without being circular. You cannot demonstrate the accuracy of reason with reason. Self-professed "rationalists" seem to also just be reliabilists to justify it -- because it worked in the past, it is inferred that it is reliable, and will continue to work in the future, which is an inductive assumption, and induction cannot be rationally justified, and the only evidence available to justify induction is inductive, so that would be circular. It is then an assumption without rational, or evidential basis.

Some have argued that induction is like a properly basic belief, and doesn't require justification because inductive reasoning is required to operate within the world. I agree with this. Some have also argued that a belief in a god, or an afterlife is also properly basic, because it is required to function in the world. Both cases have exceptions. Some deny induction, and some deny god or an after life -- but most people don't. People seem to argue far more furiously for the necessity of their religious belief, than people argued for the necessity of a belief in induction, or an external world however. Some claim that without the belief, they would not be able to function -- would be depressed, afraid, and no longer be able to hold the same value they gave to life and people before.

I can't say whether this is true or false, but if it is true, then whether right or wrong, it is just as justified as any other belief that we hold by pure assumption for pragmatic purposes.

Take the example of the black swan. Everyone agrees that all swans are white. All we have ever seen are white swans. It is assumed that all swans are white -- we go to Australia and find some black swans. This is an example of induction letting us down. Was it justified to originally assumed that all swans were white? Absolutely. If 100% of our experience suggests a conclusion, then accepting that conclusion is justified. If you disagree, then this would be problematic -- as it implies a rejection of induction. As long as you appreciate that you assumption could be false, it is justified to hold.  

For this reason, saying that something is "justified" and saying that it is "true" are not the same thing. A position can be justified by all of the available evidence, and by proper logical inferences, and still be false.

This I think is a sufficient defense for the general religious person.    

There might be some religious people who are a bit further outside of the dogma box than others, but you obviously have to value faith as a truth seeking tool if you believe something supernatural is real.  

Some would say you would have to value faith as a truth seeking tool if you believe anything at all (beyond yourself) to be real.

Of course, there are agnostic theists who still align themselves with a religion...they maybe could classify as a freethinker, but it would depend on why they consider themselves an agnostic (insert religious belief here).  Many, let's say, agnostic christians (in my experience) aren't thinking broadly enough to consider the possible correctness of other religions, deism, pantheism.

I'm a Christian in a cultural sense. Bore and raised Christian. I don't attend churches, nor do I agree with many of its dogmas or tenets. I think that it is clear that all religions are made by people, but to what ends? It seems that when you ask a devoutly religious person what their religion is for, they tend to give quite similar answers regardless of their religion. This makes me raise an eyebrow, at the very least.

[Hitsumei]

As far as I am able to find, you are correct that it was freethinkers themselves who coined the term.  I think the idea is to label ways of thought which are discrete from religion in a way other than negatively.

Calling yourself a "freethinker" and saying that only people that hold a certain metaphysical position with you are allowed to do so, I think is quite negative. Someone could be an atheist because their dog told them that there are no gods -- and this person would be a freethinker, while Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Descartes, Paley, Newton, or Epicurus would not qualify.

I -- at least -- find that strange.  

So it seems we agree on that point, and since I care very little whether you are impressed or not, we don't have any fight.  

Once again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time perusing and posting here.

Thanks.  

[jrosebud]

42.

Now, now. I believe that is the answer to not only life, but the universe and everything.

I always wondered if Douglas Adams picked the number "42" at random.  If you write out 42 and turn it upside down, it can look like "2b."  What's the purpose of life, the universe, and everything?  Simply "to be."

So maybe it's a stretch, but I like it.