The Atheist And The Free Thinker: Debunked
No doubt atheists will accuse me of a straw man because that's what they always do when you expose the objective flaws in their worldview and claims, like what's being said isn't accurate. So, atheists, leave the straw man accusation because I've lost count of the amount of you who claim to be a free thinker that's logical, reasonable and driven by rationale.
However I will have to generalize to some degree, not all atheists believe the same things but the majority do. So, I will here forth address the majority and the ever developing stereotypical contemporary "new atheist", militant atheist and anti theist.
I'll keep it as short as possible, plenty more can be said on this matter.
Atheists, you are not a free thinker by any stretch of the imagination, the concept of the atheist free thinker is self defeating and here's why:
Firstly, apparently to be a free thinker one must not strictly accept or reject any proposition unless proof is found, keeping an open mind to all possibilities until empirical evidence or proof is provided. This is mostly agnostic, not atheist. Atheists don't do this, they reject the God hypothesis by definition and defend it into delusion whilst having zero proof or empirical evidence of the "no God hypothesis". And yes, you can prove a negative They reject religion/s which is what a free thinker supposedly does whilst at the same time accepting atheist worshipped glorified contemporary dogmatically propagated naturalistic scientism, meaning their own beliefs are shaped by another form of dogmatism and fanaticism. A free thinker is mean't to be free from religious dogma and indoctrination, yet this free thinker belief, in effect with all the philosophies of naturalistic scientism, materialism and the atheism that fuels it, equates to a--yep you guessed it--religious belief, that of which the free thinker is supposedly free from. See the problem here?
Secondly, a free thinker supposedly employs a supreme logic and reason to determine that their own religious belief--the type they are apparently free from--is more rational and logical. However, by definition a free thinker is open to all possibilities, which means a free thinker must be open not just to the logical arguments, but also the illogical, the paradoxes, the conundrums, the hard to fathom, the seemingly logically impossible. By saying you have used your free thinking mind to logically reject a proposition or a paradox--that you shouldn't be rejecting by definition--you have simultaneously become a prisoner to logic, as there is no proof that logic alone can prove or disprove a proposition or paradox, other than making it intellectually challenging or hard to accept or believe or demonstrate. So basically, whilst claiming to be a free thinker, you are actually closed minded and caged up by the logic you claim free's you. See the problem here?
Lastly, for an atheist to claim to be a free thinker, lets look at what else that claim actually means aside from the going definitions of a free thinker. If you claim to be a free thinker, you are thinking free from constraint it say's it in the title you're a *free* thinker, but atheists aren't, because by rejecting God--who is an infinite mind by general consensus--they reject the very definition of a free thinker, which would be God, a limitless and completely free mind in every way who is bound to no religion or indoctrination of His/Her own that He/She lives. So by rejecting God, you are rejecting the only true free thinker in existence. See the problem here?
So basically, no atheists, you aren't a free thinker, and to sum this body of text up, I would say atheists aren't just false free thinkers, they are barely thinkers at all. Lots of highly talented, intelligent people are atheists, but the actual atheistic part of their personality, their actual world view is embarrassingly fraught with unanswerable questions, scientifically impossible to prove beliefs that require nothing but blind faith--such as something from nothing/abiogenesis--and induces confusion and denial. And yes, something from nothing cannot be proven because there is already something, abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated to have occurred naturally if intelligent humans have synthesized how it could have happened, it only proves further that intelligence was required.
Atheism and free thinking is one big failure.
diXie
Source: https://www.facebook.com/EvolutionIsALie/ 1 Like 1 Share 
|
like it or not we are free thinkers
tell me what we think about then am ready to follow u up on this thread