use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!
the World Pantheist Movement - pretty interesting info. (pantheism.net)
submitted 1 year ago by brandnewset
[–]brandnewset[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
This is in response the the adamwho comment hijacker : ). In the name of freethought this is NOT a religion for crying out loud. Its a futherance of scientific thought. Shame on you for making this a god war.
The belief statement of the WPM
1.
We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.
2.
All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
3.
We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.
4.
All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.
5.
There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.
6.
We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.
7.
We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.
8.
Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.
9.
We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.
[–]NukeMoose 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago*
I share many if not all the beliefs you listed yet I call myself an agnostic atheist. You call it god, I call it the universe. I see no distinction or point to calling the universe god. It only creates confusion when trying to have a conversation with anyone about your beliefs.
So you're right, it's not really a religion yet you are calling it "xyztheism". That's just confusing. You can encompass just as many points without bringing supernatural connotations and other people's idea of god into the debate.
[–]brandnewset[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Roger that bro - labels and language can confuse the obvious.
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago*
First thanks for fixing that list. I can (and did) actually read it now.
The pantheism you are posting is indistinguishable from being humanistic or otherwise atheist. As I pointed out previously this makes the whole point of calling it pantheism (note theism part) totally irrelevant. So what is the point of carrying around the extra baggage of a X-theism? Answer: to make you feel special, it gives you a group to be in.
What you are not posting in your list is a whole bunch of implied beliefs which you often find in these alternate religions such as a non-materialism mind/soul (#5), universal or collective consciousness (#8), anti-science beliefs (#8), and NDE/OBE, and generally a focus on emotion and feeling over rationalism (#7). While your list doesn't include all these #9 allows for these and crazier beliefs to be rationalized. They use the right words in the list but after years of experience with people and their religious beliefs, that is what you would expect, it is a lure... the crazy will come later.
Don't get caught on the label. Try and look at the true form. Perhaps we should restart this discussion elsewhere :)
[–]xerosawyer 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
That's the problem with most atheists and our scientific tradition, as soon you want to explore thing beyond the physical you're immediately a, b, c, etc... It's difficult to find baggage free atheists that desire to explore these subjects with seriousness
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Note: the whole purpose of "freethought" is to explore things rationally using science.
So complaining about people not wanted to explore a quasi-religious concept in the freethought forum is misplaced.
There is a subreddit for pantheism
[–]xerosawyer 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Science L. Knowledge, not all knowledge is derived empirically/physically and please note that you can expand your notion of science without being 'quasi-religious'. Do you think all the current sciences are based on the thoughts of atheists? Or are understood through observation?
I am posting in the freethought forum, the whole purpose of this forum is "that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma."
Pantheism is a religion... and a completely pointless one at that since it doesn't seem any different from humanism except it is a x-theism.
[–]xerosawyer 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Pantheism as an alternative view of how the universe was created not all the behaviors attached to being a part of this or that religion
Notice the "theism" part of the word pantheism? Also notice the fact that a pantheistic universe doesn't look any different from a naturalistic universe? Pantheism is proposing unnecessary entities and offering nothing that isn't already covered by humanism.
Promoting pantheism is not freethought or rational.
/r/pantheism
[–]adamwho -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
Not getting caught in the label.
Pantheism or whatever you want to call what you posted is at best irrelevant because it is indistinguishable from other non-theistic belief systems such as humanism, the extra theistic baggage is just pointless. At worse it is a lure to a more nutty new-agey religion, which is my expereince with pantheism.
If you like what is on the list, then it is rational decision to drop the pantheism and call yourself a humanist. Either way, you can find other believers at your local Universalist Unitarian Church... but not so much in atheist and Freethought forums.
This is a freethought forum, not an atheist forum. Some of us are atheists and some not, both of us are interested in discovering knowledge about the visible and invisible universe.
Freethought is actually a bit more rigorous. Atheism is just a lack of belief, freethought requires you to use your brain.
"Freethought is that viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma."
Proposing pantheism as a viable belief systems fails to be rational on a couple of points:
Pantheism seems to be no different from humanism but complicates things by proposing a god-like-thing. This fails to be parsimonious.
A pantheistic universe looks exactly like a naturalistic universe. So why carry around the extra-baggage? Answer: because it makes you feel special to call yourself a pantheist.
So what is the point of carrying around the extra baggage of a X-theism? Answer: to make you feel special, it gives you a group to be in.
And? What's wrong with being in a group or feeling special?
What you are not posting in your list is a whole bunch of implied beliefs which you often find in these alternate religions such as a non-materialism mind/soul (#5)
Please tell me which part of the brain is responsible for consciousness? If minds are physical things then it must be there, right?
universal or collective consciousness
Look up mycilium, you may find that collective consciousness is not something that crazy.
anti-science beliefs
Science has "anti-science" beliefs too, or do you mean it's against induction and empiricism? I mean many science aren't distinguishable from 'religion' (e.g. string theory) or platonic math
/devoutatheist
Calling yourself an atheist while carrying around a pointless title like pantheism just to make yourself feel better is irrational. Granted atheism doesn't equal rational, except we are in the freethought forum, were we actually are attempting to be rational.
The newest theories of mind complete discount the existence of consciousness at all. They describe it as the illusion of consciousness between several functional areas of the brain. There is quite a lot of evidence supporting this view. There is no evidence supporting the view that the mind is somehow separate from the brain or supernatural.
Collective consciousness is crazy nonsense and is never cited anymore except by new-agers and cranks. Seriously, do a search of a cognitive psych journal, Jung and the CC will only be referenced in historical articles. Why? Because it is a failed concept. It is the "holy ghost" of the new-agers with Jung as the prophet.
Your comment was incoherent, so I don't have anything to add.
What's rational today is irrational tomorrow. Don't bind yourself only into thinking a, b, c, is rational because 1, 2, 3 proves it so, although it is quite natural and agreeable. But being in a freethought forum we're here to challenge 1, 2 and 3 not to find more people who agree with us so we 'feel special'
Who is the source sorry, I'm not familiar with the argument so I don't think I respond with a fair defense
To be quite frank I think cognitive psychologists are a bit nuts
The scientific community is split on what 'doing science' means, so within 'science' there is 'anti-science' (depending on where you stand; which is my point, this definition of 'science' is relative, it may mean many things which it didn't mean before or won't mean later)
[–]Shaper_pmp 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Interesting ideas, but they really need a website makeover - it's hard to take anyone seriously when their website screams KOOK! every second you're on it. :-(
[–]wonderfuldog 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Agreed that it could use a makeover, but it's not that bad.
The "Belief Statement".
- http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm -
[–]Shaper_pmp -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
Hmmm... I dunno - in this modern world of Wordpress templates, Drupal themes and out-of-the-box professional-looking CMSs, one has to really try quite hard to look amateurish... but alas, this site succeeds.
As I said, I'm vaguely interested to hear what they have to say, but I just can't bring myself to take them seriously. It's like being accosted by someone on the street - they might have the most compelling ideas in the world, but if they haven't washed their hair in three weeks, they look like a nutter and they smell of piss, you can't easily bring yourself to hang around long enough on the off-chance to find out. <:-)
[–]wonderfuldog 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
"Amateurish" and "outdated" site, sure.
(Site, and its design, are 10+ years old, I think)
I personally like their ideas a lot.
They are, however, one of those groups that you could put everything they agree on on a wallet-sized card (the "Belief Statement" or Manifesto that I mentioned above), and after that they don't have much to work out.
[–]stevetac 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Which part hit you as most kooky?
[–]adamwho -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago*
Pantheism isn't anymore rational than monotheism. It just moves the concept of god(s) from the absurd to the irrelevant and/or scientifically impossible. Nice for people who want to seem more intelligent (or special) but not really any more defensible than monotheism.
Note: Free Thought is looking for answers in science and rationalism, not finding ways to make supernatural beliefs more palatable. It discards all the supernatural... like pantheism.
Bro: why don't you read what I posted before picking a fight. Pantheism has as little to do with the traditional concept of god as the hairs on your ass.
Key tenent: (one of them): Realism - acceptance that the external world exists independently of human consciousness or perception.
Regardless - I have started a NEW reddit : ) to solve your problem.
r/pantheism - come for the nature, stay for the reality.
I did read it Bro.
Pantheism is an unnecessary theistic (rather deistic) concept which has no explanatory ability, is not falsifiable and doesn't seem to offer anything different from what is present in the natural world.
What it does do is give people a warm and fuzzy feeling that they believe in something special. We all go through the phase post-Christianity where we check out eastern religions and walk around with Ankhs and read Carlos Castaneda, eventually you realize that it is all just another psychological crutch and drop these too.
Good luck on your religious forum.
[–]brandnewset[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago*
Edited for fixed formating ^
Nice non-committal religion but definitely not Free Thought.
[–]brandnewset[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Number 7??
Does not seem like a religion at all to me. Just a way to look at the universe. I am not religious at all - just a natural human being that is connected to the universe. An explanation would be nice, but is not necessary; however, I will keep searching for the answers.
Regardless, my original point was to add one more tool to our arsenal in the fight for rational freethought.
Seeing ast 87% of people follow, and 13% lead its not surprising at all that the first person created the site, and the next nine filled it in to make it 'fit'... I am just trying to keep an open mind here and arguing about religion does not allow that. Lets actually stop using that word in this forum and discuss the merits of this system please.
I didn't read your poorly formated list. It is about a religious belief posted in a free thought forum.
I use the term religious broadly as "any belief unsupported by or contradictory to evidence. Pantheism is religious because it is a theistic belief and theism is inherently religious. It hardly matters that it is so dilute as to be irrelevant.
If you want to "fight for free thought" then you should stick to evidence-based beliefs and not bring in extraneous concepts.
I guess string theory is a religion, as well as many other high road maths?
[–]adamwho 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago*
String "theory" is currently an untestable hypothesis and has nothing to do with pantheism or religion.
Right now string theory and pantheism are just as plausible as far as the 'scientific' tradition is concerned
Except that string theory actually has explanatory power, is falsifiable (although currently not testable), doesn't postulate supernatural entities, is about things which exist, has a huge foundation of theory and evidence which it is base on and isn't redundant with other better explanations. String theory doesn't offer a set of morals, doesn't have creation myths, no holy book, no priests, no rituals, no temples.....
Pantheism OTOH, has not explanatory, is not falsifiable, postulates unnecessary supernatural entities, it is not based on evidence, scientific theory, and seems completely redundant with other non-theistic systems, such as humanism. Additionally, pantheism is a religion and like all religions claims revealed knowledge about the world.
Seriously, if you want to talk about this religion, you should do it in a non-freethought forum such as /r/pantheism unless of course you want to talk about pantheism from a scientific POV.
Agreed, string theory doesn't have any of that, but pantheism does attempt to give an alternative understanding of the universe was created and can produce as evidence provided you are open to receiving 'its message'; string theory is the same
If you don't want to talk then go to...
(I am an atheist and do not believe in the existence of anything supernatural.)
Pantheism isn't anymore rational than monotheism.
I think that pantheism is more rational than monotheism.
Wikipedia -
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical, or that the Universe (including Nature on Earth) is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence.
We know that the Universe does exist.
It might be crazy to think that it's sentient, but it's at least one level less crazy than thinking that there's an unknown invisible sky guy running the show.
[–]adamwho -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
That is the point I made in the first post: It just moves the concept of god(s) from the absurd to the irrelevant and/or scientifically impossible. But there is nothing rational about creating supernatural entities where none are required. It isn't like pantheism is a better approximation of reality than mono-theism, it is just more palatable.
The pantheists are at best completely irrelevant and indistinguishable from humanists at worse they are a bunch of new-agey nonsense.
[–]khafra 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Pantheism is less rational than atheism, but it's a damn sight more rational than monotheism--describing "like, everything is god, man" takes fewer bits than describing "there's a supreme being who created everything, but he made it look like he didn't really, and he's perfectly loving but will torture most people for eternity, etc., etc."
This is NOT a religion post. Its a reality post. How are we supposed to think freely about this if we keep getting sidetracked with this sort of religion crap?
RTFP - then comment.
[–]khafra 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I think you meant to reply to adamwho, not me. He commented about the WPM site; I just commented about his comment. I didn't specifically address his flawed assumption that the Pantheism of this group includes some aspect of the supernatural; I decided to leave that for the true advocates like you.
Wrong and slightly less wrong are still wrong. Pantheism is certainly more palatable then monotheism but it isn't less rational... unless you subscribe to a version of pantheism which makes no claims about the nature of the universe and looks exactly the same as a completely naturalistic universe... but then why bother with the extra baggage, unless it just makes you feel good to call yourself a pantheist.
It's important to distinguish between different degrees of irrationality, because all we can really ever hope for is to continually keep becoming less wrong.
[–]adamwho 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
This would be important if we were discovering new forms of religious belief, but we aren't. All the possibilities are on the table, they are all wrong and they are all irrational because they lack even the most basic evidence while there is mountains of evidence against them.
If I were to come to you and say "1 + 1 = 3" is more rational than "1 + 1 = 4" you would be right to dismiss the claim.
There is a rational choice: Dump this religious crap, it doesn't matter what version you claim, it is all irrational garbage.
[–]RogueVert 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Other than using the word pantheism, I don't see why the beliefs they set up are getting your panties in such a bunch.
Having reverence for this universe is a desirable outlook. Extending that awe to our local planet and giving a shit about our interconnectedness is an admirable goal for humans.
To bad nature doesn't really give a shit one way or another.
Defensive?
Because I thought I was posting in the free thought section of reddit, not in the new-age/eastern religion/cult section. Free Thought doesn't equal "any thought" or "no thought"
The whole "you don't have reverence for the universe because you don't believe in my brand of BS" is really tiring... go play with your yogi/guru/cult leader...
[–]Pilebsa 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
The Freethought subreddit has been overrun as of late by a lot of less-rational types who seem to misinterpret what Freethought really means. They seem to think it means willingness to respect and show consideration for any ol' theory regardless of whether it's rational or not. They're wrong. I appreciate you and others who point this out and keep this subreddit from turning into some existential philosophy circle jerk.
Thanks for the encouragement, I find the same issues in the forum I hang out in (http://www.freeratio.org) .
It is the natural result of the populism of "new atheism." Lots of energy for discarding the old and not a lot of clear thinking about how to create meaning in life without religion. Sometimes I like the days when being an atheist was a stuffy philosophical position rather than a pop-philosophy fashion.
[–]Pilebsa 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
We also have an influx of this new breed of what I call "selfish atheists" from the Objectivist camp, who really don't rationally reject god, but emotionally reject god because he hasn't lived up to their expectations. Again, that has nothing to do with Freethought.
[–]RogueVert -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
now there's sand in your vagina!
because i still stand in awe of the universe I have to be in a cult?
No, because you are defending an indefensible religious position in a forum which by its very definition is against such a position.
there's nothing religious about giving a shit about the universe and how we fit into the scheme of things.
but ya you're totally right. we already know how everything works so theres no need to be in awe of how awesome all this shit around us really is.
sorry i'm not as hardcore as you
i still get my mind blown about uncovering deeper aspects of the universe
relax, it'll be fine
[–]NukeMoose 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Are you saying the only way to revere the universe is to bring god into the debate? I'm pretty sure skeptical atheists can have plenty of wonder for the universe (Sagan, Sam Harris). What we don't need is the confusing and useless idea of bring god into the debate when we can use science, logic and reason to achieve the same levels of explanation, beauty and wonder of the universe.
[–]khafra -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
You can have a subjective probability of 0+epsilon or 1-epsilon for statements in arithmetic or boolean logic: "1+1=3" isn't as wrong as "1+1=[33](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth's_up-arrow_notation)," but your belief that either is correct can be equal; infitesimally close to 0.
For statements about the real world, however, you should hold a probability somewhere between 0 and 1; because if your belief is exactly 1 or 0, that means no amount of evidence will sway your opinion at all. If a glowing being came down out of the sky, performing miracles and telling me he was Jehovah, my best guess would be a technologically advanced alien teenager playing a practical joke--but the probability I assign monotheism would also rise a bit.
The art of rationality is that of letting your beliefs be pushed around by the evidence. Due to a host of built-in biases and insufficient computing hardware, no human is perfect at this, so we are all irrational. We should strive for ever more reliable personal epistemology, but we should not fail to recognize when wrongness improves.
Wat?
Judging by your most recent page of comments, you're smart and well-read, so I must not have explained myself very well.
Here's the short version of what I mean by "rationality," here's the long version.
Pantheism is less rational than atheism, but it's a damn sight more rational than monotheism
The difference is analogous to believing in a lucky rabbit's foot as opposed to a lucky rabbit's foot named "Herb".
[–]khafra 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Yup! All the evidence so far is against rabbits' feet increasing the frequency of events turning in their possessors' favor. But the probability that somewhere there exists a rabbit's foot with that ability is higher than the probability that somewhere there exists a rabbit's foot with that ability, and it is named "Herb".
somewhere there exists a rabbit's foot with that ability
somewhere there exists a rabbit's foot with that ability, and it is named "Herb"
Free-thought is free-thought brother. And considering the human condition in its current state its time to pile up as much of it as we can so we can figure this out.
I have always been interested in the Gaia hypothesis (which is a theory now). I like nature and do not really enjoy watching greed rape our natural world.
So - looking at this site I overlooked that it was out of date, and noticed it had James Lovelock (Gaia) aon the front page. Out of respect for this man's mind and contribution to our planet I had a read through. It struck me as a way to look at the world which I may have thought of before, but was never able to put into words. I like that.
Anyway - I have been saying for years. If you were god, would you be one thing waiting to punish a bunch of useless humans? NO! You would be everything would you not? That way if one planet earth blows up, there are lots others to continue on your voyage of discovery.
*Edit - not wanting to start a religious war here. Read everything and believe what you want is my motto. I am just sharing info and hoping for intelligent conversation - reddit rocks!
[–]stevetac 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Thank you for the link.
Free-thought is free-thought brother.
We're talking bout Freethought which is something very specific.
Pantheism is no more rational than other forms of theism. As Adamwho eloquently said, it just pushes "god" into a darker crevice.
Like I said - lets not bring the connotation or denotation of god into this argument as its not the point.
The point is of this post was its rationality. I am interested in feedback on the mathematics of this point of view as I see it as a path worth investigation toward a grand unified theory. To bad the debate has been hijacked to defend atheism, as atheism does not need to defended as a faith.
Look at my recent posts and please comment on the golden pyramid math, the binary that the Chinese were using 2300 years ago to try and explain things and the physics involved in regards to the frequencies that we, our planet, solar system, sun, galaxy and universe are on if you would like to discuss further. Not interested in arguing the existence of god with you, you are preaching to the choir. (I just spent 5 min trying to spell choir with a q - time for more coffee.. . its early). LOL>
Anyway - does that make sense? Atheism is a theism too if you want to get technical. Its a way to disprove the existence of god to some degree, and this is as well - in the traditional sense. Regardless of your implications we must be able to forge through material like this to get to the truth.
That seems to be the whole point.
You are claiming "god = nature" when I'm fine with just talking about "nature".
I could claim "god = an apple" and I could be correct but it's rather pointless and it would just piss off people who think god is something else.
Just drop the theism, the god talk, and just leave the points that actually matter (humanism, secularism, rationalism, skepticism). By invoking the supernatural/god you are missing out on many of the above points that have evidence to exist and matter.
Atheism is a theism too if you want to get technical.
It is absolutely not. Unless you are just saying the word contains "theism". But the A before it implies "without, non, or no" which completely reverses the meaning. No theism = atheism. Without theism = Atheism.
You're trying to tell me that "not an elephant is still an elephant" which is the definition of irrationality.
I am interested in feedback on the mathematics of this point of view as I see it as a path worth investigation toward a grand unified theory. To bad the debate has been hijacked to defend atheism, as atheism does not need to defended as a faith.
What does pantheism have to do with any grand unified theory? There's no evidence whatsoever that a pantheistic god exists.
Atheism is a theism too if you want to get technical. Its a way to disprove the existence of god to some degree
No it isn't. You use a lot of fancy references, but you don't really appear to have much of a depth in those subjects. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. If you're looking for some singular ideal that makes everything in the universe suddenly make sense, good luck with that.
I can see some value to a pantheistic line of thinking if it promotes more careful concern and stewardship for the environment and other creatures. And there's certainly evidence to indicate that all life is related and part of a cycle, but that is different from saying there's a supernatural creator that needs to be worshipped that's one with the material world. Again, no actual evidence of that. Just because there are some positive aspects and cause-and-effect here and there, does not mean the theory is viable or worthy of scientific respect. That's my opinion. YMMV.
[–]ChocoDoco -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
A couple of questions for you, if you care to answer:
Does putting a definition and limitation on Free Thought make it not so Free? Isn't rationality subjective?
Personally, I imagine free and independent thinking to be exactly that; free and independent. In other words, think and imagine whatever it is one can. What is rational for you may not be for me, what is rational for you now may not be in ten years. Science is also changing and evolving and new discoveries are made as technology advances. Free thought allows for continued advancement and growth. When we block and limit our thinking to what we as individuals deem "rational" we hinder ourselves as a species.
Remember, the telephone, the car, the internet, the computer were all once just thoughts that some irrational free thinkers had.
Until science explains everything, ever with absolute 100% certainty, there will be the supernatural and there will be people who believe strongly in it. Science will never answer all questions and religion just makes people confused. Truly opening up your mind to ALL possibilities removes the confusion and the need to know " who, what, when, where, why" about everything.
There is a specific definition for the term freethought which this sub-reddit is based on. Any definition limits the scope of the word. The point of freethought is an attempt to answer questions from a scientific point of view rather than a religious one. PanTHEISM is a religious point of view. Other epistemological or metaphysical concerns are not really relevant since a scientific perspective assumes methodological naturalism and the scientific method has most successful method we have for discovering reliable and accurate information about the world.
What you describe as "free" or "independent" thinking is actually creative thinking. This is a good way to think, but if you want to discover things about the world and gain knowledge, then your creative thinking will need to correspond to reality and be subject to falsification.
Your description of the process of invention is naive. A nice introduction to the history of science and technology can be found in the Connections series. Your examples are completely unrelated to the concept of freethought and rely much more on economics and the string of technologies that preceded them. The heroes of invention didn't just come up with these technologies out of thin air and they certainly were not being irrational "free thinkers," in fact most be considered very hard nosed rationalists and money grubbers.
Hate to tell you, but the supernatural has already been ruled out for a LONG time. There is simply no possible mechanism for the myriad of supernatural claims to operate. The items of supernatural claims exist in the macroscopic domain which we live (mid-size, mid-temp, slow moving, low-mass) and the physics of this domain has been settled for 100 years. The oft-touted claims of new-agers that quantum-mechanics or other seemingly exotic physics theory will save the supernatural only exposes their vast ignorance on the subject and desperation.
Of course all this is lost on the person who is looking for the comfort of a religious belief like pantheism.
There is a specific definition for the term freethought which this sub-reddit is based on.
Well, I did not know that, that changes things.
What you describe as "free" or "independent" thinking is actually creative thinking.
Yes it is creative thinking. If people don't think freely, critically and independently, they can not think creatively. It goes hand-in-hand in my opinion.
Your description of the process of invention is naive.
See comment above. Also, I am not as articulate as you so forgive me if my explanations seem elementary. I try to explain myself as best I can.
Hate to tell you, but the supernatural has already been ruled out for a LONG time.
Yet people still firmly believe in it. I think it is more naive to just dismiss the supernatural because science gives explanations for it. For example, it doesn't matter if there is a God or not. It matters that people believe there is and they are willing to do crazy things to prove it. You can not just dismiss religion completely because it is based in mythology. It is very real because people keep it alive.
If we promote free, critical, independent thinking from an early age (including thoughts that you may consider irrational/supernatural) I think that would help diminish the closed minded, one sided, unproductive, limited thinking adults tend to have. Ironically, you too display limited thinking when you refuse to accept others thoughts.
Of course all this is lost on the person who believes he/she is right with no room for any other explanations about anything. I hope that made sense, and thank you for explaining.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]brandnewset[S] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]NukeMoose 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]brandnewset[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]brandnewset[S] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]xerosawyer 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]xerosawyer 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]xerosawyer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]xerosawyer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]xerosawyer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]xerosawyer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Shaper_pmp 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wonderfuldog 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Shaper_pmp -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]wonderfuldog 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]stevetac 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho -1 points0 points1 point ago*
[–]brandnewset[S] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]brandnewset[S] 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]brandnewset[S] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]adamwho -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]xerosawyer 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]adamwho 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]xerosawyer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]xerosawyer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wonderfuldog 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]adamwho -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]khafra 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]brandnewset[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]khafra 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]khafra 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]RogueVert 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adamwho 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Pilebsa 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Pilebsa 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RogueVert -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]adamwho 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RogueVert -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]NukeMoose 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]khafra -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Pilebsa 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]khafra 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Pilebsa 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]khafra 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]brandnewset[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]stevetac 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Pilebsa 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]brandnewset[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]NukeMoose 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Pilebsa 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ChocoDoco -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]adamwho -1 points0 points1 point ago*
[–]ChocoDoco -1 points0 points1 point ago