Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
119 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    believing in freedom of opinion and expression literally has nothing to do with being religious...What you believe religiously is not the same as what you believe philosophically/politically. Freedom of opinion specifically refers to the god (small g) given right to have an opinion and be able to express that opinion. An opinion on that has nothing to do with how religious you are.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner All religions believe that if you do not believe their religion you will be punished by their god. Thats not freedom of opinion. When you indoctrinate your children to be religious you are not giving them freedom of opinion.

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth first of all that has nothing to do with freedom of opinion. What you believe religiously is not the same as what you believe philosophically or politically. So someone may believe that all non-believers will be punished, but that doesn't mean they don't believe you have a right to your opinion.

      Second of all every religious person has different perceptions over their beliefs.

      third of all not every religion does believe that. for instance taoism doesn't, buddhism doesn't. neither does judaism

      You're making a gross asinine sweeping generalization on all religions and all practitioners of those religions.

      Not to mention history over the last 300+ years really doesn't favor you. Plenty of America's early politicians were deeply religious, meanwhile the right to free speech, expression, and opinion is considered the most important amendment in the bill of rights. Meanwhile the USSR and PRC were founded by anti-religion atheists and banned freedom to any kind of resemblance of an opinion.

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth The Baha'i Faith has a core teaching of independent investigation of the truth. That everyone has the responsibility to investigate reality for themselves and to not blindly follow teachings and dogmas. Another core teaching is the Oneness of Religion. That all religions come from the same God, and that each Prophet of Messenger of God has come with a message specific for that stage of human development. Therefore, someone leading a life in perfect alignment with Christ or Muhammad would be in alignment with the Baha'i teachings. Differing opinions are seen as multiple facets of the truth, just as one dimension is a point, but adding multiple dimensions allows to see the true form more completely. Of course, opinions grounded in reason and logic would be more clear than those founded in superstition or ignorance.

    • 2 years ago

      @absolutezero Then you are not religious you are a spiritual believer in a deity.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner Then men who founded the U.S were not all christians and many politicians were not religious either. But it is certainly a requirement. Especially the founding fathers. They may have been separating church and state but they still faced death if they claimed to be atheists.

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth the definition of religious- believing in a religion. Don't play word games with me. And it still doesn't dismiss any other point.

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth no not all. But some were. plenty of the founding fathers claimed to be atheist/agnostic...

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner, i have to go but ill come back to this

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth Perhaps we should start with an agreement on the definition of religion. My current working definition is that religion is a source of love and agreement through divine principles of conduct. Of course, I am always learning more and would be interested as to how you would define religion.

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth I'm also going to use the Merriam Webster definition of religious: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
      or
      scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
      Both of which, I am (trying to be).

    • 2 years ago

      @absolutezero @chancellorkingsmyth look it gets ridiculous if we're not using accepted definitions. Words have meanings for a reason. If you're not using the accepted definition of a word specify in your OP.

      But lets be real here, changing your definitions midway through a debate is just a giant moving the goal post fallacy.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner I'm not changing definitions midway through. Simply trying to establish a common understanding, before debating, of a word that had led to much if not the most suffering throughout human history. Even the Merriam Webster definition has 4 different ones, of which I would most identify with #4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

    • 2 years ago

      @absolutezero no that definitions more than fair. Was more about him than you.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner concerning your first statement, I think the parallel could be drawn without too much difficulty that the majority of religions expect in exchange for participation as members, for individuals to identify with their core values and doctrinalzational ideologies.

      As such, free thought concerning the very essence of creation itself; the one thing that essentially gives rise to free thought from the moment of cognitive awareness in what is found in only the human race on here on earth, essentially removes the instinctual basis and foundation for the facilitation and requirement of free thought.

      The question of where did we come from is the epitome of human thought and is what drives us forward as a species. Being unable to answer this question ourselves, as a people we often turn to organizations who "claim" to have the answer.

      Upon aligning with an organization of this magnitude, the cognitive requirement to probe this primal question dissipates and we are left becoming slaves to a system of mindlessness.

      Does it prevent free thought.. to some extent absolutely it does. To claim that it annhilates the capacity to have free thought entirely, no.. but it whittles it away as time moves forward each day that one identifies with such "claims".

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary the OP stated that you cannot believe in freedom to opinion and be religious. Freedom to opinion, so freedom to hold opinions without political, societal, or legal interference. the debate has nothing do with "does religion prevent free thought". You're confusing free thought with freedom to opinion

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner where did political or legal interference come into the question? I don't recall having seen either of those in the original post.

    • 2 years ago

      The belief in freedom of opinion is neither political nor legal.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and to draw a parallel between freedom of opinion and free thought is far closer than to draw a parallel to it pertaining to legal or political notions.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner I can believe in the freedom to have an opinion as a child and not have it pertain at all whatsoever to any political or legal justification.. I'm not sure where you're drawing this connection from.

    • 2 years ago

      Meaning, do children need laws to believe they are entitled to their own opinions?

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary thats what the freedom of opinion means. Freedom to have an opinion. Freedom to free speech/expression without worry of government retaliation, censorship, or societal sanction

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner he said the belief in the freedom of opinion, not the actual freedom itself.

    • 2 years ago

      Meaning, I can believe the sky is filled with marshmallow.. it's not the case, but I am entitled to believe it. Regardless of political or legal implication.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary dude that literally makes no sense... Thats some extra mental gymnastics right there my friend.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner to believe in something is not the same thing as it actually existing.

      To believe in freedom of opinion is as you put it, that in order to hold an opinion and not be persecuted for it, I have to exist within a structured government whose laws protect me from such.

      Yet for millions of years people were free to have opinions about whatever and no government existed requiring the protection of its laws so they could have that freedom to their opinion. You're looking at this concept in a very narrow vacuum of the modern day instead of the concept holistically.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary ??? dude your now doing mental gymnastics to explain your mental gymnastics...

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and you are refusing to look at freedom of opinion outside of the modern American version of what freedom is.

    • 2 years ago

      Freedom in government vs. freedom in nature.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner one is free, and the other one believes it is free.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary definition of freedom- the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint

      Are you thinking of free will- actual ability to think for ones self.

      then theres free thought- truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner hahaha... you're going to use the American/ modern definition of freedom to validate your position. A bird can believe whatever it wants and no government needs to protect it in order for it to have that freedom. Stop looking at freedom in such a narrow minded viewpoint.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary ok I will stop using the accepted definition of words for now on

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner true freedom has nothing to do with government. Or laws. Laws enslave. Governments enslave. True freedom only exists in nature.

    • 2 years ago

      Or in sleep.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and to use your definition.. no legal nor political aspect was part of that definition of freeedom.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner "definition of freedom- the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.." not seeing government in there.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and free thought is the ability to think freely.. which is basically the same exact thing as freedom to opinion.. free to one's opinions.. or thoughts..

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner do I need to continue? I'm a little worried about your inability to recognize the similarity (or near identical-ness) between thought and opinion, along with your inability to recognize freedom as only pertaining to laws or government. Your own definition defeated your argument.

    • 2 years ago

      I will say this is precisely what I meant when I posted my common sense thread.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary if he meant free thought, why didn't he state that or for that matter correct me when we were discussing it earlier... These are some crazy mental gymnastics man... Use that common sense you claim to have...

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary I still can't get over this. So using accepted definitions of terms and words is not common sense... Those mental gymnastics have made you thick man...

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner it's a simple parallel to draw connection from. Opinions are simply verbalized thoughts.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary which is why definitions matter... in order to convey your opinion. For instance Freedom to opinion has a specific meaning. Free will another.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner if you need a book (dictionary) in order to think for you, then we'll go back to the post about facts where I said the level of conversation is at two different levels. You need to learn to think for yourself.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner as you stated, freedom to opinion is rooted in political or legal foundation. Which it clearly (according to your definition) is not. Don't change your argument now.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary yes we are on 2 different levels...

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner yes you are making wild claims pertaining to freedom that don't match your definition. You bet your ass we are.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary ??? dude how high are you... can i have w.e. you're smoking man... Freedom of opinion- "Article 19 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without political interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." This is the definition. what is wrong with you man...

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner you are for some reason lumping politics and law into the definition, of which neither has any place.. yet you want to argue accepted definions.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary thats what the definition is...

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary what is wrong with you?

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner you don't get to use the legal/ political definition of freedom to define freedom bud.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary ok dude... freedom to opinion has a very specific meaning.... go to college and learn about it. Take a civics course. any civics course

    • 2 years ago

      Because that article you cited,.. only pertains in England.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner Article 19 (stylized ARTICLE 19) is a British human rights organization with a specific mandate and focus on the defense and promotion of freedom of expression and freedom of information worldwide founded in 1987.[1] The organization takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

    • 2 years ago

      "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."

    • 2 years ago

      However I will retract my England statement.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary again if OP did not agree with this definition why did he not state otherwise. Additionally, why did he just state free will instead. Use common sense man.

    • 2 years ago

      Regardless, this usage of freedom still does not pertain to any legal or political implication. This is a god given freedom, expressed in words by a council of people who felt it necessary to say such so that people know it is a natural right.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary and??? how does this change any of my arguments... we're just playing word game you dense moron. Let me guess took one semester of philosophy in college. Got a C, now you're here?

    • 2 years ago

      You don't need government in order to be free. Seriously, that's like saying I need a job not to be poor. It only pertains to this society.. not humanity as a whole. And this society is fucked. Freedom by means of control,.. laughable!

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary ok I'm going to sleep... you have fun with playing word games...

    • 2 years ago

      Wow, way to go with the ad hominem. And no, it's not a word game, semantics is literally everything concerning this debate.. and freedom cannot be defined using its political definition.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary freedom of opinion has a very specific legal definition.

    • 2 years ago

      if you stated freedom of opinion, this is what it means... you're talking about free will

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and yeah, you tried using a definition provided by google, which is the correct definition.. but then realized it has nothing to do with politics or law.. to which you then changed your argument.

    • 2 years ago

      Nope. Freedom of opinion is the freedom to have an opinion. Pure and simple.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary take a civics course. Do better than a C- in philosophy then come talk to me about these

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner the freedom to have an opinion is not in any way rooted, shaped or formed in politics or law.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary good night. This may be the dumbest conversation I've had the pleasure to be apart of.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner you are moving the goal posts of your argument because I showed you why you were wrong. Keep at it with the ad hominems.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary here this was my original post: "first of all that has nothing to do with freedom of opinion. What you believe philosophically or politically is not the same as what you believe religiously. So someone may believe that all non-believers will be punished, but that doesn't mean they don't believe you have a right to your opinion.

      Second of all every religious person has different perceptions over their beliefs.

      third of all not every religion does believe that. for instance taoism doesn't, buddhism doesn't. neither does judaism

      You're making a gross asinine sweeping generalization on all religions and all practitioners of those religions.

      Not to mention history over the last 300+ years really doesn't favor you. Plenty of America's early politicians were deeply religious, meanwhile the right to free speech, expression, and opinion is considered the most important amendment in the bill of rights. Meanwhile the USSR and PRC were founded by anti-religion atheists and banned freedom to any kind of resemblance of an opinion."

      where I clearly stated freedom to opinion as a political ideal, and was not corrected by OP. It seems everyone is using a different definition than you.

    • 2 years ago

      what goal post have i moved?

    • 2 years ago

      You literally argued this definition, "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." which has no basis in law or politics.. and when that didn't work for you, you cited article 19.. which is a political definition.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary yes without hindrance or restraint. That could be politically or societally. This is nothing but word games... Do you actually have a counter point to my statements?

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and this is your first post as it is the first post on the page, "believing in freedom of opinion and expression literally has nothing to do with being religious..."

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary exactly. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary again do you actually have any arguments?

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner Without hindrance or restraint, which to then you claim "could be politically or societally"??? Who's playing word games now?

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary what??? dude you're an idiot... do you actually have any points?

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner yeah, my argument was the first post I responded to you with. But you can't seem to get past this definition of freedom not pertaining to politics or law, so we are going nowhere.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner hahaha... I'm an idiot because I understand that free thought and freedom of opinion are nearly identical but you want to identify them as legal or political? Go tell any animal it's not allowed to have an opinion because there isn't a government protecting it from being persecuted. Or better yet, tell the native Americans they can't have an opinion because they don't have a government.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary are you having philosophical debates with animals? cause that would explain a lot actually...What's your cat's opinion on all this? lol

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and historians over the last 300 years don't agree with me.. how about over the last 3 billion years.. you look at freedom in terms of it only pertaining to government, which is a form of enslavement in and of itself, and then claim you are free.. might as well be the guy chained to the wall in Plato's cave.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner You are so proud of what you think you know. You are like a condemned man, proud of the vastness of his prison cell.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner and my cat's opinion on this is that you are incredibly close and narrow minded.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner congrats on your ignorance.. it suits you really well.

    • 2 years ago

      @joedinner I would not define religion as believing. Religion requires worship.

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth you and I must have two different opinions about religion.

    • 2 years ago

      @chancellorkingsmyth I consider myself a very religious person.

      Freedom of thought is very paramount in Christianity. Especially because religion as a whole is a choice.

      In my opinion having faith in a religion turns even the simplest of lifestyles into a day by day practice of choosing whether to love by that religion or not.

      Without the faith of a higher power calling us to live a good life serving others in many capacities many choices are eliminated on a daily basis.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary I agree with that. Some religions have very warped ideas about creation and the actual concept of God. God is only the part of a reasonable and rational persons way to connect with a higher ethical standard. If you're a rational being. Sadly that's not always the case.

  • 2 years ago

    What do you mean by "freedom of Opinion"? Are you saying that they don't believe you should have the freedom to have differing opinions, that other peoples opinions should not be coerced, or that metaphysically, it is impossible to have differing opinions?

    • 2 years ago

      Of course you could. Christianity is based on free will.

      • 2 years ago

        @meta_self You apparently have never heard of Calvinists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried The I in T.U.L.I.P. doesn't mean we don't willingly want God's grace.

      • 2 years ago

        @meta_self God makes you willing in the hour of his grace. Thus if he shines his grace on you, you have no choice, you cannot resist, you cannot refuse, you cannot but accept his will over yours. Thus, not so free I think.

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried Well, this is a particular doctrine in the Christian Canon. Only Calvinists believe it.

        With that said, "Now, some ridicule this truth of the Bible and say that it makes man go to heaven against his will. "He kicks and screams all the way to heaven." But that is not how the Bible presents God's grace. God makes His people "willing in the day of His power" Psalm 110:3. For a wonderful illustration of that truth, just consider the converted Apostle Paul. "By the grace of God' he was what he was (I Corinthians 15:10). And immediately after his conversion he said willingly, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Acts 9:6. That surely was not against his will.

        God's grace is sweet and irresistible. He makes us love it and want nothing else. He is as irresistible to us as a husband to his newly-wed bride. Come with us and hear God's wonderful grace proclaimed in Christ any Lord's Day."

        http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html

    • 2 years ago

      I think in order to effectively weigh and measure this topic, one has to discern and define upon common terms of agreement what the indication of being religious implies.

      And for the most part, I would agree that being religious tends to often remove the credibility of an individual to properly be able to commensurately be considered a free thinker.

      Religions do afterall predicate the notion of following a preconceived set of idealistic beliefs based upon unarguable concepts. And as such generally removes the capacity for an individual to question or posit an opinion of their own concerning that particular religion.

      To align with an organization of that subject matter does often tend to lead the masses into being sheeple. An action inconsistent with that of free thought.

      However, as someone who follows the Buddhist and Taoist principles, but not the religious aspects of those schools of thought, I am definitely one to question whether or not I am of the class of person who is incapable of thinking freely.

      There are measures of alignment to a particular religion or religions that I might agree prevent the promotion of free thinking, whereas others might encourage it.

      I suppose it all boils down to the level of active involvement as to how far entrenched an individual is willing to subject themselves to the whims of control to whichever particular organization it is that they are themselves aligning.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary I would define religion as Worship and spiritual as Belief

      • 2 years ago

        @chancellorkingsmyth just to humor me, would You define freedom of opinion as pertaining to politics and law, or as the natural right endowed upon each of us from birth?

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary I never stated natural rights are dependent on laws. Jesus man. Stop the straw man.

      • 2 years ago

        @joedinner no, you're correct you didn't, you said that freedom to have an opinion is entirely dependent on politics and law. Which is asinine at best and completely psychotic at worst. And I'm not sure how you got me saying that you said natural rights were dependent on laws from that question. The freedom to have an opinion is a natural right, but that was neither what I asked chancellorking nor was it was I insinuated that you said. You're pretty brain dead aren't you?

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary worst draw man ever... right so if natural rights aren't dependent on laws and and freedom of opinion is a natural right... Dude you need to reread the thread. You confused "free thought" with "freedom of opinion" the whole time. Now you're using weak straw man attacks to cover yourself. Seriously actually read what I was saying. Because you seem very confused.

      • 2 years ago

        @joedinner free thought and freedom to have thought.. it's the same thing and you are twisting it to justify your position. Free is the core structure of freedom. Opinions are spoken thoughts. Fuck man. You are ridiculous.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary thank god you've finally admitted this was all due to misunderstanding the difference between free thought and freedom to opinion. I'm not explaining to you anymore. Google it. This is getting repetitious

      • 2 years ago

        @joedinner the freedom to think freely and the freedom to express an opinion are virtually identical. One is silent, one is spoken. However that literally has nothing to do with politics or law (which was your argument the entire time) and both are natural rights, endowed upon everyone at birth. governments are the reason people DON'T have those freedoms, not the reason they DO have them. But to say that the freedom to think or the freedom to express an opinion is derived from the constitutional makeup of a fictional government, is literal insanity,

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary google it. You're on the internet google it. Free thought and free speech are totally different concepts. And that was never my argument. Find where I made that argument. This is a weak attempted straw man.

      • 2 years ago

        @joedinner "Freedom to opinion, so freedom to hold opinions without political, societal, or legal interference." and that good sir, was not your original claim. That was indeed edited to reflect your argument after the fact. But you can make yourself look as good as you want so as not to be "wrong". I on the other hand with the color and blind issue, can't physically edit the thread title as I have no clue how to do so.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary ??? weak straw man... well now I'm blocked. Great arguments buddy...

      • 2 years ago

        @joedinner haha, that is all your argument ever is, I'm done man, you literally have 0 brain cells.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary ok sure thing buddy... I'll remember that while I'm doing surgery tomorrow... have you googled the differences yet? or are you still confused?

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary Ignorance isn't a crime, but thinking you're intelligent when you're not, is a major problem.

      • 2 years ago

        @joedinner nobody cares about your high and mighty job or your 19 degrees dude, you're just a jackass who doesn't know how to think outside of what you think you know, and honestly man, I don't believe you about your degrees. It might be true, but frankly, anyone can be anyone behind a computer screen.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary well i don't have 19. i only have 4... My doctorate isn't even on this subject so... You're still confused. just google it. Everyone can be somewhat knowledgeable. They just need to do a little research and not be as you say a "jackass".

    • 2 years ago

      I completely disagree GOD gave us free will and with that freedom of speech. How and what we choose to do and use our words is on us as humans. Your opinion is that of your own but should always be honest and forthright

      • 2 years ago

        Religion does hinder free opinion at all.

        • 2 years ago

          I would like to offer to take @chancellorkingsmyth to a head to head debate on this topic.

          • 2 years ago

            I disagree because everyone is different. Some people do fit a mold. Others break them. Painting everything with the same brush is usually wrong. Besides being deliberately ignorant. aka close minded.