Free thought is not synonymous with atheism

When I said that Pro was taken a far too defensive stance, my intention was to remind everyone of the point of this debate, and my position which I laid out in the opening round. Perhaps there have been too many stones launched at religion in my rebuttals, but the proposition remains not that the faithful are devoid of free thought, but that, essentially without exception, atheists are free-thinkers. Premise 1: Doctrine Indeed, Christopher Hitchens once said "take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more truth, beauty, happiness, and wisdom will come to you that way". (From earlier in the debate) (1) Now, this seems quite at odds to what my opponent considers the atheist attitude, which is that the liberation of the mind leads to liberation from religion. Chrisopher Hitchens, one of the less mild atheist intellectuals, did not say that free thought can only be granted to atheists, or that theists cannot practice it, but instead that enlightenment in truth, happiness, and understanding stem from free thinking. While his words in context imply atheism, they in no way command disbelief, or assign free thinking solely upon it. Despite my adversary"s errant view of the atheist "doctrine", I must agree with the statement. But you will notice that "freedom from religion" is not equivalent to a disbeliever, but instead suggests a kind of exemption from the dogmatic principles thrust upon the religious; to be free from religion does not necessarily mean to abandon it, but to question its deepest contentions, and look at the discrepancies with an open mind. Christopher Hitchen"s likening of heaven to North Korea is an effective, if strident, argument. That is the key word. While many atheists share this view, that in no way requires it of all atheists, or excludes atheists who disagree, such as me. By definition, Christopher and others" ideas are arguments, not doctrines, and should not be compared in this way to religious tenets. Premise 2: This point it seems ought to be dropped. This premise relies almost entirely on the following arguments, and should be judged on that basis. So this contention should not be forgotten, but addressing it at this point in the discussion is arbitrary. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Childhood Indoctrination However pleasurable it would be to write a full defense of why children should be left to decide personal morality, suffice it to say that core ethics need not, and should not come complete with a holy book and a priest demanding conformity. What if it was decided that to teach infants morality, the youth must be commandeered into a political party? The only difference being that the Democrats and Republicans don"t threaten eternal torture on their followers. Humans are naturally instilled with a sense of morality that does not require emotional blackmail or dogma. To compare religious indoctrination with evolution reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of science. There are some trivial scientific facts that one must take for granted, but even children in classrooms are permitted to see science in action, and witness, for example, how evolution works. If Pro doubts some concrete scientific knowledge, with some money and time it is inevitably testable. The few parts of religion that can be experimented on, such as the effectiveness of praying, do not end well for the faithful. (2) I suppose that I must accept Pro"s reasoning for why Christians need not heed the polemic actions of God in the Old Testament, but immorality flows immutably from everyone Holy Scripture. How about in the New Testament when God says, "I will strike her children dead. " (3)The only point here is that the Bible is not a morally pure work, and cannot be proscribed to vulnerable youth as the ultimate guidebook for ethics. _____________________________________________________________________________________ The Impossible Claim No, religion does not claim to know everything, but that does not excuse the fact that it claims to know the unknowable, and to understand the understandable, and to be the solution to the universe and to the apocalypse, as well as the place to achieve salvation and absolute morality. These ridiculous assertions do not indicate free though on the part of the preachers or their flock. Against, a defense of religion by Pro, but no refutation as to why atheism"s refusal to bend to such allegations does connote free thought. The Desire Not to Disbelieve I further await a response as to why atheists" holding to this position despite wanting to believe the opposite is not indicative of free thought. Racking the brain does not find any other feasible and relevant response to this premise. Conclusion This entire debate seems to hinges on a misunderstanding of the propositions: to me, proving that some religious people are free-thinkers does not constitute a defeat to my position, as I made clear in every single round since the beginning that I did not contend that theists are incapable of free-thought, or that the opening of one"s mind leads inexorably to disbelief. With that said, the only premise that I feel my opponent has combated me at all in the way of my clearly stated stand is his first premise regarding doctrine. Other than that, nothing Pro has said indicates an explanation of why some atheists are not free-thinkers. (1) . http://www.goodreads.com... (2) . http://www.nytimes.com... (3) . http://www.answering-christianity.com...