Skeptical Freethinker

As a skeptic, I feel to agree or disagree you have to use the Socratic Method and Scientific method, you have to define what you mean, so you can find fallacies and hopefully correct your thinking and find truth, I am seeking truth, which is defined as something that is demonstrable or proven. Therefore, I must define what do I mean by god, according to dictionary.com, god is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." God as defined by Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive record of the English language) is the one object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. Also according to dictionary.com and Oxford Dictionary : An atheist is defined as one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God. However, Charles Bradlaugh wrote in an essay titled A Plea for Atheism: “The best policy against all prejudice is to firmly advocate the truth. The Atheist does not say "There is no God," but he says: "I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. If, however, 'God' is defined to mean an existence other than the existence of which I am a mode, then I deny 'God,' and affirm that it is impossible such 'God' can be. That is, I affirm one existence, and deny that there can be more than one." An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds. Pantheist belief that God and the universe are identical. A freethinker is one who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. In studying the above definitions, I am a skeptical freethinker and by default an infidel. If Charles Bradlaugh’s definition is true, then I am an atheist too, for I cannot deny something I am unable to conceive, for as Albert Simmons, a 19th century rationalist, stated “We cannot say anything of the supreme cause as a deity or a god, for to conceive the idea would involve a conception of the inconceivable, and every conception involves relation, likeness and differences, whatever does not present each of these is unknowable.”I cannot call myself a permanent agnostic in principle (perhaps a temporary agnostic) because we are still trying to understand how the universe emerged. I cannot say we will never know which the definition alludes to, this why we have science and are trying to find the answers. I am not a pantheist as defined because although there is proof for the universe, I am unsure what the word god means and I cannot say that god and the universe are the same. I am a skeptic because I doubt and am critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds. I am a freethinker because I have rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. I think the best summary of my freethinking skepticism was offered by the famous African-American Intellectual, co-founder of NAACP, Pan - Africanist Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois reply to a priest in 1948, in which the priest asked Dr. Du Bois if he believed in God, which Dr. Du Bois replied "If by belief in 'God', you mean a belief in a person of vast power who consciously rules the universe for the good of mankind, I answer 'No'. I cannot disprove this assumption, but I certainly see no proof to sustain such a belief, neither in History nor in my personal experience. If on the other hand you mean by 'God' a vague Force which in some uncomprehensible way, dominates all life and change, then I answer 'Yes'; I recognize such Force, and if you wish to call it 'God', I do not object"... neither will I. I also agree with Dr. Du Bois assessment when he stated “There is no religion which I know of whose dogma and creed is one in which I wholly believe. I do not believe in the existence and rulership of the one God of the Jews. I do not believe in the miraculous birth and the miracle of the Christ of the Christians; I do not believe in the tenets of Mohammedanism (Islam) and Buddhism; frankly I do not believe in the Guardian of the Baha'i' faith has any supernatural knowledge of what may happen, or is any more than a fine, conscientious, and hard-working leader of men.” Nevertheless, what I am above all things is someone who seeks truth (something that is demonstrable or proven) and how to apply this truth to my ephemeral existence. Sources: god. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god atheist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist agnostic. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic infidel. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infidel skeptic. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic freethinker. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freethinker http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_bradlaugh/plea_for_atheism.html

Fallacy of Judeo-Christianity Freewill

I am thinking about freewill. I have been listening again to an audio book by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman a professor who teaches at UNC-Chapel Hill, he has written several books about the New Testament, but he wrote a book called God’s Problem: How the bible fails to answer our most important question Why we suffer. He wrote something I never considered before, and it was about freewill. Often theist use the argument that we suffer because we have freewill. He mentioned that this argument fails because if heaven exist, and if a being have freewill in heaven, there exist a place where a person can have freewill and there is no suffering. I thought about this deeper, for example, if Satan rebelled against God and took a third of heaven with him (see Revelations 12:6-9), then he and the angels he convinced to join him, had freewill, if not then they could not have rebelled. Furthermore, when mankind supposedly ate the forbidden fruit, The Lord God said, “Mankind has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, we must remove him from the garden, less he should eat from the tree of life, and live forever" (see Genesis 3:22), therefore the Lord God must have knowledge of suffering and yet the Lord God lives in a realm where suffering does not exist i.e. heaven, and if the Lord God could create a place where suffering does not exist and where beings exist with freewill, then he could have created us with freewill without suffering and therefore the whole garden incident was totally unnecessary. On a philosophical idea of freewill, does it exist or are things causally determined or is it both? I am a soft-determinist, I think our nature (environment) and nurture (social training) seems to be causal but our behavior or how we react is up to us. If we are not free to a certain degree then how do we learn new reactions or learn something new? Think about it...