Home » forums » Identity » Atheist & Agnostic

Food for Thought / not debate

Submitted by Bodhitharta on Mon, 2007-04-02 03:43.

The biggest problem with trying to be a "freethinker" is that everyone wants you to think like they do. For instance, when I am writing something for people to view, I want them to agree with it. Is there really any such thing as thinking freely? Actually, I do believe there is but to be honest I can't allow myself to think freely.Why? Because once certain parameters are set that are effective, wandering thoughts can be detrimental to success. To me, stealing is not an option, lying is not an option, sleeping with my friends wife is not an option. Of course I make all sorts of basic decisions freely but at some point structure does dictate success. When someone is believing in God and saying I can't do this or that aren't they making a free choice to have a structure of actions that they deem would be beneficial for them?

login or register to post comments | previous forum topic
( categories: Atheist & Agnostic )
not letting your brains fall out
Submitted by august on Tue, 2007-04-03 09:45.
The term freethinker originated around 1700 in England. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was first used in print by Jonathan Swift in his 1708 work Sentiments of a Church of England Man. It was a pejorative used to describe people of a naturalistic frame of mind that rejected the religious dogma of the day. Freethinkers today employ it in the same fashion that those before us did.

I sometimes hear people making a distinction between "freethinker" and "free thinker." The former being a specific label that our movement uses in a particular historical context. The later simply being a term for someone with a generally open mind.

For more about "Freethought" check out The Freethought FAQ on the Students For Freethought @ Ohio State's website: http://www.sffosu.org/?section=Monkey&issue=au2001&article=Features/ffaq.txt
login or register to post comments
Freethinker versus Free Thinker
Submitted by UTAbecky on Mon, 2007-06-04 23:16.
We have had this problem a lot. As the "Freethinkers of UTA" we have had many people assume that a Freethinker is someone who listens to and accepts ANY worldview. I have to constantly make the distinction. Just because "your" definition of what a Freethinker is or should be does not mean that it is correct.

Just recently I had a similar experience when a person sent me a message on Facebook:

Here is my response to his message:

You said: "Your group seems to be less about the exchange of unbiased and objective ideas "

- Nobody claimed that we were unbiased or not objective.

You also said: "Part of your ideology is the respect of other people's beliefs, is it not?"

- It's not. We never said that either. We support inquiry, logic, and reason. To do that we must question WHY people believe as they do (including ourselves). Nowhere does it say we have to respect beliefs that are unfounded.

I think you are making assumptions about what our group is about. Maybe you should read the description: "A group where atheists, agnostics, skeptics, humanists, freethinkers, and anyone who promotes science and reason can come together.

Freethinkers strive to build their beliefs on the basis of facts and logical principles, independent of the factual/logical fallacies and intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend and all other dogmas. When applied to religion, the philosophy of Freethought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena; as such, freethinkers reject religious dogma entirely."

- Where is the part about respecting unfounded beliefs?
login or register to post comments
Respecting a person and respecting their beliefs are different
Submitted by august on Tue, 2007-06-05 11:10.

I wanted to echo what Becky had to say and add to it a bit.

Specifically, I wanted to point to the "Note to Tolerance" that appears on the website of Students For Freethought:


A Note To Tolerance



    We want to make it clear that although we advocate particular views about the universe and how to understand it, that we do not wish to force anyone to believe as we do. We may attempt to persuade, and cast our ideas in a positive light, but never at the cost of dishonesty, intimidation, or manipulation.


    Many people believe that Freethinkers want to force everyone to live in an "atheistic regime." Little could be further from the truth. We believe that every individual must discover truth and meaning on their own and that strong legal or cultural rules about how to view the world are almost always dangerous and counterproductive.


    We also wish to stress the difference between opposing a view of the universe and opposing the people that support that view. Indeed there are many world views that we feel we have examined enough to be confident in opposing. However, we do not directly oppose the people that believe them. We feel that it is naive to define people simply by the way they view the world--especially considering how much this can change during the course of a lifetime.

 

login or register to post comments
I concur
Submitted by UTAbecky on Tue, 2007-06-05 23:16.

It's funny that you would bring that up. At the end of the message I quoted above, the guy accused us of evangelizing. I had to explain that that is not the case at all. We are not running into churches and telling them there is no god, etc.

But we have just as much right to form groups of like-minded people, hold campus events, etc. as the numerous different religious organizations do. We do not force people to give up their own beliefs and blindly follow ours. That is the antithesis of Freethought. Everyone should be able to draw their own conclusions. But that doesn't mean I have to respect your worldview, just as you don't have to respect mine. It doesn't have to be ugly. I may disagree with certain ideas, but I'm not going to attack every theist I see and try to convince them they are wrong.

login or register to post comments