Free thinkers and Atheism, same or different?

[ray245]

I have always refered myself as a free-thinker instead of an Atheists. So just to ask a question? Are there same or different in any form?

For me, I've been used to a free-thinker as a person who neither reject or accept religion. That a person is willingly to accept some religious practices as a cultural act and tradtion.

Am I wrong? Feel free to correct me.

[SirNitram]

Why refuse to reject religion? It's a textbook Golden Mean Fallacy to sit in the middle just because it's the middle, and an Appeal To Popularity to accept it just because it's popular/traditional.

EDIT: Transposed 'Accept' and 'Reject' in my mind. It's Sunday, shut up.

[Zixinus]

Different.

Free-thinkers are merely that. Free thinkers that are willing to think outside known social and philosophical bounds typical to their culture. It is admirable, but that does not make then atheists, as that one has a pretty clear definition. A free thinker may or even most likely be a atheist, but there is nothing about free-thinking that wouldn't make a free-thinker merely look at his or her own religion from merely a different angle, or even re-interpret existing religion.

[General Zod]

Different.

Free-thinkers are merely that. Free thinkers that are willing to think outside known social and philosophical bounds typical to their culture. It is admirable, but that does not make then atheists, as that one has a pretty clear definition. A free thinker may or even most likely be a atheist, but there is nothing about free-thinking that wouldn't make a free-thinker merely look at his or her own religion from merely a different angle, or even re-interpret existing religion.

Ray's definition of a "free-thinker" appears to be that of a deist or an agnostic. The definitions are clear enough that you really can't mix up the two.

[SCRawl]

I don't think that a free thinker could accept religious dogma as absolute truth, which is what you have to do in order to follow pretty much any religion. The free thinker would follow the consequences of this dogma to their logical conclusions and be forced to reject them.

A free thinker could be a deist, by this logic, but would, I should think, tend towards atheism.

[Covenant]

Free-thinkers are also free to think poorly, and to believe in religion. It's like saying "I make up my own mind about things," and having made up his mind that the Earth is flat. A willingness to think outside social norms to find the truth of a situation, or at least challenge the accepted truth, is not an obligation to do so.

Really, freethinker is a more claustraphobic self-catagorization than athiest. While it might be more socially acceptable to refer to one's self as a freethinker at a cocktail party, you're tossing in a lot of extra baggage with it, such as the idea that you could be 'convinced' to think in favor of religion. It's like saying you're undecided, based on the evidence. This would also apply to lots of other things, like Intelligent Design, which you probably aren't much of a 'free thinker' on at all--and quite willing to accept the scientific community's consensus on the subject. Why would you want to be a free thinker on that subject? You're certainly not a free thinker on gravity.

So it's a question of what you are.

If you don't believe in gods or goddesses at the moment, then you're an athiest. Flat out--that's what the word means. You can be a freethinker AND an athiest, but you would be an 'a-theist' in regards to religion and a freethinker regarding other things.

If you're just not sure... but you're leaning towards the "None of these conceptions seem to fit" then you'd really just be an agnostic. This too is a religious definition, where Freethinker isn't just religious. It is too generic to apply. There's a word for every other condition.

If you're someone who wants to decide everything for themselves, then you're a Freethinker, and you accept no absolute authority on any subject--even ones you aren't qualified to have much of an opinion on. From here you can decide where you stand, but you can still be referred to as something else even if you do assert you're also a free thinker. You can freely think yourself into the athiest camp, you see, which would again just make you an athiest. And if you freely think yourself out of it, I suppose, but that would just make you an idiot.

Note, it's important, athiesm is just a-theism. It's not an overarching worldview or a political stance, it's just the idea (not even a belief) that there is no divine presence. You don't "believe" it persay, in that you have no evidence for it and would fight to maintain it. It's an intellectual position on the subject. If it turns out we're wrong in that assessment then we could change our views as well as any freethinker could. But if you simply don't believe there's a divine tinkerer within the cosmos, then I don't think you do yourself any good trying to give yourself a fuzzier label, but if you still want to call yourself something else in public, I suppose that's fine enough. You can remain in the closet a bit longer, since that's never a pleasent conversation to have.

[Rye]

I have always refered myself as a free-thinker instead of an Atheists. So just to ask a question? Are there same or different in any form?

They're different things. A freethinker may be an atheist and is probably likely to be so given they aren't constrained by mere indoctrination, which religion mostly is.

For me, I've been used to a free-thinker as a person who neither reject or accept religion. That a person is willingly to accept some religious practices as a cultural act and tradtion.

That has nothing to do with freedom of thought.

[Wicked Pilot]

The majority of the time if someone tells you they're a free thinker they are in fact an atheist who are simply avoiding the atheist label due to the stigma associated with it. The same can be said for agnostics, brights, secularist, and probably a few others.

[Darth Wong]

I have to agree with WP. "Freethinker" sounds like "pro-choice" or "pro-life": a very positive-sounding term which was invented as a feelgood label for a specific group of people but which is actually so generalized that its literal meaning is virtually useless for identification.

[Stark]

That has nothing to do with freedom of thought.

Not only does it have nothing to do with freedom of thought, but an atheist CAN tolerate religious practices for the sake of tradition. I do it every time I go to a wedding, for instance. Being an atheist means you don't BELIEVE in god, not that you launch into a rage every time someone gets baptised.

But I'd have to echo others and say that trying to rebrand yourself a 'free thinker' just to avoid rocking the boat with regard to religious tradition is pretty weak.

[Covenant]

It seems most people are in consensus on the weakness of your reasoning to reject the label of athiest, despite the fact that you probably are an athiest by definition. Also, 'free thinker' socities describe themselves as such:

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.

Given that the statement is one that requires thought based on reason and evidence, and that it includes thus-and-so people along with athiests, I think my original assertion holds. If you don't believe in gods, then you're an athiest as well as a freethinker, the same way you can be a democrat and an american (despite arguement to the contrary).

It also means your definition is incorrect. They do indeed reject religion on the basis that it is unrational and unsubstantiated. Several other groups state that in addition to defining the world by reason, they reject the supernatural outright. In that sense, they do also reject religion outright. One could argue, as I did, that a freethinker could think themselves into religion. There are articles discussing this sordid eventuality, but by and large the label applies to a broad spectrum of nontheists.

Here's another quote from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is the first link that comes up when you google Freethinker (besides the wiki entry). Not that their definition is the only one, but it's the general consensus, and you can't honestly devise a personal definition of the word while also associating yourself with the group.

Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason. Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition.

Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful. It has been used to justify war, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance, and oppression of minorities. The totalitarianism of religious absolutes chokes progress.

So they reject the idea of religion and are hostile to the spread and disseminiation of it.

Not a slam, but your definition is more closely related to a kind of political correct liberal mayo that you think goes just fine on any sandwich--inoffensive.

You could just call yourself a bog-standard "non-theist," and leave it at that. If anyone asks what that means, say that you're not hostile to the idea of religion, but you're just not a participant. Indifferent except when it hurts people, and in favor of it when it helps them. You're not even an agnostic then, since you're not making any claims about the nature of divinity, but I wouldn't exactly call it a brave stance, or even one that is going to be any easier to get people to accept. It would also put you in the firing sights of any upstart snarky athiest like us bunch who'll criticize you for trying to appease the people who want to make you live in the Dark Ages again.

[Darth Wong]

By definition, a freethinker must be hostile to religion, because religion is an oppressor of thought. Anyone who says that a freethinker should be ambivalent toward religion has not thought his position through; it's like saying that a free-speech advocate should be ambivalent toward censorship.

Religionists might argue that opposing religion is also a form of oppression, but they're confusing systems of thought which actually discourage critical thinking and systems of thought which allow you to declare that certain ideas are false after critically analyzing them. Free thought is like free speech; it doesn't mean there should be total anarchy, just like free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to defraud people.

[ray245]

That has nothing to do with freedom of thought.

Not only does it have nothing to do with freedom of thought, but an atheist CAN tolerate religious practices for the sake of tradition. I do it every time I go to a wedding, for instance. Being an atheist means you don't BELIEVE in god, not that you launch into a rage every time someone gets baptised.

But I'd have to echo others and say that trying to rebrand yourself a 'free thinker' just to avoid rocking the boat with regard to religious tradition is pretty weak.

It's not really 're-branding' myself as a free-thinker. Maybe because most of my country did not really use the word Atheism. Hell, I only come across the word a few years ago when I joined this board.


This qoute from wikipedia should describe better on what I mean by 'free-thinkers'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Singaporeans

Another 13% of the Chinese Singaporean are non-religious adherents and they call themselves "free thinkers". In Singapore, this term simply means that the person does not adhere to any single religion. However, most perpetuate the Chinese traditions and practices.

In regards to tradtions, it's more like a cultural act I suppose. Like celebrating christmas and etc. Other than that, maybe you can include ancestor worships. Although, I personally find it as a form of respect. Like placing flowers in front of graves, even when you know there is no logical way that the dead can actually recieves the flowers. Or saying words like rest in peace.

From what you guys are saying, I should be somewhere in between MODERATE religious and MODERATE Atheists. Usually I don't attack others view on religion as long they don't interfer with mine. Or trying to inject religion into politics.

So from this defination, what would I be labeled as? Atheism? I don't fully reject the possiblity of afterlife to be labeled as such a person. Yet at the same time, I don't fully follow any religious teachings. Which means I am not agnostics.
non-theist? Covenant, from your defination, would I even be considered as such a person? Also, from what I've read on some sites, non-theist would mean the existence of god isn't relevant.

Another 13% of the Chinese Singaporean are non-religious adherents and they call themselves "free thinkers". In Singapore, this term simply means that the person does not adhere to any single religion. However, most perpetuate the Chinese traditions and practices

Anyway, thanks for helping me clear up the difference between both groups.

[Covenant]

Agnostics don't follow a religious teaching, it's a philosophical position, so you could very well be one.

Atheism is pretty much black or white. Either you are or you aren't. No such thing as a moderate athiest, or a fundamentalist athiest. It's just a disbelief in Gods, there's no scripture or modus operandi to follow.

Agnosticism is different, it comes in strengths. Some agnostics are simply people who do not know if there is or is not a God, or presume to understand what that God would be... while some go so far as to say that not only do they not know, but that nobody knows what God would be even if there is one out there, theoretically. Sometimes even to say that it would be impossible for us to know (or understand) what God is, and it's motives.

So I would think that you're most likely a theist, currently sitting in a state of lesser or weak Agnosticism, where you're just not sure what you believe yet, but aren't going to go tell anyone else that they're full of shit and need to be checked into a mental institution.

I base this on your statements that you are open to the idea of a religious/mystical reality out there, but did not state any structure of belief to it. Even if you're treating it as a respect or a tradition, you're still leaving the possibility of it open.

Note, there's no such thing as absolute certainty unless you yourself are a religious person. Athiests and such don't believe in it, since you must always be willing to change your attitudes if the evidence suggests the contrary, even if being an aggressive skeptic is still encouraged. Reality can hold up to a little prodding, afterall.

However, as a Free-Thinker, you should be basing your opinions on reason and fact, or at least empiricism, which would make your 'possibility of an afterlife' statement mostly just wishful thinking and a willful self-delusion.

So I'd say that you're probably an agnostic of some variety, still trying to figure out what you know and what you believe, but still sitting with a foot in the religious... if I'm wrong, then that's fine, I don't know your mind afterall. And these are our western terms for it anyway, yours may have a different name for this.

And I celebrate Christmas as well, in the old style. Saturnalia, with good times and gifts. Since when has Christmas been religious anyway? ;D

[PainRack]

I have always refered myself as a free-thinker instead of an Atheists. So just to ask a question? Are there same or different in any form?

For me, I've been used to a free-thinker as a person who neither reject or accept religion. That a person is willingly to accept some religious practices as a cultural act and tradtion.

Am I wrong? Feel free to correct me.

Free thinker may or may not be atheists. Atheists don't believe in god, period. In practice, they may be similar only in the sense that they don't follow any religious doctrine.

It's not really 're-branding' myself as a free-thinker. Maybe because most of my country did not really use the word Atheism. Hell, I only come across the word a few years ago when I joined this board.

Just because there isn't a check in box that says atheist doesn't mean there aren't any. If you remove the superstitious element, then a goodly number of Singaporeans are atheists....... We just have irrational beliefs regarding the supernatural:D

So.......... Given the stronghold of superstition in Gen X, I guess its accurate to label people as freethinkers rather than atheists. After all, demons and ghosts are part of theistic philosophy.

In regards to tradtions, it's more like a cultural act I suppose. Like celebrating christmas and etc. Other than that, maybe you can include ancestor worships. Although, I personally find it as a form of respect. Like placing flowers in front of graves, even when you know there is no logical way that the dead can actually recieves the flowers. Or saying words like rest in peace.

That's a misleading concept of free-thinking. An atheist can participate in a funneral, a church wedding or any other religious ceremony. He JUST, DOESN"T, BELIEVE in god. Culture is seperate from religious beliefs.