I Find It Offensive; How About You

[Statler Waldorf]

---

These discussions always take things way too far and lose the tree within the forest. The original poster is a bit offended that the word 'freethinker' has been claimed by atheists in such a way that it is used almost as if the two words are synonymous... and he's 100% correct. Atheists refer to themselves as freethinkers for the purpose of highlighting the idea that believers are 'mind slaves to the dogma'. It's true. We feel that our thoughts are free, free to question, free to look beyond what we are told to think... and we feel that you, the believers, are not free in the same way. Your minds are enslaved by your beliefs.

(By "We", I mean "Me" and what "I" think other atheists think... obviously)

The original poster, as a believer, finds that offensive. All I can say to that is... get over it. You want to consider yourself a freethinker? Then question what you are told to think. Ask things like 'why', 'how', and 'when'. Approach every answer you are given as if it has something to prove. When someone tells you something is true, even if that someone is an authority figure, do enough research of your own to verify it before accepting it as truth. Think for yourself... even when it comes to your 'faith'.

In short... If you want to consider yourself a freethinker... Free your mind! And... remember what the Dormouse said.

---

I like the reference to ‘White Rabbit’ there, nice touch. However, I am taking the opposite approach, yes atheists have hi-jacked the term freethinker, but I am arguing that they are not free thinkers at all. In fact, the very concept of a free thinker is a complete myth. Everyone begins with presuppositions that they will not question. They use these presuppositions to build a framework to reason from. For most atheists these include naturalism and materialism. It's very difficult to get an atheist to "free" up his mind enough to even question the concept of these two things. So I am saying nobody is neutral, the atheist may claim to be a free thinker, but it really is just fluff. I have my worldview that I interpret the evidence with, you have yours.

---

---

I can raise two children

One I can indoctrinate so that they unquestioning have faith in x, believe in x with all their heart and unquestioningly trust x's leadership.

I can raise the other to always remain skeptical, refrain from making decisions until all the facts are in and to question anything that they are told, especially if no evidence is brought to back those claims up. Not teach them what to think, but how to think.

X can be a lot of things, it can be a political ideology, it can be a religious belief, it can be a country, it can be a culture. Whatever it is, I have indoctrinated the child, and they are not a free thinker. The seccond child is. There is some movement between the two, some raised skeptical go and become believers in something (Again, it needn't be religion or woo) and some believers 'see the light' (So to speak). No-one is entirely neutral no, but some peoples' minds are much more shackled that other peoples'. Once you start disregarding evidence (And there are head-sand planters out there) your mind is not free. The idea of memes and mind viruses comes to mind...

Don't try and 'blow my mind' with "indoctrinating a child into questioning most everything =P."

---

Yes I see your point certainly, although I still would not call the second child a free thinker though. That child would still have to hold a particular framework that they would interpret the evidence within, thus making them not neutral. Some of the most biased people I have ever dealt with have been self proclaimed skeptics.