Isn't it funny...

[Fr33Th1nker]

He could be a deist. That's not so much of a contradiction. As long as he doesn't think scriptures are authoritative, it's an unusual position but not outside the bounds. Freethinkers aren't required to be atheists, though most of them are.

It's not just about scriptures. Anything or anyone who claims to be an authority of something or anything should be questioned. It just so happened that I am on a personal mission to truly find out if my Faith in God is really justifiable or not. Why do you think that in spite of decades of debates and presentation of facts there are still atheist and theist? People will believe what they want to believe and stick with it no matter what because of pride, ego, ignorance, arrogance or self righteousness. I am aware of these things and am hoping not to succumbed to these things.

I thought I could find the answers here. Unfortunately, the Atheists I have encountered are similar to the bible thumpers and self righteous believers I have met. I don't want to generalize all Atheists but I feel it might take me a while to find the right people. Unless you can recommend someone who is really open minded and a free thinker and is willing to share their knowledge or insight, it would be my great pleasure and I will be grateful.

---

I appreciate you adding more information on some of the statements that were made. There is always room for acceptance and learning.

However, as for your comment, "that believing in god is not really a statement compatible with being a 'freethinker'" you might want to consider this reply:

A standard dictionary defines a freethinker as “one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.” What this means is that to be a freethinker, a person has to be willing to consider any idea and any possibility. The standard for deciding the truth-value of claims is not tradition, dogma, or authorities — instead, it must be reason and logic.


The term was originally popularized by Anthony Collins (1676-1729), a confidant of John Locke who wrote many pamphlets and books attacking traditional religion. He even belonged to a group called “The Freethinkers” which published a journal entitled “The Free-Thinker.”

Collins used the term as essentially a synonym for anyone who opposes organized religion and wrote his most famous book, The Discourse of Free Thinking (1713) to explain why he felt that way. He went beyond describing freethinking as desirable and declared it to be a moral obligation:

Because he who thinks freely does his best toward being right, and consequently does all that God, who can require nothing more of any Man than that he should do his best, can require of him.
As should be obvious, Collins did not equate freethinking with atheism — he retained his membership in the Anglican church. It wasn’t belief in a god which attracted his ire, but instead, people who simply “take the Opinions they have imbibed from their Grandmothers, Mothers or Priests.”

WHY ATHEISM AND FREETHOUGHT ARE DIFFERENT
At the time, freethinking and the freethought movement was usually characteristic of those who were deists just as today freethinking is more often characteristic of atheists — but in both cases, this relationship is not exclusive. It is not the conclusion which differentiates freethought from other philosophies, but the process.


A person can be a theist because they are a freethinker and a person can be an atheist despite not being a freethinker.

For freethinkers and those who associate themselves with freethought, claims are judged based on how closely they are found to correlate with reality. Claims have to be capable of being tested and it has to be possible to falsify it — to have a situation which, if discovered, would demonstrate that the claim is false. As the Freedom From Religion Foundation explains it:

For a statement to be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it, and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character attacks?).
FALSE EQUIVALENCY
Although many atheists may be surprised or even annoyed by this, the obvious conclusion is that freethought and theism are compatible while freethought and atheism are not the same and one does not automatically necessitate the other. An atheist might legitimately raise the objection that a theist cannot also be a freethinker because theism — the belief in a god — cannot be rationally grounded and cannot be based upon reason.

The problem here, however, is the fact that this objection is confusing the conclusion with the process. As long as a person accepts the principle that beliefs regarding religion and politics should be based on reason and makes a genuine, sincere, and consistent attempt to evaluate claims and ideas with reason, refusing to accept those which are unreasonable, then that person should be regarded as a freethinker.

Once again, the point about freethought is the process rather than the conclusion — which means that a person who fails to be perfect does not also fail to be a freethinker. An atheist might regard the theist’s position as erroneous and a failure to apply reason and logic perfectly — but what atheist achieves such perfection? Freethought is not based on perfection.

Can't disagree with any of this.  Well said.

A word of advice though, don't argue for your bonafides.  Let them come indirectly and over time as people see how you express yourself on various points.

I personally don't have any doubt that a person can't be both a free thinker, rational and a believer.  Though, if their belief is anything off the shelf where they wind up accepting the dogma of any organized religion whole cloth .. I will be very skeptical.

Thank you Whateverist and thank you for the warm welcome on the other post. It's not just about scriptures or dogma. I am the type of person who will question anyone or anything who claims to be an authority of something that must be followed. Also, to be honest, I should have mentioned in my post that I just researched the reply that you have commended from the internet because I want to come up with an appropriate response. I apologize if I mislead you or the persons I sent that message to. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone here. I am really here to learn not to educate or debate. At the same time, If I think that a statement is false, I will courteously point it out and work it out with that person unless his mind is closed.

Your advice is sound and I really appreciate it. Although it is understandable that people will have an initial animosity towards me because of my beliefs I hope that they would cut me some slack. After all, this is your abode and I am just a visitor here.