When did you hijack the label 'free thinkers'?
It seems amazing to a European how much stigma is attached to Atheists in America. George Bush Snr's infamous claim that Atheists are not citizens is a light years away from what our leaders would publically announce. 'Hell' will freeze over before an outward atheist holds high office in the States. Therefore it's understandable why atheists and all the other varieties of non-theists would wish to group together under a different name, much like homosexuals hijacked the word 'gay' to become more accepted.
But using the phrase 'free thinker' to apply to all people who aren't members of organised religions also implies that Muslims, Christians and Jews have not come to their belief through free thought. This i'm sure is a view that many of this site's visitors hold but how do you account for converts to Theism? They could also quite easily have searched and researched independently and realised that they've always been a follower of that particular religion. Also, can't parents coerce their children into Atheism, Deism etc.?
Maybe, its just that we all selfishly claim that 'my world-view is obtained exclusively through free-thought' - a variation on the Theist view of 'salvation being only obtained through my religion'.
This is a topic I need to cover in a response video. The question is fair enough. I don't wish to imply that Christians or Muslims are stupid. However, in some specific areas of thought, pertaining to their articles of faith, they are in a box that the people I call "freethinkers" are not.
The very word "Islam" means "submission". Christianity means service to Christ. The very admonishment to "just have faith" is a code for "believe what you're told."
It's true that I have beliefs like anyone else. It's even true that, as a deist, I believe in some things I can't prove. However, I've arrived at these beliefs on my own. Even the words of authors that I respect, like Paine, Harris or Sagan, I feel free to disagree with at times. Some of my videos have drawn fire from fellow deists, so it's clear we're not under any obligation to come to the same conclusions. Nothing I've read is taken simply as "Gospel Truth".
I understand that there are some liberal theologians among Christians and Muslims but at the end of the day, they still rely on outside sources (tradition, scripture, authority figures) for their ideas. It's our skepticism that makes the difference.
Thanks for your response.
The idea in abrahamic monotheism is that submission to God frees one up from serving anything else including priests and imams (except in the sects which venerate the pope and ayatollah).
It is true that whilst deists and atheists can reject some points from authors of books that they take inspiration from, theists cannot reject something from their holy books. However, the scriptures strongly encourage readers to question and reason with its contents because accepting something 'because it says so' is clearly superficial. Theist belief is therefore not neccessarily canonized ie. limited to one book or spiritual leader but should be constantly developing, flexible and fluid just like any other beliefs.
Also, you do not have a monopoly on skepticism. Doubt is a great human virtue and inevitably leads to greater understanding.
I realize that I was not a part of this conversation, but let me say this. I for one, do not believe that anyone here, or elsewhere, has a "monopoly" on skepticism. Skepticism, as well as doubt can be good things for anyone who wishes to use them. They have helped me in my understanding tremendously.
Abrahamic monotheism....it is indeed, an idea that is not necessarily etched in stone. I watched John's video about this. Perhaps other freethinkers have a few ideas or thoughts about this subject, as well.
I have a suggestion of an umbrella name you can use - instead of free thinkers or skeptics, try 'pessimists'! (Ha-hah). It was purely a joke - i'm not actually accusing you of being immoral, lost souls. Far from it.
well done on gettin hitched John! hope it goes well for the future
First, the term "free thinker" is in response to all the negative connotations associated with the word atheist, or atheism. Second, to be a free thinker "frees" us from the limitations and social oppressions of religious dogma.
So trying to fight religious dogma by highlighting a difference of opinion through a label is selfish? Wow, really wow.
Yes, no one has a monopoly on free thought, scepticism and debate. However, religious dogma actively suppresses free thought, scepticism and debate. I know people in my own family who are intelligent and 'free thinkers', and yet are catholic. They are simply not bound by dogma, and that is the difference! A free thinker is not bound by religious dogma, and thus is able to reason logically. You don't have to be an atheist or non-theist in order to be a free thinker. Just lose the dogma that inevitably comes with religion. Beliefs are beliefs, but as long as one acknowledges their beliefs to be just that, and not the absolute truth, then immediately you are a step in the right direction.
And sorry to say this, whilst individuals can have religious or non-religious beliefs and be reasonable, I have yet to see religious organisations do more to spread a healthy mentality that promotes free thought. A free thinker comes to his set of beliefs through logic, reasoning and debate. A theist simply takes whatever scripture/belief and either accepts it through a degree of reasoning (which is good or bad, depending on the reasoning), or simply accepts it through dogma or indoctrination (which is simply bad).
This is my opinion on the matter. There's nothing wrong in a group applying a label on itself in order to distinguish itself one way or another. It isn't hijacking at all, even with your comment on the homosexual community, because here's some news for you, language evolves over time. Definitions to words vary according to the popular usage of the words, and over time will change. Even grammar and spelling will change over time as certain colloquialisms become more prevalent within a language. English spoken a hundred years ago is quite different to what is spoken now.
-Bluefinger v1.25-
Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...