I'd like to hear your opinion on the relationship between these two terms. Are all atheists freethinkers?Over the years I've met so many different types of atheists that I'm no longer under the impression that they're all freethinkers. Plenty of atheists are just as irrational as the average theist. The label of "atheist" doesn't suddenly earn them the status of being a clear and critical thinker. On the other hand I have found that MOST atheists are indeed freethinkers, and it was freethought that led to their atheism.Are all freethinkers atheists?This is where we run into muddy waters. In my opinion you can't be a freethinker AND believe in a God or gods. Yes, I've read the essays and articles where some master wordsmith breaks down the terms and argues that freethinking doesn't always lead a person to atheism. I just don't buy it. And I'm not going to go any further here with that point. Can a theist be a freethinker?As I stated above I don't see it as possible. Anyone who believes in a God or gods has failed at thinking clearly. I believe this VERY STRONGLY. The problem is this is my "opinion" and everyone has an opinion. There is no absolute proof that a deity doesn't exist, so I'm now forced to accept theists and their claim that they have thought things through just as carefully and critically as me, and this freethought process has led them to a different conclusion. I just don't buy this at all.I'm asking the above questions for a reason. I'm exhausted with the arguing and semantics here on BookTalk. I'm an atheist and would like this community to focus on books that teach the values and logic of an atheist universe (David Mills term!).I am teetering on the edge of changing our slogan from "the freethinker's book discussion community" to "Atheist Book Discussions."The change will eliminate all the question out of all present and future members, it will increase our search engine rankings, and will attract more of our target market.I'd like opinions from everyone, but especially the atheists.

Did I mention that before I realized that God is real that I was an Atheist.You are right, if you are religious by means of indoctrination and you allow your self to doubt and really question everything it may lead to you being an atheist. I became an atheist and through continued free thought I realized God independently from any outside influence. I realized God through extensive critical thinking.Other Atheist have changed and realized God through this truly free and critical thinking. As far as your site is concerned it is just that(Your site) Infidel Guy just overhauled his site and dropped the whole pro atheist stigma and went to the free thought side and calls it now debate haven. He had a very large following and some of the members are upset because of the change.People do not like joining something under one banner, and you suddenly changing the banner may hurt your cause. If you are confident about atheism then you should not need to shut out other ideas.Booktalk can grow to a very viable and profitable company if it is allowed to grow in every direction. Perhaps as it gets more sophisticated you can have people discussing all sorts of books all at the same time. But, to limit your life just talking about what you already don't believe is a waste of time IMO Edited by: Asana Bodhitharta at: 11/24/06 4:47 pm

Hi everyone, and a special hi to my old Booktalk friends It's been a long time since I posted anything on here, due to the fact that I am currently taking a Master's degree at Lancaster University here in England and I haven't had the time. But Chris asked to post my opinion on this thread and I'm happy to oblige. I think that it is very difficult for a theist to claim that they are a freethinker (We dont' use the word freethinker in England; we say rationalist). This is because for someone to believe in God they must take a leap of faith, or they must rely on some element of intuitive reasoning to make that claim. By the same token, someone cannot claim to know that there is no god because this also requires a leap of faith (it cannot be proved that there is no god).I call myself a rationalist and an atheist because although I accept that I cannot know definitely that there is no god, I think the evidence suggests that it is so vanishingly unlikely that God does exist that it would be nonsense for me to claim to be an agnostic.I should probably qualify the last paragraph by saying that I don't like the word atheist either. The word means no theism and noone else defines themselves by something they are not. For this reason I prefer to call myself a humanist. Humanism for me is a positive philosophical position; it puts human beings and other sentient beings (like great apes), and their feelings, before dogma and illogical, religious rules, which are often derived from arbitrary historical and cultural factors. For me, humanism is the only way to honestly express our humanity in a common sense way.I don't quite buy Asana's point about reaching God through freethought. There is simply no evidence that there is a god. If someone searches for an inner feeling about God then, almost by definition, they are using their intuition and this is the antithesis of rationality.Just my thoughtsPeter

Like Peter, I received the email. I've not had time to visit Booktalk the way I used to, but I've been happy to know you're still here. So - if it's a vote, I shouldn't be getting one. If it's an opinion fest - not sure mine will help. Quote:I'm asking the above questions for a reason. I'm exhausted with the arguing and semantics here on BookTalk. I'm an atheist and would like this community to focus on books that teach the values and logic of an atheist universe...Go for it, then, Chris! If the word you initially chose carries a different meaning to others than what you were intending, it's common sense to change it to a word that's closer to what you mean - especially if your word choice is causing you grief.Having said that - I'm an inactive, not an active, member of the community, and I have no idea what the repercussions of such a decision would be.edit: I always reread and edit, feh. Used the wrong word; fixed. Edited by: Tiarella at: 11/24/06 9:05 pm

freethinker: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma per meriam webster via www.webster.comcan an atheist be a freethinker - well, i guess that's what it's supposed to mean, but I don't think an atheist HAS to be a freethinker. They could have been 'indoctrinated' into it just like any other religion. It's what I intend to do to my son (i.e. bring him up that way, not force it down his throat).Can a theist be a freethinker? - again, it appears so. While I agree with Peter's idea that there isn't any 'proof' for a god, there are many thoughts that go down a good line with good intentions and are discovered to be false later. One of the greek thinkers is said to have thought that a certain insect had five legs. Observation would have told him the correct answer was six, but he didn't make the observation. And with god, there is not good place to 'make the observation'. So, I think you can come up with 'logic' that concludes there is a god. Personally, I think this 'logic' is the same branch that atheists use. You can't prove the point via a repeatable experiment that's observable by others either for or against. At some point, it has to fall upon what you believe. So, my rationality makes me agnostic. I don't know if there is or there is not, but I choose not to believe either way because I see no advantage to either, or perhaps equal disadvantage.Looking forward to seeing some other posts. Happy holidays!

Chris:I am behind this proposed change 110% and I would help in any way I can.Everyone knows how I feel about the theist/freethinker topic. And I do NOT state that ALL atheists are freethinkers.As for Asana's mention of InfidelGuy's change, I saw that myself and was pissed...but maybe that is MORE reason for booktalk to change! We can attract those members that want to be TRUE to our POV.And booktalk was always about atheism, IMO. Just labled to not exclude...but that brought us Asana, so maybe it is not a good thing.Asana says:Quote:Did I mention that before I realized that God is real that I was an Atheist...I became an atheist and through continued free thought I realized God independently from any outside influence.Sooo...which is it? Were you an atheist then turned believer, or did you OME an athest, and THEN return to belief? As usualm, you make no sense. But I do notice your sentence structure improving...are you getting coaching? Oh, and before I forget, screw you.Lastly...I wish those (EXCEPT Asana) who posted above could participate more here...that would alleviate alot of my frustration for one! But it is nice to see that lately we have had some great members join: like Funda, Saint Gas, Irishrosem, and the rest of you. Sorry if I forgot names. Please stick around though!Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!Mr. P's Bookshelf.I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - AsanaThe one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Are all atheists freethinkers?I don't think so. I know a couple people who claim atheism by default or out of a desire to piss off the religious masses, but they really haven't put any thought or study into their atheism. To me, a freethinker is someone who is in love with reason, and they are an atheist because reason led them to be. Are all freethinkers atheists?YES. To claim belief in a god goes against all reasonable thought and shows a defective or delusional method of comprehension in even some of the most, otherwise, esteemed and intelligent minds. Can a theist be a freethinker?No, not in my opinion. As far as booktalk goes, I would love to see a stronger atheist slant here. In society atheists are a minority. It would nice to make this into a haven where the atheists can totally run wild and feel at the top of the food chain for once. When an atheist book comes out that is making waves and sparking interest in society, we should be some of the firsts to read and discuss it, not argue about it because we've read so many atheist books in the past, or for some silly (IMO) reason like that. I also think that keeping general non-fiction, fiction, short-story reads and the like are great for booktalk, and give us a chance at learning different things, enjoying each other, and having a general sense of community. I like the theist element to booktalk too. I think when many types of people contribute it adds to the discussions and provokes thought. But when it comes to the theme and goal of booktalk, I think they should definitely be atheist in nature.

Hi, Chris and allTo begin with, I think that you should not identify yourself (nor your site) in a negative way (A-theist), because "a-theos" literally means "no-god" and it is a kind of victory for theists, because they have you identify yourself in a negative way and indeed in regard to "god" and to their believes. Seems to me that a true a-theist is not one who opposes god, but one who sincerely doesn't care about god, neither about his believers, because he is occupied with some more important issue. He may occasionally oppose theists but this is not the essence of his identity. The essence, the nature of a being is derived from his actions (from what he is actually doing; from the way he spends his energy). What we do identifies us. And we should essentially do something positive. It is most important to make progress towards a positive goal, which is not at all the same with opposing its opposite. I mean all those who are FOR white are not doing the same thing with all those who are AGAINST black. Producing more and more WHITE is not the same as erasing more and more BLACK. One is a positive progress the other is negation. On the other hand I realize that there is a true need (or an impulsive urge) to fight falsehood, which theism really is. One way to fight is by being inventive. So, the first thing you should invent is a proper new name for your site other than "a-theism". You may start by asking yourself and us this question:Question: what should be the positive name of a site that would fight theism yet won't identify itself according to theism?Even better: what would be the best phrasing of the above question?I think that when you (we) find the best phrasing of the question, the answer will be an easy thing.I hope I was of some help.

Do I think all atheists must be freethinkers? No, I've known a few who were just as irrational as the most irrational religionist.Do I think freethinkers can be theists? I used to think so, but I'm less and less inclined to these days. If free thought requires a committment to reason, then the answer must be "no" because god-belief is inherently irrational. I'm prepared to revise that position if and when someone presents me with a god-idea that is rational, but I won't hold my breath.Do I think changing the name is a good idea? The only negative I can see is that some people who don't believe in gods any more than I do view "atheist" as a label they don't want to wear. However, if atheism is understood to be "without god-belief" or "without gods," which is the way I understand the term, then we could probably educate those who are put off by the negative connotations of the word.That said, I haven't been participating in this forum very long and will be comfortable whether you leave things as they are or make the change you are proposing. George "Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."Godless in America

I am in agreement with Peter's thoughts on religious people taking a leap of faith and therefore being disqualified from the label of freethinker. I think that many religious people possess many wonderful qualities, however the term freethinker should not be applied to them. I am also in agreement with most of the responders in this thread in that all atheists are not necessarily freethinkers. I understand the problems with the term atheist. This is a problem we have discussed here in the past. However, other terms(like Brights)have not taken off. I am sure there are many reasons for that, but until another term is widely accepted and used, atheist is the best term. So, in theory, there is no reason to change freethinker for atheist on our site. Yet, if we want to eliminate debates about theists claiming to be freethinkers, changing to an atheist community might fix that problem. I would support Chris' decision to change from a freethinker community to an atheist community. It would also be ok to leave us as a freethinker community, but define freethinker on the about page and call that the final word on the issue. Before doing any changes, it would be nice to hear from some more members in this thread though.