![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Freethought Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Freethought |
You're right that freethinking is just skepticism. I think we should use this article as a redirect to the skepticism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamefortonyd ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
To whoever keeps on editing the page:
Get over your religious bias and accept that freethinkers, from a scientfic standpoint, are factual. It is immature to frequently vandalise a page. - Usernamefortonyd 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed:
That's like saying (in the Buddhism article, or any article on religion) "some people who claim to be (Buddhist, or whatever) also practice other religions and therefore aren't true Buddhists." Yeah, some people may do that, but it doesn't help describe "Buddhism" for an encyclopedia.
In addition, if you want to make a major edit to an article it is preferred practice to use a registered username. Not doing so can be deemed as being avoidant of confrontation. - Usernamefortonyd 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's bad meta-reasoning. It's called a performative contradiction. I mean, one error is that the presentation does something like this: you define "logic" by the things you believe, and you believe in things because you think they're "logical." The result is that you too, as a freethinker, are just accepting your beliefs on faith--and even more, actually think that you're more enlightened than those you criticize by repeating the same old mistake, just at a metalevel. This is not formally different than what religions do, at least the implied view of what religions do as presented by "freethinking."
Now, I don't have any beef against freethinking--I'm not some religious type coming to be disagreeable and rain on the freethinking parade or anything. But basically, if you're going to present "freethinking" you're left with two options. You can present what "freethinking" is, which is probably better represented under the title "skepticism," or you can present the ideology/dogma/religion/whatever you want to call it, that people who call themselves "freethinkers" tend to subscribe to, which saves the appearances of skepticism, but does so for reasons of routinized rebellion that isn't substantively different from faith. Not that that's bad or anything, just that it's not different; and to pretend it is a religious POV.
Also, the Buddha thing does not fit. Having Freethinking tip its hat to a person's authority is antithetical to "free" thought.
Sorry I don't have a username yet, I'll do that. Until then I'll sign under AtheOK. I'm putting my changes back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.153.157 ( talk) 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This article reflects an interdisciplinary perspective missing from freethought article suggested for merging.
Note: Free thinking recently got the following awareness boost:
that innovates by mixing disciplines, talks about why
free thinking matters.
RJBurkhart
16:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
They seem like they are different titles for the same thing. My personal preference would be freethinking or free thinking as the title for the merged article, as people are sometimes termed "free thinkers" (i.e. those who can think " outside the box" and are unhindered by systems of control). In this sense the opposite of free thinking would be mind control, which does not recognize free will. nirvana2013 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"Freethinking often begins with a rejection of established principles, but must eventually lead to the desire to build a logical understanding of reality. If it does not lead to this point then an entity's development would stop at a point of complete apathy..."
...or Discordianism. =D. B. Mearns *, KSC 16:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Freethought Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Freethought |
You're right that freethinking is just skepticism. I think we should use this article as a redirect to the skepticism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamefortonyd ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
To whoever keeps on editing the page:
Get over your religious bias and accept that freethinkers, from a scientfic standpoint, are factual. It is immature to frequently vandalise a page. - Usernamefortonyd 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed:
That's like saying (in the Buddhism article, or any article on religion) "some people who claim to be (Buddhist, or whatever) also practice other religions and therefore aren't true Buddhists." Yeah, some people may do that, but it doesn't help describe "Buddhism" for an encyclopedia.
In addition, if you want to make a major edit to an article it is preferred practice to use a registered username. Not doing so can be deemed as being avoidant of confrontation. - Usernamefortonyd 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's bad meta-reasoning. It's called a performative contradiction. I mean, one error is that the presentation does something like this: you define "logic" by the things you believe, and you believe in things because you think they're "logical." The result is that you too, as a freethinker, are just accepting your beliefs on faith--and even more, actually think that you're more enlightened than those you criticize by repeating the same old mistake, just at a metalevel. This is not formally different than what religions do, at least the implied view of what religions do as presented by "freethinking."
Now, I don't have any beef against freethinking--I'm not some religious type coming to be disagreeable and rain on the freethinking parade or anything. But basically, if you're going to present "freethinking" you're left with two options. You can present what "freethinking" is, which is probably better represented under the title "skepticism," or you can present the ideology/dogma/religion/whatever you want to call it, that people who call themselves "freethinkers" tend to subscribe to, which saves the appearances of skepticism, but does so for reasons of routinized rebellion that isn't substantively different from faith. Not that that's bad or anything, just that it's not different; and to pretend it is a religious POV.
Also, the Buddha thing does not fit. Having Freethinking tip its hat to a person's authority is antithetical to "free" thought.
Sorry I don't have a username yet, I'll do that. Until then I'll sign under AtheOK. I'm putting my changes back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.153.157 ( talk) 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This article reflects an interdisciplinary perspective missing from freethought article suggested for merging.
Note: Free thinking recently got the following awareness boost:
that innovates by mixing disciplines, talks about why
free thinking matters.
RJBurkhart
16:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
They seem like they are different titles for the same thing. My personal preference would be freethinking or free thinking as the title for the merged article, as people are sometimes termed "free thinkers" (i.e. those who can think " outside the box" and are unhindered by systems of control). In this sense the opposite of free thinking would be mind control, which does not recognize free will. nirvana2013 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"Freethinking often begins with a rejection of established principles, but must eventually lead to the desire to build a logical understanding of reality. If it does not lead to this point then an entity's development would stop at a point of complete apathy..."
...or Discordianism. =D. B. Mearns *, KSC 16:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)