loganharris wrote:
To Sammy, we were too dim to realize that organized religion had evolved for a reason, and to oppose it so much was a character flaw.

Even if it was for worthy goals, there are other ways of achieving those worthy goals, and we don’t have to use religion.  Unless one of those goals is “worshiping God”, in which case you’re…[Read more]

loganharris wrote:
To Sammy, we were too dim to realize that organized religion had evolved for a reason, and to oppose it so much was a character flaw.

But everything happens for a reason.  That’s a dumb reason to follow religion.  It evolved for all kinds of reasons and purposes.  So what?

Scientists and mathematicians are trained to follow evidence, yes. But that does not automatically make them the free-est thinkers. In fact, their training often pulls in the opposite direction. Most working scientists spend their careers inside an accepted framework, not questioning it. Richard Feynman was rare not because he was smart, but…[Read more]

I like the way you’ve fleshed out a working definition of freethinker. Leave it to Reg to dredge and find gold.

It is something we ought to aspire to achiece but i doubt 1 in 10k are there or approximate freethinker as aforementioned. How much better would our lives be if it were a way of life for the majority?

Praise of faith makes me puke…[Read more]

I consider myself a free thinker, and other people consider me to be a free spirit.  In my experience, the two tend to go together as people take their free-spiritedness into their thinking.  I consider someone who is not a free thinker to be a dumbass, as it’s an intellectual failing not to be.  So, ideologues are behaving like a dumbass.

The fr…[Read more]