Could they be interconnected? Could an atheists be also a freethinker? Or could a humanist be also a freethinker?\nClarification please, if you could help.
127802
According to Encarta dictionary,\n\nAn atheist is:\n\nAn "unbeliever in God or deities: Somebody who does not believe in God or deities."\n\nhumanism is:\n\n"1. [A] belief in human-based morality: a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, & behavior that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority.\n\n2. [A] concern for people: a concern with the needs, well-being, and interests of people.\n\n3. [A] Renaissance cultural movement." \n\n(I won't quote the entire meaning of this entry, as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand!)\n\n\nA humanist is:\n\n"1. A believer in the principles of humanism.\n 2.One who's concerned with the interests & welfare of humans.\n\n3. a)A classical scholar.\n   b)A student of the liberal arts.\n\n4. A Renaissance scholar devoted to Humanism."\n\nA freethinker is:\n\n"Somebody who does not accept dogma: An independent thinker who refuses to accept established views or teachings, especially on religion."\n\n& finally, dogma is:\n\n"1. [A] religious belief: A belief or set of beliefs that a religion holds to be true.\n\n2. [A] group belief: A belief or set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be true."\n\nAccording to these definitions, an atheist can either be a humanist, a freethinker, or both -- but does not necessarily have to be one.\n\nA freethinker may not necessarily be an atheist. Just because a person is an independent thinker who rejects established religious views, doesn't necessarily mean they reject the existence of a supreme being, of God.\n\nA humanist may be a freethinker, but not necessarily. However, they are likely to be an atheist, since their system of morals does not depend on a supernatural being and the qualities and characteristics of such a deity.\n\nSo to sum up:\n\nAn atheist may be/can be a humanist, but not necessarily.\nAn atheist may be/can be a freethinker, but not necessarily.\n\nA humanist is reasonably expected to be an atheist.\nA humanist may be/can be a freethinker, but not necessarily.\n\nA freethinker is no more likely to be a humanist or an atheist than another person, one who is not a freethinker.\n\n\nI hope that helped. Good luck to you in all your endeavours. Take very good care and have yourself a most joyous day, every day.\n\n\nLove And Light\nCogano
393746
Makes sense to me.\n\nActually...under that definition, I might be the only person here who ISN'T an atheist.\n\nWow. That's a strange thought...
272346
Probably none.  Many were agnostics (as well as atheists).  That is why they (tried) to establish a gov't free from religion, so the two could operate seperately and without one poisoning the other.  A two-way safety net.
125704
An atheist can very well have a belief system.  Being an atheist just means that you lack belief in a god or gods.  An atheist could believe in UFOs, alien abductions, Santa Claus, etc.  \n\nI, however, am a skeptic, an Objectivist, a Bright (depending on the nomenclature you are using).\n\nI try to have as few belief as possible.  I try to hold a scientific worldview.  I take in data/information and try to understand what I am learning.  I make guesses/theories about how the data relate.  When I make up a guess, I then test it to make sure it's correct.  If it fails, then I continue to use that theory until a better one comes along.  If a better one comes along, then I reject the old one.\n\nA good example of this is the sunrise.  Do you believe that the sun rises in the East?  I don't.  I have a scientific theory that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun.  I test my theory every day because my theory PREDICTS the sun will appear on the eastern horizon.  \n\nYou might say that a scientific worldview cannot account for everything in reality.  Really?  Like what?  A soul?  I don't believe that exists either.\n\nI could be wrong.  Before bacteria were seen under a microscope, people believed that disease was  caused by disruptions of the 4 humours.  If I was a skeptic back then, I would have denied the existence of bacteria... until a scientific theory could come about and explain and predict their existence.  So if someone were to present to me concrete evidence of a god... then I would admit that I am wrong and become a believer.\n\n-------------------------------\nAgnosticism and atheism are kissing cousins.  Still, does a agnostic believe in Santa Claus?  Why or why not?  There is no evidence for Santa to exist... but there is always the possibility.  I deny Santa's existence, while a true agnostic could never say yes or no.\n\nBasically, there is a ton of bullhsit out there.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions in the world.  This doesn't include ones that have died out or ones that have yet to be created.  I withhold belief until I find evidence for one that is correct.  Sure I could sometimes be wrong with my worldview/philosophy... but science/logic/rational thought has a far better track record in only a few hundred years than all of the history of religions.\n---------\nAlso, I think you have a misunderstanding on what a "freethinker" is.  A freethinker is someone who looks at life/reality without superstition... someone who uses rational thought.  There is no evidence for a supernatural being... so that falls outside of "freethinker".
376190
Statistically probably not. Every swamp on earth has its share of screwballs and secularists. Some of the screwballs are good people abd some of the secularists too. Others are real wallies whilst some are really horrible people. The difference is that most secularists don't think they are 'special'.  They know that they're human beings like everyone else.
660746
Hey, can I start by raising the term Agnostic?  You know, if we got all the atheists and agnostics together we would probably out number all the religions in the world.  We could probably turn them into the quiet, life living people that we are.  It seems we are the only group of people that aren't trying to change everyone elses mind.  Why do the religious types have to go to the point of harrasment?  Religions only exist because all of us allow them to have their own oppinion.  I like to think we lead by example.
320545
One problem first. Atheism is a statement of Metaphysics. It's a standalone position on one issue that has no effects on any other issue that isn't DIRECTLY related to the original. In this sense, Atheism is a truth statement rather than an ideology.\n\nThat being said, my particular ideology on reality is a blend of Naturalism, Materialism and an odd variety of Secular Humanism. It's basis is on principles as the establishment of a moral system, derived from the Naturalist Categorical Imperative.\n\nIn short, the Naturalist Categorical Imperative compares world data with the activities of others and applies an logical analysis for consistency. This works under the principle that the actions a person takes reflect a truth conditional statement. If this statement is contradictory to world data, than the action is a moral wrong and vice versa.
330042
It doesn't have a label. I have thought like that in the past. It's an interesting theory - that the Earth is a just place. Anyway you wouldn't want to call it atheist or agnostic, and you would probably have to explain yourself every time! If only more people could be open-minded and creative like you! Most people think they have to stick to either exactly what the Christian Bible says, or they are atheist. There is nothing wrong with coming up with your own theory, such as maybe we go to another planet when we die! Who knows? AND WHO CARES. We should be focusing more on this life and doing good things whether or not we get REWARDED! Christians are only selfish people looking for rewards such as Heaven and claim to be "moral." They act morally, but aren't truly moral. They do it for themselves and their own satisfaction, not as a human being who thinks everyone SHOULD do it. Don't call yourself atheist - because you have a strong defined belief. And don't say agnostic because YES, you do know what you believe. Just explain it. You are not Pagan (polytheistic), or wiccan (witches) either. By the way, YOU DON'T NEED BELONGINGNESS like others think. It's nice to believe in something that you really believe in, not something others do. As long as you don't take it too far and start a cult with human or animal sacrifices and holy wars and stuff, JK. Just tell everyone you have beliefs, so are not atheist like me, but they are different than established religions, or are some sort of combination. Either way the Christians have condemned you to "Hell" in their corrupt, hypocritical, contradictory world. Good luck!
520400
they are NOT COMPATABLE!!!!\n\nbuddhism: believe in Karma and reincarnation\n\nchristianity: Believe in only one life, rarely believe in karma even though you reap what you sow is karma.\n\nbuddhism: respects all life\n\nchristianity: respects only christian humans, only within thier sects.
416806
Personally I don't have any sort of spirituality.  There is such a thing as nontheistic religious humanism (see first source link), but if anything, I'd wager that atheists are normally Secular Humanists (see second source link).\n\nBasically to be an atheist, one must be without belief in deities.  There are different kinds of atheism, though: strong atheism, weak atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, ignosticism and apatheism.\n\nStrong atheism: the belief that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism.\n\nWeak atheism: the absence of belief in the existence of deities, without the belief in the non-existence of deities.\n\nExplicit atheism: refection of a belief in a god. This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic belief.\n\nImplicit atheism: absence of a belief in god without explicitly rejecting or denying theism. This form does not require familiarity with the idea of a god.\n\nIgnosticism: the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored. It is often considered synonymous with theological noncognitivism (the argument that religious language, and specifically words like "god", are not cognitively meaningful).\n\nAn apatheist is someone who has little or no interest in deities to point that he or she does not care whether deities exist and, typically, is not interested in deciding whether he or she believes in deities. In other words, an apatheist is someone who lacks belief in gods and lacks interest in gods to the point that he or she doesn't bother to determine whether he or she actually disbelieves in gods.
621867
I felt bad that no one was responding to you in a positive light, so I did a Yahoo search on it.  I am sending you the link to the Search Results on christian humanism.\n\nYes, when I was a Unitarian-Universalist years ago, I did hear of christian humanism.  Many Humanists may deny that christianity and humanism can be compatible, but to heck with what they think.  :-)  If you and others can juggle the two and combine these two, then more power to you!  :-)
10934
By the time I read all of the answers I realized that my thoughts had pretty much been covered. So kudos to all above me!\n\nBut I do want to emphasize what Snehal has proposed. One world........no religions. I agree with the answer that said that religions have basic similarities but that man has chosen to use their religion inappropriately. Wars have been fought merely over "interpretations." People have died for believing differently. Lives have been controlled because of those reading religion as a misinterpreted call for power. People are told what to think and what not to think and are condemned for differing opinions. \n\nI'm sure right now someone reading this is shaking their head thinking, "She has no clue what she is talking about." If it would stop with that, all would be fine. We are all entitled to have our own opinions. It is when someone will write me slamming me for my beliefs and finding  a way to avenge my thoughts by blasting me somewhere that we realize this is symbolic of our world's problems. It's not just because of religion of course. Religion is the scapegoat. Man can blame his judgements of others on the fact that they belong to "the wrong" religion. If we didn't have religions..........we would all have to face what we really are without the use of the scapegoat. \n\nGod? Well I believe we have a higher order. Does he want religions killing and disagreeing? *cough* Think about what He would write if he answered this question. :)
359743
... Hrm. Good question and. Yeah, I think you would be an atheist. Atheism is the unbelief of god or anything above. If you just don't believe in the christian, Catholic, islamic etc etc, with all the "founded" religions, but believe in a greater power you are an agnostic, I think. \n\nEvolution is not part of Atheist belief, it's just a label. Somehow believing in evolution means not believing in god. But there are those who believe in both so why not someone who doesn't believe in either? \n\nAlthough I would like to know if you have any belief about how we got here. or "came to exist" The only other possibility that popped into my head was "aliens dropped us here like my dad suspected" but I'm sure there's more than three explanations as to how humans came to be humans.
356333
I didn't realize that we had multiple races outside of "HUMAN". Besides, not all those who disagree with organized religion are atheists. I'm a Non-Denominational Happy Pagan Person.
556783
Sure, it makes logical sense as an idea. But how helpful are these categories in reasoning? I dont imagine that they would be very helpful at all since it is very unlikely to ever find two things that are exactly alike. They might look alike but dont forget about the very subatomic particles which comprise them. Just food for thought.
289296
You appear to be a free-thinker. "Christian" and "free-thinker" mix like oil and water. \n\nAnswer: The easy way out for lazy buggers who don't know how to think and want to wrap everything up today is to invent an omni-everything man who lives in the sky.
121973
I would definately do David Hume. There is a great debate between scholars as to whether his writings depicted skepticism or naturalism. There is definately plenty of information to support either side. Not only are there his writings, but also the history of the time that would have 1) influenced his writing, and 2) affected the way people interpereted his writing. GOOD LUCK!