Freethought Organizations

Greetings, I have a question for the group: Is there an organization that actively spreads Free Thought?

There are several organizations that defend Free Thought (FFRF, CFI, SSA, AHA). They are great at what they do. But they are mostly preaching to the choir. And so the forces of religion retain majority control, and the fights about abortion, evolution, etc. remain uphill fights for the foreseeable future.

Nobody is going to buy a Dawkins book, or watch a Hitchens debate on YouTube, or read forums like this one, unless they are already a Free Thinker.

Is there an organization that goes on the offense by getting the word out to the general public, so we can increase the percentage of "nones" out there?

Thanks!

Vito Lear said:

Is there an organization that goes on the offense by getting the word out to the general public, so we can increase the percentage of "nones" out there?

Click to expand...

Not that I know of, and I'd likely have heard about it if such existed. Although possibly not, since I find proselytizing annoying regardless of what is being proselytized.

The closest thing I know about is irritating folks like P Z Meyers.
Yuck.
Tom

What Tom said.
Even Richard Dawkins’ strident insistence on fact becomes tiresome after a while, and all it does for religious types is piss them off.

Vito Lear said:

Greetings, I have a question for the group: Is there an organization that actively spreads Free Thought?

There are several organizations that defend Free Thought (FFRF, CFI, SSA, AHA). They are great at what they do. But they are mostly preaching to the choir. And so the forces of religion retain majority control, and the fights about abortion, evolution, etc. remain uphill fights for the foreseeable future.

Nobody is going to buy a Dawkins book, or watch a Hitchens debate on YouTube, or read forums like this one, unless they are already a Free Thinker.

Is there an organization that goes on the offense by getting the word out to the general public, so we can increase the percentage of "nones" out there?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

What do you mean by free thought?

What does it mean to be a confirmed agnostic? Is that based in fact?

Thanks for the replies above.

"Free Thought" means explaining to the common man why Christianity is illogical, inaccurate, and insidious. At least that shall be the definition in this thread- I know it means more generally.

"Confirmed Agnostic" is a little tongue-in-cheek but I think it is fair after decades of genuine thought and research leave one with no basis to say confidently whether there is any sort of god or not.

To those who disparage proselytizing, I sympathize. But do a thought experiment - if you knew a certain religion were true, you would want people to know, right? So when you see the majority of Americans assuming Christianity must be true, doesn't it sicken you a bit?

I am not talking about the 24% who are evangelical/fundamentalists (they are a lost cause) or the 28% who are nones (they're fine already). I am talking about the 48% in the middle who have been brainwashed since childhood (and voting accordingly). How do we get the truth to them?

Vito Lear said:

To those who disparage proselytizing, I sympathize. But do a thought experiment - if you knew a certain religion were true, you would want people to know, right? So when you see the majority of Americans assuming Christianity must be true

Click to expand...

I think I understand where you're coming from. The closest I ever came was joining the local Unitarian Universalist church.

But my bottom line is more like "I care about how you behave. Why is less important. What you believe about the unknown is not important to me at all."

Frankly, I'd rather associate with someone who is kind and fun and honest because they believe that Jesus wants them to be than someone who is not, regardless of what they believe about anything.
Tom

TomC said:

kind and fun and honest because they believe that Jesus wants them to be

Click to expand...

I don't know if that's a choice any more than being gay is a choice. I certainly don't trust those who give the impression that all of their niceness is contingent upon the instructions of a ghost.

Vito Lear said:

"Free Thought" means explaining to the common man why Christianity is illogical, inaccurate, and insidious. At least that shall be the definition in this thread- I know it means more generally.

Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that at all.

Freethought is thought freed from demands by theists to accept religious beliefs as axiomatic.

It says nothing about explaining anything to the common man, or about Christianity, or about logic (other than by implication), or about accuracy, or about insidiousness.

It is merely the recognition that the old formulation of attributing everything to God is valueless; That a chemistry textbook is improved by (or at least loses nothing valuable by) saying "Carbon reacts with oxygen to form both monoxide and dioxide", in place of the traditional "The creator has deemed that carbon will react with oxygen to form both monoxide and dioxide".

In the Islamic world, and in the Bible Belt, it is still very common for even the most mundane suggestions to append "God willing". The eschewing of this convention (and myriad similar conventional invocations of deities), and the understanding that it is not just unnecessary, but often positively corrosive to innovation, progress, and education, is "freethought".

Your definition is so far from the generally accepted one as to have negative value in any discussion - your audience is almost certain to misunderstand you if you (ab)use the word freethought in this way, even if you split it unnecessarily into the phrase "free thought" when writing it.

TomC said:

What you believe about the unknown is not important to me at all.

Click to expand...

That sounds laudable, until you realise that people are determined to believe that known facts remain unknown, and to act as though they were not just unknown, but untrue.

Facts like "vaccinations are an effective way to prevent diseases from spreading", for example.

If someone counters that it is unknown whether vaccines are more or less effective than prayer, is that still unimportant to you? If that someone is a Senator, or a judge, is it still unimportant to you?

Vito Lear said:

To those who disparage proselytizing, I sympathize.

Click to expand...

Bilbies are an unusual Australian creature.

Not quite marsupial, but a bit venomous under certain circumstances. Common behavior includes collecting vertebrates in their enormous, then disgorging them a bit randomly.

Just be careful.
Tom

I'm a lifetime member of ffrf, so with that disclaimer, I'll say that this organization does have several avenues of outreach.
Their legal department takes on all kinds of church/state violations, which generates a lot of press coverage.
They have put up controversial billboards in dozens of US cities, with a freethought message expressed in a brief text.
They sponsor scholarships and freethought essay contests among high school and college students.
Their Ron Reagan ad stirred up much comment and continues to be aired.
They run a podcast, and co-director Dan Barker does debates.
Their monthly Freethought Today is a well-edited magazine. As part of my outreach, I leave copies at our local coffee shop after I read 'em.
Also, I can't agree with you in saying that no one who is not already a freethinker would read Dawkins or watch a Hitchens debate or get on this forum. Those are offramps for a lot of us who left religion behind. In addition, we have several Christians who post regularly on this site and love to get into the fray.
I was a bubble-headed social Christian, I suppose, going along with my family's notions of the existence of a God -- until, age 12, I stumbled on to Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell. And that book resonated with me with more force than anything I'd been cozened with in the prevailing Christian culture (circa 1966.) I imagine that's how it is with a lot of former believers.

Yes, FFRF does great stuff. Especially the legal work. I have given them money for that, and plan to give a lot more.

But I do not think they are as outreachy as you seem to think they are. Most of their communications are preaching to the choir. Where are these billboards, I believe they exist, but have never seen one, and I want everybody to see many of them. Do you listen to that podcast? The smug self-congratulatory tone will instantly antagonize any non-freethinker who may happen to tune in (which I doubt). The Ron Reagan add is fine - when will we see it during the Super Bowl, instead of the "He Gets You" nonsense? And meanwhile the Christians get more legislators and more judges.

Leaving the Freethought mag in coffeeshops is a step in the right direction. I wish we would all do that with a massive volume of stuff. If only to make it easier for other teenagers to stumble upon Russell, Dawkins, Hitchens & co.

How would you compose an outreach that wasn't "preaching to the choir"? The difference between freethought and religious faith is pretty stark. You're either on one side of that fence or the other. I'll admit that my favorite authors on freethought/atheism are brimming over with snark (Hitchens, Mencken) or poking fun at religion with barely contained snark (Russell, Twain), but IMO humor goes with the territory, in that religion is bizarre. I can't imagine how an outreach that was supersensitive to a believer's mindset would read. Or if it would come off as genuine. (When discussing Biblical barbarism, you need the blunt tools, not the tweezers -- it's that stark.)
Also, the internet provides plenty of outreach for ideas that were once skirted by the media. That's why the Nones have expanded their demographics, I think. It's certainly why LDS apostates became a lot more common in this century. Any practicing Mormon can now, with a few keystrokes, read up on the absurdities of Mormon claims and the many problems with their scriptures. The LDS church had so many members reading this stuff online that they had to address uncomfortable questions that they had ignored for a century and a half. The trend in this century is on the side of freethought -- I hope.

ideologyhunter said:

You're either on one side of that fence or the other.

Click to expand...

But it seems about 50% are on neither side. They don't care much and assume religion is true because it's the majority/establishment. I want to awaken them.

ideologyhunter said:

I'll admit that my favorite authors on freethought/atheism are brimming over with snark (Hitchens, Mencken) or poking fun at religion with barely contained snark (Russell, Twain), but IMO humor goes with the territory

Click to expand...

Add the ones that are superficially agreeing with religion but the snark is apparent only if you read between the lines (Franklin).

Have you heard Hitchens' 2006 lecture on Menken? Epic! Menken was awesome, but reading him makes me too mad, because we still have all the same problems he discussed, yet he seemed to think Christianity was in its "Twilight" - 100 years ago...

Having grown up in a strict evangelical home, I have no desire to evangelize my atheism to anyone, but I have found that being openly atheist, it helps others understand that we don't deserve the horrid reputation that many Christians try to give us. I am and have been a member of several Humanist, or Freethought groups, including The Atlanta Freethought Organization. They don't preach, but they always had good speakers and plenty of socialization. My small town has a small Freethought group and we meet monthly to socialize. I have invited one of my liberal Christian friends to attend once, mostly just to include her in the social part. My closest Christian fiends don't care that I'm an atheist and I don't care that they are Christians, since they have a fairly liberal view of religion, and one even hates organized religion and never goes to church. That actually qualifies her as a "none", based on a list of which type of beliefs fit in with the none identification. Like others have said, I care more about the basic moral values of the person, not the particular beliefs, with some limits, of course.

We are living in a period of time in the US, when people on the extreme right want to end democracy and force a Christian theocracy on us. That gives us the opportunity and challenge to unite with the more rational and decent theists to fight off this lurking danger. Religious mythology serves a purpose for many people, including providing community, opportunities for charity work, and filling some emotional needs that atheists don't have, or are able to fulfill by being inspired by experiencing awe in the natural world, developing our own social groups, and even doing volunteer work in some cases. We need to find those who share our values and work together to stop the spread of hate and theocratic leanings in government. Herding us can be a challenge, I've learned during my more than 25 years being involved with a variety of organized Atheist, Humanist and Freethought groups.

southernhybrid said:

, I care more about the basic moral values of the person, not the particular beliefs, with some limits, of course.

Click to expand...

Then don't call them fiends. Sheesh.

ideologyhunter said:

southernhybrid said:

, I care more about the basic moral values of the person, not the particular beliefs, with some limits, of course.

Click to expand...

Then don't call them fiends. Sheesh.

Click to expand...

Thanks for starting my day by making me laugh at one of my own typos. I'm sure there will be plenty more to come, so pay attention. I think auto correct likes to play games on me, as I just found that day had been changed to date, and my old fingers couldn't possibly have made that error. Having a sense of humor helps me live in the Bible Belt too! Oh yeah....and the grammatical errors are fun too.

Vito Lear said:

Thanks for the replies above.

"Free Thought" means explaining to the common man why Christianity is illogical, inaccurate, and insidious. At least that shall be the definition in this thread- I know it means more generally.

"Confirmed Agnostic" is a little tongue-in-cheek but I think it is fair after decades of genuine thought and research leave one with no basis to say confidently whether there is any sort of god or not.

To those who disparage proselytizing, I sympathize. But do a thought experiment - if you knew a certain religion were true, you would want people to know, right? So when you see the majority of Americans assuming Christianity must be true, doesn't it sicken you a bit?

I am not talking about the 24% who are evangelical/fundamentalists (they are a lost cause) or the 28% who are nones (they're fine already). I am talking about the 48% in the middle who have been brainwashed since childhood (and voting accordingly). How do we get the truth to them?

Click to expand...

Free Though or free Thiniking means trying to look at issues without looking through an ideology.

Don't know where you derive the term as proselyting to the religious, which is why I asked you to define it.


I don't care what somebody believes, free association and freedom to believe and speak as you pl;ease is the foundation of western liberal democracy.

I would never try to dissuade someone from region. I debate theists here and in the real world when confronted, but they are free to believe as I am free not to believe.

The issue right now that has meaning is political and civil bounds of region. A state court ruling on embryos citing the bible is a serious issue.

It comes down to human nature and our basic instincts. The Russian and Chinese communist states actively suppressed religion and both were generally oppressive and lacking what we call basic civil rights.

Organized atheism can and does become as fanatical as any religion.

As to logic, Id take a look at humanity in general. I do not think you can single out relgion s soe kind of aberration to be dealt with. To me rlegion is one out of many manifestations of human nature. Pro sports,union, politics, pop culture and region all share common social traits.

From a cursory review organized atheism has become a hierarchical power syrtuctire with leaders and devotees. People quote Dawongs and oters as thists quote the bible.

People follow and , quote,, and mimic behavor of pop culture leaders, like Taylor Swift.

There is plenty of irrational and ilpgical behavior outside of religin.

A glaringecample is the liberization of drugs and the serious issues it has led to. Yet the 'rational' liverals and progressives refuse to see any possible connection between policy andthe drug crisis.

Outside of civle issues like the embyo case erlegion is at the bottom of my worry list.

What sickens me is pop culture and where it has led. What sickens me is the brekdon of our culrure into violent confrmtaion and polarization.

Ateist and theists can be flip sides of the same ideolgical coin. As oe who ascrbes to Freethought I reject looking through any polarizingg ideolgies as much as I can.

If religion was private, and pushing it on others was socially gauche and rather rare, there'd be no need for organizations like ffrf. But we're at the other extreme in America.

steve_bank said:

Ateist and theists can be flip sides of the same ideolgical coin.

Click to expand...

I agree that they can be flip sides of a coin. But they rarely are.
IME people who practice science, i.e. scientists, tend be open to the existence of the unseen, unknown and unknowable.
Much more so than deeply religious people are inclined to accept the validity of scientific methodology as a means of converging on the truth. The religious rely on texts written, compiled, edited, translated and interpreted by priests and other humans whose ultimate source is unverifiable. Scientists use observations that are repeatable. Observations that are accessible to anyone in principle, to explain and make predictions about the behavior of matter and energy. When that leads to stuff like certainty that humans evolved from past species, all those observations are rendered moot.
When religion proves reliably explanatory and predictive about real observable stuff, I’ll be all about it. But generally it seems useless except as a social structure to get groups of people to all agree on something. Usually that’s done to defend against or attack other groups. IOW worthless.