Maybe Reboot is asking if someone is being a Free Thinker in that they are free from the constraints of Professionalism.

Much like an Amateur Astronomer is free to search what part of the sky he/she chooses and isn't restricted by funding and paid to look at a particular section.

Or like the Kings High prestigious Student who is told to 'follow the path' as 'instructed' towards his guarranteed success.
Compared to the Student who leaves school to find his own path by making mistakes and learning from them.
The Kings Student stops thinking when the path ends and he just waits for further instruction, while the peasant kid just keeps moving along - making his own path and thinking 'freely'.

As White Collar CEO's (cliche) are 'free' to pursue Recreational 'physical' hobbies, like jogging, squash, tennis, etc.
...as would Blue Collar's pursue 'Recreational' mental stimulations like Books, TAB's, Poker games, hobby courses in quantum physics.

????

My point is, people that follow their own brand of "religion" (such as those mentioned in the OP) cop a lot of flack that those in organized religions (because hey, it's socially acceptable to be illogical -- only if you believe in Jesus, Allah, or whatever alien deity scientologists worship) What's the difference between conspiracy theorists who obsess over their "truths" and nutcases in churches?

(I wasn't aware Julian Assange was a filthy illogical conspiracy theorist. I must have been dreaming that he hacked into government databases and revealed a lot of information that makes grubberments look like crap. But that's okay, he has no credibility cause he raped a Swedish chick  )

This is part of a greater theory -- that in the human race, it's a sin to be an individual with your own way of thinking, your own beliefs derived from personal experience. Illogical and "mentally ill" beliefs are only acceptable if you're part of the church.

So Icke craps on a lot about shapeshifting reptilians? He has a lot of good ideas and theories too, some which he is spot on with. It's much like the bible, filled with both impossibilities and clever messages.

Only, one is acceptable, the other is not.

I remember a teacher in primary school who used to call pupils who misbehaved "individual" ... "You damn individual", he would say. For years I never knew what he meant, but once I learned about politics, it became obvious he was some kind of radical socialist, believing in "collectivism" and conforming to far left socialist constructs

More than anything else, what I learned from that teacher, was not how good I should behave, but to remain an individual, because that's how I've always been, naturally individualistic. The only time I felt I had to suppress that natural virtue was when I was a conscript doing military service, the ultimate socialist construct devoid of all individualism, except if being presented with a bravery medal. But then "Worker Hero" medals were handed out in the old Soviet Union

Churches and Mosques don't impress me, they are like parliament houses, dictating to the masses. Better if religion was just practiced at home praying before a little shrine if people feel the need, I'm a puritan about religion, no opinionated bishops or muftis for me, often they are the most sinful

The Vatican assisted Nazi war criminals to escape to South America, and it is protecting pedophile and child abusing priests. Mosques extol the virtues of one set of humans over another, which apparently has no virtues

I'll remain a free thinking individual thank you very much

issuevoter wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2019 at 1:02pm:


Indeed.

Nothing is new.

But it's this side of philosophy I like to discuss, and expand upon.

Progressive Leftists are certainly not "free-thinkers".

Progressive leftism started when the "individual hippies" copulated with communists. It's the "child" of these two, and has since become popular, commercialized and turned into a religion without a God.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 25^th, 2019 at 12:24pm:


Or maybe 'thinking' that is free from Media dominated Western society views.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 25^th, 2019 at 12:24pm:


All they have is their opinion, which is easily fixed by objection and ridicule from the "masses".

But in the middle east, you can behead somebody for disagreeing or not abiding by the Islamic "opinion" and be well within your rights to - because having no logic is the law over there.

Notice how nobody ridicules that? It either gets swept under the rug or the excuse used by "apologists" (often born of the dread hippie and commie coupling) is "but it's their CULTURE!!!".

The Reboot wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 11:14am:


Tell that to the Sandy Hook parents who were harassed and threatened by Alex Jones' conspiracy nutters



The Reboot wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 11:14am:


So this is just another Muslim and leftie bashing thread. You could have saved us all a lot of time by mentioning that at the start.

The Reboot wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 12:01pm:


You are making the common association logical fallacy that all Muslims should be condemned for the actions of a few terrorists. And then make the added logical fallacy of assuming that people who defend Muslims (who haven't done anything wrong) are also defending terrorists because apparently there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

You are also wrong in stating that no one condemns atrocities such as beheadings.
Lets not forget the young Saudi woman who was granted asylum by Canada recently to protect her.

The middle east is a case proving how important it is to separate Church and State.

So your argument is full of holes