Simple: Free-thinking means one attempts to free one's self of the restrictions of any sort of dogma.

How are you sir.......... I certainly hope that you are well. I am exceedingly interested in your thoughts regarding the question posed.

Thank you in advance...........

Augustine

I could be mistaken, I think agustine is agreeing with you, and wishes for you to  elaborate

The difference between dogma and freethinking is the starting point.  Dogma assumes something to be true and then sets about to prove it.  Freethinking assumes no conclusions and only makes conditional statements based on available empirical evidence.

In practice, complete freethinking is impossible, for our brains must create shortcuts through many calculations.  If I had to perform rigorous empirical testing on every chair in which I wished to sit, I'd never be served lunch.

For practicality's sake, a good freethinker assumes a neutral position on anything that is not blatantly obvious.  In other words, if there's a question of whether something is true, a freethinker questions it.  Someone adhering to dogma will do the opposite.  Some things, he will say, are not to be questioned.  For religious thinkers, it's almost always the notion that some things can be learned outside of empirical reality. 

I do so apologize for any confusion I may have caused, and as such I suspect it is incumbent upon me as I have inaugurated the instant dialogue to clarify my views. Despite your intuitive apprehensions relative to what you appear to perceive as an epistemic trap, although its interesting to me that you recognize the problematic entailments resulting from the espousal of a hard empiricist epistemology, it is not my intention to follow such a digression unless of course I am inevitably led to a discussion of epistemology. Nevertheless, I am quite curious about the gratuitous use, within this site in particular, of the word "dogmatic". Does the fact that an individual holds to a certain set of beliefs and the relations that entail therefrom qualify a valid invocation of the pejorative use of the term "dogmatic". If it is not so by definition then it nevertheless appears to be the default position of, at least from my perspective, the intellectually exhausted.
In order to illustrate my point, take for example, and thus it is my intention only to provide an example, if only to preserve the economy of discourse, the philosophic paradigm of the mind. Accordingly, I hold to Thomistic Dualism thereby resulting in the view, amongst other particulars, the most prominent of which, is that knowledge of physical facts do not entail knowledge of phenomenal facts. Now, must I be branded a dogmatist and thus suffer without argumentation summary dismissal merely because I hold to a view of certain features of the external world, namely that with which I am most intimately acquainted, based upon what I believe to be good reasons. More so, if my example illustrates in substance the prevailing position, and I could be entirely wrong, this is in-part why I have posed the question, it seems to me indicative of the exceedingly poor state of the contemporary intellectual condition.

Augustine

Augustine; Rejecting dogma (or trying to) does not equate to dismissing an idea simply because it is dogma. There is always the possibility that the idea(s) in the dogma will survive being questioned. Rejecting an idea out of hand is as silly as accepting an idea without question.

For instance, and to follow your example, I do not agree with the views expressed in Thomistic Dualism. That does not mean I wouldn't listen to your ideas about it, just that I'd question them.

I do so agree with the major premise of your argument. I trust that you would also grant that summary dismissal displaces any opportunity for rigorous debate on a given subject. However, your comment "There is always the possibility that the idea(s) in the dogma will survive being questioned." is of course most illuminating. I believe you have proverbially hit upon the very crux of the matter, at least from my perspective, which is the degree to which a given proposition is true, that is the degree to which it corresponds with reality.
Your views as always are most welcome......... Thank you again......

Augustine

I believe that Free-thinking means different things to different people. For me, it means that you're free to question and think anything you want. That's all.

As far as I can remember, I have been questioning everything. I remember asking so many questions in cathecism that the teaching father would always sigh as soon as I'd raise my hands. However, I have also always questioned just about everything in science. How do we know the general age of the universe? How did we arrive at string theory? How is radiation measured? Et cetera.

So, I do believe that everyone is entitled to believe and think whatever they want. HOWEVER, I do believe that if you're going to affect humanity in a direct way (e.g. through laws, policies, censorship, etc) these beliefs must be based on something testable and demonstrable. This is, I think, where most Atheists on this site are. I think most of us don't care what anyone else believes as long as the advancement of human kind is not impaired and people are not affected by those untestable beliefs through laws or policies such as those forbidding same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.

I don't think knowledge is subject to revision based upon new "rebellious" experiences. Knowledge is subject however to verifiability, demonstrability, and new knowledge. A free-thinker must be willing to accept that his knowledge may not be fully correct based on new knowledge.

I think the problem is that whenever most atheists talk about knowledge, they're not talking about the same thing as philosophers. Most atheists are like me in that when we refer to knowledge, we mean to say practical knowledge. Practical knowledge is one that can be used to make demonstrable and verifiable predictions for practical uses universally, regardless of belief. For example, the knowledge of gravity has helped us create buildings, cranes, rockets, satellites, etc. One could say that knowledge of Yaweh has helped many people in the world to make practical decisions and predictions (not in the prophetic sense), however, the practical use of such knowledge is not demonstrable or universal unless you believe in Yaweh.

I'm sure you can gain all kinds of knowledge by searching introspectively, but that's not the knowledge we refer to here, usually.

       With respect to your comment "You seem to deeply misunderstand the Fathers, or else we define our words differently." Please allow me to clarify my views. One, I believe my understanding of the church fathers is in point of fact correct. Two, my criticism, simply put, is that synergism is indeed, and thus most "undeniably, Semi-Pelagianism. The underlying synergistic thesis was rejected by the fathers, to wit: Cannons of the Council of Orange, for your viewing convenience see http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm. With respect to your comment "This is what was condemned; the historic Christian Church has always affirmed that, while our choice is free, there are bad choices for which there are divine consequences. It is God's grace that gives us strength to choose rightly, and through cooperation with that grace (the cooperation itself being a result of grace) we are saved." I think you are correct in that your comments reflect the contemporary views of the Magisterium. However, the church has not always espoused that view, deferring to the Cannons of the Council of Orange,

"CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3)."

     The quote "no one can" of course makes an express reference to the inability of man, whether by a unilateral effort, Pelagianism, or through a cooperative effort, synergism, to incline his volitional faculties in the direction of God. The foregoing reflects both the early fathers view along with, most importantly, the biblical view, that is of monergism, or as the reformers described, the inner-working and efficaciousness of sovereign grace by the Holy Spirit. As Christ said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you.........." John 15:16 Augustine