Free thought is not synonymous with atheism

Please note that when i mention "atheists" in this debate, i am referring to the New Age Atheism, not atheists in general, until mentioned otherwise. "Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more truth, beauty, happiness, and wisdom will come to you that way." "The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks." Both are quotes from the late atheist polecemist Christopher Hitchens. Personally, i agree 100% with these statements; however, the ideas and thought processes behind them are what i disagree with wholeheartedly. As we all know, Hitchens was an outspoken advocate of "free thought", or to put it in a word that doesn't betray their thoughts, atheism. He and many other leaders of the New Age Atheism propagated throughout the spans of their careers, that if you learned to think for yourself by omitting and escaping religion's supposed tyranny and dogma, atheism would inevitably follow, and the person would be a "free thinker." But what is free thought really? Is it pandering to the words of atheists like Hitchens and being taught religion is inherently evil? That you shouldn't have to choose between the two and would have your sanity questioned if you chose religion? I think not. A real free thinker decides what path to go down without being swayed by every word of both sides, or mindlessly following the words of just one. Atheism, as the New Age sort has demonstrated, is by no means neutral on anything. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a religion, but it's definitely a mindset and paradigm in itself, and like all paradigms, is susceptible to the same closed mindedness the religious are accused of. But the topic of our debate isn't about which side is right, it's whether or not free thought always leads to atheism, which i am arguing against in this debate for the reasons i outlined above. Premise one: Atheism has its own message, or doctrine, if you will. As I said earlier, atheism is in no way neutral in the war of the worldviews. I gave an example at the beginning of how this is very true and relevant. Its message is that to have a free mind, you must be free from religion. But what about being free from atheism? Surely each side in a conflict has its own bias, and this isn't an exception. Atheists are just as guilty of closedmindedness as many of the religious are. Which i will expand on and leads me to my next premise. Premise two: Nobody should put a specific label on what free thought is based on or precedes. As i pointed out already, each side in a conflict will be blind to each other to an extent. Atheists will tell you freedom of the mind is freedom from religion, while the religious will say that religion encompasses a freedom from ignorance of a higher power and enlightenment. So who's right? The answer is neither. You can never truly put a label on what free thought will unequivacably precede. The answer is that true free thought will lead you to whatever you want it to; not Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or Atheism. But with all of these influences, is free thought possible? I say yes it is. Even though we live in a society that tends to spoon feed us our worldviews, it's still always going to come down to the person's choice if they've been exposed to society. I am not saying that atheists don't possess such an ability, since it was free thought that led them there; but my point is that free thought never leads to just one outcome universally. Because we are all unique, it'll lead to wherever you want. The difference is how informed each person is about these issues, then rational thinking would follow. Conclusion: Free thought never universally encompasses one thing. No matter what or how many outside influences there are, it will always come down to the person's choice in the very end. I look forward to your opening arguments.