Hello.
Could you guys thoroughly explain that to me?
How is it possible? Why not? etc.
Thanks in advance 
It depends what you mean by prejudice, and also what you mean by “thinking.”
Insofar as people’s thoughts are verbal, the language one’s thoughts are in will influence the content of the thought.
Some languages don’t have a future tense-- those who think in that language may have trouble making future plans. They will be “prejudiced” to think in terms of the present or past as compared to an English-speaker.
However, languages like mathematics are pretty constant across the world. Its hard to be prejudiced when there’s only one right answer. I would argue that it is possible to think without prejudice in CERTAIN realms, including, for example, the mathematical realm.
Most of the time, however, I believe our experiences and culture paint our realities so completely that it is just not possible to think without prejudice.
‘Prejudice’ is a big word. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.
DICTIONARY : without prejudice - without detriment or injury
It’s not possible to think without prejudice. It’s possible to act without it, I think.
Agreed. Though I think it better said that we might act in spite of it.
Probably not unless you are Chesus. Even when we try to curb our biases they creep in somewhere.
Nope.
Absolutely not. You can think ‘objectively’, which as a method itself isn’t perfect by any means, but without prejudice is a nono. It’s the way that we function as human beings. Perspectivism and such.
Can you give an example of objective thinking? Can’t all objective thinking be reduced to subjective in some way?
Fo’ sho’. Just something like a methodology of a scientific practice would be considered as objective. However, I also said…
And that’s because you are always adhere a certain paradigm, and thus always tacitly assert something or other. So fundamentally, I would agree with your calls that
Isn’t mathematics an example of prejudice-free thinking… or does it cling to the prejudice that there is always a correct and objective answer to any mathematical problem?
Yeah, any structure of thought (maths being an example) asserts something before a consequent is deduced. There’s no getting away from it.
Have you ever discussed a contentious formula with a mathematician. Yeah in theory it is but even there they contend in a struggle to find perfection.
Yes the answer is always correct or it is false or perhaps it is neither or could be both true or false depending on what type of maths you are doing, but it is not where you end up but how you get there that gives you the most marks in maths. If I can solve a problem in one step I can obviously dispense with the other chance methodologies that use > 1, this becomes particularly useful in areas where the contentions are about the very axioms of maths themselves.
Ultimately though yes maths is absolute but then because its abstract it has no prejudices implicit in it to start with, that doesn’t stop them creeping in though.
of course its possible to think without prejudice- it happens all the time and is literally the basis of all thought. prejudice is not the core of existence- only love. in order to think about something you must already understand it to a certain degree. understanding is the most basic form of thinking- all that is present at this point is love… there is no room for anything else at this point.
God bless
-hth
Another baseless assertion from our resident Jesus. 
There was in theory only one perfect human being and he was not you, although you seem to think just like him (or should I say in a warped version thereof) if not act like him. Whether he really existed or was merely a “Robin Hood” type figure though is a matter of some debate.
Although I find it nice that you see love as the core of existence, I have to object as this is a philosphy forum.
At its rudiments, love can just be described as a particularly strong affection for another person/thing. Would love still be prevalent if no life existed on earth and just matter? If you meant love is at the core of human existence, although it is still philosophically wrong, it is nice and poetic.
Oh, and just a quick note on this point - to be able to ‘understand’ soomethingg in the first place demonstrates a bias of some sort, whether it be a true one or not.
You’re probably wasting your time, you are just not smart enough to understand his perfect logic. 
false- there is no room for anything else at the initial point of love/understanding- this is not disproof…if you would like to disprove my statement you may try
God bless
-hth
all atheists in the world could put their brains together and it would mean nothing until they believed in God
God bless
-hth