Hi y'all - I really do understand your point. *logically speaking*, anyone who arrives at theism using freethought should be considered a freethinker.
Freethought is a process - I agree, but I cannot agree with the above statement. The process of Freethought cannot be used to arrive at theism, therefore someone who arrives there cannot be considered a freethinker. It is like using a Cessna 150 to fly to the moon. The premise is wrong. Cessna 150 pilots are not astronauts. On Oct 29, 11:52 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "I don't know why we can't get together on this one..." > > Because we're talking about different things. The issue at hand is > the suggestion that freethought is a process - a way of deciding > what's probably true and what probably isn't. Freethought is not a > particular conclusion drawn from that process. So, *logically > speaking*, anyone who arrives at theism using freethought should be > considered a freethinker. > > You keep responding with some version of: "I can't imagine how a > person could arrive at theism using freethought." Fair enough. > Neither can I, but that's irrelevant. I can't be clearer than that. > If you really can't see the difference then I suppose we should just > admit that our brains are wired differently and move on. > > Aaron > > On Oct 29, 9:01 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I don't know why we can't get together on this one - it > > seems perfectly clear to me. > > > " I can't think of any good reasons to believe in a deity. I have not > > > > been presented with sufficient evidence to support such a belief. So > > > I don't believe. If better reasons come along, I might have to change > > > my mind." > > > I agree with your statement and that is why we are both freethinkers. > > The Theists do believe in a deity and they do it without the use of > > freethinking, hence they are not freethinkers. They believe without > > "good reasons" unless you consider "good reasons" to be that they were > > told to believe. > > The thought process that we use, leading to a logical conclusion, > > whether true or false, is completely absent from them. If they could, > > using critical thinking, detail logical steps that lead to the > > conclusion that there is a God, then I would be happy to consider it, > > and probably join in. > > > On Oct 28, 11:18 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Atheism is not a prerequisite. It is a conclusion. > > > > Freethought is a way of deciding what is probably true and what > > > probably isn't. It is precisely *because* we want to believe true > > > things that we consider knowledge to be tentative and subject to > > > further evidence. > > > > The fact that we can't imagine how something could be true is not > > > sufficient reason to reject it. If there is observational evidence > > > that something is real, for example, then we should accept it even if > > > we can't imagine (yet) how it works. > > > > I can't think of any good reasons to believe in a deity. I have not > > > been presented with sufficient evidence to support such a belief. So > > > I don't believe. If better reasons come along, I might have to change > > > my mind. > > > > Aaron > > > > On Oct 28, 8:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Is a freethinker a freethinker because he is able to eliminate emotion > > > > and > > > > bias in the formation of his conclusions or is he a freethinker > > > > because he > > > > does not blindly accept the teachings of his childhood or because he > > > > utilizes to > > > > one extent or another the tenets of informal logic in forming opinions > > > > or > > > > what? Either way, I fail to see how one could come to a rational > > > > conclusion > > > > that the Koran or the Bible are anything more than human creativity or > > > > that the > > > > supernatural in any form is anything but bullshit. Also, of what > > > > value is > > > > it to be a freethinker if you are factually incorrect in your > > > > conclusions? I > > > > am sure that there is some emotional value in not having the cognitive > > > > constraints that many people have but if we are still wrong the fact > > > > that we are > > > > freethinkers may hold no real value. > > > > > The Gospel According to Jonathan, 1883 > > > > > Clog, The author posits a person who becomes a theist through logic > > > > and reason (not faith), and asks if that person should be considered a > > > > freethinker. You just ignore his argument by asserting, "In order to > > > > be a theist one must have faith." If that's all you've got then > > > > that's all you've got. It's not enough for me. > > > > > How do you respond to this quote from Bertrand Russell: "An Arab who, > > > > starting from the first principles of human reason, is able to deduce > > > > that the Koran was not created, but existed eternally in heaven, may > > > > be counted as a free thinker, provided he is willing to listen to > > > > counter arguments and subject his ratiocination to critical > > > > scrutiny. ... What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the > > > > way in which he holds them." > > > > > Aaron > > > > > On Oct 28, 5:56 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi y'all - I'm addressing theists as he does in the article. In order > > > > > to be a theist one must have faith. Critical thinking is the very > > > > > antithesis of faith. Faith requires no thought, simply blind > > > > > acceptance. > > > > > > On Oct 28, 5:35 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > You keep talking about someone who is exercising faith. Lowder > > > > > > isn't. Why shouldn't a person who arives at his belief (whatever > > > > > > it > > > > > > is) through the appropriate exercise of critical thinking and > > > > > > logic be > > > > > > considered a freethinker? > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 5:10 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - yes I've read it. In the first paragraph he poses the > > > > > > > question "Can a theist be a freethinker?" He answers "Yes," but I > > > > > > > answer "No" for my given reasons. Reading Swinburne doesn't > > > > > > > change a > > > > > > > person's faith. In the second paragraph he lists the CFA > > > > > definition of > > > > > > > freethought which I agree with. As stated, I agree with him that > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > all atheists are freethinkers. Where's the conflict? > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:50 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Clog, are you sure you read the same essay? I don't see a > > > > > > > > connection > > > > > > > > between what you wrote and anything Lowder proposed. Why > > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > > > the the theist described in the essay be considered a > > > > > > > > freethinker? > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:07 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - sorry, my replies tend to be as brief as I can > > > > > make > > > > them, > > > > > > > > > and I thought I'd been clear. > > > > > > > > > I disagree with the premise that a theist, (truly > > > > > religious) can > > > > be a > > > > > > > > > Freethinker in the definition given, which I agree with. The > > > > > > > > > true > > > > > > > > > believer's life is based on Faith without evidence. Faith > > > > > > > > > requires > > > > no > > > > > > > > > thought - merely parrot fashion repetition ad infinitum. If > > > > > > > one is > > > > > > > > > going to base a substantial part of one's life on Faith, > > > > > > > > > then I > > > > submit > > > > > > > > > that Freethinking is omitted as not only redundant, but > > > > > > > > > positively > > > > > > > > > discouraged by Faith. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 3:21 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I thought he gave a good example of how a theist could be > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > freethinker. Surely it deserves more in the way of a > > > > > > > > > > rebuttal > > > > than "I > > > > > > > > > > disagree." Why do you disagree? > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 10:55 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I think Crotchbow is appealing. I don't > > > > > agree with > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > article posted by Aaron. The CFA definition is fine with > > > > > > > > > > > me. Of > > > > > > > > > > > course, if we accept a theist as being a true believer > > > > > > > > > > and not > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > someone who attends church for social reasons etc. then > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > are not > > > > > > > > > > > practicing freethought as their faith is illogical (Mr. > > > > > > > > > > > Spock > > > > episode > > > > > > > > > > > 284 11/2/84.) I do agree with the article in respect to > > > > > all > > > > atheists > > > > > > > > > > > not being freethinkers - some are just too lazy to think. > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, I feel that Freethinker is a good umbrella > > > > > > > > > term, > > > > and as > > > > > > > > > > > pointed out, is unrestrictive versus confining. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Crotchblow has a point. In the early days we > > > > > went > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > > > this. But before I go any further, I would like to ask > > > > Aaron what > > > > > > > > > > > > prompted you to post that link? Are you considering > > > > > > > > > > > > that it > > > > would be > > > > > > > > > > > > an idea to consider changing the name of MFA? It is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > name. It is > > > > > > > > > > > > inclusive. It is inviting (I think). Why should MFA > > > > > > > > > > > > change > > > > the name > > > > > > > > > > > > just to bow down to certain groups who feel it is > > > > offensive. I am > > > > > > > > > > > > getting to far along in thought so I'll just wait till > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > hear your > > > > > > > > > > > > response to those previous questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > stemcell > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 1:47 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is about ownership of a definition as an > > > > > organization. WE can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either show ownership and give this word a bent in > > > > respect to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > organizations mission, or we can leave it as an > > > > > > > > > > > > > open-ended > > > > question, > > > > > > > > > > > > > thereby allowing any existing and future members to > > > > > give > > > > it thier own > > > > > > > > > > > > > personal meaning without holding them captive to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well and so, if you have a concrete mission you > > > > > > should > > > > have a concrete > > > > > > > > > > > > > bent to brand the whole to be easily > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified...Replace > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
