So Clog. are you saying that a theist is a freethinker...just someone you disagree with? My point is that a theist is one who believe in the theology that lead them to conclude that here is absolutly a god...of their theism. At that point, once they have made this conclusion, whether or not it is right, then they are no longer using the process of freethinking and thus not a freethinker...on that particular issue...which is what we are discussing aren't we?
stemcell On Oct 29, 2:04 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all (again) your phrase ""A freethinker uses X to arrive at his > beliefs, but only if he arrives at nontheism." > I patently disagree. As I've said before X doesn't lead to theism and > neither does it lead to nontheism. It has lead me personally to > nontheism, but I'm happy to concede that it has led many others to > (almost as) valid conclusions. > > On Oct 29, 1:58 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't want to get sidetracked, Taylor. We can talk about the > > practical conclusions later. Right now, I'm not even sure that > > everyone is following the simple logic. Assume we agree on the > > specifics X. We then have: > > > A freethinker uses X to arrive at his beliefs. > > Han Solo used X to arrive at his theism (or any belief Y). > > Therefore, Han Solo is a freethinker. > > > Several people have objected that they can't imagine how anyone could > > arrive at theism via X. But that's not relevant to the logical > > soundness of the conclusion. The only way to *logically* exclude > > theism from the above conclusion is to specifically include nontheism > > in the major premise. In other words, you must have: "A freethinker > > uses X to arrive at his beliefs, but only if he arrives at > > nontheism." > > > The extra requirement is not advisable because it makes freethought > > internally inconsistent. (Freethinkers are supposed to be free of > > dogma, yet a requirement of nontheism is indistinguishable from a > > dogma.) That's the best argument for not including nontheism in the > > definition of freethought. If anyone offers a relevant criticism of > > that logic, then I will respond. > > > Otherwise, the next step is to talk about the practical (as opposed to > > purely logical) implications. That's where most of you are coming > > from, I think, but it is important to me that I start at the > > beginning. It helps me avoid "retrofitting" my epistemology to > > exclude uncomfortable conclusions. > > > Aaron > > > On Oct 29, 12:00 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<Freethought is the use of logic, >> > > > > You'd need to add the criteria of 1) *valid* logic and 2) true > > > propositions.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
