I think what Clogtowner is saying is that if a mathematician comes to the conclusion that 2+2=12 he is no mathematician. J.
"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 > > > > > > > > > > > > organizational name with any other representation wording > > > and what do > > > > > > > > > > > > you get? Memphis Freethough Alliance...Memphis Secular > > > Alliance? > > > > > > > > > > > > Memphis Skeptic Alliance? Who is your target member? > > > > > > > > > > > > > FREE - unrestricted vs. captive? > > > > > > > > > > > > THINKING - not something encouraged by any diety or theism > > > I know > > > > > > > > > > > > of.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > It works for my framework and perceptions limited though > > > they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 12:50 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was probably a mistake for me to post the first > > > paragraph of > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lowder's essay or to offer a summary. It's too easy > > > (and perfectly > > > > > > > > > > > > > natural) for people to respond to my blurb rather than > > > to the essay > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself. I'm always happy to hear what my fellow > > > > freethinkers think, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but I am especially interested in your review of > > ... > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - **************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
