huumanist said>>>I think what Clogtowner is saying is that if a mathematician comes to the conclusion that 2+2=12 he is no mathematician.<<<
Can you go a little further? Explain what you mean...I am a little dense. I think I understand...but... Aaron said >>>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. >>> I agree...now...it is "irrelevant". Let me try to be clear. If you catch the football on the 50 and head to the endzone in a sprint, jive, jig, whatever (the process of freethinking) you are still going for the goal (the conclusion) Once you have passed that line and scored the touchdown, barring any flags or call backs, then you have reached that endzone (conclusion, no more freethought). Just go with me here. I know that you are going in a direction, towards a goal in this metaphore, but it not necessarily need to be a preconcieved conclusion. A theist has a preconcieved conclusion. Freethought is over at that point. Thats my thinking. Let's NOT go on until we are clear. . On Oct 29, 2:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
