Hi y'all - I have stated....... I believe the process of freethought cannot lead to theism therefor a theist is not a freethinker. I have also stated..... I believe freethinking can lead to atheism as it did for me, or something else, perhaps agnosticism which is perfectly acceptable. The next point is do we nitpick where freethought changes to blind faith? It is probably a pointless exercise - there is some point at which a recovering faith follower becomes a freethinker. Do we need to identify that point? I suppose it is helpful for the Prethinker but, for our purposes, I find it satisfactory to state that a theist is not a freethinker. If someone aspires to be a theist then he is abandoning his freethought and should be regarded as........... I refuse to terminate this sentence.
On Oct 29, 4:28 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. Correct if wrong. A theist cannot use the PROCESS of > freethought? In the next sentence you said that that same process > "leads elsewhere for others". > > WHAT? A theist can use freethought up to and until he concludes there > is a god...correct? But can an aspiring theist be a freethinker? I > think you feel that, yes, that is correct. > > stemcell > > On Oct 29, 4:08 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I'm saying (yet again) that the process of freethought > > cannot lead to theism. For me the process of freethought led to > > atheism but I accept that it leads elsewhere for others. > > > On Oct 29, 2:26 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
