“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.” - clog “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…” – clog
To nit pick socratically, is a belief ‘freethought’? Is finding a notion satisfactory ‘freethought’? Is saying by fiat that theists are not freethinkers ‘freethought’? On Oct 29, 3:09 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
