“So, apparently god, for you, can not be an anthropomorphic god nor one with magical powers etc.” – old Orn
“Why not?” – clog Because you earlier said: “If someone were to present themselves to the world as a god, throw themselves open to analysis and demonstrate magical powers, my freethinking would lead me to the probable conclusion that they were from another more advanced civilization and had some limitations on their power.” The above does not appear to meet the requirements of a god since you assume limitations. Thus, anyone who appears as this and says they are god you would make the above assumption. At least, that is the conclusion I came to when reading your words. “…if I were to accept a god that could not be accessed, I'd be a christian.” – clog So, when I asked you about your requirement about a description of god, you now equate that to the ability to be accessed? … and then make the link to being a christian? You do know that many systems, philosophies and theologies use negative theology and are not ‘christian’ don’t you? Gnostic, from the Greek, gnosis, to know. Gnostic, one who knows. Atheist, one with no beliefs of god. Unite the two. On Oct 29, 4:10 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all: > So, apparently god, for you, can not be an anthropomorphic god nor > one > with magical powers etc. > > Why not? > > Further, it appears that god must be definable for you in order to be > > > considered, right? > > Of course, if I were to accept a god that could not be accessed, I'd > be a christian. > > Interesting and apparently resistive response! Question, just how > > > remote is remote in this context? :-D > > It is as small as I can make it. > > At this point, the entire question about belief/non-belief is almost > > > pointless to me. In cases like this, I just say I’m a gnostic/atheist. > > That's because you don't live here. I'd love a definition of gnostic/ > atheist. > > On Oct 29, 5:47 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “If someone were to present themselves to the world as a god…” – clog > > > So, apparently god, for you, can not be an anthropomorphic god nor one > > with magical powers etc. > > > “The last straw would be for me to accept a god, and you'd have to > > define that god before I'd could consider it.” – clog > > > Further, it appears that god must be definable for you in order to be > > considered, right? > > > “Nevertheless freethought makes that a future possiblity, however > > remote.” – clog > > > Interesting and apparently resistive response! Question, just how > > remote is remote in this context? :-D > > > “How would you answer the question?” - clog > > > At this point, the entire question about belief/non-belief is almost > > pointless to me. In cases like this, I just say I’m a gnostic/atheist. > > I don’t know now how beliefs would make any difference to me in the > > future, so, to even attempt to project into the future seems a strange > > exercise. So, I too would use the term remote. > > > On Oct 29, 3:33 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - that's quite a hypothetical one. If someone were to present > > > themselves to the world as a god, throw themselves open to analysis > > > and demonstrate magical powers, my freethinking would lead me to the > > > probable conclusion that they were from another more advanced > > > civilization and had some limitations on their power. We enter the > > > realm of science fiction at this point. One of the few TV programs > > > that I have seen is Star Trek. The "being" Q would not be a god. > > > The last straw would be for me to accept a god, and you'd have to > > > define that god before I'd could consider it. If you define it as the > > > god of the 3 Os, it would be the planck length of the last straw. > > > Nevertheless freethought makes that a future possiblity, however > > > remote. > > > How would you answer the question? > > > > On Oct 29, 5:08 pm, ornamentalmind <[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." - clog > > > > > Do you further reject the possibility that, at some time in the > > > > future, you could not use the process of freethought to accept theism? > > > > > On Oct 29, 2:08 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
