"So, how much did you pay for that  class?
J."

There wasn't a chapter on that, sorry.

Truth is that as extremely difficult as the proof was, it helped me to
know that math is subjective and relative. Even though at the time, I
was in the top 1/2 of a percent of university students in math, I
stopped studying it after this.


On Oct 29, 5:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For the record, in an advanced math class, perhaps some sort  of
> abstract algebra, we spent two weeks and 28 pages of the text  book
> going through the process of 'proving', literally, that 1 + 1 = 2.
>
> So, how much did you pay for that  class?
>
> J.  
>
> On Oct 29, 12:59 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to