Hi y'all - a belief based on evidence with reason and critical thinking is freethought. Evidence alone, would not be enough for a freethinker. Freethought doesn't always require axioms although they are very nice to have. One can think freely about any subject without necessarily reaching a conclusion - agnostic. I'm well aware of tautology and if people keep asking me the same question, I'm going to keep giving them the same answer.
On Oct 29, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Continuing with my socratic interaction clog, is a belief with > evidence freethought? > Does freethought always require axioms? If yes, since some theological > views have axioms, would they not also be allowed the same status of > freethought? If no, upon what do you hang your thinking and beliefs? > (Hint: To say ‘evidence’ begs the question of how do you come to the > conclusion that evidence is required…and the rest of the same slippery > slope.) > And lastly, are you familiar with the notion of tautology? > Thank you very much. > > On Oct 29, 4:03 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - a belief without evidence is not freethought. > > Satisfactory was used in connection with a statement not a notion, and > > was cited to avoid the pointless task of trying to pin down where > > freethought changes to blind faith or vice versa. > > My freethought tells me that theists are not freethinkers. > > > On Oct 29, 5:26 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
