“YES it is. One has reached a conclusion. That thology might entail a tea pot, it might entail a man with a beard, a woman with 7 arms, etc. IF YOU ARE A THEIST....you are NOT a freethinker. Period! End of discussion...” - stem
My my stem, so, you consider a statement BY FIAT to require some sort of process of thinking, some analysis that reaches “a conclusion”? OK, I’ll play. (By fiat…) All theists are free thinkers, end of discussion! Geee, that felt good! We should play this more often! We might begin to believe in pink unicorns! Irony aside, dogma is dogma. On Oct 29, 7:04 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Orn. said >>> Is saying by fiat that theists are > not freethinkers ‘freethought’? <<< > > YES it is. One has reached a conclusion. That thology might entail a > tea pot, it might entail a man with a beard, a woman with 7 arms, > etc. IF YOU ARE A THEIST....you are NOT a freethinker. Period! End > of discussion... > > 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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
