Clog, you seem to have a plethora of god views! One for almost every occasion, eh? : - )
Too many qualifiers for a true deity as far as my taste goes. So, I guess we won’t be able to continue our discussion about god, sorry. “I'm aware of gnosticism and atheism - show me how to combine the two.” – clog Clog, it is my understanding that you are not a gnostic, is this correct? IF it is, revelation won’t help. IF it is NOT correct, you already know. Either way, the situation is moot. On Oct 29, 7:24 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - my statement was that having seen an alleged god with > magical powers etc. my first thought would be of someone from an > advanced civilization - that doesn't discount totally such a god. > Indeed the magical powers etc are a necessary part. The divinity of it > would depend primarily on limitations. If there were none and the > "being" satisfied the 3 Os then I would start to assume a certain > godliness. I'd ask it if it created the universe and can it do it > again etc. I'd summon the assistance of Stem Cell to examine it and > report back. > > Sometimes my humor........ how many times have I had to say that? My > comment on not having access to god was a joke about christians. Do I > have to spell it out? > > Now it is my turn: "Gnostic, from the Greek, gnosis, to know. Gnostic, > one who knows. > > > Atheist, one with no beliefs of god. Unite the two." > > I'm aware of gnosticism and atheism - show me how to combine the two. > > On Oct 29, 8:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
