Orn. said >>> And, just as easily anyone could reply:
No. Only theists are free thinkers because clearly, atheists deny god ( like this stem cell person) without any true understanding, thus they are not free thinkers. :-) <<< My atheism is not a denial of god. How can one deny that which does not exist? It is akin to stating "the time before the big bang when time and space came into existence". One is stating that it is the case that there was a time (which did not exist) before time came into existence. Now, granted, the "concept" of god exist, in the theist brain. (I would say mind but the mind is what the brain does). I acknowledge the existence of that concept. How do you define your atheism? What Is the Definition of Atheism? Dictionaries, Atheists, Freethinkers, and Others on Defining Atheism By Austin Cline, About.com "There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this." For more go to this site link below. http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm stemcell On Oct 30, 4:13 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "No. A person can be a freethinker. A theist cannot because they > believe god exist. Once once takes the title of theist then on has > crossed the endzone line in my football metaphore. Freethinking > ends...on that issue." - stem > > Absolutely stem!.....as you now apprehend reality now and even with > metaphors aside. > > And, just as easily anyone could reply: > > No. Only theists are free thinkers because clearly, atheists deny god > ( like this stem cell person) without any true understanding, thus > they are not free thinkers. :-) > > Of course, not being a theist, this is a hypothetical....and the issue > turns into a “ ‘tis, tisn’t, tis, tisn’t, tis, tisn’t…..etc.” issue as > we all know. Such is the result of relative mindstuff and dialectics. > > On Oct 30, 12:47 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Orn. said >>> All theists are free thinkers, end of discussion! <<< > > > No. A person can be a freethinker. A theist cannot because they > > believe god exist. Once once takes the title of theist then on has > > crossed the endzone line in my football metaphore. Freethinking > > ends...on that issue. > > > the·ism [ th ìzzəm ] (plural the·isms) > > > noun > > > Definition: > > > 1. belief in God: belief that one God created and rules humans and the > > world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such > > as through the Bible > > > 2. belief in god or gods: belief in the existence of a god or gods > > > [Late 17th century. < Greek theos "god"] > > > the·ist noun > > > stemcell > > > On Oct 29, 11:53 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
