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 who feel it is offensive. I > > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > getting to far along in thought so I'll just wait till I hear > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > response to those previous questions. > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > stemcell > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 1:47 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is about ownership of a definition as an organization. > > > > > > > > > WE can > > > > > > > > > either show ownership and give this word a bent in respect to > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > organizations mission, or we can leave it as an open-ended > > > > > > > > > question, > > > > > > > > > thereby allowing any existing and future members to give it > > > > > > > > > thier own > > > > > > > > > personal meaning without holding them captive to it. > > > > > > > > > > Well and so, if you have a concrete mission you should have a > > > > > > > > > concrete > > > > > > > > > bent to brand the whole to be easily identified...Replace the > > > > > > > > > organizational name with any other representation wording and > > > > > > > > > what do > > > > > > > > > you get? Memphis Freethough Alliance...Memphis Secular > > > > > > > > > Alliance? > > > > > > > > > Memphis Skeptic Alliance? Who is your target member? > > > > > > > > > > FREE - unrestricted vs. captive? > > > > > > > > > THINKING - not something encouraged by any diety or theism I > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > of.... > > > > > > > > > > It works for my framework and perceptions limited though they > > > > > > > > > are. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 12:50 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It was probably a mistake for me to post the first > > > > > > > > > > paragraph of > > > > > > > > > > Lowder's essay or to offer a summary. It's too easy (and > > > > > > > > > > perfectly > > > > > > > > > > natural) for people to respond to my blurb rather than to > > > > > > > > > > the essay > > > > > > > > > > itself. I'm always happy to hear what my fellow > > > > > > > > > > freethinkers think, > > > > > > > > > > but I am especially interested in your review of the > > > > > > > > > > specific ideas > > > > > > > > > > expressed in the essay and how they might impact MFA. > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html > > > > > > > > > > > Aaron- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
