Thinking Freely about Freethought

81 views
Skip to first unread message

Aaron

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 9:50:10 PM10/26/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"In this column, I want to consider two distinct but closely related
questions: (1) can a theist be a freethinker?; and (2) are all
nontheists freethinkers? I shall argue that the answer to (1) is 'yes'
and the answer to (2) is 'no.' I shall then argue that nontheists
should stop using the word 'freethinker' as an umbrella term." -
Jeffery Jay Lowder

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html

Aaron

stem cell

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 10:20:51 PM10/26/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
As for (1) can a theist be a freethinker? It is possible. (Tell me
where I am wrong?) But that is how you define "free" and what they
are "free" about. As for number (2) are all nontheist freethinkers?
I would say no. That is the fallacy of a false dichotomy...black or
white...this or that. I have not looked at the link as of yet...maybe
my thoughts will change..........

stemcell

Aaron

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 12:55:57 AM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Posted per Rick:

As I see it, there is a problem with the question. Who decides what
or who a freethinker is? If someone decides for me what freethinking
is, then if I choose not to accept that definition for myself, does
that make me a "closedthinker"? Most of you who know me know that I
joined this group, OBA and MSH even though I consider myself a
religious person (I practice Buddhism). I thought that the groups
were open minded enough to accept my particular view that I could be
an atheist (someone who doesn't believe in a theistic god) and a
religious person as well. At least it makes for some lively
conversation at times. This to me means that the term 'Freethinker"
is fluid and not subject to any rigid definition.

Rick S

On Oct 26, 8:50 pm, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Aaron

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 1:11:37 AM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
I am particularly interested in Jeffery Lowder's argument that we
should not use the word "freethinker" as a euphemism for atheist or
agnostic. I think it has implications for the kinds of individuals
and organizations with which Memphis Freethought Alliance should ally.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html

Aaron

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 10:38:29 AM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - this is a semantics issue and as Stem Cell pointed out, not
a black and white choice. My cousin sings in the church choir and
considers herself a christian, but she has read very little of the
bible and does not follow the dogma. I'd call her a freethinker. One
the other hand many atheists/agnostics cannot be considered
freethinkers if they do not maintain a mind open to all suggestions.
If our purpose is to grow,and as Bob Collins put it very well, help
the converted; then we should not be afraid to use the euphemism of
freethinker, which I believe is more acceptable to the public than
heathen or atheist.

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 10:46:54 AM10/27/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
My definition of freethought:
 
            "free (from superstition) thought".
 

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 10:49:19 AM10/27/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Also: free (from supernaturalism) thought
free (from spiritualism) thought
and similar.

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 11:01:14 AM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - it's about time I disagreed with you. I believe a
freethinker is free from no thoughts, but open to all. Naturally,
having thought about superstition and spiritualism, I reject it.

On Oct 27, 9:49 am, Humanis...@aol.com wrote:
> Also: free (from supernaturalism)  thought
> free (from spiritualism) thought
> and similar.
>
> In a message dated 10/27/2008 9:47:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
>
> Humanis...@aol.com writes:
>
> My definition of freethought:
>
>              "free (from superstition) thought".
>
> Hi  y'all - this is a semantics issue and as Stem Cell pointed out, not
> a  black and white choice. My cousin sings in the church choir and
> considers  herself a christian, but she has read very little of the
> bible and does  not follow the dogma. I'd call her a freethinker. One
> the other hand many  atheists/agnostics cannot be considered
> freethinkers if they do not  maintain a mind open to all suggestions.
> If our purpose is to grow,and as  Bob Collins put it very well, help
> the converted; then we should not be  afraid to use the euphemism of
> freethinker, which I believe is more  acceptable to the public than
> heathen or atheist.
>
> On Oct 27,  12:11 am, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:> I am  particularly interested in Jeffery Lowder's argument that we
> > should  not use the word "freethinker" as a euphemism for atheist or
> >  agnostic.  I think it has implications for the kinds of  individuals
> > and organizations with which Memphis Freethought  Alliance should ally.
>
> >  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html
>
> >  Aaron
>
> http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001"> check it  out!
>
> **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
> no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 11:32:19 AM10/27/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
When I say superstition, supernaturalism and spiritualism I am referring to using these concepts in the form of a premise upon which to use "thought" to reach a conclusion.  Thought which is independent of premises provided by tradition, authority or established belief.
 
J.

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 12:27:50 PM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"...Thought which is independent of premises provided by
tradition, authority or established belief." - humanis

This brand of thought...difficult to know what it is. I wouldn't use
these words. They could be used to deconstruct almost any thought at
all...which is OK with me. However, the result may not be what you
want.

On Oct 27, 8:32 am, Humanis...@aol.com wrote:
> When I say superstition, supernaturalism and  spiritualism I am referring to
> using these concepts in the form of a premise  upon which to use "thought" to
> reach a conclusion.  Thought which is  independent of premises provided by
> tradition, authority or established  belief.
>
> J.
>
> In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:01:42 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
>
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?red...)
>
> **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
> no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Aaron

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 1:50:21 PM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 1:55:47 PM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Not having a horse in the race, I'll bow out of this discussion. Hope
I wasn't too disruptive.

CrossBow

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 2:47:02 PM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

stem cell

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 4:37:17 PM10/27/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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
> > Aaron- Hide quoted text -

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 11:55:47 AM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

CrossBow

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 12:12:08 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I'm warning you two firestarters! I will start posting under another name again...
 
you'd better "THINK "about the consequences buddy! I know other ways to get even...wroohahahahah!
 


Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 12:39:29 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
 I do agree with the article in respect to all atheists
not being freethinkers - some are just too lazy to think.
 
Clogtowner
 
Yea, that would be me. But I think I am free to not think so if I am not a freethinker I am a freenonthinker.  I am still a damn atheist which everyone should aspire to be.  I think.
 
J.
 
 

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 12:41:17 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Crossbow is Lana.
 
J.
 
I'm warning you two firestarters! I will start posting under another name again...
 
you'd better "THINK "about the consequences buddy! I know other ways to get even...wroohahahahah!
 


 
 
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Clogtowner <clogt...@gmail.com> wrote:


check it out!

stem cell

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 12:43:43 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
OK Crotchblow. How 'bout Crotchus de Blowselfus? Would that work?

stemcell

On Oct 28, 11:12 am, CrossBow <crossbow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm warning you two firestarters! I will start posting under another name
> again...
>
> you'd better "*THINK "*about the consequences buddy! I know other ways to
> get even...wroohahahahah!
>
> [?]
>  1B2.gif
> < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 1:00:48 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I believe that the technical term for Blowselfus is autofellatio.
J.
 
 

CrossBow

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 1:49:27 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I am not Lana. 
 
blowyourself StemCell!

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 3:03:12 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I can vouch for the fact that Xcurtsy is not Lana

On Oct 28, 12:49 pm, CrossBow <crossbow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not Lana.
>
> blowyourself StemCell!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:00 PM, <Humanis...@aol.com> wrote:
> >  *I believe that the technical term for Blowselfus is autofellatio.*
> > *J.*
> >http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001<http://www.games.com/?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001>">
> > check it out!- Hide quoted text -

CrossBow

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 3:06:12 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
That got a huge smile and a burst of laughter! funny! I do share a common trait or two.. specifically the little horns that stick out the sides of my skull..

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 3:17:04 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Clogtowner is Lana.
 
J.
 

CrossBow

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 3:20:09 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
NO, IT"S YOU!!!  don't anybody tell him, let him figure it out...it's not important really. 

Aaron

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 4:21:34 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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?

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 5:07:43 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

Aaron

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 5:50:05 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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?

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 6:10:12 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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?

Aaron

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 6:35:52 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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?

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 6:56:34 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

stem cell

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 7:02:05 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Aaron said >>> Surely it deserves more in the way of a rebuttal than
"I
disagree." Why do you disagree? <<<

I agree.

stemcell


On Oct 28, 3:21 pm, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:

stem cell

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 7:23:02 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
that brings up a good question Aaron. IF (cap. spelling inspird by
Orn. :-)) one comes to a belief and one is shown to be wrong or
holding a false belief and one refuses to change their belief, then
that right there excludes them as a freethinker... Even if they use
"critical thinking", there is selective bias. Take for instance
anyone who believes in the three Omni- GOD. Those Omni's break down
and contradict one another. Logic says it is not possible to hold all
three and be consistant. If is is pointed out and that person is
still holding on to that belief (a theist for instance) then, no, they
are not a freethinker. But this does not address every type of
"belief". But the article was about the possibility of a theist being
a freethinker. Maybe in a limited sense it could be put that way.
Mybe they could be simi-freethinkers? :-)
A new fundamentalist friend of mine and I talked about holding open
minds, willingness to be open to new evidence, "freethought". I asked
if he would be willing to give up the belief that Jesus Christ is his
lord and savior and that Jesus died and rose again IF it were shown to
be a falsehood. He said "no". Is that a "freethinker"?

I need to go back an re-read that article I guess. :-)

stemcell

Aaron

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 7:25:22 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 8:08:09 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"...anyone who believes in the three Omni- GOD. Those Omni's break
down and contradict one another. Logic says it is not possible to
hold all three and be consistant. If is is pointed out and that
person is still holding on to that belief (a theist for instance)
then, no, they are not a freethinker." - stem

So, if one shows that logic is not the last arbiter of truth and
consistency when it comes to the triune, and an atheist will not shed
their skeptical beliefs when this is pointed out, are they a free
thinker? : - )

Thanks for the acknowledgement by the way. : - )

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 8:37:41 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I cannot accept the argument that one can become a theist
through logic and reason. The very essence of a belief in the
supernatural is via faith. Logic and reason cannot lead one there.
That's why I discount his argument. Similarly, with Russell's
argument, the deduction is fallacious as it is not based on logic or
reason. Heaven is supernatural therefore one cannot sensibly get there
from here. Simply listening to other views is not freethinking. Our
party at Occam's every Monday listen to our views, but most of the
theists there could not be described as freethinkers even in the
wildest stretch of the imagination.
That's enough for me - it's logical.

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 9:10:08 PM10/28/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Is a freethinker a freethinker because he is able to eliminate emotion and bias in the formation of his conclusions or is he a freethinker because he does not blindly accept the teachings of his childhood or because he utilizes to one extent or another the tenets of informal logic in forming opinions or what?  Either way, I fail to see how one could come to a rational conclusion that the Koran or the Bible are anything more than human creativity or that the supernatural in any form is anything but bullshit.  Also, of what value is it to be a freethinker if you are factually incorrect in your conclusions?  I am sure that there is some emotional value in not having the cognitive constraints that many people have but if we are still wrong the fact that we are freethinkers may hold no real value.
 
The Gospel According to Jonathan,  1883
 
 

Aaron

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 10:48:19 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Thanks Chris. I do hope you get a chance to read it again. You'll
see that we all agree that your fundamentalist friend would not be a
freethinker.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html

Aaron

Aaron

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 11:36:10 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Clog, I don't understand. Are you incapable of thinking
hypothetically, or are you just being stubborn because you don't like
where this particular conversation might lead?

Aaron

Taylor

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 11:52:22 PM10/28/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<Clog, I don't understand. Are you incapable of thinking
hypothetically, or are you just being stubborn because you don't like
where this particular conversation might lead?>>

Clog is making an inductive argument:
===
All efforts at using logic and reason to demonstrate the existence of
a god have resulted in unsound arguments. Therefore, no sound
arguments exist and thus anyone who believes in a god does so through
faith.
===

Aaron

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 12:18:11 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Atheism is not a prerequisite. It is a conclusion.

Freethought is a way of deciding what is probably true and what
probably isn't. It is precisely *because* we want to believe true
things that we consider knowledge to be tentative and subject to
further evidence.

The fact that we can't imagine how something could be true is not
sufficient reason to reject it. If there is observational evidence
that something is real, for example, then we should accept it even if
we can't imagine (yet) how it works.

I can't think of any good reasons to believe in a deity. I have not
been presented with sufficient evidence to support such a belief. So
I don't believe. If better reasons come along, I might have to change
my mind.

Aaron
> **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
> no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)

Aaron

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 1:20:02 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
That's all well and good, but it seems beside the point. Consider
this syllogism:

Freethought is the use of logic, reason and evidence instead of
tradition, emotion or dogma to determine beliefs. Han Solo determines
his beliefs (including his belief in God) using logic, reason and
evidence instead of tradition, emotion or dogma. Therefore, Han Solo
is a freethinker.

Where is the formal fallacy in that? You can argue that the minor
premise is improbable, but so what? A negative conclusion would
require adding atheism to the major premise, but that's precicely what
the essay is about! That's begging the question. To argue
effectively against the ideas in the essay, one must offer compelling
reasons why atheism should be a prerequisite of freethought rather
than a consequence of it.

Aaron

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:01:12 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I don't know why we can't get together on this one - it
seems perfectly clear to me.

" I can't think of any good reasons to believe in a deity. I have not
> been presented with sufficient evidence to support such a belief. So
> I don't believe. If better reasons come along, I might have to change
> my mind."

I agree with your statement and that is why we are both freethinkers.
The Theists do believe in a deity and they do it without the use of
freethinking, hence they are not freethinkers. They believe without
"good reasons" unless you consider "good reasons" to be that they were
told to believe.
The thought process that we use, leading to a logical conclusion,
whether true or false, is completely absent from them. If they could,
using critical thinking, detail logical steps that lead to the
conclusion that there is a God, then I would be happy to consider it,
and probably join in.
> > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?red...)- Hide quoted text -

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:09:05 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I don't say that atheism is a prerequisite of freethought.
I think Michael is a freethinker. There are many positions one could
take, that do not involve an unsubstantiated belief in the
supernatural, which I would call freethought.
I can't follow the logic of your argument about Han Solo - is he a
philosopher that I'm unfamiliar with?- I'll look him up. Nevertheless,
if he is using logic, reason and evidence to support his belief in a
God then he should make me familiar with the process and I'll join
him.
> > ===- Hide quoted text -

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:21:32 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - you very silly person! Han Solo, unless my search is
inadequate, is a fictional character, therefore one of the premises of
your sillogism is baseless and the whole conclusion falls apart.

On Oct 29, 12:20 am, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ===- Hide quoted text -

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:28:50 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<Freethought is the use of logic, reason and evidence instead of
tradition, emotion or dogma to determine beliefs. >>

Would you argue that creationists are freethinkers because they use
evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together, such as the
footprints at Paluxy River?

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:35:54 AM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
 Jesus was a freethinker. 
 
J.

Hi y'all - you very silly person! Han Solo, unless my search is
inadequate, is a fictional character, therefore one of the premises of
your sillogism is baseless and the whole conclusion falls apart.

On Oct 29, 12:20 am, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's all well and good, but it seems beside the point.  Consider
> this syllogism:
>
> Freethought is the use of logic, reason and evidence instead of
> tradition, emotion or dogma to determine beliefs. Han Solo determines
> his beliefs (including his belief in God) using logic, reason and

> evidence instead of tradition, emotion or dogma. Therefore, Han Solo
> is a freethinker.
>
> Where is the formal fallacy in that?  You can argue that the minor
> premise is improbable, but so what?  A negative conclusion would
> require adding atheism to the major premise, but that's precicely what
> the essay is about!  That's begging the question.  To argue
> effectively against the ideas in the essay, one must offer compelling
> reasons why atheism should be a prerequisite of freethought rather
> than a consequence of it.
>
> Aaron
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html
>
> On Oct 28, 10:52 pm, Taylor <tayg...@boundvortex.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<Clog, I don't understand.  Are you incapable of thinking
> > hypothetically, or are you just being stubborn because you don't like
> > where this particular conversation might lead?>>
>
> > Clog is making an inductive argument:
> > ===
> > All efforts at using logic and reason to demonstrate the existence of
> > a god have resulted in unsound arguments.  Therefore, no sound
> > arguments exist and thus anyone who believes in a god does so through
> > faith.
> > ===- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
">Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:46:31 AM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
<<Freethought is the use of logic, reason and evidence instead of
tradition, emotion or dogma to determine beliefs. >>

Would you argue that creationists are freethinkers because they use
evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together, such as the
footprints at Paluxy River?
 
 
 
Creationists are victims of childhood programming which constrains them cognitively and emotionally when dealing with the subject of that particular creation myth.  When they analyze evidence they tend to grossly exaggerate the quality of evidence that supports their "religious" belief and grossly ignore more substantive evidence. This is not freethought.  They don't have the same freedom of thought as one who can push aside personal bias in the quest for answers.
 
J.
 

<<Freethought is the use of logic, reason and evidence instead of
tradition, emotion or dogma to determine beliefs. >>

Would you argue that creationists are freethinkers because they use
evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together, such as the
footprints at Paluxy River?


Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:53:11 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<Creationists are victims of childhood programming which constrains
them
cognitively and emotionally when dealing with the subject of that
particular
creation myth. >>

While I agree, it undermines the idea than *anyone* can be a
freethinker. And in some ways, it resembles a "No True Scotsman"
argument.

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 11:17:59 AM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Perhaps anyone can become a freethinker but they have to start with giving up a belief in the tooth fairy, the boogy man, Santa Claus and a god.  As we grow up we all come to realize that a lot of fantasy is just that.  When we reach the point of realizing that a god is fantasy, we have become a freethinker.  For me, that is the test.  As far as I am concerned, if you believe in any of the above you are not a freethinker.  Once you have reached that level you are able to accept facts that you are unable to accept if you hold those beliefs.  My ancestors taught teen aged boys and girls that if you saw a woman's ankle she would instantly become pregnant.  With a belief like that, they would not have the freedom to accept reproductive biology.  With a belief in a god, one lacks the ability to accept a whole host of truths.  It is a limiting factor. Once the limiting factor is removed, you are a freethinker.  As far as I am concerned anyway.
 
J.
 

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 11:41:37 AM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<Perhaps anyone can become a freethinker>>

You misunderstood me. I was saying that no one IS a freethinker by
the current definition, if, in spite of their using logic and reason,
you instead consider that they aren't using TRUE logic and reason,
since they are biased not to properly evaluate evidence.

Aaron

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 12:35:39 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
You're kidding, right?

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 12:44:38 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - teasing perhaps, but it doesn't change the outcome.
> > your sillogism is baseless and the whole conclusion falls apart.- Hide quoted text -

Aaron

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 12:52:32 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"I don't know why we can't get together on this one..."

Because we're talking about different things. The issue at hand is
the suggestion that freethought is a process - a way of deciding
what's probably true and what probably isn't. Freethought is not a
particular conclusion drawn from that process. So, *logically
speaking*, anyone who arrives at theism using freethought should be
considered a freethinker.

You keep responding with some version of: "I can't imagine how a
person could arrive at theism using freethought." Fair enough.
Neither can I, but that's irrelevant. I can't be clearer than that.
If you really can't see the difference then I suppose we should just
admit that our brains are wired differently and move on.

Aaron
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

Aaron

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 12:58:23 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Well, point out the logical fallacy: Freethought is the use of logic,
etc. to determine beliefs. Han Solo determines his beliefs (including
his belief the the world was created by God) using logic, etc..
Therefore, Han Solo is a freethinker.

Aaron

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 12:59:46 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I really do understand your point.

*logically
speaking*, anyone who arrives at theism using freethought should be
considered a freethinker.

Freethought is a process - I agree, but I cannot agree with the above
statement. The process of Freethought cannot be used to arrive at
theism, therefore someone who arrives there cannot be considered a
freethinker.
It is like using a Cessna 150 to fly to the moon. The premise is
wrong. Cessna 150 pilots are not astronauts.

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 1:00:10 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<Freethought is the use of logic, >>

You'd need to add the criteria of 1) *valid* logic and 2) true
propositions.

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 1:05:31 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I know nothing of this Han Solo, nevertheless, from you
information, if he arrives at the conclusion of a god he cannot have
used freethinking to get there. Logic, reason - freethinking does not
head us in that direction. If he went in that direction, then his
thinking is defective - another definition for it might be christian.
> > footprints at Paluxy River?- Hide quoted text -

stem cell

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 1:30:03 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Aaron said >>>The issue at hand is
the suggestion that freethought is a process - a way of deciding
what's probably true and what probably isn't. Freethought is not a
particular conclusion drawn from that process.<<<

I agree with this statement. "Freethinking" is a process.

Aaron said >>>*logically
speaking*, anyone who arrives at theism using freethought should be
considered a freethinker. <<<

I somewhat agree with this. Yes, they might have used a similiar
process of "freethought" but if they arrived at the conclusion that
there is a god, then they are mistaken somewhere in their reasoning
process. I just do not see how one can use logic, reasoning, etc. to
arrive at theism. If they do, then how can you call it freethinking
in that area? It is not freethought...it is closed
minded...unblinking. A theist is not a freethinker if they are a
theist...in that area.



On Oct 29, 11:52 am, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 1:44:07 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<A theist is not a freethinker if they are a theist...in that area.
>>

How about if they are in transition? Perhaps the person started as a
YEC, but, through using reasoning and logic, have slowly chipped away
at their fundamentalists beliefs, but haven't yet reached the stage of
being a non-theist?

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 2:41:50 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - then they are a Prethinker.

stem cell

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 2:42:35 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
That's a good point...and I did consider such as I was typing. I
would dubb them a freethinker in transition. :-)

No, really. Good point. What are your thoughts?

Aaron

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 2:58:40 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 3:04:34 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.
> > propositions.- Hide quoted text -

stem cell

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 3:26:30 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 3:29:28 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<No, really. Good point. What are your thoughts? >>

I'm not sure we've captured the essence of freethought. Logic,
reasoning, and evidence must be used in good faith, which means that
there must not be conclusions that *dare not* be reached. For many
theists, their beliefs must be protected at all costs, which means
that there is a heavy motivation for logic, reasoning, and evidence to
be bent towards those ends.

So, perhaps freethought is best regarded as not being afraid of
thinking any sort of thought? Note that logic, reasoning, and
evidence would merely be one means of deriving these thoughts, not the
only one.

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 3:35:12 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance

<<But that's not relevant to the logical soundness of the conclusion.
>>

For an argument to be sound, all the premises must be true and the
argument valid. Without that, the argument may be valid, but not
sound.

Your argument, as stated, is valid, but its soundness is undetermined,
since you haven't sufficiently defined 'X". You say "X" in this case
is logic, but if your logic is invalid or your argument is unsound,
are you really using "X" ?

Human...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 3:59:37 PM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I think what Clogtowner is saying is that if a mathematician comes to the conclusion that 2+2=12 he is no mathematician. 
 
J.

"I don't know why we can't get together on this one..."

Because we're talking about different things.  The issue at hand is
the suggestion that freethought is a process - a way of deciding
what's probably true and what probably isn't.  Freethought is not a
particular conclusion drawn from that process.  So, *logically
speaking*, anyone who arrives at theism using freethought should be
considered a freethinker.

You keep responding with some version of: "I can't imagine how a
person could arrive at theism using freethought."  Fair enough.
Neither can I, but that's irrelevant.  I can't be clearer than that.
If you really can't see the difference then I suppose we should just
admit that our brains are wired differently and move on.

Aaron

> > > On Oct 28, 5:56 pm, Clogtowner  <clogtow...@gmail.com> 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 <quantms...@yahoo.com>  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  <clogtow...@gmail.com> 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  <quantms...@yahoo.com> 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 <clogtow...@gmail.com> 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 <quantms...@yahoo.com> 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?
>
> > > > >  > > > > > > > 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 <quantms...@yahoo.com> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

stem cell

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 4:48:11 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
huumanist said>>>I think what Clogtowner is saying is that if a
mathematician comes to the
conclusion that 2+2=12 he is no mathematician.<<<

Can you go a little further? Explain what you mean...I am a little
dense. I think I understand...but...

Aaron said >>>You keep responding with some version of: "I can't
imagine how a
person could arrive at theism using freethought." Fair enough.
Neither can I, but that's irrelevant. I can't be clearer than that.
If you really can't see the difference then I suppose we should just
admit that our brains are wired differently and move on. >>>

I agree...now...it is "irrelevant". Let me try to be clear. If you
catch the football on the 50 and head to the endzone in a sprint,
jive, jig, whatever (the process of freethinking) you are still going
for the goal (the conclusion) Once you have passed that line and
scored the touchdown, barring any flags or call backs, then you have
reached that endzone (conclusion, no more freethought). Just go with
me here. I know that you are going in a direction, towards a goal in
this metaphore, but it not necessarily need to be a preconcieved
conclusion. A theist has a preconcieved conclusion. Freethought is
over at that point. Thats my thinking.

Let's NOT go on until we are clear.







.

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 5:08:24 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

Liz Purkrabek

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 5:11:04 PM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
The philosophy of Han Solo:

Han Solo: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good
blaster at your side, kid."

Luke: "You don't believe in the Force, do you?"
Han Solo: "Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and
I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me
believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause
no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple
tricks and nonsense."

Liz

-----Original Message-----
From: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Clogtowner
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:09 AM
To: Memphis Freethought Alliance
Subject: Re: Thinking Freely about Freethought


Hi y'all - I don't say that atheism is a prerequisite of freethought.
I think Michael is a freethinker. There are many positions one could
take, that do not involve an unsubstantiated belief in the
supernatural, which I would call freethought.
I can't follow the logic of your argument about Han Solo - is he a
philosopher that I'm unfamiliar with?- I'll look him up. Nevertheless,
if he is using logic, reason and evidence to support his belief in a
God then he should make me familiar with the process and I'll join
him.

On Oct 29, 12:20 am, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's all well and good, but it seems beside the point.  Consider
> this syllogism:
>
> Freethought is the use of logic, reason and evidence instead of
> tradition, emotion or dogma to determine beliefs. Han Solo determines
> his beliefs (including his belief in God) using logic, reason and
> evidence instead of tradition, emotion or dogma. Therefore, Han Solo
> is a freethinker.
>
> Where is the formal fallacy in that?  You can argue that the minor
> premise is improbable, but so what?  A negative conclusion would
> require adding atheism to the major premise, but that's precicely what
> the essay is about!  That's begging the question.  To argue
> effectively against the ideas in the essay, one must offer compelling
> reasons why atheism should be a prerequisite of freethought rather
> than a consequence of it.
>
> Aaron
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html
>
> On Oct 28, 10:52 pm, Taylor <tayg...@boundvortex.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<Clog, I don't understand.  Are you incapable of thinking
> > hypothetically, or are you just being stubborn because you don't like
> > where this particular conversation might lead?>>
>
> > Clog is making an inductive argument:
> > ===
> > All efforts at using logic and reason to demonstrate the existence of
> > a god have resulted in unsound arguments.  Therefore, no sound
> > arguments exist and thus anyone who believes in a god does so through
> > faith.
> > ===- Hide quoted text -

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 5:15:43 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - you are THE source for trivia. True freethinking!
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 5:19:16 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<It's all a lot of simple ricks and nonsense." >>

One of the many internal inconsistencies of Star Wars. There were
hundreds or thousands of Jedis keeping the peace within the lifespan
of those present, yet the "religion" had already been reduced to
myth? Doesn't seem likely.

Liz Purkrabek

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 5:27:17 PM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Seems to be the opposite condition that that we are currently living under
in our universe, doesn't it.

Liz

-----Original Message-----
From: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Memphis Freethought Alliance
Subject: Re: Thinking Freely about Freethought

stem cell

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 5:28:57 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 5:30:57 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<Seems to be the opposite condition that that we are currently living
under in our universe, doesn't it.>>

good one!

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:00:16 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"... (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...." - Aaron

Well said Aaron, and I agree.

On Oct 29, 11:58 am, Aaron <quantms...@yahoo.com> wrote:

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:03:21 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"...So, perhaps freethought is best regarded as not being afraid of
thinking any sort of thought? Note that logic, reasoning, and
evidence would merely be one means of deriving these thoughts, not the
only one." - Taylor

Excelent! I sure do appreciate clarity!

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:05:54 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"I think what Clogtowner is saying is that if a mathematician comes
to the conclusion that 2+2=12 he is no mathematician.
J."

For the record, in an advanced math class, perhaps some sort of
abstract algebra, we spent two weeks and 28 pages of the text book
going through the process of 'proving', literally, that 1 + 1 = 2.

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:08:37 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"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?

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:09:33 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:11:43 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Perhaps the pen is mighter than the sword, but IF this sword
represents the force...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:18:16 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"One of the many internal inconsistencies of Star Wars. There were
hundreds or thousands of Jedis keeping the peace within the lifespan
of those present, yet the "religion" had already been reduced to
myth? Doesn't seem likely." - Taylor

Isn't that the way for esoteric organizations though?

Taylor

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:09:04 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
<<Excelent! I sure do appreciate clarity! >>

Please note that am I not endorsing any views not derived from "logic,
reasoning, and
evidence", only observing that those thoughts may be considered
"free". Damned by faint praise, IMO. :-)

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:26:55 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
“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’?

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:29:44 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Noted Taylor.
This is one of the more commonly held beliefs/tenets of atheists. So,
seldom do I find such openness (freethought) as to allow other
possibilities into the general mindset.

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:33:37 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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?

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 6:47:42 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
“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.

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 7:03:48 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 7:10:12 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

Liz Purkrabek

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 7:10:29 PM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Thank you!

liz

-----Original Message-----
From: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:31 PM
To: Memphis Freethought Alliance
Subject: Re: Thinking Freely about Freethought

Liz Purkrabek

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 7:13:21 PM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I love Indiana Jones. I will believe whatever he believes. :-)

liz

david shillinglaw

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 7:52:41 PM10/29/08
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Learn from Real Online Millionaires
9 Millionaires ONLINE now
http://millionaire.net23.net/

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 9:24:46 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 9:37:11 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
“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.

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 9:37:40 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"I love Indiana Jones..." - Liz

*** orn chuckles ***

On Oct 29, 4:13 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <epurkra...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I love Indiana Jones.  I will believe whatever he believes.  :-)
>
> liz
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> ornamentalmind
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:12 PM
> To: Memphis Freethought Alliance
> Subject: Re: Thinking Freely about Freethought
>
> Perhaps the pen is mighter than the sword, but IF this sword
> represents the force...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:10:17 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

stem cell

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:04:48 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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 <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Clogtowner

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 10:24:57 PM10/29/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
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.

ornamentalmind

unread,
Oct 30, 2008, 12:48:21 AM10/30/08
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
“…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.” – clog

Perhaps I don’t see axioms in the same way you do. It has been my
understanding that axioms are merely a set of assumptions one starts
out with whether a conclusion is reached or not. So, given this view,
do you see freethought as requiring one or more axioms?
In your specific example, agnosticism, to even begin a contemplation
about knowledge, assumptions are made albeit often tacitly and,
perhaps even unconsciously.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages