http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001"> check it out!
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!
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!
<<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?
"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 -
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
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