|
|
Post by alexsmith on Sept 9, 2004 16:21:23 GMT -5
I am really excited about the Freethinker Alliance. I love intelectualls and "intellectualism" and was always afraid that I was alone in my love of it here at MSU. My early experiences of opinion and thought on this campus were doused in with sound-bites, simple-thought, and in general lacked any real zeal for trying to deal with finding answers to tough questions. For the most part, people seemed content to regurgitate the first answers they had heard and not give the issues any more thought.
Finally, I am glad to see that I am not the only one fed up with ignorance.
That said, here is my question. Is there a place in the Freethinker Alliance for Christians--for Christians who believe in asking tough questions, seeking unbiased answers, and have a love for logic?
It seems for us to simply say that no such Christian exists is simply to be hypocrites of our own self-professed dislike of stereotyepes.
Thoughts? Alex
|
|
|
|
Post by Atsuko73 on Sept 9, 2004 16:46:18 GMT -5
Yes, of course there is a place for them. Forgive me if I improperly word this..... Most of us (I think maybe all of us, but am not sure - I will just use "we" cause it's easier for me) do not believe the bible is a legitimate basis for argument. We probably wouldn't be able to argue with something that started out "well...in the bible it says...." because we don't consider it sure enough evidence. That's the only problem I foresee... However, if someone wanted to discuss ideas, history, etc. I don't see any problems occurring. Everyone else, feel free to chime in. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Sept 9, 2004 19:09:13 GMT -5
Well, since I am no longer able to add my two cents at the meetings, if any such discussion comes up on the board, I'll probably be up for contributing my thoughts on those tough questions when I have the time.
Susan "classes haven't even started and my schedule is already full" Wise
|
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Sept 9, 2004 21:48:28 GMT -5
You are most certainly welcome, as long as it is rational thought and discussion you are looking for. I can't speak for all the members of this group, but I have been waiting for a religious person with whom we could have intelligent, friendly discussion with.
-Laura
|
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Sept 9, 2004 22:47:27 GMT -5
Sure there's room.
I'm probably the most acerbic towards Christianity in the entire group, but I still respect people who do actually think. Unfortunately I've only had the pleasure of meeting one really intelligent, rational and inquisitive Christian in my life, and only met her because she was my neighbor.
I'd love to meet more of course...but they kind of tend to get overshadowed by the asshats we all know and love.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Sept 27, 2004 22:57:09 GMT -5
Well, Rama, you may be the most critical MSUFA official member, but remember, I'm always somewhere in the shadows of ubiquity.
Alex, the FA has had plenty of Christian members, some more free thinkers and some more free of thought. If you ever bump into something no one else is willing to help you mull over, I'm your guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sage1776 on Sept 29, 2004 6:00:35 GMT -5
I tend to think that formal logic is flawed, and favor more of a scientific method; study data, create model based on that data, test model by subjecting it to future data.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Sept 30, 2004 1:10:53 GMT -5
The scientific method IS formal logic. Besides, in what way could formal logic be flawed? Obviously not logically flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sage1776 on Sept 30, 2004 1:45:56 GMT -5
I guess I should have used the terms deductive logic (the type philosophers and lawyers prefer, arguing from assumptions according to the rules of logic, which can lead to absurd results, usually because there are missing assumptions) and inductive logic (the type scientists prefer, arguing from data, which is less likely to lead to absurd results). There is some cross over between the two, and it really depends on the fuzziness of the data as to which is better. So I guess my prior post was in error.
|
|
|
|
Post by AnonymousUser on Oct 12, 2004 10:26:01 GMT -5
the thing is with the inductive/deductive logics is that the only way we can get laws and theories to deduce from, we have to use inductive logic to establish those laws, so that eliminates and chance of certainty and makes logic flawed in a way. unless you're fine with probabilities, like me
|
|
