Christian Freethought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Because it is a requirement, at least according to "dogma," that a Christian be a free thinker?

Maybe, but I was specifically discussing the historical freethinker movement. The naive concept of free thinker as well as free will are oxymorons because how can one be free of one's own will or thinking. At best you can try to be free of the thinking and will of others. But that is not exactly what Christians actually try to accomplish.

[mickthinks]

You have said stuff about Angakuk that you don't believe. Whether I would say that under other circumstances does not answer it. This is evasion and it makes you look as if you don't really value your intellectual honesty at all, Nat.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Listener

It seems perfectly clear to me that there are two kinds of birth.

Yet you could not actually find them nor cite them.

Great deal of pleading and eisegesis which does not challenge Jn's consistent use of "from above" in passages cited, nor, more importantly, challenge his distinction between those "from the above" and those "from the below."

"It is in their nature."

Doc - your assertions do not make a case!

"Can't help fools."

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe, but I was specifically discussing the historical freethinker movement. The naive concept of free thinker as well as free will are oxymorons because how can one be free of one's own will or thinking. At best you can try to be free of the thinking and will of others. But that is not exactly what Christians actually try to accomplish.

One cannot be a "true" Christian, unless one has the capacity to make up one's own mind about it, irrespective of what anyone else tells you. So no, if it is contingent upon the pastor or, any other member of "the Church" to tell you this is so, you are not a "true" Christian.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You have said stuff about Angakuk that you don't believe. Whether I would make that claim under other circumstances does not justify it. This is evasion and it makes you look as if you don't really value your intellectual honesty at all, Nat.

I admit that I am agitated but tomorrow Angakuk will still be a partisan hack. Because his posts will still be here and his tatics and evaluative comments will still be here as well for all to see. I am sorry that partisan hacks sometimes get to me. That is a flaw I have.

But you seem to not have so much an issue that Angakuk could very well be a partisan hack but that he has driven me by his very hackery to call him one. If it offends you I apologize but the ball is in Angakuk’s court as to what he does about his hackery.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

One cannot be a "true" Christian, unless one has the capacity to make up one's own mind about it, irrespective of what anyone else tells you. So no, if it is contingent upon the pastor or, any other member of "the Church" to tell you this is so, you are not a "true" Christian.

You might have a point if it were not standard practice to start the indoctrination young and if those pastors and priests were not just as keen to make sure that their victims had not only read and heard the best arguments to support their case but the best arguments against their case as well. But that is far from what actually happens. I might take their constant claims of free thinking seriously if they read the works of opposing thinkers from the pulpit at least 1/10 the amount of time they spend presenting Christian views in the best possible light. And even that would not be exactly fair but it would be unprecedented. Now I am aware that there are a few kinds of Christian were that could happen but they represent a very tiny minority and are hardly examples of how it is generally done, all claims to free thinking aside. Because how can you make a freely rational choice unless you understand as much as you can about all the choices?

The Christian idea of thinking freely is very similar to the dictator’s idea of a free election, you can vote for any candidate you like but there is only one candidate.

[mickthinks]

The issue is not that you called Angakuk a partisan hack, but that you did so in response to his calling you on your inconsistency, as a way of avoiding acknowledging it. You are frustrated and angry with Angakuk, and I can sympathise. But you still haven't actually acknowledged and retracted your mistake. I think that is intellectually dishonest.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

The issue is not that you called Angakuk a partisan hack, but that you did so in response to his calling you on your inconsistency as a way of avoiding acknowledging it. You still haven't actually acknowledged it. I think that is intellectually dishonest.

I am sorry that I have not admitted to an inconsistency that you think I have. But what does this have to do with my reasons for calling Angakuk a partisan hack? You have been reading them?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The Christian idea of thinking freely is very similar to the dictator’s idea of a free election, you can vote for any candidate you like but there is only one candidate.

"Many will come in my name ... to lead many astray."

[mickthinks]

I am sorry that I have not admitted to an inconsistency that you think I have.
I can't tell whether this is a recognition of your mistake or an implied denial. Are you denying that you were inconsistent?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

"Many will come in my name ... to lead many astray."

And if the Christians invited people to speak freely against Christianity during services then perhaps people would at least hear something about the other side of it, but that is hardly the case. Because people go to church for lots of reasons but to think freely is not one of them.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And if the Christians invited people to speak freely against Christianity during services then perhaps people would at least hear something about the other side of it, but that is hardly the case. Because people go to church for lots of reasons but to think freely is not one of them.

Again, what makes you think you're speaking of "Christians" here?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I am sorry that I have not admitted to an inconsistency that you think I have.
I can't tell whether this is a recognition of your mistake or an implied denial. Are you denying that you were inconsistent?

It seems to me that your objection is over what you think is an inconsistency. But it doesn't appear to have much at all to do with your original objection over calling Angakuk a partisan hack.

Now it may indeed be an inconsistency. How is it germane to your original complaint? And if I clarify my statement so that the inconsistency is resolved or removed then what? Where are you taking this and why?

I am confused as to what this has to do with your original complaint.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Again, what makes you think you're speaking of "Christians" here?

Good point. I am not god so how should I know? But that is what they call themselves, despite that the huge variety of "beliefs" and claims involved makes the label pretty much worthless as far as I can tell. It is more like being a fan of a sports team and wearing their jersey and about as significant.

[mickthinks]

Is it possible that you misundertood my original criticism?

Angakuk identified an inconsistency and asked you to account for it and you responded by calling him a partisan hack;

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You are such a hack. You see hacks are perfect.

My criticism was not about what you called him, but about you not acknowledging and retracting your mistake.

Do you now accept that in your anger and frustration, by accusing him of reluctance in admitting what he had admitted and accusing him of not admitting anything at all, you criticised Angakuk in false terms?

Mick

[Angakuk]

To n.a: I freely admit to not having read the entire Russell corpus and most of what I have read was read more than 30 years ago. However, your charge that I have not even read the essay that we have been discussing is ludicrous. Any claims that I have made, with regard to what Russell had to say on the subject of free thinking, are based solely on that passage I quoted from Bertrand Russell on God and Religion and his essay "Why I Am Not A Christian". If my conclusions, with regard to what Russell had to say in those two pieces, are in anyway faulty then you ought to be able to rebut those conclusions from the same body of work. I fail to see how quoting an author's own words, as evidence of the author's thought, can, in any way, be construed as partisan hackery. On the other hand, making claims about an author's thoughts without referencing that author's actual words (as you have done repeatedly) is either intellectually dishonest or just plain lazy. As to the charge of cherry picking my quotes, please note that I posted a link to the entire essay. It is, as you have pointed out, not a very long piece. Anyone who is interested in looking at those quotes within the context of the whole essay has only to click on that link and read the essay. In other words, there is, on my part, no fraud, no slight-of-hand and nothing up the sleeves.

Your claim, that "over the course of the posts he has changed his mind based on the little research into Russell he was forced to do by my constant badgering. He goes from googling a quote from Russell and finding Russell’s definition of freethinker and concluding he qualifies by the lights of Russell to discovering by just skimming a single essay by Russell that he held Christianity in deep contempt", is meaningless rhetoric. Somehow you have managed to neglect to identify the actual change of mind that you allege has taken place. If I have made errors, and failed to admit to them, it is only because you have failed to demonstrate that I have made them. Allege anything you like, but, if you want to be taken seriously, back up those allegations with supporting argument and evidence. Where you have alleged specific errors, I have answered with refutations of your charges. You, on the other hand, have made errors which I, and others (thank you mick), have documented. You have yet to acknowledge (by either rebuttal or admission) any of those errors. As for the charge that I have only skimmed the essay, it is simply false and it is a charge that I have already answered.

It is true that I have insulted you. However, the insults are no part of the argument. Feel free to insult me as much you like. But, if you aren't interested in addressing any of the actual arguments that I have made please be so good as to admit that fact and confine yourself to name calling. Although, truth be told, you are not very adept at that either.

To Iacchus: Not only will I admit that Christian dogma is subject to abuse, I will go a step further and express my opinion that all dogma is, by its very nature, abusive. That is, any requirement that something be believed, just because some authority says that it must believed, is an inherent abuse of the principle of free thought. The act of submitting oneself to such dogmatic authority is a form of intellectual self-abuse.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Is it possible that you misundertood my original criticism?

Angakuk identified an inconsistency and asked you to account for it and you responded by calling him a partisan hack;

My criticism was not about what you called him, but about you not acknowledging and retracting your mistake.

Do you now accept that in your anger and frustration, by accusing him of reluctance in admitting what he had admitted and accusing him of not admitting anything at all, you criticised Angakuk in false terms?

Mick

Your right. After looking over the posts again it appears that he did not change his mind.

Okay, now what?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

To n.a: I freely admit to not having read the entire Russell corpus and most of what I have read was read more than 30 years ago. However, your charge that I have not even read the essay that we have been discussing is ludicrous. Any claims that I have made, with regard to what Russell had to say on the subject of free thinking, are based solely on that passage I quoted from Bertrand Russell on God and Religion and his essay "Why I Am Not A Christian". If my conclusions, with regard to what Russell had to say in those two pieces, are in anyway faulty then you ought to be able to rebut those conclusions from the same body of work. I fail to see how quoting an author's own words, as evidence of the author's thought, can, in any way, be construed as partisan hackery. On the other hand, making claims about an author's thoughts without referencing that author's actual words (as you have done repeatedly) is either intellectually dishonest or just plain lazy. As to the charge of cherry picking my quotes, please note that I posted a link to the entire essay. It is, as you have pointed out, not a very long piece. Anyone who is interested in looking at those quotes within the context of the whole essay has only to click on that link and read the essay. In other words, there is, on my part, no fraud, no slight-of-hand and nothing up the sleeves.

Your claim, that "over the course of the posts he has changed his mind based on the little research into Russell he was forced to do by my constant badgering. He goes from googling a quote from Russell and finding Russell’s definition of freethinker and concluding he qualifies by the lights of Russell to discovering by just skimming a single essay by Russell that he held Christianity in deep contempt", is meaningless rhetoric. Somehow you have managed to neglect to identify the actual change of mind that you allege has taken place. If I have made errors, and failed to admit to them, it is only because you have failed to demonstrate that I have made them. Allege anything you like, but, if you want to be taken seriously, back up those allegations with supporting argument and evidence. Where you have alleged specific errors, I have answered with refutations of your charges. You, on the other hand, have made errors which I, and others (thank you mick), have documented. You have yet to acknowledge (by either rebuttal or admission) any of those errors. As for the charge that I have only skimmed the essay, it is simply false and it is a charge that I have already answered.

It is true that I have insulted you. However, the insults are no part of the argument. Feel free to insult me as much you like. But, if you aren't interested in addressing any of the actual arguments that I have made please be so good as to admit that fact and confine yourself to name calling. Although, truth be told, you are not very adept at that either.

To Iacchus: Not only will I admit that Christian dogma is subject to abuse, I will go a step further and express my opinion that all dogma is, by its very nature, abusive. That is, any requirement that something be believed, just because some authority says that it must believed, is an inherent abuse of the principle of free thought. The act of submitting oneself to such dogmatic authority is a form of intellectual self-abuse.

You're right. You did not change your mind. So what? How does this not make you a partisan hack?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I asked him several times why he as a Christian would want to be associated with the historical freethinker movement and all I got was an invective screed about how he had to oppose people like me.

Incorrect. It was not people like you that I felt moved to oppose, it was you, in particular. A point that I think I made quite clear in my "invective screed".

If it were the case that I, as a Christian, "want to be associated with the historical freethinker movement" my motives for wanting that would be irrelevant to the discussion. As it happens that is not the case. I have no particular desire, as a Christian, to be associated with the historical freethinker movement. Nor, to the best of my recollection, have I ever made the claim that there ever were any Christians who were a part of that historical movement. My sole claim (something you appear to have considerable difficulty focusing on) has been that your assertion that, being a free thinker (of either the "historical" or "naive" variety) is inherently incompatible with being a Christian, is an assertion that is unsupported by the facts. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. The rest of this discussion (apart from the occasional mutual exchange of insults) has basically consisted of my asking you to support that assertion and you trying to find as many ways as possible to avoid doing so.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Incorrect. It was not people like you that I felt moved to oppose, it was you, in particular. A point that I think I made quite clear in my "invective screed".

If it were the case that I, as a Christian, "want to be associated with the historical freethinker movement" my motives for wanting that would be irrelevant to the discussion. As it happens that is not the case. I have no particular desire, as a Christian, to be associated with the historical freethinker movement. Nor, to the best of my recollection, have I ever made the claim that there ever were any Christians who were a part of that historical movement. My sole claim (something you appear to have considerable difficulty focusing on) has been that your assertion that, being a free thinker (of either the "historical" or "naive" variety) is inherently incompatible with being a Christian, is an assertion that is unsupported by the facts. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. The rest of this discussion (apart from the occasional mutual exchange of insults) has basically consisted of my asking you to support that assertion and you trying to find as many ways as possible to avoid doing so.

Then it would appear that you didn't have a dog in the hunt, but you seemed to think that your role in the discussion was to force people to educate you on things you didn't actually want to know.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You're right. You did not change your mind. So what? How does this not make you a partisan hack?

Whether or not I am a partisan hack is irrelevant. Arguments stand on their merits, not the merits of those making them. With one significant exception. If, in the course of a discussion, a participant in that discussion asks others to take their word for something, then it is important that that participant has demonstrated a certain trustworthiness and reliability. Evidence of gross inconsistency and misrepresentation of the facts casts doubt upon one's reliability.

Your repeated failure to provide evidence in support of your assertions (your frequent admonitions "to go read it for yourself" notwithstanding*) amounts to a plea that others take your word for the truth of those assertions. Your cavalier attitude regarding your own penchant for misrepresentations and inconsistencies makes your reliability as a witness somewhat suspect.

So, does it matter that you have been caught in a glaring inconsistency? Yes, it does. It matters because it suggests that you are, if not actually dishonest, then, at the very least, just plain careless with the facts. Further, it suggests a certain disregard and disrespect for the other participants (and lurkers) in the discussion. While this does not exactly kill the discussion, it does mean that you have some heavy lifting to do in order to regain your credibility. If, that is, you are interested in being perceived as credible.

[* Should you respond that those admonitions absolve you of having made such a plea, I will point out that, absent specific citations, a vague "go read it for yourself" or "do your own dang homework" is not an adequate substitute for actual evidence or cogent argument.]

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Whether or not I am a partisan hack is irrelevant. Arguments stand on their merits, not the merits of those making them. With one significant exception. If, in the course of a discussion, a participant in that discussion asks others to take their word for something, then it is important that that participant has demonstrated a certain trustworthiness and reliability. Evidence of gross inconsistency and misrepresentation of the facts casts doubt upon one's reliability.

Your repeated failure to provide evidence in support of your assertions (your frequent admonitions "to go read it for yourself" notwithstanding*) amounts to a plea that others take your word for the truth of those assertions. Your cavalier attitude regarding your own penchant for misrepresentations and inconsistencies makes your reliability as a witness somewhat suspect.

So, does it matter that you have been caught in a glaring inconsistency? Yes, it does. It matters because it suggests that you are, if not actually dishonest, then, at the very least, just plain careless with the facts. Further, it suggests a certain disregard and disrespect for the other participants (and lurkers) in the discussion. While this does not exactly kill the discussion, it does mean that you have some heavy lifting to do in order to regain your credibility. If, that is, you are interested in being perceived as credible.

[* Should you respond that those admonitions absolve you of having made such a plea, I will point out that, absent specific citations, a vague "go read it for yourself" or "do your own dang homework" is not an adequate substitute for actual evidence or cogent argument.]

I am not asking you to take my word for it. I don't think I have ever asked anyone to take my word for anything.

I think I have repeated many times now, that if you have a genuine interest then go look for yourself.

But I warn you, much of it you are probably gonna find very distasteful.

You see I don't defend Russell, I simply present him as a more recent example of the freethinker movement. You could say that Hitchens is a current and more vociferous version of Russell. And I am pretty sure that Christians would not want to associate themselves with Hitchens either.

But what I find amazing about you is that you seem to think that it is some sort of point of rationality to insist on evidence for something that you don't really care about. That is hackery pure and simple.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

To Iacchus: Not only will I admit that Christian dogma is subject to abuse, I will go a step further and express my opinion that all dogma is, by its very nature, abusive. That is, any requirement that something be believed, just because some authority says that it must believed, is an inherent abuse of the principle of free thought. The act of submitting oneself to such dogmatic authority is a form of intellectual self-abuse.

Yes, this is none other than tyranny, and it stinks from the head of the fish down.

[naturalist.atheist]

Angakuk, I have figured you out. You are just a slightly more mature form of Yguy.

Okay. I'll give you what you want.

I am everything you say. You are a god of reason. You are absolutely right.

Whooooohoooooo Angakuk! You are DA MAN!

Time for your victory dance!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

But what I find amazing about you is that you seem to think that it is some sort of point of rationality to insist on evidence for something that you don't really care about. That is hackery pure and simple.

ROTFLMPHAO

They just keep getting better and better. This one belongs in the quote generator.