Atheistic Materialism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will
 

To believe in no Higher Power of any sort necessitates that you also believe there is no such thing as Free Will, and that the choices you make each day were inevitably going to be made that way. As such, to be an Atheist you must logically concede that everything had to happen exactly the way it did, and that any choice anyone thinks they have is an illusion.

That is all. :)

I don't even know what you just said.

Ah, but you can change your mind within your own destiny.

Love is a strange thing because in it's process, in order to know true love, you must always think back about decisions you made in the relationship with some regret. You then must decide what changes to make. This enables you to move on to the next one with a greater promise of success. Or strengthen the one you already have. Love is the higher power, and we all believe in it, even if we don't call it God.

Let’s first take a look at a definition of free will.

Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

The great thinkers throughout history have puzzled with the paradox of destiny versus free will. Calvinism versus Arminianism being the most famous.

Calvinism teaches (1) the total depravity of man, (2) God's unconditional election (or predestination) of certain ones to saved and certain others to be lost, (3) that Christ died only for the elect, not for every person, (4) that God's saving grace toward the elect cannot be resisted, and (5) that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation.
Arminianism teaches something different on each of these points: (1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God. (2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God's salvation makes them responsible. (3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation. (4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian (5) One's salvation can be lost through willful disobedience.

It was stated by Boethius (one such theologian), "There seems to be an hopeless conflict between divine foreknowledge of all things and freedom of human will. For if God sees everything in advance and cannot be deceived in any way, whatever his Providence foresees will happen, must happen. Therefore, if God foreknows eternally not only the acts of men, but also their plans and wishes, there cannot be freedom of will."

This theory states that free will does not exist within the belief of God. That it cannot exist, because God himself predestines our lives. Yet within the texts of the Bible are passages that state that we have a choice to choose God as our savior; hence the above ancient arguments, and an absolute paradox that can only be dispelled by personal faith. Fortunately for all humans, faith is not exclusive to only the believers. I have faith that someday I will die. Of course you could say that it is an obvious fact that I will, but I’m not dead, so I have faith that ultimately that will be my fate. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, of course we all know that it will, yet a catastrophic change could happen to alter that obvious outcome. To say that there is, without a doubt, freedom of will within or without God, would be like proving that our reality is just that, and not a dream. Although any proof of it’s reality could come from within the dream itself. It takes faith.

According to Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, "Scripture nowhere says that we are 'free' in the sense of being outside of God's control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. (This is the sense in which many people seem to assume we must be free.) Nor does it say we are 'free' in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God's power. But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free--we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices. On the other hand, the kind of freedom that is demanded by those who deny God's providential control of all things, a freedom to be outside of God's sustaining and controlling activity, would be impossible if Jesus Christ is indeed 'continually carrying along things by his word of power.' If this is true, then to be outside of that providential control would simply be not to exist! An absolute "freedom," totally free of God's control, is simply not possible in a world providentially sustained and directed by God himself."

The verses supporting predestination are very explicit: they all say that no man can choose God unless God enables them to; or they say that God has chosen certain people to respond to His call:
Man in his fallen, sinful state, cannot receive God's spirit, nor can he understand God's truth, unless God elects him. (1 Cor 2:14) Those who are chosen by God will surely come to him (John 6:37).
On the other hand there are obvious scriptures stating that only our choices will have an effect on our after death outcome. That we choose to give our will and our lives over to the graces of God, letting His will be done. But then we would lose our free will at the point of being saved.

This is an argument as old as the scriptures, only personal interpretations and faith can give anyone an answer that will make them feel moderately assured of salvation. As far as the unbelievers are concerned, it is not a valid argument in their lives. Because without the belief in God, there is no argument whether there is predestination or free will, there is nothing or no one to manipulate our lives, therefore there is nothing left but our own free will.

This is really a topic with no definitive and clear answer. Each of our interpretations of what free will can and probably will be different from one another’s. I doubt that within this forum, we will beat out all the ancient thinkers from so many diverse cultures, and come to a conclusion that is either right or wrong.

I find it hard to believe that someone would so openly make a comment like the one Chris made, knowing full well that redunant argument will spring up between two equally pig headed groups.

That being said, Slay, I have to tell you, that what you just wrote was excellent. We're not going to work it out. It will be redundant argument [as I mentioned]. But thanks for pointing out the theory that there is no free will within belief of God. I had never thought of it in that way [that being said I really never thought about there being no free will without a belief in God] before, and it was definitely an interesting thought to entertain.

Oh, God ["Oh, Nothing" - this message has closed captioning for the holy impaired], another deity vs. atheism thread. Oh, my lord ["Oh, myself"].

Thank you Silver, I appreciate that. I must point out that I have no answer, and that my post was, "just an argument". I used it to only stress that no human being in ages past, times of the present, or into the fathomless future, will ever be able to have an absolute garauntee of knowing the truth. At least I have faith that that will be the case. ;D

I especially liked the part that stressed that no discussion on a forum about movies is going to really bring us any closer to any truths. I quite enjoyed that part.

And I would just like to say to Chris, as much as I love you Chingo, that just hurling comments like this one out into the void is the biggest turn off in regards to believing in God, those who believe in God, and dare I even say it, yourself. It reads smugly, arrogantly and is just ack [oh, yes, dammit: ack!].

I know you'll take this the right way, because you do indeed know that I think you're wonderful. Just...just ack, man.

Actually, you're wrong. There happens to be a nun registered here, and she just PMed me. This is what she said:

Chris turns me on with his anti-atheism remarks. He makes me strip off my habit. Hail Mary!

:rotfl:

Why is it that any member who may or may not be horny for other members always makes a point of sending you a personal message about it?!

Blame whoever wrote "For a good time, PM Sexy Celebrity" on the MoFo bathroom stalls.

I think God told whomever did that, to do it. I doubt it was really any kind of free will. ;D

Atheist or a theist, that is the question.... :D

I just think religion mostly sucks, and I say that totally out of free will. So, that must mean I am not an atheist - which I have never believed I was anyway.

Re: Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will
 

You make two conclusions to start this message, and you don't explain how you came to them. Why do you say that atheists believe there is no such thing as free will and that their choices were inevitable? Did you read another book from some wacked out apologetic? :)

And before you call him smug, Chris, he did end his message with the same smilie as yourself. I got the same vibe as I did from you. So I advise that you don't take that course, not that you would, of course. Both posts [and this one, too!] are all to be read in the same part arrogant/part sarcastic tone of voice.

Oh. And to think that I nearly forgot:

:)

Re: Re: Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will
 

Slaytan: as far as our minds can perceive, yes, God's utter omniscience and our own Free Will logically conflict. There are a few possibilities:

1 - He willingly gave up utter omniscience by creating begins with Free Will. I've always felt sentience and a Will of our own was what was meant by the idea of being created "in His image." Naturally, known all things present and past, He's still one heck of a prognosticator.

2 - We don't have Free Will.

3 - They do NOT conflict, but our minds cannot yet grasp why. Which is a possibility, you must admit. If God exists, it stands to reason that there are some things about Him we wouldn't be able to understand just now.


No. No book. No apologetic (wacked out or otherwise).

Think about it: if a leaf falls from a tree, the cells it is made up of are going to react to the weather conditions around it. The wind and temperature will "hit" the cells and the cells will react accordingly, so to speak. The leaf has no choice in reacting the way it does; it is totally a victim of circumstance. It lands wherever cause-and-effect say it MUST land. Every cell reacts a certain way to certain conditions. It doesn't choose to react to it. It must. It's simply following a number of Universal Laws.

So, I ask you: why are the cells and chemicals that make up human beings exempt from this? Is it just because we happen to have a LOT of them? When you break us down, aren't we made of the same bits and pieces as everything else? What key ingredient sparks us with choice? What part of our body is isolated from cause-and-effect so as to allow us to have a Will of our own?


If a simple, relatively polite, straightforward claim about a logical inevitability in regards to Atheism is a "turn off" to you, then I'm not sure quite what to say. Any smugness or arrogance you picked up on was injected, and not inherent.

I can tell you, however, that always, always, always dropping into such a discussion to remind us all of how much time we're wasting is a much bigger "turn off." We're all well aware, I'm sure, of the likelihood of convincing another party...but that's not why we discuss it. Maybe you're trying to serve as some mediator or voice of reason, but I don't think it's necessary.

Yeah, don't worry, I know.

To you.

I do.

And I don't think I'm being a voice of reason. Just a voice. Consider me a drink of scotch for those who need it. Without me everyone may just die of boredom....

:)

Ive read this ENTIRE thread, and all i can come up with to reply is (delicatly put):

ZUH?

This explains the claim.

well dont i feel like a ripe and royal idiot, righty-o im off to prepare MY arguement, prepare to meet thy match

I've just read this thread and not sure whether you are trying to define atheism or free will. Definitions can be formed in your own minds too. Isn't it all 'free will' to decide the existence or the non-existence of a higher being? I claim to be agnostic, which is different to being an atheist:

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Some imagine that agnosticism represents an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

The term "agnosticism" itself was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876.
For Huxley, agnosticism was a position which rejected the knowledge claims of both "strong" atheism and traditional theism. More importantly, agnosticism for him was a method of doing things. In 1889 he wrote in Agnosticism:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Agnosticism, then, involves not concluding that a god does or does not exist when we do not have any good reasons to do so.
So, if a person cannot claim to know, or know for sure, if any gods exist, then they may properly use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves.

That's sorta the point: that if we have no Soul (or something similar)...if we are merely a mass of miscellaneous cosmic crap, there's absolutely no logical basis for the idea that we have any choice whatsoever. We're just stuff reacting to other stuff.

When I say that Atheism entails this, it simply means that the concept of any Free Will whatsoever is completely reliant on mankind being more than the sum of its biological parts, period.


Right. Though it should be noted that Agnosticism is not just "God could exist, but I don't personally think so," for the most part. It usually represents the "I don't think we have enough information to go on" viewpoint. Both Atheists and Theists alike have come to a verdict...Agnostics are the hung jury of the theological world.

That said, I agree with basically everything you said. Though, forgive me for being so blunt: what's your point? It seems to have become chic, in this thread, to write posts that, while very well-written and insightful, don't really address the subject matter directly. 'Sup with that?

Wow, really coy. It's funny that you say this Yoda, because your original post didn't. You start a post in a way that is so obscure from your point that it is unlikely that anyone could respond to what is really on your mind. Your original statement didn't say anything about our molecular structure and the cause and effect theory. It simply stated that you believed that if I didn't believe in God, then I must logically accept, and agree with you of course, that I have no free will. It's really hard to stick to the point when your point is so masqueraded as something else. Not only that, I think I remember seeing some awfully long posts on other subjects out there written by you.

You anger me, that’s why I hate your threads. You seem so damn condescending. If you want to have a valid debate from now on, quit with the trickery that you used for this thread. Make it clear what you want to debate. Don’t say one thing, wait for responses, then make it seem like we’re all a bunch of idiots for not sticking to your “hidden” subject.

JERK!

You a-holes are baking my noodle.

Chris:
just out of curiosity, what if you were to substitute 'Tiger' for leaf in the above example?

Don't animals have free will, yet are ignorant of God? Do animals possess a brain complex enough to understand will?

I'm just curious about where you'd place them here. My dog makes a free will decision not to come to me when I call the idiotic thing... I know she understands that she has a choice.

Re: Re: Re: Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will
 

Okay -- first, a leaf falls from a tree. The weather affects its cells, the leaf has no choice in reacting the way it does. It lands wherever, etc. You want to know why the cells and chemicals that make up human beings are exempt from this?

They're not.

We're talking about something physical here. We have no choice if we fall down a flight of stairs and break our leg. Now, if there's a God and he intervenes, or if it's predestined by the divine that the fall won't hurt us, then the choice is up to God and we don't get hurt. But if we do get hurt, that's only natural. We are susceptible to nature. Obviously, our cells slowly die off as we age and we LOOK OLDER, just as the weather will cause a leaf to rot, change color, etc.

Free will is if we decide to jump off a twenty foot tall building and commit suicide. By nature, we'll fall, land on pavement, kill ourselves, and our cells will die and our body decomposes. Now, if God happens to intervene, maybe they'll be someone there to save you. Or, you could decide - "Hey! I'm not gonna commit suicide! I'm gonna keep on living!"

Now the leaves can fall and the feathers can fly on by Forrest Gump as much as they want. That is their nature. And they're going to die just like we are.

What part of our body is isolated from cause and effect? Our mind. We DO have free will - we may not however have free will as to where our lives go. Maybe that's predestined. But you have to be a theist to believe that. Atheists don't believe that. But we have some kind of free will, whether we realize it or not. In the end, we could find out that our lives were just like the leaves on the trees and the cells in our body subjected to the world - all under control - but that is to be seen.

Atheists believe in free will -- LordSlayton here can choose to find you and kill you if he wishes, since he thinks you're a jerk, or he can choose to not kill you. Now if LordSlayton or someone else has a major chemical imbalance/mental illness.... well, they have less free will than us because of their illness, and they can't help but do something like that. Look at sleepwalkers who get up in the middle of the night and kill somebody or fall off something and die. But if you believe in God, then maybe you see everything happening for a reason - that, for now, is subjective.

If a tiger falls out of a tree in the woods and no God is around to have made it so did it really choose to fall at all?

Two words. Twilight. Zone.

An unborn fetus has no Free Will.
It also has no interpretation of a higher power or atheism.

Therefore, if it's aborted it is niether an action of its own free will, nor is it a Devine Intervention (most religions shun abortion).

What is it then?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will
 

I just got pissed because I spent some considerable time and effort to make sure I had my facts straight for a good debate. Just to have him question why people think it's "chic" to post lengthy and pointless posts. If he wanted to debate whether we are victims of cause and effect and whether we are in any way in control of it, then he should have said that. But he didn't. I wasted my time and wound up looking foolish. I have a right to call him a Jerk. As far as being unstable...

Okay, but don't take what I said personally. Just coming up with an example.

Well, if it's aborted, the mother had the free will to decide to abort it. It's an unborn fetus. It could have been divine intervention keeping it from being born at the same time. No soul in the fetus, perhaps. What I'm saying is - everything could be meant to happen, even when we think we're making our own choices here. But that's only if you believe in that.

i don't believe in god, i'm a fatalist, i believe basically things happen because a chain of events leads to a moment where whatever happened was possible, and any break in that chain would have not caused that specific result. so essentially i belive in free will because i have control over the outcome, even though in some situations something is uncontrollable and what i thought to be the way to go about doing things was in fact the wrong way. but none the less, if i don't smoke cigarettes, i'm not going to get cancer from smoking cigarettes. that is a decision based on free will, and cancer will never manifest itself inside my body from smoking cigarettes. thats just an example. but to say because your athiest that automatically disqualifies free will, thats an outrageous statement.

Chris,

You know humans have free will. You know this, not because you read your bible, or because religious people you have followed taught you to, but because you know that you are capable of making decisions on your own. I thought your first post was pretty out there, but your response to me was even worse. How am I different than a leaf? You've got to be kidding me.

Maybe he meant somebody named Leif? :shrugs:

Heinrich Leif.

The German man who keeps falling from trees and getting swept away by the wind...

Slaytan: I wrote a long, detailed response, but instead, I'll just say this: you may say I'm a jerk, but I think you're a better man than that. I think you're a good, kind man at heart. I just think that the things I have a tendency to do happen to be the things which have a tendency to push your buttons. And vice versa. But I can get past that if you can.


Sounds nutty, eh? But if it is, you should have no problem telling me just why. Of course you're different from a leaf; you know quite well I'm not claiming otherwise...but what basis do you have for believing that the chemical and biological reactions in your body are under a different set of guidelines than any other group of cells and chemicals? Why do you think the stuff humans are made out of is special compared to the stuff other things are?

It's one thing to say "this is crazy," but if it really is, you should be able to then elaborate on WHY it is crazy. So far your reasoning seems to be that we have free will because we "know that we are capable of making decisions on our own." But I think you can agree that, from any objective standpoint, that isn't a logical basis to make your objection on.

Now, you may say that you can feel yourself weighing options and coming to conclusions; and you're right. What I'm saying is that, assuming we're just a mass of stuff, you were inevitably going to weigh the options in the exact way you did, and you were inevitably going to then reach the conclusion you did. I think I've mapped out just why pretty well, and I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the matter. Why do you think humans consist of some special biological phenomenon which is for some reason exempt from the same cause-and-effect? Surely it can't be just because our chemicals and cells are woven together more intricately than most others.


Good question. I do think they have Free Will, yes. Just not sentience in the way we do, really. Regardless, even if I were to substitute "Tiger" for "leaf," my point would remain the same: for man to have any true choices, he (or she) must be more than the some of their parts.



Are you asking if a fetus has any default religious affiliation?

Nah, I'm really a violent man, I'd knock your teeth out if I had the chance.

Okay, not really.

Yes, you push my buttons. Yes, I push yours. How do we manage to not do this? I don't know the answer to that. If we follow your logic, then it is inevitable that we don’t get along. There is nothing that we can do about it other than accept the fact, but is that acceptance by choice?

To say that we are nothing more than atoms, leads to a fatalistic viewpoint. Why bother if there is nothing more to our lives than predestination? Our ancestors needed more than that, as do we. But that still does not lead to any kind of an answer.

You asked the question, “What key ingredient sparks us with choice?”. The way I see it, it must be our brains. Yes, all living and non-living organisms that live on, and make up, the planet Earth consist of the same make-up. But not all of the “creations” are made the same. It’s like a potato, there’s a gratins, mashed, baked, and fried. Of course they’re all potato’s, but they’re all different in flavor, texture, and appearance. The difference between me and your leaf, is that my cells make up another organism that can act independently from it’s nature. My brain cancels out pure cause and effect, wherein all choice is implausible. If the wind blows me to the right, I can hold onto the tree and not go right. Of course by doing that, I have started another scenario of cause and effect. May hap’s by my grabbing the tree I knock off another leaf that has no will to deny the wind it’s desire. But cause and effect is inescapable. We initiate cause and effect as well as fall victim to it. We initiate it with our choices and free will. A leaf cannot share this distinction with sentient beings.

As far as your comment, “It seems to have become chic, in this thread, to write posts that, while very well-written and insightful, don't really address the subject matter directly.” It made me angry with you because when I wrote my post, you had not changed the topic of discussion yet. Your comment felt belittling and patronizing, not to mention rude and very antagonistic. Please be more clear with what your threads are “really” about from here on out. I would appreciate that a great deal. I apologize about calling you a jerk, you know I like you just fine, but like you said, you push my buttons quite well.

Peace, Brian.


BTW Sexy, I didn't take what you posted personally, I just felt the need to justify my anger. I still believe that I was justified with my feelings, just not in the way I presented them.

If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. - Lyall Watson

This whole "atheists don't believe in free will" claim is absolutely ridiculous. I've had discussions with literally hundreds of atheists, and perhaps 3 or 4 of them have given me the impression that they believe everything is fated, all mapped out, that no one really makes choices with free will. I would take a WILD STAB IN THE DARK, and say that most atheists believe they have free will. You are trying to put words in atheists mouths, something you don't do a very accurate job of.

I never said anything like the stuff humans are made up of is special. You are grasping so hard in this thread, that one would think your arms are a mile long.

I don't know about CRAZY; that's your word, not mine. But your claims in this thread don't make any sense. You throw them out there like they are fact, and give nothing to back them up. Your attitude seems to be that if I can't explain how humans are different than leaves when it comes to fate, then your claims are correct. Nonsense. You are the one making the assertions; back them up. Just because I don't know how the human brain works, doesn't prove your point in the slightest way.

Where do you get this?? How do you make the leap from someone not believing in a god to the things they do being inevitable? You have not explained this; you just expect us to buy it. I don't believe in fate, Chris. Please explain to me how everything is mapped out just because I don't have a belief in any deities?

I'm your commentator Mr. M. J. Clayfield and welcome to the most talked about thread on MoFo for the entire length of time that I've been here. And I really do mean talked about.

It is one thing to have a widely and wildly used thread [Ups and Downs Tab, for example], with a lot of posts, but it is another [and an amazing rarity] to have a thread that inspires discussions about it on AIM, Yahoo, MSN and via email and the PM system, all with different people, all within a mere twenty-our hours or so of it being opened. Never has a thread exploded with such verocity onto the MoFanic Scene [add that to the glossary with the meaning: the MoFo related community that operates off the main boards between members].

Let's watch in anticipation, shall we?

I've been paying very close attention to this thread but I haven't posted anything (except for one post) because the existence or non-existence of god is something I think about just as much as the existence or non-existence of the Loch Ness monster. In short, I don't think very much about it. But you guys make me do it! :eek:

You all seem to be so well oriented in this area - I'm actually very impressed - and I wouldn't stand a chance in this debate. I don't even know if I would fall into the category of atheist or not. I mean, I don't really believe in the bible even though I think Jesus and the message of love is cool. He was a true revolutionary. :D And I don't believe that there is an interventionous God or that the biblical God created the Universe. I don't need that to understand that we have to treat each other and our one and only mother nature with much much deeper respect and carefulness or everything will go to hell within a close future.

Anyway, I would like to say that I agree with LordSlaytan when he says that he doesn't get what this topic is about anymore. I read what Yoda writes and it's all very well formulated with falling leaves and everything is made out of the same matter and so on. But how does that prove that atheists are different from believers in God when it comes to Free Will? I don't even know whether I'm an atheist or not. And I don't care. But I'm pretty sure I have my free will intact. What I think Yoda is saying is that those hardcore atheists, the 3 or 4 people Firegod mentioned, they are so trapped under the belief of the existance of nothing and everything is bound to happen. No use in trying to affect things. Nihilists, really. But... How is that really different from hardcore "God worshippers"? "God only knows", "God will lead the way", "God will tell me what to do", "May God's will be done". Where's the Free Will in that?

I personally believe that God is only in our minds. This discussion is a proof of that. As my signature says: it's a concept.

Exactly. That is the very same reason I don't even try to partake it in also. If I gave any of it a second thought, I might, but I don't. I'm too busy living my life to worry about what is going to happen to me when it ends.

Likewise. I believe Jesus existed and that he was cool. I think the only thing that needs to be taken as Gospel in the Gospel is the vibe of it. Treat one another as you would like to be treated and all that jazz. That is what it is all about for me. The question of there being a God is the least important part of the thing for me.

And also, I wouldn't mention John Lennon either! After all, one of my most defining moments on this site is when Chris wrote Imagine off as:

:rotfl:

:laugh: Yeah, well... Lennon's probably spinning a couple of times in his grave every time someone's calling him "liberal".

Imagine there's no heaven... :eek:

:D

Okay, first thing's first. There's been a misunderstanding...one that I'm quite surprised at, really. I'll go in alphabetical order:

firegod

This paragraph tells me that you've got my claim all wrong. I'm not saying that Atheists don't believe in Free Will. I'm saying they have no logical reason to. It's similar to saying that if you believe in an omniscient God, you can't believe in Free Will either. That's not to say there are not people who DO, in fact, believe in both Free Will and God's omniscience...but the point is that they have no sound basis for that belief.

I'm sure most Atheists do, in fact, believe in Free Will. I just don't see how it make sense, is all. I hope that clears this up a tad.


I think grasping would be more easily defined as not having an answer, but assuming there is one. Allow me to be blunt (I mean this with all respect): I don't see any counter-argument of substance here.


I throw them out there because anyone can clearly deduce that they are fact.

We DO know how the human brain works, at least enough to know there's nothing magical about it as it appears to us: it produces electrical impulses which travel through our body. Electricity, man. That's pretty much what it consists of. There's some chemicals thrown in for good measure, I believe. Nothing we haven't analyzed before.

Let me ask everyone here something: what happens when you make a choice? Well, we know an electrical impulse of sorts travels through a certain part of your brain to another part of your brain, which transmits that signal to some part of your body, which obeys, if it is able, the command. So at what point is the choice really made?


I know you don't believe in fate, and for the most part, I don't either. Again: I'm not saying fate exists because you don't believe in God. I'm saying that if mankind is nothing more than the sum of its parts, it is merely more stuff reacting to other stuff. Can you name me one part of the brain's decision-making process which does not involve mere reaction? I don't see why you believe the chemicals that we are made of to be outside of the laws of physics and chemistry.

The only thing we have is the appearance of choice because no one can weigh all the circumstances fast enough to predetermine the outcome.

Think of a computer: electrical signals sent throughout, similar to a brain. Yet it has no choice at all. What do we have which a computer does not to give us genuine choice that is not predetermined by present and past circumstances?


LordSlaytan

Actually, by my logic, God exists and we have Souls and, therefore, have every reason to believe in Free Will. But I really have no major problems with you. Like I said: I know you're a good man. I like to think I know bad men when I come into contact with them. And I don't think you're one of them.


But what makes our brains so special?


How can any creature act independently from its nature if we're merely a mass of stuff? Wouldn't our nature be however it is we act? Our nature isn't really defined as what makes sense...when we observe any consistency among animals, we don't attempt to rationalize; we chalk it up to being their "nature." So isn't the fact that we do things like hold onto trees when it's windy merely part of our nature, too?


If our brain is what sets us apart, what is it that sets it apart? We can analyze signals the brain sends internally, and unless I'm misremembering horribly, there's never appeared to be anything special about that.

Or, put another way: no matter how elaborate the domino structure is, when you push that first one, they're all goin' down. Complexity does not equal exemption from that. It just means more cause-and-effect on a more specific, intricate level is involved in events where our brain takes part.


I was hoping to see how people reacted, first. In hindsight, 'twas a bad choice. That said, I don't think your post looked "stupid" at all, as I believe you called it. As I said earlier, I thought it was well-written and insightful, and actually, it seems to have branched off into the issue of Free Will WITH God, as well, which is quite welcome.


Pidzilla

I think fire and I would agree that that's a very good thing. :)


There isn't any there, as far as I can see, which is one of the reasons I've never been one to say "It's all part of God's plan." In a sense, I'm sure it is, in the sense that God's plan is contingent on Free Will and therefore, inevitably, suffering.


In a sense you're almost right. He is in our minds; because it's the best place for Him to show Himself. In a backdoor of sorts. Through things like our moral instinct and our belief in our own ability to choose. Those sorts of things logically imply something beyond the physical world around us.

FYI: concerning the whole "Jesus ain't God, but He's cool" stuff: I don't think that makes much sense. The evidence we have suggests that He was quite clear about His claims: I'm the Son of God. So, if you don't believe He was, either He was lying, or He was insane. Neither one would make a good moral leader, if you ask me.

Well, that's nice to know! :)



Well, if the Boss isn't even involved in his own company, then what's the point worshipping him or praying to him (or her... or it...)? What's the point of thanking God for our daily bread if he didn't give it to us? If all he did was to create this planet (which he didn't) and then just sodded off, then what the hell is religion all about? Gratitude for been given a world to screw up? Or is it all really just about "doing right" according to the bible (or any holy scripture of free choice) so we come to heaven when we die? Or reach nirvana? Or get to sit by Oden's side in Valhalla?





I don't think that specific example suggests that there's something beyond the physical world around us. But sure, I believe in worlds beyond or after this one. But since our intelligence isn't sophisticated enough to comprehend those worlds or dimensions or whatever, we have created God to explain the unexplainable. He is simply a product of our minds. An old school UFO, if you will.

The line between geniality and insanity is, as we all know, very thin.

But anyway... Maybe he was lying or maybe he was insane. If I had to choose I would have to bet on the latter alternative. But does it really matter? If he is the son of God or not shouldn't matter, only his views on how to improve humanity and the conditions for the people. Those veiws are pretty far before its time. That's what I think is "cool" about Jesus.

I don't like this statement. I have nothing to back it up... I just tend to think of humans as 'special'... you know, God's chosen ones. If you can believe in miracles, burning bushes, reanimation at the hand of God then what's wrong with a little magic? I don't believe in humans having magical powers i.e. Harry Potter, but there is something like magic about us.

PS If we DID know how the human brain worked we'd be able to duplicate one, wouldn't we?

I DO like this one. Great argument...

And this one cracked me up. Genuinely...great turn of phrase. I'm not sure I'm with you on the rest of it but that was funny as hell.

Toose, you're with me all the way and you know it... :cool:

No. I don't believe we are capable of understanding exactly how the brain works, or exactly how evolution created intelligent brains, or why you feel that us not knowing the answers to these questions of yours in any way proves your preposterous assertions in this thread. :)

Another huge leap of an assumption. I never suggested anything like that. Please illustrate to us how believing that humans have free will while not having a belief in any gods in any way suggests that humans are not compatible with physics and chemistry.

The way I see it:

If Chris is right and a God exists and we have free will then that is excellent. We have free will. Hoorah.

But if there is no God and we don't have free will because we're like leaves falling of the trees and subject to cause and effect, then cause and effect has made it so our cells react in a way that at the very least gives us the misconception of free will, and while we might not actually have it, we believe we do, and ignorance is bliss.

Thus: let us get on with our pitiful little lives. There is nothing we can do to change the fact that we're just leaves. So let us live in bliss, ignorance and enjoy the ride, dammit.

Good one Silver. :yup:

ditto Silver :yup:

Thankyou. I know I'm great.

Sorry for the delay.

Pidzilla

You're implying that we should not thank God for our "daily bread" because all he did was supply us with the materials to make the bread as well as the ability to turn it into bread? :skeptical:


It's all based on one simple principle: existence is a gift.

As for "which he didn't" -- I find that to be unreasonably bold and probably lacking much solid evidence. For a skeptic, you don't seem all that skeptical of your own views.


We haven't created God; clearly the idea of God is either inherent in us as beings, or inherent in the world around us.


What does it matter? How many people do you think exist today that are simultaneously wise and completely insane?


Toose

There's nothing hard to believe about it. I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that you have to believe in something supernatural to believe in what we call Free Will. I'm arguing in a devil's advocate sort of way; naturally I, too, believe we are "special."


Right. We don't know everything about it. But we have looked at it...chopped it up. It's all made up of veins and meat, to put it crudely. Even if we don't understand every nuance, we DO understand that it is a purely physical device from where we're standing. And that's really all I need to make my point.


fire

Right, we don't know just how it works. So let's go into hypotheticals: are you saying you believe in a purely physical phenomenon inside the part of our body called the brain that somehow stands outside the ol' tangible cause-and-effect all matter is subject to?

We can trace a thought, so to speak. We can see chemicals react and impulses travel. So, are you saying that one of those impulses is special somehow? Is one of those puddles of chemical doing MORE than just reacting? If so, how is that possible?


Well, the belief in God is sort of apart from the point: it's more the denial of anything supernatural (like a Soul)...though naturally the two are roughly akin.

Humans are made up of cells and chemicals. That's IT. Every single cell in this Universe, including those in our own body, reacts to its environment outside of its own control. Give me one good reason as to why the bits and pieces that we're made up of should have choice, while all the other bits and pieces in this world are just reacting?


Silver
Maybe we don't have Free Will. I'm not really claiming that we definitely do. Just that Free Will is an illusion without something beyond the physical, logically.

Hmmmm, maybe. Would you discard the theory that what we 'see' with our eyes are veins and meat but the 'glue' which holds it together is what we call 'supernatural' or 'soul'? How can we be sure we even have the equipment to see everything that comprises something else? I can't hear the dog whistle but the sound it produces is real as hell to my dog... see what I'm driving at?

That's a tangent maybe you didn't want to examine here, and I'm admittedly off point but would like to hear your ideas on this sometime...

Yes -- if the concept of God came from just our creativity for explaining life after death, why did some human long ago think that? How did it come to our minds? When I was two years old, I started calling my mom "the new mommy", and I told her that I was from New Mexico, that I had died once before, and I even had a name for myself. How did I come up with this? I can't remember it all (some), but that's what my mom always talks about. That's why I believe in reincarnation.

And maybe in my next life, I'll be two years old and calling myself "Sexy Celebrity". :)

And that's supposed to be a sign of God's existance? Give me a break...

Take an antropological class and you'll be able to encounter 100 different creation myths. Tell the believers of those myths the biblical one and if they didn't believe you were from Mars before that they sure will then. How do you think all those people "found"out about their myths? They made them up! And if you think the biblical tale is different you're very arrogant.

I don't question life after death, or reincarnation, or other dimensions or worlds or even some form of higher power or powers. What I question, or even strongly disbelief, is the big religions. Believe in God - I am so fine with that, maybe I even believe in him/her/they/it myself.

Because you know now that I exist. You were lost, now you're found in that you've uncovered the way of the right and just. Like the cockroach who gazes upon the sun for the first time, you want to run and hide but the heat and warmth and purity is undeniable.



That's a pretty cool story there, SC. My kids used to say wacked out stuff all the time when they first started talking. With my first I wrote it off to babbling... with the second I wasn't so sure.

Well, that's a very arrogant accusation coming from you. :sick:

I fart on you, evil doer!

Well, at least I view all major religions equally.

By the way, do you mean that it was an arrogant accusation coming from me period or an arrogant accusation even for coming from me? Look, I don't look down on people because of their religious belief. My girlfriend is a very strong believer in God and a catholic too. :eek: But I think it's arrogant to believe that your own religion is better than all the rest and that it is like the religion. There lies the whole problem with religion, if you ask me. Which I'm sure you will not do... ;)

Don't feel :sick: - feel :love:!!!

Hello! I never talked about religions and I certainly didn't discriminate any of them. That is why I say you're arrogant! God can be anything -- all religions follow the same path, basically. Don't you dare accuse me of these beliefs you're pulling out of your ass about me. The only thing I talked about that's not in some religions is reincarnation -- that's MY personal belief.

:sick: :sick: :sick:

Sorry. I was editing my last post when I had to go away from the pc for a while and I forgot all about it.

Well hello hello! Damn, someone is getting really :sick: around here.

Here's something else from my ass: hinduism is a great deal about reincarnation... Check it out!

I think you take my posts too personal. I used your childhood story as an example of a bad evidence of the biblical God's existance. Then I went on to tell about my views about religion in general.

Oh, how I hate this thread. And no. I will not stop saying it!

And Chris! Why could you not let it die? Or at least bring it back to life with more talking to me. I finally joined in and you give me a stupid little backhand of a reply. Thanks!

Jerk!

:D

Your ass or Hinduism?

Well now... My ass has a dedicated crowd of followers, sure. But I doubt if it is capable of reincarnation.

I'll worship it anyway. :licklips:

Okay, but only as a shirne, mind you. :suspicious:

You've got it, dude. ;)

Oh God the twisty turny roads in here are so unpredictable.

Hey Silver, did you know that God spelled backwards is Dog? Is the credo of the dog backwards from that of the bible?

What? Don't attack me, man! I was made a post that sucked up to both sides of the argument! I want you to love me! Lo-ove. Me-e...

I do not understand said question. I do not understand these mind games. Hate crime! Hate crime! Love me! Not war me! Not war on me, man! Not war on me! War on you and both your houses.

The answer to your question, Jimmy, is apostle.

To answer Yoda's original question.:confused: I'm not sure If I am writing the same thing as anyone else, I only skimed through the reply's.

Well, an athiest is somebody who does not believe in God. Therefore, his or her life is in their own hands. They have complete free will.

An athiest to God, is like an anarchist to the government.

If you are a thiest, that means, well... the opposite. It means that you believe that no matter what, God is in control of your life. If you decide to do something bad... ie beat your wife, that means God did it for a reason.

In regards to a further post.

Hinduism is not a religion, there is no God. It is simply a way of life. What they worship is the Earth. They do this, because this is what they can be sure they were born from. They do not follow a book, and a god not seen (Though It does not bother me if you do. Whatever brings happiness to your life.)

I believe, that if I was not Agnostic, I would be a Hindu. Hindu was the main religion of the east. It spawned Buddhism, Taoism, Zen etc.

On the topic of religion, isn't it funny that Jews and Muslims were both born from the same father... Abraham? Abraham had two sons "Isaac and Ishmael" Isaac became the father of Jews, Ishmael of Arabs (Arabs later got their own religion from Muhhamad.

Oh well.

I'll reply to the rest later, but for now...

Logically, they don't. You need to believe in the supernatural to believe in Free Will. See my previous posts for an elaboration.


False. Why is a Theist allegedly bound to accept a highly specific, unavoidable Divine Plan? Are you confusing Theists with Fundamentalist Christians?

Oh, one more thing:


More like a rebellious child, I'd say. And as we know, the only way a child can possibly compete with it's parent is to yell something like "you're not my real father!" Hence, my personal slogan when it comes to Atheism: how can you fight God but to pretend He doesn't exist?

It may of been an overstatement. You know, like saying your moms spagetti tastes like ****. It may not really taste that bad. But pretty damn bad.

Yes, a bit of a stereotype to all thiests, but a major number of them do in fact fit into my description. Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and a number more.

You talkin' bout my mama? :furious:

Your mama's so FAT, she went to the movies and saw EVERYTHING!

Your mama's so stupid, she sat on the t.v to watch the couch.

Your mama's so stupid, she climbed a glass wall to see what was on the other side.

Your mama's so fat, she uses a mattress for a maxi pad.

-Don't get me started on the mama jokes... you will go down crying.:mad:

but isn't choosing to be an atheist an act of free will, just as choosing to worship the God of your choice is?

Actually, that's, in a sense, exactly what I believe. I believe our Souls are the sound waves and our body is the radio; you can damage the radio, and the waves won't come through as clearly, but they're there, seperate overall but still connected. To destroy the radio is not to destory the signal...except from your perspective, because you won't be able to hear it anymore.

Remember, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here: I DO believe in a Soul...I DO believe in Free Will. But the two sort of go together, is what I'm saying. There's no logical reason to believe in Free Will without something supernatural, and the fact that "we don't understand the brain" and "c'mon, you KNOW we have free will because you can feel it" are the only real counter-arguments so far, I'd say I've made my point, whether fire concedes it or not. ;)


It's not an overstatement, because it's wrong at the core. To say "this tastes like s**t" is exaggeration, because it tastes bad. To say all Theists believe so-and-so, in this case, is not an exaggeration; it's false in its very base form. There is no way to scale it back to make it true. You have to fundamentally change it. It really doesn't matter, though. I just felt the need to point out the erroneousness of the original comment.


No, it's not. If were are nothing more than physical beings, we have no Free Will whatsoever, as I've already detailed extensively. Unless you think we have a magical Free Will gland in our brains which is not subject to physical laws of cause-and-effect.


There are plenty of signs of God's existence.


Did you know there are multiple flood stories in various cultures? I believe the Chinese word for "boat" originally meant something like "vessel carrying eight people." And yes, The Ark contained eight people. The Bible also refers, if memory serves (in the original translation, that is) to the world as a "sphere." Far beyond its time in terms of science. Are these coincidences?


If God were real, why wouldn't His religion be one of the big ones? Or for that matter, the biggest? Questioning the big religions just because they're big doesn't jibe.

Of course...

I just like phucking with you.

:laugh:

This is exactly why I'm not a fan of debating with you, my friend. You haven't detailed anything but your personal theory. Because of the belief of your own omnipotent idealisms, it turns your theory's into fact in your eyes. This is a subject that doesn't have any physical, metaphysical, or any difinitive proof what so ever. There is no way to "prove" your theory Chris. It will always remain a valid, well though out, and completely arguable...theory. Kudo's on the way your mind works Chris, you obsess about some very deep, yet pointless, ideas. But at least you're always asking the "why" questions.

I won't say whether you're right or wrong, that would be to presumptous on my part. I will say that I feel that you're wrong. I just don't buy it. But I may be wrong. But, please, quit saying how right you are because of your detailed analysis of the subject. Because you may be wrong no matter how logical and simple your theory may appear to you.

No harm, no foul...see??? I'm not evil...I'm not evil!!!! :D

I don't believe myself anywhere near omnipotent. But I do usually know logic when I see it...and I think you do, too. And seeing as how none of us have anything but our own perceptions and logic to go by, I don't see what's wrong with following them where they happen to lead us. Following logic and reason hasn't really led us astray yet, as far as I can recall.

I don't deny the possibility that what I'm saying could be wrong. I deny the idea that there's any valid reason for believing it is without tossing logic out the window.


I honestly don't think questions about our basic natures and the origins of them (and the Universe) are anywhere near pointless. But to each their own.


Please, consider this: what you are saying could just as validly be applied to the "theory" of gravity. There's not really a way to prove it exactly, but if we sit down and think about it, the alternatives make no sense, and the theory fits perfectly. So, it is generally regarded as fact. And, if not fact, it is certainly not DENIED as being the most likely explanation.

If someone said to me "I'm skeptical, but I realize that logic dictates what you're saying, and it's the only thing that makes sense," I'd be as happy as a clam. I'd have nothing ill to say about them at all. In all honesty, Slay, can you really tell me you find it reasonable to deny something that makes logical sense on the basis that it could possibly, potentially, TECHNICALLY be incorrect, even if you can'd possibly see how? I think you'd probably agree that neither you, nor fire, nor anyone here applies that level of skepticism to any of their other core beliefs.

Would you rail on me for being arrogant and "treating my opinion as fact" by telling you 2 + 2 equaled 4?

I'm skeptical, but I realize that logic dictates what you're saying, and it's the only thing that makes sense, well at least a modicum of sense.

(You said you might be wrong, I thought it warranted my mild relenting :) )

You've got me beat when it comes to diplomacy, man. I must give you that. :) I guess my nature is to say that if it makes sense, and if the alternatives do not, and if everything I currently know to be logical dictates it, and if no one I talk to seems to be able to find flaw with it, well hell, I'm gonna believe it. But I honestly can appreciate the skeptical view of things.

Communism and Nazism were two seperate, yet eventually presumed equal things.

Nazism was created as an evil thing. Communism was innocent enough in the beginning, specifically when Marx and Lenin used it. It was only tainted by Stalin (who teamed up with Hitler, in the original "AXIS of evil").

I'm no Communist, but I believe it would certainly be a good thing for America at this time. Russian Communism is certainly better than American Capitalism.
When I imagine America now, the old picture of the snake eating its own tail comes to mind; yet remember, self mutilation is not a perpetual thing. If you give yourself enouph paper cuts, eventually you will die.

America is like the old empires- Rome, Turkey, Egypt, Macaedonia etc... and where are they now?

Now, hold your horses, Travis.

Yes, it's true that communism looks a whole lot better than nazism on the paper. But you can't get around the fact that it's undemocratic. And I tell you... Lenin wasn't always Mr Nice Guy. Compared to Stalin he's Dalai Lama, but Lenin too sent a lot of people to Sibiria and murdered people with different views. And we have to remember that after the revolution there was a democratic and more moderate socialist coallition in power - but Lenin and the bolsheviks would not have it. Then of course he did a lot of good things to modernize and intellectualize Russia, but then Stalin came and it all went to hell.

It's also known that communists and nazis/fascists worked together against socialdemocrats and liberals around Europe. The communists loathed democracy then and communists stll do. You can't have a democratic society totally without capitalism. What we don't need is hypercapitalism.

Well, this is a very interesting issue to discuss but it's totally off-topic here. :yup: Better not get me started... lol..

Travis.

Eh, they weren't exactly stand-up guys themselves in all things, from what I've heard.


Why?


Where are ANY of the old empires or countries? What you're saying here sounds roughly akin to the famous Simpson quip "If he's so smart, how come he's dead?"

Never said they were. Just pointing out a fact.

With the cut-throat way America works in its pursuit of capital, a large sum of Americas population is being left to die. Check the unemployment rate. it gets bigger and bigger by the year. The harsh reality of someone not being able to provide for his family, makes him turn to the bottle or the needle.
Families quarrel, and eventually that drives them to expensive medicines for their depression (after all, health care isn't exactly in a great state there).
If they can't afford medicines, the depression turns to violence towards family members, sending them to jail, leaving the poor family poorer.

Now you're going to mention some empty promises that Bush declared in his State of the Union. Go back to any other SOTU, and you will notice that nil to nothing was achieved.

The thing that those empires had in common was... they all became greedy. They ruled the world, and they wanted more. Eventually they tried to steal what little possessions a country less wealthy, but with more heart had... and they became HISTORY chapter 4. I'm not saying I want America to fall, I'm just pointing out the inevitable. It's the perpetual mistake of greed.

Yoda,

As I've indicated before, you are basically throwing these outrageous theories out there, with no explanations for them other than the idea that if we can't explain how the brain works well enough to prove that we have free will, then you've proven your point. I'm sorry, but that's not logical. You are the one making the claims; come up with something to back up the conslusions other than our ignorance of the human brain. If you can't, you haven't made a good point at all.

This is not the first time you've claimed this. I should have spoken up sooner. Some (a small minority) of translations of some bible texts use the word "sphere" as an adjective when describing the sky, heavens, or whatever word that particular version uses for the sky. Never does The Holy Bible, in ANY translation, refer to the earth as spherical. It does, however, describe the earth as flat.

Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Assuming that these things could happen at all, they certainly couldn't happen on a spherical world. Sure, you can take a word or two from some translations of the bible and make the bible look like all kinds of things that it's not; but this is argumentation worthy of Christian apologetics and creationists, not someone who thinks as logically as you usually do.

Rest assured that I understand precisely what you're getting at. In fact, I've already replied to it:

"Right, we don't know just how it works. So let's go into hypotheticals: are you saying you believe in a purely physical phenomenon inside the part of our body called the brain that somehow stands outside the ol' tangible cause-and-effect all matter is subject to?

We can trace a thought, so to speak. We can see chemicals react and impulses travel. So, are you saying that one of those impulses is special somehow? Is one of those puddles of chemical doing MORE than just reacting? If so, how is that possible?"

If you pointed out a blatant contradiction in The Bible, and my only response to it was "if God exists, we can't possibly hope to fully understand Him" (which is, I'm sure you'll agree, true), you'd roast me for giving you a cop-out answer, and rightly so.

Re: Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will
 

If someone claimed that everything in the bible is true, and I pointed out contradictions, then the answer you referred to would be a cop-out, yes. But I'm not making a claim that is being disproven. You are using the absence of proof to prove your side, and it isn't logical at all.

Nope. I'm not sayiing anything of the kind. I don't see the point of using hypotheticals here.

I don't know the answers Yoda. Would you like me to now make a bunch of wacky speculations, ask you questions I know you can't answer and then claim that I have mapped out and proven my wacky speculations?

Edit: I edited this a bunch of times, because I was being distracted while trying to write it. If you read some of the old stuff that isn't there anymore, please disregard. Thanks.

This is where the heart of the matter lies: I am not using absence of proof on my end to prove anything. It is you that has an abscence of proof. Everything we know currently points solely in ONE direction. The only way your stance could be validated is through some utterly unforseeable and borderline supernatural revelation into the very nature of physical matter.

I'm making a claim that is supported by all human knowledge of physical matter and how it behaves. How could you possibly then conclude that, when you oppose this claim, the burden of proof lies with anyone other than you?


Hypotheticals are the only way for you to make your case, as clearly the brain is a wholly physical device. It boils down to one simple question: why is the physical matter that constitutes our brain fundamentally different from any other matter? It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing.

FYI: I'll get back to you on the matter of the word "sphere" shortly. Thanks for waiting. :) I'll try to make it quick.

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense at all. Atheism simply means not having a belief in any deities. How do you make the leap from there not being any good answers to your questions about the brain to the conclusion that not having a belief in any deities excludes the possibility of free will? The absence of evidence of free will coming from nature does NOT prove that it came from a god. If you aren't saying that, then how in the world are atheists being contraditory if they believe in free will?

Edit: The only possible way you could be making a good point here is if all atheists who believe in free will are claiming that it is a FACT that we have free will, and that it CAN'T come from a god. Obviously, that isn't anywhere near the truth.

As I said a bit earlier, it's not so much Atheism really, as denial of a supernatural force in regards to us. A Soul, or something. It's just that the two almost always go together. I think what you might be getting hung up on is the assumption that I'm saying you must believe in God if you believe in Free Will. I'm not, really, though you certainly have to believe in something supernatural (unless you're ready to take some major leap in logic which contradicts all scientific reason and understanding thus far in human history).

This matter is more of a "if you want to throw the concept of God/the Soul out, hey, fine, but know that you're sort of a fatalist if you do." I know Atheists and Agnostics who believe, based on the principles I've described, that there is no God, and that they have no Free Will. That's perfectly possible; but, as is evident from your arguments, you're very reluctant to concede that you aren't, in fact, making your own choices, even though your other beliefs logically dictate it.

For what it's worth, this is really my contention with your stance in a nutshell (taken from my last post). It sums my argument up rather well: you're basing your belief in Free Will on an unfounded and unsupported assumption that we will not only have a major scientific breakthrough in regards to the brain in the future to validate your stance, but that said breakthrough will also fly in the face of the very nature of the way we have concluded that matter interacts with each other. And yes, that's probably a run-on sentence. The bolded sentence is key.

"Hypotheticals are the only way for you to make your case, as clearly the brain is a wholly physical device. It boils down to one simple question: why is the physical matter that constitutes our brain fundamentally different from any other matter? It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing."

Hehe. Ah, the life of a geek.

Since you are so fond of repeating yourself...

"The only possible way you could be making a good point here is if all atheists who believe in free will are claiming that it is a FACT that we have free will, and that it CAN'T come from a god. Obviously, that isn't anywhere near the truth."

and...

"If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't." - Lyall Watson

Yoda,

Let me show you how silly you sound to people who have found no good reason to believe religions are anything other than a bunch of stories and concepts made up by humans.

I believe that The Matrix is real, and that it is the explanation to why we have déjà vu. If you don't have a belief that The Matrix (or something very similar to it) is real, and can't answer my questions about how déjà vu can exist in brains, when science tends to show us that it doesn't exist in any other physical things, then it is inconsistent for you to believe in déjà vu.

:rotfl:

Standing ovation from Matt.

...only when I don't get answers.


I already addressed this:

"It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that there's something beyond our comprehension, but it's ridiculous to ASSUME it's there, which is precisely what you're doing."

It's really quite simple. Tell me where the weak link in my chain of logic is:

1. We have brains. 2. They are made of matter, and nothing more. 3. The matter that makes up our brains is not particularly special or different from the matter in many inanimate or unintelligent things. 4. We have never, ever found any evidence to suggest it is anything more than physical. 5. We have also never, ever found any matter that defied cause-and-effect for no discernable reason.

The thing is, if you reply to a paragraph like this with "we don't understand the brain yet," you're ignoring what I've already said, which is that, yes, we've still more to learn, but what's on trial is the basis you have for believing in Free Will; which amounts to, well, diddly squat. I'm not arguing with you about whether or not it is possible, because it's POSSIBLE we could have the way matter works all messed up, and it's POSSIBLE that JFK was murdered by aliens; but for you to EXPECT the fundamental behavior we've observed for all of human history to be somehow turned on its head in a future experiment, and believe in Free Will based on THAT, is absurd, and I think you most definitely know it.


Invalid parody: for your satire to stand, you would need to produce empirical evidence that déjà vu defied physical behavior as we know it. Which it does not.

I've answered the other questions, and there is no difference between those and the one I didn't answer. You're not asking REAL questions; you're asking questions that you know can't be legitimately answered with anything other than something that amounts to "I don't know", and expect everyone to applaud as if you've made a good point. You haven't. The fact that I can't prove how free will can work in a brain, when we think it can't work in anything else we observe, would only win you points if I were claiming that free will is a fact. I'm not.

Again, this would be a good argument to refute the claim that free will is a "FACT". That would be the case whether the person making that claim was a theist or an atheist. Otherwise, a theist could make ANY valid claim at all, just by saying "god made it so". However, since you are claiming that not having a belief in a god disqualifies the belief in free will, the above does nothing at all to prove your point. Do you get it yet? You are the one making the assertions. You need to prove them, with something other than questions that can't really be answered, in order for me to agree with you.

One thing you keep assuming is that I believe we will one day understand exactly how the human brain works. No way. I don't believe that we will understand exactly how the most advanced and complicated thing we know of works. Perhaps you could explain to me how our brains could be both simple enough for us to understand, and yet intelligent enough to enable us to understand them?

Are you saying that you would concede my point if I used free will rather than déjà vu (I would obviously have to use something other than The Matrix, maybe a religion that doesn't have anything to do with a god of any kind?)? Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't really going on facts and logic here; you are only going on your personal speculation and belief that there really is a god, whether you admit that or not. The rest is just pseudoscientific nonsense you use to try to make people believe in a god.

From your second post:

"You know humans have free will. You know this, not because you read your bible, or because religious people you have followed taught you to, but because you know that you are capable of making decisions on your own."

From your third post:

"I don't believe in fate, Chris."

If you're not claiming it as a "FACT," you're sure as hell claiming it as a belief. Neither claim holds up.


I'm not assuming that at all. But, by stating that you believe in Free Will, you are logically bound to also believe that we will discover something about the brain which contradicts our current knowledge that it is a purely physical device. Either that, or we'll have to discover that physical matter works on all sorts of wacky levels that would in today's world be considered metaphysical.


What? I didn't even imply that. I said your parody was not comparable because the concept of a piece of our brain which somehow allows us to process and spit out decisions independent of our circumstances is wholly unsupported and contradicted by all scientific knowledge to date. Déjà vu does not have those same contradictions. Hence, invalid comparison.


Highly rhetorical paragraph. We're not having a discussion about the motivation for my claims, but rather, their validity.

FYI: I'm fortunate enough to have a Hebrew scholar as a friend (yay), so I've got some info on the "sphere" translation, but it's a tad late and I've got a weird sort of headache, so I'll reply to that, and any other new posts tomorrow.

You have a lovely night...not that you have a choice. ;D