Atheism Automatically Implies Free Will

To believe in no Higher Power of any sort is to deny the fundamental ordering of being by that Power. It is to affirm that, at base, being is inconsistent. Yet, reality remains intelligible. Thus, order always comes into being via an immanent decision. A choice lies as the basis of every apparent reality and thus, however much it is covered up, a new choice remains possible and is in fact always necessary.

That is all.

Nah-uh.

Elaboration: you mention the possibility of "holes" around being in the other thread which apparently create the possibility for free will. Left unstated is:

1) Where these holes come from.
2) How you could ever know they're there.

We've discussed this issue a few times in the past, and every time, at least that I can recall, the attempts to explain how free will might exist have always been more of a hazy philosophical framework rather than anything logically or evidentially compelling.

i'm not sure you understand what logic is really. logic is a standard for reasoning between premises that preserves their truth. but if there is no truth in any of the premises, there is nothing to be preserved. in fact, what is usually of interest are the premises, and the logic is trivial. what i am presenting here are a number of premises that may or may not be evident to you or anyone reading this.

in the same way, your argument carries along your own premises, which are in fact all mistaken. so mistaken, in fact, the labor of disproving them in the toxic atmosphere of the other thread is so futile, it's necessary for me to begin a new thread, since i want to talk about this but from a new point of view.

You're spending a whole lot of time just saying things are false. Best get on with the explanations of why.

And please make clear up front, if you would, whether or not you have any intention of presenting anything that is supposed to be logically compelling or contains some kind of empirical evidence. In other words, please make it clear what you're hoping to accomplish, so we don't go back and forth for five posts before I realize you're not even trying to demonstrate the thing I thought the entire discussion was about.

And since you created this thread for this purpose, I'll ask anyone who wants to participate to either participate in the discussion as it's being presented, or else kindly refrain. This isn't an invitation to just jump in and randomly say "here's what I think about free will." I would really like to avoid deleting such posts, but I will if I have to, as this thread really won't work at all if it isn't kept rigorously on-topic.

In biblical free will there are only two choices.

Choose the path of God or the path of Satan.

That is not free will.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Apart from being completely wrong in at least two ways, that has nothing to do with the topic. Please note my request above.

Okay, I'll start my own thread.

Most of the important decisions we make in life are based on these two choices. That's free will when we choose between life and death.

Why must it follow that being is inconsistent if a higher power didn't order things? Further, that there is no intelligent creator doesn't preclude "choices" from being programmed, a function of brain activity both hard-wired and learned. Sam Harris, a well-known neuroscientist, is an atheist who believes free will is an illusion.

The key word is atheist. God exists whether Sam Harris, the atheist, believes in Him or not. Apart from God, there is no existence whatsoever.

Perhaps the fact that people may disagree about both the existence and definability of a referent, especially one considered to be fundamental to reality's intelligibility itself, points to the lack of an ultimate absolute order, as well as indicating the referents themselves may be necessarily limited by humanity's capacity for sharing meaning via relative concepts.

Or somethin.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

People disagree with the Constitution. It doesn't mean the Constitution is flawed.
And only a fool disbelieves the existence of God.

You have a habit of phrasing your opinions very insultingly. It's actually completely reasonable why some people might not accept God as a fact. There are legitimate alternatives to what you believe, lots of ways of thinking on complex subjects that will never fit your black & white labeling of people.

So? The alternative to death is life. Atheism is a sickness that rejects and destroys life. There's no reason for it. Militant atheists are sick people. The fact that they impose their garbage on others implies evil intent.

I would love to hear how atheism rejects and destroys life, when all testimony and evidence points to the contrary. I would also love to hear how there is no dichotomy between and atheist and a militant atheist.

You must be dead from the neck up.

Quite the contrary actually. In most religions, there is a clear distinction between good and evil. This entails that free will has to be inherent for this choice to be made. Theism definitely implies free will. Atheism may or may not imply free will.

Religious fanatic alert.

You took the long route of pretentiousness, again, to say "decisions are the architect of life, theres no the higher power",....correct? You believe in free will, but cannot fathom others choices, or definitions of free will. Any argument or belief layed out before you results in your incomprehension, and you reiterating your thoughts again in a different way.

Why does it bother you that others have a belief system different than your own?

Toxic atmosphere?! The only thing toxic is your incessant ramblings on this topic and how you interject it into threads throughout the forum. You still havent learned anything from any of these "conversations".

Listen heres the truth of it - Youre too young for this topic. You think you arent because of whatever youve read, but how it plays out in reality just looks like a desperate plea to be heard. Problem is youre not listening. You will not let yourself be open to any point made, and thats a decision on your part, not a deduction.