Conclusion: Some atheists' have Faith, Dictionary vs. Logical Definition, Altruism, Brain Wash vs. Understanding, No Free Will
Offline (Mod edit - moved to Atheist vs. Theist)
Conclusion
Warning/Alert: English is my second language. I beg your accommodation.
I am not trying to look down or insult anyone. I am merely testing my understanding. I will learn from your feedback.
Some of you are way smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. I mean it.
Please read my postings on the following.
1) Why we do not steal?
2) Faith
3) Brain Wash vs. Understanding
4) Dictionary definition vs. Logical (forced) definition
5) Free Will – Most important but must be seen in the light of above topics.
Then combined/fuse them, establish connections to prove or disprove.
I claim many or some of the atheists (not necessarily atheism - in principle) have faith.
If you really want to understand my thesis, if you really have the Zest for the truth, I you really fascinated by the truths, specially the truths that breaks your old, preconceived ideas, then, just for few minutes, please, please force your mind to take my side, fill in the wholes I might have left due to my poor English. If you know that I made some unintended error, and it was just a slip of tongue, then Ignore my typo, fix it. Try to come up with a better argument to prove my point. Then take your side as well. Argue in your own head from both sides. Then decide. I do this all the time.
Only the filter of justice/fairness with your own thoughts (symmetrical thought experiments) will bring new truth to you. You folks might have already known many of these. But some of you have kept this knowledge as compartmentalized/disconnection information in your mind. If you process, and process hard enough, establish connections, I think, most of you (not all of you) will come to the same conclusion that we have no Free Will. Free Will is Faith.
But you will see how few of you will still arguing in favor of “Free Will”. some of you will gang bang on me.
We, free thinker, accuse religious people and make fun of them for having FAITH in god then what about having faith in “Free Will”?
It is a whole lot easier to declare that there is no GOD because to some it is psychologically feels good - there is not master. Knowing Non Existance of God, doesn’t make us small rather bigger in a sense. But accepting “No Free Will” is a nightmare, even for some smart atheists. It makes them small. No-Free Will is Psychologically very uncomfortable thought. Why? Try to swing/turn your car steering abruptly when you are driving 70 miles/hr. - Not funny?
Isn’t this exactly the case for theist when they think of abandoning Jesus? Are we going to have double standard here?
I therefore, accuse the atheists who thinks that we have Free Will of the same crime of FAITH as I hold theists’ responsible for.
Many of you have correctly concluded that there is NO FREE WILL. You are the real atheist.
Implication of “No Free Will” is far greater and deeper than that of No God. “No Free Will” is far more fundamental but very, very hard to swallow. Swallowing No God is peanut. Look at the following arguments coming from so called atheists in favor of Free Will. What a shame?
Does Free Will Exist?
Yes. It is the beauty of existing in a situation where existential absurdity is the only milieu. One acts as one prefers. Now, one might argue that our biological processes would limit freedom. However, I suspect that those processes generally are outside the bounds of what society would have us free to do. So, in a sense, the biological reality is the freedom towards which we move.
Yes.I believe the denial of God allows for free will. It firmly places the responsibility for actions on the person acting. When you own your actions, you're more carful about what you do.
Yes (limited free will)Free will is the reason why laws exsist. They limit what we can do with our free will. Laws pusnish us if we use free will to harm other people. Eventually if you do enough harm to other people, you will be sent to jail. What does jail do? It limits the things you can do, therefore limiting the scope of your free will. To me, free will and freedom are tightly related.
Now another kicker.By the extension chain of logic of Cause and Effect, even in the presence of QM Uncertainty, and EM there cannot be anything partially free. It will be either fully free (violates all the laws of nature) or not free at all. Why? Because consistency is required.
Yes, to a degree Although the above people are correct when pointing out how our brain chemistry and biology control us, what about this: every creature has a natural inclination towards survival. We do what we must to survive. (sometimes this is seen in the flight or fight mechanism) But what about when a person makes a conscious decision to sacrifice themselves for others? (Say in a war or something) Or what about when someone makes the choice to put a gun to their head? Both of these go against our natural program to survive. Someone might say "oh, but that's not free choice because the brain chemicals are forcing you to do that." But then that begs the question "what is the definition of 'you'?" You are your brain chemicals, your biology. It is what makes you "you". So therefore you still have free will. Ideas?
No and yes ones will that's more of a political issue isn't it
Free will exists because of external influence in our brain. If there were no external influences, then there would be no point on discussing free will.
I'd have to agree with hamby the only way you would get something different is if you have a random function someplace. That might be the case on some level, but I think that counts as free will like fliping a coin counts.
Random function allows unpredictability but doesn’t necessarily allow Free Will. For free will to exist we, our mind must control the randomness. Furthermore, the control we exert could not be partial it has to be absolute. We will then be god.
[quote=Hambydammit] I'd have to agree with hamby the only way you would get something different is if you have a random function someplace. That might be the case on some level, but I think that counts as free will like fliping a coin counts.
This is a tough one, and I'm glad people are discussing it.It seems to me that if the thoughts and actions of a sentient being are limited to the physical world, then free will is an illusion. Combine sensory input with the current electro-chemical state of the brain, and you will get a response. Like Hamby's computer analogy, if all of those things could be quantified then you would be able to predict the response with 100% accuracy.The problem I have with the above statement is that it disregards consciousness. It makes sentient beings look like extremely complex robots. Input + state = output. If that were true, there would be absolutely no purpose to sentience; it would be like we are all just observers while our bodies (brain included) carry out pre-programmed tasks.This is where I must diverge from those who firmly believe that the physical universe is the be-all, end-all of existence. If true free will is to exist, there must be something more to the human mind than just a game of ultimate billiards. There must be a connection to something that can not be defined as electrical or chemical. Perhaps it is quantum uncertainty, perhaps it is something "spiritual", or maybe some combination. I don't know.I choose to live my life as if I had free will. To me, this means I must allow for the possibility that there is something beyond matter that allows that thing called "me" to influence the physical world. That is also the reason I will not dismiss the possibility of an afterlife, since life is inherently tied to the material world and I have seen no evidence that consciousness is at all material. It is not something I believe, it is simply something I consider as a possibility, and it gives me hope that there is more than just one ride per customer.I hope that made sense.
Max Wilder wrote:To me, this means I must allow for the possibility that there is something beyond matter that allows that thing called "me" to influence the physical world. That is also the reason I will not dismiss the possibility of an afterlife, since life is inherently tied to the material world and I have seen no evidence that consciousness is at all material. It is not something I believe, it is simply something I consider as a possibility,
Max,
Your writing smell like Faith - theist.
It makes you more of a theist than I am.
I am calling many of these fake atheists, theists (with faith).
There is no such thing as predestinationif we didn't have free will we would follow the same choice under the same circumstances again and again and again.
Basically... the right answer to the question is: We don't know.
If you are willing to say the same thing about the existence of God, “We do not know” then I will except your above answer.
God and Free Will, both are undefinable, hence they do not exist at worse or are irrelevant at best.
To a point, yes.There is no such thing as predeterminism but based on many factors people are more inclined towards certain decisions. So this 'free will' is limited.I you are going to ask if we believe in free will using 'faith', your question will be misguided. I do not dogmatically hold beliefs and always leave myself open to be proven wrong at any time. This is not 'faith', it is not dogmatic and it is subject to change in light of new evidence.
Hey BGH,
Who has more faith (theist) now? Read my explanation of Free Will.Who should be moved from this forum to the theists vs. atheist’s forum. Yes!Why an 'atheist' would even ask this question is beyond me.
Let theist make fun of some of us atheists for lack of coherence in thinking.
Yes. My wife tells me all the time, "I'll never figure you out!" For example, wea re walking through Target and I see and cool looking picture. I've never been an art buff but I find it rather amazing.Now, I'm not into art, and I normally wouldn't even care to look, but every know and then, something inside says, "Hey, that's great!"If I didn't have free will, I could never change my mind or decide that becasue I liked one thing one way at one time, I can never change my outlook.Everyday, we make decisions. Some are "programmed" and others are spontaneous.I feel free will is being able to change my mind.
Now, some idiot (theist or atheist) is going to ask me,If you do not think you have free will then why do you even get up from your bed in the morning?
The answer is: for the very reason that I have no free will. I have no choice but to get up from my bed.
Read my explanation of No Free Will and other posts. Another atheist’ argument is:If there is no free will then why have laws, punishment for murder etc. I expect such foolish questions from theists not from smart atheists. See above for answer.
Fact is, by knowing, understanding, that we have no Free Will, nothing changes except our understanding of it. Understand that it is an illusion. Just as God is an illusion/delusion. Brave Gamby wrote:I've been hoping to stave off the inevitable "Atheists have faith" post, but I suspect it's a lost cause.
I have to say, I'm really anxious for tomorrow's new thread. Some say the OP is a theist in disguise, ready to pounce on atheists for having faith, and then slink away as his argument is laid bare like so many other theists. Some say it's a language thing, that he simply is not understanding us or we him, and that we agree on the foundations of belief. Perhaps he is the antichrist, come to test the faithful...Maybe he is the second coming of Bertrand Russell, here to shore up the arguments of the faithful (word chosen carefully!)...Tomorrow we'll see... I've been hoping to stave off the inevitable "Atheists have faith" post, but I suspect it's a lost cause. I'm interested to see how you're going to approach it, but I'll be surprised if you cover new territory. The fact is, free will can only be defined so many ways, and it is either not relevant to the question of faith, or it creates a circular argument, where the conclusion of the argument requires the presupposition of its existence.
Gamby,
It will be a lot smoother if we accept there are degree of FAITH. Please see my other posts.
Well, I watched and waited and I am bitterly disappointed. By your own admission you did not define the terms on which you questioned people. You then read the responses and posted your own definition and judged the responses based on them. Way to go - you have said a sum total of nothing.
Oh no. Tim you have cobbled together some interesting concepts. They are other people's thoughts but interesting concepts. In the end though, you use the assumption that "cause and effect" exist. I do not recall agreeing with this assumption. While David Hume did not write in your mother tongue, I suspect that he was translated into whatever gibberish your parents foisted upon you.
If you will be so good as to refer to his Treatise of Human Nature, you will find a line of logic which leads so many to call his a skeptic. You blithely assume that one particular act causes another. Why? Is it because you have observed this previously? Why would that dictate what will happen in the future?
So, you have asked about freewill but failed to discuss causation. My dear, dear sir, you failed to ask enough questions. Ironic, no? So, I reject all that follows from this particular assumption. I need go no further.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
What the fuck are you talking about?
Seriously..... what in the fuck are you talking about?
Seriously..... you.... make.... absolutely.... NO...... SENSE!!
Nero,
Do you have anything in adition to what I described, NM, QM and ET that might affect the future? present your case.
Nero wrote:
No. I never said ONE particular act causes another. It is far more complex. nevertheless, nothing breaks the laws of naturre. there is strict rule in place.
We are way deeper than human nature. We are way deeper than genetic code. We are at particle levels and at fundamental laws of nature when discussing Free Will or Lack of it.
You got heck of a FAITH on Free Will.
Tim,
I do not intend on answering anymore of your tedious, insipid questions. You cobbled together concepts with a poorly conceived assumption. This is a novice's error. I advise you to practice brevity and perspicacity before you take such lengthy means to reeach such a bankrupt conclusion.
So, Goodbye, Adieu, Adios, Getts Gott, Konichiwa, or whatever passes as farewell in thy native patois.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Nero, the theist, who was unsuccesfully disguissing himself as atheist, been cornered and exposed. His castle of cards have been shattered by the powerful argument (NM, QM, and ET) for "NO Free Will". he is emotionally hurt. He decided to run away without any further discussion.
nero, you can run, but you can not hide.
nero,
I bet you like poetry, fantacy, wishful thinking instead of hard fact and logic, right?
I bet you enjoy fairy tails too.
ParanoidAgnostic,
you are correct.
No, I do enjoy films in which the US military kills foreigners though.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Are you a psycho path?
Are you related to Jeffry Dahmer.
Are these comments necessary? Given your other threads, I thought you wanted to discuss your post and not the character of other members.
Please comment on other responses.
jce,
that is only in response to his earlier nasty comment. Knowing English is my second language Nero wrote he enjoys watching american movies that show US soldiers killing foreigners.
Understandable, but rising to the bait only drags down the integrity of your own posts.
Now, about that strawman argument you posted......
How exactly do you justify making up your own definitions and judging responses based on them? I mean, I could conclude red is blue because my definition of red is blue. That doesn't make it true and your definitions do not make anyone a TRUE atheist or theist.
I had a fucking 4 paragraph response to your post, but somehow it got deleted. While I was trying to figure out how to recover my post, I realized there is no point to answe you. You are jumpig all over the place, using our answers from a non defined question to answer a defined question.
I'm honestly completely puzzled by this whole thread.
1) I have no idea what the fuss is about regarding Tim's statements about free will and faith. He's making a conflation of two definitions, as predicted, and using concepts interchangeably, but his conclusion, though misplaced, doesn't help theism. If there is no free will, then religion/theism is a lie, or irrelevant.
It seems to me that this whole thing is just a confusion of existentialism and nihilism. I really don't understand the fuss.
2) Granted, some of Tim's responses have been a bit, um... taunting, but I'd be a little pissy at this point, too. He was taking crap about being a theist after his first post.
3) Granted, Tim's a bit confused about some definitions and the difference between probability and syllogism, but I am not sure that I recall a disclaimer saying that the only way an atheist is allowed to post here is if they know all the answers.
4) What's this shit about the military killing foreigners?
5) Granted, his posts are a little tough to get through. It's almost like English isn't his native language. Hmmm....
6) Since when is it our job to bust the balls of any atheist who doesn't toe the party line?
Seriously. I don't get it. I'm not trying to be difficult, here, but aside from the barbs he's tossed back at those who tossed barbs at him, I have seen a guy asking questions, and trying to understand the answers, while working in a language not familiar to him. A little tedious, yes. Redundant for a lot of us that have been doing this for years, yes. But why all the venom?
I'm honestly curious why everyone's so upset.
Maybe it's because he's not attacked my posts, but geez...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm with Hamby on this one. I am just one of those people that tries to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, however; I prefer to assume I'm misunderstanding them, because I'm sure they are misunderstanding me most of the time.
This doesn't mean I don't forget to be so patient now and then, but it's my intention to be patient.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Wow, I was quoted. And I have no idea why he would quote me to begin with, are my simple statements that striking? Plus I'm no theist, or is this under debate? Plus I think the statement would make more sense if it was rephrased as such, "Let atheist make fun of some of us theists for lack of coherence in thinking, because us theists do not understand coherence."
Feel free to PM me if you don't understand what I am typing. All matters I respond to are strictly of my opinion and do not represent other atheists in general.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
I just honestly do not know what he is talking about here Hamby, maybe Tim can clear it up, but I am not understanding the leap he is making.
Hamby,
My irritation grew from this fellow having a protracted series of threads asking obscenely vague questions and claiming that we would be well rewarded in the end.
What was produced was an amalgamation of our responses without anything to make them cohesive. In other words, no independent concept of value resulted.
I am willing to give someone, who uses English as a second language, a break. However, I lose my patience when the person then attempts to make an argument based on semantics and the nuances of English definitions.
So, having gone through all of that and refuting much of it, I think you might see why I became a bit testy when he responded that I must be a theist.
In conclusion, I asked what his native language is because I am a polyglot myself and would have interacted with him through PM about his thoughts. He chose otherwise. This is why his ears were boxed, at least from my perspective.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
hi guys,
Doesn't this (Tim's bating Nero) cross some sort of antagonism line?
Not to mention he believes that there is some sort of thing as a "True Atheist".
Hamby, I did suspect him of theism and I apolgized in the first of his myriad threads.
This "see you have faith, too" thread adds to my doubts, though.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well if it's anything like a "true Yankee" then I'm not buying any arguments based on it.
Mmmm...the antagonism has gone both ways, IMO.
We have seen the 'true atheist' story before but mostly this 'conclusion' confuses me and I would love to see more explanation for it. (Then again, Faith is not my first or second language so perhaps that is the problem.)
p.s. - I have my doubts too, but at least he/she hasn't called us all "fucken stuped athiest".
I can accept that, jce
I am indifferent to the bating. That's just a bit of fun to go along with the discourse. In fact, in the past, I have been accused of being a master of bating...... or something akin to it.
I just hope the poor little fellow comes back so we can straighten himout.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Hmmmm ...
Lot's of blah, blah, blah. Not much ah ha!
Yawn.
Well, here's my take on this. Every single one of us who's posted in this thread is guilty of baiting theists, and bating them, I suppose. I'm not sure we've always been clear on which we were doing...
Nero, if I were a foreigner, and you had said what you said about killing foreigners, I'd have asked if you were a psychopath, too. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aggravated, but seriously, why are we asking if Tim has crossed the line into antagonism when he was responding to a statement like that?
To everyone else, I get it. I understand that his writing has been heavy handed, convoluted, and sometimes tedious and/or insipid to some who have already dealt with this question a hundred times. I also understand that he's been free with the jabs.
Being free with the jabs makes him exactly like half the atheists on this board. The only difference is that he's not making as clear or concise a case for his side as they are.
So, are we going to help him refine his arguments, or are we going to run him off because we don't like his kind around here?
I'm going to live in the lake now.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism