Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

The argument for predestination is a simple one people just don't like hearing. You were always going to write this above reply; the evidence is that you wrote this reply. I was always going to respond to it, because I just responded to it. How we can still have this debate is beyond me, but if we must, we must.

I generally dismiss the idea of free will, and those who support the concept, must exclusively be absence the concept of predeterminism. I do not think these two things are exclusive. Given a predicament where someone must make a choice, one is free to make whatever choice they wish, and the decision they make was the one they were always going to make. But they still made a decision; it was just the only one that they could have made, because it is the only one they did make.

I fail to understand why this is hard to understand.

This means that there are forces in play that affect the outcome of our choices, and even affect the outcome of who we are. Of course there are forces that affect the outcome of our choices (pulling our strings). I don't claim that these forces are supernatural, just clarifying. But just because you can be and are manipulated by the world around you, does not free you from responsibility of your choices, because ultimately you decide whatever you do, and although whatever you decide is predetermined, you still chose it. Because you did, and because you did, respectively.

So yes you are a puppet, and so am I. We are all doing our little poor part in the gigantic chain reaction that is the universe. From the moment it began, this moment was destined to occur, just as the next moment is going to occur exactly as it is destined to. We poor little humans do not generally have the computing power, computing speed, computing accuracy, nor ample input to foresee the outcome beyond their present. Many of us even fail at perceiving the present. This gives the illusion of solidarity, but illusion is all it is, because you have not the eyes to see the truth, nor the mind to make sense of it if you did.

My second point, that I wanted to reply to you with; atheists by definition do not attribute the evils or suffering of the world to god. They attribute them to the unpredictable, dangerous at times, nature of the universe, and more often, the actions of other people. (Among other tangible, evident phenomena)

Atheists, when you think they seem mad at god, are in fact upset with the followers of god. They do not believe in one, so by default cannot be mad at it. Their anger (if they even have anger, many do not) scorn, reprehension, etc. is directed at the people who do stupid s**t in the name of some sky wizard, who they seem to believe does come out of the sky and smack people, and then return to the clouds.

Ps. I personally don't believe in the concept of good vs evil. I generally think those to be entirely subjective opinions. I do know that there is suffering though, this is evident. But a god who creates such a world as ours certainly should not be described in the manner theists often do, at best this deity would be described as callous.

Not exactly accurate. Nice blanket inaccurate statement though. Almost had us fooled. Some of the Founding Fathers of the US were Deist, and there were hot debates.

from wiki:

This quote is not reliable.

49 + 3 is not 55.

If interpreted slightly differently;

49 + 3 + 3 + more, still does not equal 55.

I reject this source as it is inherently flawed and inaccurate.

I should have specified the bolded. It was actually an accurate statement; it just was not precise. I should have said "Most of the prominent Founding Fathers". I'm talking about the ones who have had the largest impact. There are many poignant quotes from figures such as Washington, Jefferson and Franklin- three people who are some of the most important in history, far more than the others on the list (especially Franklin, a truly brilliant man)- against any religious interference in the US politic..

There were 74 invited, 55 showed up at various times... though for most, the "founding fathers" are generally considered the six or seven "key" figures. It depends on what context we're using, since the "founding fathers" as a general term can mean the "heptarchy" or key seven , the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Signers of the Declaration of Independence or other major documents, to every single person who fought the British... if one wants to be disingenuous, they can pigeon hole an opponent by counting only one of the documents/conferences (such as cw10 has done ), all of them or some of them. I know several of them were deist or irreligious, and at least one of them (John Jay) was more favorable to Christianity than the others

It says of the 55, not 55 total.

And so...CW10 fails today's math lesson.

The usual meat and potatoes from the athiest crew.

Ooooh so you're not really certain about it? I'm still using the computer, my friend - it's me and my free will! You don't even mention free will, its like, how can I put this, that you're all angry with God for giving you Asperger Syndrome, so you just sulk and say "He's not there. Show me the evidence". There's no attempt by the way to answer the OP, you're just over there in the corner doing your little thing. Stop sulking.



You have a VERY short memory - short enough to put the facts your way, but it won't help. Joseph Stalin was an athiest, his orders resulted in countless murders. The same with Pol Pot, he espoused no religion and a greater meglomaniac, the world has yet to see. And finally, Idi Amin's Ugandan reign saw state enemies slaughtered for their requests for self-determination. Oh no you won't persuade me that atheism is benign - these three between them killed far more put together than ALL of the Crusades.



Marx was the first to fundamentally question the truth value of religion. The writings on his grave in London shows his concern: "The philosophers of the world have interpreted the world in certain ways, the point however is to change it". Marx didn't think that religion could do this, he believed religion was part of the system that deprived the workers of the fruits of their labours. Call it a grand awakening if you want, but he didn't bring about a just society - in Russia he simply paved the way for putting power and wealth into the hands of the Bolsheviks. This has taken years to dismantle, people have been believing the lie of Marxist collectivism for that long. I do accept that it's a line in the sand by quoting Marx, and I have studied other philosophers. I do believe that God was definitely at work in the fall of Communism.



Oh, it's Mr "Virgin Birth - no response" Calavera with his ideas about the Universe. Can you respond to the challenge I gave you at the end of the post? How do you prove the existence of evil in the world anyway? What basis do you have for supposing there is any evil and suffering at all?



Earthquakes are morally neutral. They are not the result of free human action.


I suppose it does annoy me when people ignore all the good things that religion has achieved and say that they ought to be marginalised, like Dawkins on the TV last Sunday. There is a parallel here with Herod in the Gospels - people like him are so fascinated by religion even though they have rejected it. Herod had John the Baptist thrown into prison, and then sat near enough so he could hear him preach. I wonder if the 'athiest persona' that is the dominant ethic around here is actually real, perhaps they all live in China where the Catholic Church has been driven underground. Only a theory.

Then why no reply to my response? I don't believe I used a meat and potatoes response.

Or is that all you wanted, because you ignore anything that rattles your position?

Got ants in your pants? What's with the attitude? If I didn't reply, it's to save time and energy for myself. I can't keep trying to reason with people who refuse to be reasoned with especially on the same topic.

If you paid attention to my reply here, I never said evil existed in the objective manner. But suffering definitely exists, no doubt about that. A God that cares would not have created a world in which living beings are compelled to suffer.

From fMRI we did not find anything but physical interactions. What 'free will' you are uttering?

Okay, apparently 1062651stAvenue is not much better than cw10. No surprises there. "God was at work in the fall of Communism"- I think we're done

Hey friend,

use honey, not vinegar...

First, it's "atheists". I'm guessing your free will doesn't extend to choosing to spell correctly.

Second, your direct evidence is not of free will. It's that you're making a decision and able to act on it. Was it freely decided? There's no evidence to support that either way.

Actually, psychology has demonstrated a lot of ways our decisions are affected on a subconscious level. While this doesn't mean our free will is a complete myth, it does show that a lot of our decisions are not freely made. Authority is a good one - we'll believe things more readily from an authority figure, regardless of their actual authority (such figures include police, business managers, religious figures - regardless of our or their faith, doctors, people in fluorescent jackets, scientists in lab coats... even just people who are older than us). We'll often accept something as true if our peers think so. We are constantly influenced by television and film, and the power of newspapers and broadcasts is horrifying. Sports teams are slightly more effective if they wear red. Votes tend to favour the candidate at the top of the ballot paper. We'll believe something if we hear it often enough. We make up memories of what happens to fill in gaps (which is why eye witness accounts can vary so much). We're prone to very odd behaviour - many lottery winners continue to buy tickets, for instance. Why? And don't even get started on the weirdness of the placebo effect, which can still work to some extent when you know it's happening to you. Or why seeing someone yawn - or even reading the word "yawn" - makes you want to do the same.

Our brains are good at editing what we see to fit what we believe rather than what is true. Indeed, you probably can't even spot the the error in this sentence on the first read through.

Free will is getting pushed into a very small box. My view is that you don't have free will, but merely think you do.

Dawkins is very much an anti-theist. While many agree with him, he does not represent even the majority. Same as not all Christians agree with the views of the Westborough Baptists.

Yes, religion has achieved good things as well as bad things. Though this is not really true. Religious *people* have done this. The religion itself is not responsible. It is most probable that, if the religion were removed, the good people would still do good and the bad people would still do bad.

Hi Shrox, nice to meet you: not many kindred spirits round here

I take your point here, but its really annoying that all the atheists here cannot even acknowledge that even if there's nothing up there, Christianity has done a lot to enhance many of the cultures of the world, is still committed to upholding authentic human values, and does a lot more to help people than they have ever acknowledged. If you just look around you at the officials in public life in your own locality, a high proportion of them will claim a religious motivation for what they're doing. So what if I believe that green aliens / spaghetti monster will rise up out of the earth and destroy humanity, unless I am kind and helpful to those who come into my path? However you get to authentic human values, the important thing is that you arrive.

There is some good apologetic material out there on the web; evidence which favours the existence of God. It comes from Fr Robert Barren, William Craig Lane, and lots of others. I just can't be bothered to talk to the guys on here if they cannot acknowledge even the one point of Christianity working for the good. What about the role of the Vatican in encouraging debate regarding climate change, for example? I have to question their motives when they won't do that - I get the impression they'd just like to take over the world, and ban all forms of religious expression once they've got there.

There was Richard Dawkins on television on Sunday last, saying that Christianity was a spent force because his poll had found some people who weren't sure what was involved in the Virgin Birth. I ask you! 78% expressed a belief in God, but oh no, let's take away what influence the churches have, the soup kitchens, meals for the poorest in our society, the willingness to serve in public life, just because he hates us, If the followers of God stopped doing their corporate bit for society, the athiests would feel it, I assure you. In short I feel justified in asking the athiests what it is they're bringing to the party: they're not really coming up with the goods at the minute.