Post 4435579 - Re: free will and atheism (Free-will and Atheism)

WP Members: > 70,000

New Today: 21
New Yesterday: 31

Free-will and Atheism

Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 34, 35, 36 Next
page:

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:14 pm Post subject:

Declension wrote:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

I am certain of neither of those.

When you're doing mathematics, and you think that you have proven a theorem T, but you notice that T would imply 2+2=5, then you should probably look at your work. There's probably a mistake in it.

When you're doing philosophy, and you start claiming that you are not certain that you exist, it might be a good time to think about how you got backed into this corner. You must have made a mistake somewhere.

Or I understand something you don't. That is not a corner "one gets backed into". It is not an error. It has nothing to do with math either, your correlation is the error. You have made a mistake and should rethink your approach...

No one can positively describe what gives them a perspective, and we cannot be certain anything other than the self has consciousness. That I exist, as I understand myself to be, is not a certainty. That I exist in any sense at all, is highly likely, but cannot be completely certain.

The only thing you could say I do believe, is that there is nothing that is certain...but I'm not completely certain about that either.

Many, many things approach certainty, but nothing reaches it. It's like matter and the speed of light, matter can reach close to the speed of light, but never quite reach it.

So, bearing in mind I do not believe in anything, whatsoever. Communicating in this language gets problematic, we speak in terms of certainty, we declare what is or what isn't. We can use language to describe things in varying degrees of probability, sure, but these can arbitrarily gloat communication and dilute the point, it is not efficient, and it is often extremely subjective. It is practical to avoid doing this, most of the time.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?

HerrGrimm
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 963
Location: United States

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject:

Vigilans wrote:

If there is one leader who really did hate theism and make a point to persecute it, it was probably Enver Hoxha of Albania, and strangely enough you guys never seem to mention him, instead going for the big cliche names who are themselves flawed arguments in this context. Showing how well learned and informed most willing to go down this road are Rolling Eyes

Hoxhaism involved active campaigns to combat religion in Albania. Even so, what he stands for is certainly not what I or other atheists stand for.

Sorry for double quoting this, but I forgot something.

They do go for big cliche names. I do know of one act of suppression a Communist government did that had a strong religious undertone to it, but I don't bring it up because the Christian apologist fleas will use tortured and dead people as some crusade against atheism. Let them find it themselves if they care so much.

Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Phoenix

Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:52 pm Post subject:

HerrGrimm wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Hoxhaism involved active campaigns to combat religion in Albania. Even so, what he stands for is certainly not what I or other atheists stand for.

you're torturing them now, they're gonna want to know what this act is so they can beat atheists over the head with... the follies of Communism!!
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Declension
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1653

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:14 pm Post subject:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

No one can positively describe what gives them a perspective, and we cannot be certain anything other than the self has consciousness. That I exist, as I understand myself to be, is not a certainty.

This is uncontroversial. What you said is that you are not certain that you exist. You didn't say that you are not certain that you are really a human, or whatever. You cannot be certain that you are not in some sort of simulation, but you can be certain that you exist.

NarcissusSavage wrote:

That I exist in any sense at all, is highly likely, but cannot be completely certain.

No, you are certain of it. If you deny this, absurdity results. If you are not certain that you exist, then what on earth do you mean when you use the word "I"? Are you saying that there is not necessarily anything that you are referring to when you use the word "I"? Let me rephrase: are you saying,

Quote:

There is not necessarily anything that I am referring to when I use the word "I"?

Do you see how silly this is? Your very use of language presupposes that you exist. You cannot use language and not be certain that you exist.

NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:32 pm Post subject:

Declension wrote:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

No one can positively describe what gives them a perspective, and we cannot be certain anything other than the self has consciousness. That I exist, as I understand myself to be, is not a certainty. That I exist in any sense at all, is highly likely, but cannot be completely certain.

NarcissusSavage wrote:

That I exist in any sense at all, is highly likely, but cannot be completely certain.

Quote:

There is not necessarily anything that I am referring to when I use the word "I"?

Do you see how silly this is? Your very use of language presupposes that you exist. You cannot use language and not be certain that you exist.

I am doing it, so you are wrong.

I JUST said,

So, bearing in mind I do not believe in anything, whatsoever. Communicating in this language gets problematic, we speak in terms of certainty, we declare what is or what isn't. We can use language to describe things in varying degrees of probability, sure, but these can arbitrarily gloat communication and dilute the point, it is not efficient, and it is often extremely subjective. It is practical to avoid doing this, most of the time.

So yes, I do find the use of language problematic, but I have worked through this problem, if not entirely, nearly so, by simply expressing something as if it was a certainty when it is nearly so, and only expanding on that uncertainty when it is practical or important enough to do so.

So I repeat, to think you can decide for me what I believe or not believe is the height of arrogance. I expressed what I feel is not certain, being everything. You obviously are threatened or something by that view. But to deny my view in this manner is simply preposterous!

I am not certain I exist. Believe it or don't. But do me the kindness of not saying I don't think this so, because I do. I am certain of nothing, there is always doubt.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?

1062651stAvenue
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: Mar 04, 2011
Posts: 38

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism

Hello Mr Tadzio,

Tadzio wrote:

Hi 1062651stAvenue,
Are you sure you know your dear sweet William Lane Craig's chameleon positions, especially with the examples you cited of the true harsh reality of the exceptional cases you choose as "outlier" exceptions to your views? Do you retain any convenient "doubts" to hide behind with beyond these you particularly deny?

Your position of being the humble servant to a proclaimed morality from divinely inspired "apologists" delivering your religious morality in manner of your self-proclaimed "I'm with William Lane Craig on this one", with your "reality" examples, do you parrot WLC's sympathy for the perpetrator's of crimes against humanity under guidance of the "True God", since the individuals at the consequence end are more
held by believers in the "True God" more quickly delivered to your believed level of divine reward?

In England we have a saying that "One swallow does not make a summer", which I think is relevant here. Just because I've used William Craig for one discussion regarding the objective nature of morality, is not enough evidence that I espouse all of his views. Case by case basis.

As for your ideas regarding my doubts, I think you are very wide of the mark. One of the main characteristics of AS is monotropism, keeping all ones eggs in one basket, having a narrow focus of interest. This affects me, and it's where I find my doubts coming in: its a case of being so intense about the particular that I lose track of the wider picture. It tends to correct itself after a while. It passes. Yes I do wonder sometimes if God cares, I wonder whether the Catholic Church is actually the unique sign of God's presence when I've suffered at its hands. And I wonder sometimes what the purpose of my life is - I had my DX late in life, and AS has been the bain of my life: in terms of breaking rapport with people on so many occasions, plans that haven't come to fruition, a non-existant career despite being well qualified, and a painful divorce, mild depression on lots of occasions, and difficulties with controlling my anger - oh yes, my beliefs haven't made me immune from these problems, not one bit.

You might want to say, well why don't you just jack in the God bit? Throw it away and find a different way, start a new chapter? Well that's all very well, but the trouble is I haven't found a lifestyle where I could make a difference to others that doesn't involve believing in God. I find atheism to be a very selfish form of existance, and I certainly haven't found any better answers from the athiests on this forum. And I have to take seriously the question "Where were YOU when I laid the foundations of the world?" (Job)

I find solace and comfort in the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman, recently declared Venerable:

God has created me to do Him some definite service.
He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to another.
I have my mission in this life - I may never know it in this life,
but I shall be told it in the next.
I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons.
He has not created me for naught.
I shall do good,
I shall do his work,
I shall be an angel of peace,
a preacher in my own place while not intending it -
if I do but keep his commandments.
Therefore I will trust Him
Whatever, wherever I am I can never be thrown away.
If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him,
in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him;
he does nothing in vain.
He knows what he is about.
He may take away my friends.
He may throw me among strangers.
He may make me desolate,
make my spirits sink,
hide my future from me - still He knows what he is about.

If you have any better answers Mr Tadzio, you know where I am.

HerrGrimm
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 963
Location: United States

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject:

^^^^^^ I like how all the Christians who complain about atheists being condescending are OK doing it in return. Some of them extend this to liberal Christians and Catholics as well, and I don't even want to know what they think about Muslims. You think if they don't like it happening to them, they would stop other Christians from doing it as well, but whatever. I called you a flea, by the way. I figure since you keep dishing it out like this that you can take it in. I also said Fascism is tied to Christianity as well, and I gave some examples a couple posts back. If you're going around claiming Communism is related to atheism, then I can make an (even better) argument about Fascism and Christianity. You know what act of suppression I was talking about a couple posts back?

AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Phoenix

Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

I am certain of nothing, there is always doubt.

Are you certain about this?

Declension
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1653

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:32 am Post subject:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

I am not certain I exist.

I'm sorry, but that just can't be true. I'm not accusing you of being a liar, I'm just accusing you of being confused.

Let's talk about unicorns instead, for an analogy. Now, either unicorns exist, or they don't exist. But whether or not unicorns exist, I still know that the concept of unicorns exists. The question is simply whether this concept is actualised in the world or not.

Now let's talk about me. Either I exist, or I don't exist. But whether or not I exist, I still know that the concept of me exists. The question is simply whether this concept is actualised in the world or not. But this means that I do exist. Because if I didn't, then that would mean that I know that the concept of me exists, but this concept is not actualised in the world. But it is actualised in the world, because I just said "I know"!

There is no way of thinking or talking about my existence that does not immediately imply that I exist.

AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Phoenix

Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:51 am Post subject:

Declension wrote:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

I am not certain I exist.

Self-referential incoherentism is alive and well on PPR. Most nihilists I've ever seen are at least consistent. Narcissus strikes me as a relativist dressed in nihilist clothing...or just a really bad nihilist.

01001011
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 825

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:14 am Post subject: Re: free will and atheism

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

If morality were truths there would be an objective interpretation.

Not necessarily. For one, you have to establish a non-arbitrary standard for defining what truth is at all. And that is going to come down to what people are going to accept. It is possible, for instance, to only accept religious truth based on scripture-of-your-choice OR scientific method.

Basically what you are saying is no different from saying that there is no non-arbitrary rule of chess, so you can make whatever movement you like. In that case there is no point for any chess player (or any thinker) to take you seriously.

Quote:

Science is unable to externally establish itself, i.e. with non-scientific methodology. It depends on itself to establish itself.

You are still having a very naive concept of 'truth'. Science does not establish truth. Scientific theories do not claim to be 'ultimate truth'. Science only rejects what is false.

Quote:

As long as science remains one choice of many, the decision to define something as true as long as it is scientifically true is itself an arbitrary decision. Therefore science in and of itself doesn't necessarily provide any objective interpretations since it is always possible (very likely) that the decision to base all objective measures of truth as scientific truth is based on some subjective sentiment.

At least the conclusion resulting from the scientific method is objective and entirely based on reality. By definition falsifiability means no such 'reinterpretation' is possible. Do you have similarity methodology?

Quote:

Second, one can accept or reject even objective interpretations for all sorts of rational or irrational reasons. There very well could be an objective interpretation for a biblical measure of morality. The mere existence or even possibility of it may not be enough to convince someone who simply dislikes it. And personal preferences and biases against any given proscribed moral objective are themselves subjective opinions.

It is you who have the bundle to proof there is an objective interpretation that can be used as a basis of objective morality, because it is the theists who claim they have object morality while atheists don't. As long as you cannot provide an interpretation and prove it is free from any subjective opinions, your objection that atheists lack any objective morality fails. It makes no sense to say such morality exists but is unknowable.

Quote:

It's not necessary for God to get it from anywhere. If God "gets" it from somewhere, it is from His very own nature.

Then why can't I declare whatever I get from my own nature 'moral'? Based on what objective measure you say god's nature is more 'moral' than mine? All you can do is arguing in circle.

Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 801
Location: Leicestershire, UK

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:16 pm Post subject:

Declension wrote:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

I am not certain I exist.

I'm sorry, but that just can't be true. I'm not accusing you of being a liar, I'm just accusing you of being confused.

The problem with this is that people always look at the wrong part of the question.
"Do I exist?"
There's no issue with the "exist" part. I'm asking the question, for a start. I am aware of myself. I have a name, a job, a whole life. I definitely exist.
The philosophical problem is actually "what am I?" It's virtually impossible to point out any part of the universe which is definitely 100% part of me.

shrox
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:20 pm Post subject:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

I am not certain I exist.

If you don't believe you exist, I can see why you might have difficulty believing that god could exist.

AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Phoenix

Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: free will and atheism

01001011 wrote:

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the choice to play the game is an arbitrary one. Suppose I don't want to play chess, but would rather play checkers or go. Or I'm bored with chess and would rather play a chess variant like suicide. You can choose to play by the rules of science, by the rules of religion, or by a mix of both. You make an arbitrary choice when you decide to go any one direction.

01001011 wrote:

You are still having a very naive concept of 'truth'. Science does not establish truth. Scientific theories do not claim to be 'ultimate truth'. Science only rejects what is false.

I have an open concept of truth that includes verifiable elements of science as well as philosophical truth, and religious/spiritual truth.

01001011 wrote:

"Based on reality?" And what is that nature of that reality? And "reinterpretation being impossible," well, that's just silly. Even within the scientific method conclusions are often open ended and allow for alternative explanations.

01001011 wrote:

I'm the one with the burden of proof? That's absolutely laughable. I'm not all that concerned with what other theists have to say and I don't feel any need to convince anyone of what OTHER people think, at least not for the purpose of this particular discussion. I have my own views and can make up my own mind. You're not getting anywhere with these straw men. I never said anywhere (that I recall, and certainly not in this thread) that atheists lack objective morality. All I said was that any person can come up whatever reason they want to justify accepting or rejecting something based on their personal likes/dislikes. In the case of morality, that seems to be the usual case. If all atheists reject evidence for an objective moral code in favor of one that suits their liking, then that rejection is based on subjective opinion and they are not following objective morality. I never said it's necessarily true that atheists do this, so I have no idea why someone would complain to me about it.

01001011 wrote:

Then why can't I declare whatever I get from my own nature 'moral'? Based on what objective measure you say god's nature is more 'moral' than mine? All you can do is arguing in circle.

You can do whatever you want. I have no control over what you do or what you declare.

What I'm saying is this: If God is the author of all creation and made the universe for His own pleasure and purpose, then He gets to decide the rules and give the commands. If that is true, then God Himself is the objective standard of morality. It would therefore be God's responsibility to communicate that standard, however much is necessary, to the creation. It then becomes the creation's responsibility to choose whether to accept or reject that moral standard.

If and only if God is THE moral standard AND the moral standard is an objective one, any man-made moral code will necessarily be a subjective one.

NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:31 am Post subject:

Declension wrote:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

I am not certain I exist.

You are taking what I am saying the wrong way, that’s ok I suppose. I don't think in language, and have to translate my thoughts to language when communicating, for obvious reasons...but my thought process is not restricted by language. So do not presume you can even begin to understand my internal thoughts.

Language fails to illustrate this particular concept properly, every time I've attempted to explain it using language. Sometimes I can guide people with a series of thought experiments, but only if they are actually trying to reach the destination of being uncertain of whether or not they exist.

I really do not care if you believe me one way or another. But I am not confused, and not mistaken.

Everything, to me, has a degree of certainty, or probability. Everything. EVERYTHING. Nothing reaches certainty, and nothing reached impossible either. But many things are very, very, very close. Some things are close enough to certain that I will, out of necessity, risk my life on. I find I am continually "betting" on these things, based on the degree of certainty I have for various factors involved. But the threshold of certainty varies by situation for whether or not I state something as a certitude or not. That threshold is contingent on a vast multitude of factors.

I am certain of nothing, I am not certain that I exist, or that this sentence is accurate. I very probably do exist, and that last sentence very likely is true. So likely are they, that in most discussions I would write "I exist, and I know it to be true", because it is far more practical to do so. It's generally not practical to specify the exact degree of certainty I have for various statements.

This thread is demonstrating exactly why it is not practical. People start claiming I am unable to think what I am thinking, or that I am confused, or exaggerate what I mean by not being completely certain.

AngelRho wrote:

Incoherentism isn't even a real word. But just FYI, the statement "I am not certain I exist" is not an example of self referral incoherence. The statement "I do not exist" is an example. They do not say the same thing.

PS I don't give a sh** if you want to call me a relativist, or a nihilist, or a nihilist disguised as a relativist disguised as a marshmallow disguised as whatever else you fancy I am at the moment to make your case. These labels are generally not adequate, exceedingly few people fall into the exact definition of them. I can only assume by labeling me in a derogatory manner you wish to insult me?
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 34, 35, 36 Next

Forums ©

Read more Articles on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2013, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet News Wrong Planet Forums