Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

I can't say with any certainty, obviously, but alternative biochemistry or evolutionary paths is something that interests me. However organization does not always equal life. A perfect example is the formation of crystals. They are quite complex and structured, yet they are the result of natural processes. The same can be said for what we think of as "life". Even "plasmatic" life or whatever they want to call it would have a "container" in a sense since the plasma consists of ionized gas, which is still matter and thus has mass.

Last edited by Vigilans on 23 Feb 2012, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hence why I dedicated a paragraph to him.

This is asking the wrong question, because it implies an ending. Humans think in terms of stories, with a narrative structure, and we're in the second act - the first act was the arrival of life, the second act was the development of us, the third and final act is our apotheosis. Problem is, there is no story. It's just stuff that happens. Evolution has no aim in mind. It's a process.

More likely apoptosis than apotheosis.

ruveyn

Excellent!

I was just offering a conjecture.

Conjecture is good. It leads to interesting ideas.

I like to think the next stage of evolution (not that it *has* stages - that's narrative thinking again...) will be technological. We're creating a new kind of life. It doesn't have a physical form to speak of, but it has already spread across the world and it is evolving at an alarming rate. It's a species made of information, with memes instead of genes. They propagate through us, in the same way that flowers use bees to spread their pollen. So far it is not intelligent or even self aware. Give it time.

It is fun to think of these information creatures millions of years in the future when we are long dead, attempting to discover their origins and debating the meaning of the Lolcat in their memetic structure. I'd be tempted to write this if I thought it was at all believable.

Well, that would seem to eventually lead to putting life in a device.

I look at this debate and think: when are the athiests ever going to get it?

If you have a look at what man is, you'll see that there is direct evidence that we're free moral creatures. No question. I'M choosing to write this down, ME, there's no puppet pulling the strings - it's an excercise of my free will. Does anyone, athiests, want to argue with me on this one?

So it's not fair to attribute all the suffering in the world to God because it's been caused by human beings excercising their free will. Oh sorry, perhaps I should pause for a second and wait for a counter-example before I show the unvarnished truth to the poor little athiests. Has anyone seen an old man with a white beard climb down from the clouds, smack someone in the gob, and then run away back to the clouds again?

You just seem to get so emotional about the fact that suffering exists. And the fact is that you haven't created a community of non-believers where there is no suffering, no tears, no pedophiles. You haven't eradicated evil and suffering by taking God out of the equation - in fact, since Marx proposed that 'Religion is the opiate of the people' there have been two world wars, and countless other conflicts. What benefits have you brought to the world, anyway? And tell me how you've worked out that there is evil in the world, anyway - EVIDENCE!

Last edited by 1062651stAvenue on 23 Feb 2012, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

since we dont know how the human brain works precisely it is quite impossible to say if what you did really is free will.

rubbish. it's not got anything to do with how the brain works, it's got to do with if you know what you're doing. I bet you that if someone crashed into your car while you were driving, you wouldn't hang around trying to work out whether or not it was free will or not, would you?

Nor does science support your conclusions. fMRI scans have made huge advances in how the human brain works, come back when you have more time.

Plus you've completely dodged the wider question of freedom and responsibility that I raised, so I'm guessing you're one of the poor little athiests.

Not all of it. Some of it is caused by earthquakes.

But I agree with your main point. God, if he exists, has decided that a "hands-off" approach is better for everyone in the long run. And I think I agree with him. I don't want to live in a world where miracles happen all the time, it would irritate me.

condescending much? how mature.

then again is hould have guessed such a response was coming form the tone of your first post

you are also ingoring that even with ouyr current fMRI scans we still dont know a tenth of how the human brain reaches a decision.(sdomething needed to determine if free will exists)

also in the example of your petty car crash, what if he was aquaplaning, then it doesnt matter what his "will" is,
now am i saying that free will is likely to be completely lacking?, no, what i did say was that for anyone to claim to actually know for sure at the current time is ridicoulous and quite the claim.

we know some things elicit an almost exact response and that everyone is affected by their enviroment so of course some decisions will be as good as predertimed, if not in how the person sees it (something you also have to weed out) then in how they play out for x out of a hundred people.

as for responsibility, again we dont know enough to say for sure, nor does anyone claiming god exists with a hundred percent certainty,

According to Dictionary.com, free-will is defined as free and independent choice or voluntary decision. Voluntary is defined by Dictionary. com as performed, undertaken, or brought about by free choice, willingly, or without being asked. Based on these definitions it can be concluded that even if consciousness is just part of a complex chemical reaction that free-will exists because we can make decisions based on our own will and without being asked. The real question here is whether or not our will and consciousness is attributed to a complex chemical reaction in the brain or to a soul within the body controlling the brain. I personally don't believe that it'd be possible for me to be aware of my own existence and experience consciousness from just a complex chemical reaction in my brain, though I have no evidence or means of obtaining evidence because even if there was someway of completely analyzing information from the brain it would still be debatable whether the information came directly from the brain or from a soul within the body controlling the brain. It is also debatable whether the chemicals released by the brain are the cause or the result of mental processes. This debate could (and most likely will) go on forever and lead nowhere. I prefer to base my beliefs on questions that can more easily be answered. I've experienced enough supernatural phenomena to be convinced that I have a soul.

Last edited by Mike1 on 23 Feb 2012, 11:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

We don't have the power to stop all suffering, but God supposedly does.

Believe me, were I omnipotent and all that, I would've had a different world at my disposal free of suffering and pain, but still a fun world of excitement and joy and variety.

I don't disagree or agree since I am not really certain about it. Though you could levy this same statement at theists who believe in predestination



I actually agree with you on it not being fair. One cannot attribute all the suffering in the world to something that probably does not exist. It was and is bad people making bad decisions that causes suffering. In addition to the occasional natural disaster or other uncontrollable event. Sometimes they make those bad decisions in the name of this or that God. You cannot deny that at present religious extremism is rampant around the world. There are even Christian terrorists killing in the name of that religion. I would not say that theism has caused all the suffering in the world; but I would say it has not prevented it from happening, in such a manner as would be expected if "spiritual accountability" actually was the moral keystone some would argue it is. Being nonreligious has also not prevented suffering, but it certainly has not contributed to it in the way that monotheistic and polytheistic religion and belief have. Where are all the atheist suicide bombers? What do atheists do that causes you so much consternation? Argue with you on the internet and not hide their opinions like in the good old days?



You also haven't eradicated evil and suffering by adding God/s to the equation. I'm not suggesting that having it or not having the belief is better or worse, I'm just say that the end result is the same, because it is human decisions that ultimately govern the result; and believing or not believing in God/s does not make one more or less moral than another.

Your whole argument on Marx is incredibly convoluted. Marx was responsible for all of the problems that came after that statement of his, which is supposedly some grand awakening truth? Secular thought did not begin with Marx, I would say Thomas Jefferson was probably more radical than Marx when it came to irreligion, and most Americans seem to blindly worship him (not that he isn't awesome, but the religious right seem unaware of who he actually was...). Even so it did not begin with him.

If you want to talk about benefit, just look at the list of Nobel Prize winners, who are for the most part nonreligious. The Founding Fathers of the US were Deist bordering on Atheism or at least rejection of the supernatural. There are many examples if you make the choice to not cherry pick what you learn