The "Freethinking" Atheist

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The "Freethinking" Atheist

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
On what do you base your

On what do you base your first sentence? I always understood free-thinking as meaning "not bound by dogma". What definition are you using?

"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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

Paisley:

See Game Theory.

 

/End

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Paisley

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

Paisley:

See Game Theory.

 

/End

 

Psycho-physical supervenience arguments address this problem more directly than that.

**reminds Paisley that we have had this discussion elsewhere.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:On what do

jcgadfly wrote:
On what do you base your first sentence? I always understood free-thinking as meaning "not bound by dogma". What definition are you using?

I explicitly stated it in the OP.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:See Game

Kevin R Brown wrote:
See Game Theory.

What about Game Theory?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What about Game

Quote:
What about Game Theory?

Paisley,

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but outside of the internet, there are these things called books.  In some of the better books, you will find that scientists have written down what they know, often in intricate detail.  Why don't you hoof it down to the nearest university library, and do a search for "Game Theory."  Read the book, and then you won't have to ask silly questions anymore.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Oh Paisley

Your intelligence shows through your words. Let's do the work you should have done. First let's look at the definition of "Freethinker" from various dictionaries:

From freedictionary.com

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

From Webwordonline.com

noun; The doctrine that reason is the right basis for regulating conduct

adjective; Unwilling to accept dogma or authority (especially in religion)

From Merriam-Webster's website

One who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

From encyclopedia.com

A person who rejects accepted opinions, esp. those concerning religious belief.

 So, none of these require your definition of freewill, so again, as many times before...you're an idiot, and you have proven it this time, again.

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:What

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
What about Game Theory?

Paisley,

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but outside of the internet, there are these things called books.  In some of the better books, you will find that scientists have written down what they know, often in intricate detail.  Why don't you hoof it down to the nearest university library, and do a search for "Game Theory."  Read the book, and then you won't have to ask silly questions anymore.

 

 

Umm hamby if paisley could do this, and actually bother with trying to expand his intelligence instead of looking like a dumbass, he would have bothered with looking up the word freethinker instead of starting a daft thread


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"Freewill" philosophy has

"Freewill" philosophy has never intrigued me much. What am I missing?

I AM both free and not free, in the Yin Yang of my being, the expression of what I AM, GOD, doing my dance.  I will now make a decision, while the A L L  of what my life is, IS a force, I cannot control. Yeah to the AWE .... the WOW !

What are you trying to teach us, my concerned friend Paisley ??? 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

Didn't you already try this before?

See definitions kindly offered for your assistance in above posts.

I wonder what you are up to here as I know you have links to dictionaries since you misused them previously.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:What

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
What about Game Theory?

Paisley,

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but outside of the internet, there are these things called books.  In some of the better books, you will find that scientists have written down what they know, often in intricate detail.  Why don't you hoof it down to the nearest university library, and do a search for "Game Theory."  Read the book, and then you won't have to ask silly questions anymore.

I know what game theory is. I don't see the relationship that it has with the OP.  And it is certainly not my responsibility to explain the relationship.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Your

latincanuck wrote:
Your intelligence shows through your words. Lets do the work you should have done. First lets look at the defintion of Freethinker. From various dictionaries available both online and in a dictionary.

 

From freedictionary.com

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

 

from Webwordonline.com

as a noun

The doctrine that reason is the right basis for regulating conduct

as an adjective

Unwilling to accept dogma or authority (especially in religion)

 

From merriam-websters website

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

 

From encyclopedia.com

a person who rejects accepted opinions, esp. those concerning religious belief.

sSo  none of these require your defintion of freewill, so again, like many times before...your an idiot, and you have proven it this time, again.

I can provide dictionary definitions too.

free will : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I know what game

Quote:
I know what game theory is.

Bullshit you do.

 

Hamby, do you mind if I copy and paste the same pop quiz that Valiant failed to answer here, for Paisley's answering pleasure?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:What

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
What are you trying to teach us, my concerned friend Paisley ??? 

That free thinking presupposes free will.  

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Paisley says "Sorry...no

Paisley says "Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."

Ummm OK, now what ? Surrender to something ? I just honestly don't get your point ?

  I really want to understand ....    


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:I

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Quote:
I know what game theory is.

Bullshit you do.

 

Hamby, do you mind if I copy and paste the same pop quiz that Valiant failed to answer here, for Paisley's answering pleasure?

Game theory is based on "choices" that are completely predetermined. So, I am failing to see how this refutes my argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Didn't you already try this before?

See definitions kindly offered for your assistance in above posts.

I wonder what you are up to here as I know you have links to dictionaries since you misused them previously.

Stop the pretense. You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kevin R Brown

Paisley wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Quote:
I know what game theory is.

Bullshit you do.

 

Hamby, do you mind if I copy and paste the same pop quiz that Valiant failed to answer here, for Paisley's answering pleasure?

Game theory is based on "choices" that are completely predetermined. So, I am failing to see how this refutes my argument.

*WAAAAMP!*

Sorry. You failed the test.

 

Looks like you don't know what Game Theory is at all.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
SLAVES TO THE "AWE" WE ALL

SLAVES TO THE "AWE" WE ALL ARE   , now what ? 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:*WAAAAMP!*Sorry. You

 

Quote:
*WAAAAMP!*

Sorry. You failed the test.

 

Looks like you don't know what Game Theory is at all.

I think his point is that because Game Theory presumes freewill exist, it can't be used as a refutation of the argument that freewill does not.

Wiki: "Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others."

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yet again

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Your intelligence shows through your words. Lets do the work you should have done. First lets look at the definition of Freethinker. From various dictionaries available both online and in a dictionary.

 

From freedictionary.com

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

 

from Webwordonline.com

as a noun

The doctrine that reason is the right basis for regulating conduct

as an adjective

Unwilling to accept dogma or authority (especially in religion)

 

From merriam-websters website

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

 

From encyclopedia.com

a person who rejects accepted opinions, esp. those concerning religious belief.

So  none of these require your definition of freewill, so again, like many times before...your an idiot, and you have proven it this time, again.

I can provide dictionary definitions too.

free will : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."

 

 

 

 

yet again you prove yourself to be a moron, Thank you for that. You completely have no clue what freethinker means, that it is obvious from your statement.  Your argument is baseless on the term "free will." If you really want to get into this stupid argument about free will and what the hell it is, the word "Freethinker" as it has been defined has nothing to do with your dumbass definition at all. Free will has nothing to do with freethinking, as the definition is the unwillingness to accept dogmatic thinking and religious authority as the basis for reason. As such, free will as defined really has nothing to do with the basis of your argument, it is completely stupid argument. You are just associating the term FREE that's it, and using it in the most incorrect term. Which maybe I haven't made the definition properly, free of the dogmatic religious views and authority in rational thinking and discussion. Does that make it easier for you, probably not, because your lack of knowledge on simple definition is astounding.

There can be many reasons why one wouldn't accept dogmatic religious views for the basis of reason and rational discussions, could be educational background, one's cultural background, the upbringing from the parents and all of these would influence if one becomes a freethinker. Which means they don't accept religious authority or dogmatic beliefs in regards to rational thinking and discussions. All of it really independent of your definition of free will.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I think his point is that because Game Theory presumes freewill exist, it can't be used as a refutation of the argument that freewill does not.

Wiki: "Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others."

I think both you and he need to rely on more than Wikipedia to get your facts, and need to know about foundational scientific principles behind social behavior and ethics (like game theory) before dismissing them or entering into discourse about how incorrect the viewpoint is.

I don't know why you bothered italicizing 'strategic situations'. Evolving, growing and competing in a dynamic environment certain counts as a 'strategic situation' last time I checked.

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I think both you and

 

Quote:
I think both you and he need to rely on more than Wikipedia to get your facts, and need to know about foundational scientific principles behind social behavior and ethics (like game theory) before dismissing them or entering into discourse about how incorrect the viewpoint is.

I think you need to not retort with any sort of presumption regarding the extent to where I get my facts.

Plus.. this little jewel of a sentence adds nothing of substance--so I can't really respond.

This is how I viewed the thread thus far:

P: Freewill doesn't exist.

R: Look at game theory.

P: Game theory presumes freewill exist, therefore can't be used to argue the original contention.

//

I need a response that does something along these lines:

R: (Insert either (a) No it does not because X, (b) Some other point).

//

A valid response is not: "Look at the basic principles of science and study more before you enter conversation."

If it were, I suppose I could respond: "You are arguing against freedom and justice, learn more about history before you make responses like that.  I like peanut butter, can you swim?"

Quote:
I don't know why you bothered italicizing 'strategic situations'. Evolving, gorwing and competing in a dynamic environment certain counts as a 'strategic situation' last time I checked.

The italicization was within the original quote.  Otherwise I would have added the parenthetical (emphasis added).. which I didn't. 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: Stop the

Paisley wrote:

 

Stop the pretense. You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness."

Actually I am a complex computer that analyzes data and can come to only conclusions based on that which has been learned not programmed. Thanks for giving me consciousness in your world view, I appreciate it.

I see what you are trying to do, you are attempting to warp definitions again, your favorite hobby.

In you favorite on-line dictionary it says, "freethinker: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma"

and you found free will: "free will : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)"

So you are suggesting that if a freethinker forms opinions independent of authority that means free will must be present. Unfortunately not. My decisions are made based on that which I have accumulated in my memory banks. The observed event is considered and only a certain possibility is possible based on what I know of the situation. If more information becomes available I may make a different conclusion.

Example- I learn a bloody murder has been committed and you have blood on you. I conclude you had something to do with it. The blood is tested in a lab and turns out to be the blood of chipmunks you kill for thrill. I now conclude you didn't do it but charge you with cruelty to animals instead. Does this at all involve free will or predetermination? No. When more data became available I calculated that instead of a murderer you were a sadistic animal killer.

If freethinkers reject religious dogma then this data (dogma) is not used in the decision process when calculations are processed. No dogma in the decision process equals a freethinker.  Since free will requires no interference from a superior power (your universal god or whatever) you conclude then freethinking requires it. But wait, you forgot about prior causes didn't you?

What is a prior cause? A prior cause is everything that you have ever learned or observed and now store in you memory banks or brain. So do you have free will or are you going to make a decision based on the knowledge you have stored in your brain? Can you make any other conclusion but that which you know? no.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM a ROBOT , but I like it

I AM a ROBOT , but I like it .... don't you ? 

   When's the celebration start? , Robot "ball room" dancing anyone ?  .... 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Quote:I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
I think both you and he need to rely on more than Wikipedia to get your facts, and need to know about foundational scientific principles behind social behavior and ethics (like game theory) before dismissing them or entering into discourse about how incorrect the viewpoint is.

I think you need to not retort with any sort of presumption regarding the extent to where I get my facts.

You're the one quoting from Wikipedia and not scientific literature. What am I supposed to think?

Quote:
Plus.. this little jewel of a sentence adds nothing of substance--so I can't really respond.

This is how I viewed the thread thus far:

P: Freewill doesn't exist.

R: Look at game theory.

P: Game theory presumes freewill exist, therefore can't be used to argue the original contention.

...And, again, if you actually knew anything about Game Theory, you'd know that third point is incorrect. Also, you I and must've read Paisley's initial post differently:

I read that she's contending that we can't call ourselves 'freethinkers', since 'free will' lies in the domain of the metaphysical. Game Theory has everything to do with blowing such a ridiculous contention out of the water.

Game Theory does not 'presume' anything. No scientific theory does. Game Theory is a mathematical exploration of systems of behavior, and like all scientific theory, was the result of observation rather than agenda.

Quote:

A valid response is not: "Look at the basic principles of science and study more before you enter conversation."

It is when you propose to dismiss an entire field of study in order to attack a group of individuals, which Paisley effectively did in his opening post. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because you don't understand it (arguing from ignorance).

Quote:
If it were, I suppose I could respond: "You are arguing against freedom and justice, learn more about history before you make responses like that.  I like peanut butter, can you swim?

If I didn't know anything about history, I'd argue that I wouldn't have much grounds for debating it with anyone. Your last sentance is a Strawman.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You're the one

 

Quote:
You're the one quoting from Wikipedia and not scientific literature. What am I supposed to think?

The only thing that is warranted by the little factoid.. i.e., that I got a fact from wikipedia.  To infer a conclusion from one instance is highly unscientific. Sticking out tongue 
Quote:
Game Theory does not 'presume' anything. No scientific theory does.
What the heck?!!? This is so grossly inaccurate I don't even know what to say. 
Quote:
Game Theory is a mathematical exploration of systems of behavior, and like all scientific theory, was the result of observation rather than agenda.
Great.. you've reworded your last post.  Doesn't address the issue.  Science is based upon induction and deduction.  How exactly do these concepts have any meaning if freewill does not exist?  At the same time, science (to my knowledge) has not made any scientific exploration into the "proving" freewill.. this would be rather redundant. Rather it just presumes that it exists. 
Quote:
It is when you propose to dismiss an entire field of study in order to attack a group of individuals, which Paisley effectively did in his opening post. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because you don't understand it (arguing from ignorance).
Granted. 
Quote:
If I didn't know anything about history, I'd argue that I wouldn't have much grounds for debating it with anyone. Your last sentance is a Strawman.
I said: if X is true, then Y.   You responded by calling Y a strawman.  This doesn't respond to the argument, which was that Y and X are analogous. So.. fine.. Y is a strawman, then so was your previous statement which I contended it was analogous to. If you disagree, please explain why X and Y are not analogous.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
What isn't analogous ? 

What isn't analogous ?  What are we fighting about ? Oh yeah , LIFE .... but why ?

    Is fighting evolution ???  Seems so , all right, lets get it on in spirit of LIFE, kill something for gods sakes and glory .....  ????  I AM super confused ....   


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What

Quote:
What isn't analogous ?  What are we fighting about ? Oh yeah , LIFE .... but why ? 

    Is fighting evolution ???  Seems so , all right, lets get it on in spirit of LIFE, kill something for gods sakes and glory .....  ????  I AM super confused ....   

 

  
You always confuse me. SmilingWas there a serious question in there?

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
INDEED, It is confusing ....

INDEED, It is confusing .... maybe we should meditate a little more on this life thing we are ....   


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Indeed.

 Indeed.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Paisley

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Game theory is based on "choices" that are completely predetermined. So, I am failing to see how this refutes my argument.

*WAAAAMP!*

Sorry. You failed the test.

 

Looks like you don't know what Game Theory is at all.

 

Quote:
Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences (most notably economics), biology, political science, computer science, and philosophy. Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others. While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another's expense (zero sum games), it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according to several criteria.

source: Wikipedia "Game theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will.

 

Prove there is free will.

Quote:
In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise.

Prove predetermination.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Your intelligence shows through your words. Lets do the work you should have done. First lets look at the defintion of Freethinker. From various dictionaries available both online and in a dictionary.

 

From freedictionary.com

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

 

from Webwordonline.com

as a noun

The doctrine that reason is the right basis for regulating conduct

as an adjective

Unwilling to accept dogma or authority (especially in religion)

 

From merriam-websters website

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

 

From encyclopedia.com

a person who rejects accepted opinions, esp. those concerning religious belief.

sSo  none of these require your defintion of freewill, so again, like many times before...your an idiot, and you have proven it this time, again.

I can provide dictionary definitions too.

free will : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."

 

 

 

First off,  there's atheism and there's materialism - the two don't necessarily connect. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. Materialism is the philosophy that holds that one can only prove the existence of matter. Not sure where I stand on materialism (lean toward property dualism myself).

As for your "no free will, no free thought" claim, do you also believe that if someone mentions God in a discussion or as a curse, that person must believe God exists?

"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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, You're a lying

Paisley,

You're a lying hypocrite.  I left you enough rope to hang yourself, and you've done a great job.  Since you claim to know that GT presupposes freewill (even though freewill hasn't been defined worth a damn yet...) would you like to explain the dynamics of Game Theory as they apply to mitochondrial activity during outcrossing?  When you're done with that, please tell me how mitochondria make decisions.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

Atheists believe there is not free will?  I don't believe in any type of predestination.  It's the theist's concept of an all seeing, all knowing and all powerful god that is incompatible with fee will, but I don't believe in such god, or any god, so what do you suppose I believe in that binds my will?

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Paisley says "Sorry...no free will, no free thinking. Based on the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, you're just a "robot with consciousness."

Ummm OK, now what ? Surrender to something ? I just honestly don't get your point ?

  I really want to understand ....   

The point is that a belief in free will is incompatible with atheistic materialism.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Kevin R

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Kevin R Brown wrote:
Looks like you don't know what Game Theory is at all.

I think his point is that because Game Theory presumes freewill exist, it can't be used as a refutation of the argument that freewill does not.

Wiki: "Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others."

Exactly. 

Game theory attempts to explain the behavior of multi-agent systems employing probabilistic algorithms. That is, it presumes that intelligent agents have "free will."  

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:yet again

latincanuck wrote:
yet again you prove yourself to be a moron, Thank you for that.

Sorry, but you do not score intellectual points in debates by engaging in ad hominem attacks.

latincanuck wrote:
Free will has nothing to do with freethinking, as the definition is the unwillingness to accept dogmatic thinking and religious authority as the basis for reason. As such, free will as defined really has nothing to do with the basis of your argument, it is completely stupid argument.

The key word in your argument is "unwillingness." The term presupposes free will. You have just refuted your own argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:I think

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I think you need to not retort with any sort of presumption regarding the extent to where I get my facts.

Plus.. this little jewel of a sentence adds nothing of substance--so I can't really respond.

This is how I viewed the thread thus far:

P: Freewill doesn't exist.

R: Look at game theory.

P: Game theory presumes freewill exist, therefore can't be used to argue the original contention.

//

I need a response that does something along these lines:

R: (Insert either (a) No it does not because X, (b) Some other point).

//

A valid response is not: "Look at the basic principles of science and study more before you enter conversation."

If it were, I suppose I could respond: "You are arguing against freedom and justice, learn more about history before you make responses like that.  I like peanut butter, can you swim?"

Agreed. Well stated.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
yet again you prove yourself to be a moron, Thank you for that.

Sorry, but you do not score intellectual points in debates by engaging in ad hominem attacks.

latincanuck wrote:
Free will has nothing to do with freethinking, as the definition is the unwillingness to accept dogmatic thinking and religious authority as the basis for reason. As such, free will as defined really has nothing to do with the basis of your argument, it is completely stupid argument.

The key word in your argument is "unwillingness." The term presupposes free will. You have just refuted your own argument.

 

I don't need to score any points at all, your still a moron, that's a statement of fact, your complete lack of knowledge of the word and the usage of free will so far, shows that you can't even understand what the hell it means, and how it is to be used. Second you still don't comprehend the concept of the word freethinker. I can by my education, my upbringing, my experiences lean towards freethinking. However free will supposes that you are not influenced at all by anything, that all your decisions are made based only on your abiltiy to make the decision free from any outside influence at all, meaning your experiences, your knowledge, upbringing all of that has no bearing in your decisions, which we all know is bullshit. Hence your complete lack of understanding as to why the term free will is bull shit and why free thinker has nothing to do with your definiton of free will. Again, free thinker is defined as someone that does not accept religious dogma or religious authority in areas of rational thinking, it can also be defined as someone that goes against popular public opinon. Or someone that is free of the dogmatic or religious influence in regards to rational thinking. But I doubt you can comprehend this, so far you have played with words and defintions and been so wrong in their meanings.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Stop the pretense. You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness."

Actually I am a complex computer that analyzes data and can come to only conclusions based on that which has been learned not programmed.

A robot is a complex computer that processes environmental input data in a completely deterministic and mechanical fashion. 

Quote:
Thanks for giving me consciousness in your world view, I appreciate it.

My worlview does not deny consciousness. I'm surprised to learn that your worldview does.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So you are suggesting that if a freethinker forms opinions independent of authority that means free will must be present. Unfortunately not. My decisions are made based on that which I have accumulated in my memory banks. The observed event is considered and only a certain possibility is possible based on what I know of the situation. If more information becomes available I may make a different conclusion.

I'm suggesting that if the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism is true, then there are no freethinkers. Every thought or belief you now have could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freedom.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...And,

Kevin R Brown wrote:
...And, again, if you actually knew anything about Game Theory, you'd know that third point is incorrect. Also, you I and must've read Paisley's initial post differently:

I read that she's contending that we can't call ourselves 'freethinkers', since 'free will' lies in the domain of the metaphysical. Game Theory has everything to do with blowing such a ridiculous contention out of the water.

Free thinking implies the ability to freely choose beliefs. If all your beliefs are predetermined, then they are not free. It's that simple.

By the way, I'm male, not female. This is the second time that I have corrected you on this misperception. I suggest next time you get it straight. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
It is when you propose to dismiss an entire field of study in order to attack a group of individuals, which Paisley effectively did in his opening post. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because you don't understand it (arguing from ignorance).

I did not mention "game theory" in my OP. So, how did I dismiss it?

Your response to my OP was to simply say: "See...Game Theory." When I asked you "What about Game Theory?," you failed to provide any argument that refuted my OP. I'm still waiting for one.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Prove there is

aiia wrote:
Prove there is free will.

aiia wrote:
Prove predetermination.

I don't have to prove free will or determinism. If determinism is true, then it logically follows that there are no "freethinkers."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:First off, 

jcgadfly wrote:
First off,  there's atheism and there's materialism - the two don't necessarily connect. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. Materialism is the philosophy that holds that one can only prove the existence of matter.

This is why I say "atheistic materialism." Anytime I find an atheist attempting to disocciate himself from materialism, then I know I am dealing with an individual who has some kind of lurking god-belief.

jcgadfly wrote:
Not sure where I stand on materialism (lean toward property dualism myself).

Property dualism is consistent with materialism (a.k.a. physicalism). Dual-aspect or neutral monism are not (they're actually pantheistic beliefs).

Quote:
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that while the world is constituted of just one kind of substance - the physical kind - there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properies. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) adhere in some physical substances (namely brains).

source: Wikipedia "Property dualism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism 

jcgadfly wrote:
As for your "no free will, no free thought" claim, do you also believe that if someone mentions God in a discussion or as a curse, that person must believe God exists?

I do believe that when an individual curses the name of God that he (the individual) is exihibitng a belief in the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip."

Returning back to the subject at hand, free thinking implies an intelligent agent who has free will. This is really indisputable.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:You're a

Hambydammit wrote:
You're a lying hypocrite.

No, I am not the one who is claiming to be a freethinker while simultaneously denying the existence of free will. That honor goes to you and your fellow atheists. I am simply demanding a modicum of intellectual consistency and honesty. That's all.

Hambydammit wrote:
Since you claim to know that GT presupposes freewill (even though freewill hasn't been defined worth a damn yet...) would you like to explain the dynamics of Game Theory as they apply to mitochondrial activity during outcrossing?  When you're done with that, please tell me how mitochondria make decisions.

I have already provided the definition of "free will."

Quote:
free will : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Free will can best be defined as the ability of an agent to choose otherwise given the same situation or circumstance. It implies an element of indeterminism.

Quote:
indeterminsim 1 a: a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b: a theory that holds that not every event has a cause 2: the quality or state of being indeterminate; especially : unpredictability (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

By the way, the onus is not upon me to explain "game theory." That's your responsibility. If you believe that game theory refutes the argument I presented in the OP of this thread, then the onus is upon you to present a compelling case for why game theory refutes it. At this point in time, no counter-argument has been forthcoming, just lame ad hominem attacks.

What I do know about "game theory" is that it is based on probability algorithms which are employed to describe the behavior of free agents. How does this refute my argument?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Stop the pretense. You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness."

Actually I am a complex computer that analyzes data and can come to only conclusions based on that which has been learned not programmed.

A robot is a complex computer that processes environmental input data in a completely deterministic and mechanical fashion. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So you are suggesting that if a freethinker forms opinions independent of authority that means free will must be present. Unfortunately not. My decisions are made based on that which I have accumulated in my memory banks. The observed event is considered and only a certain possibility is possible based on what I know of the situation. If more information becomes available I may make a different conclusion.

I'm suggesting that if the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism is true, then there are no freethinkers. Every thought or belief you now have could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freedom.

If you had read the rest of my post, you may have noticed I said

Quote:

If freethinkers reject religious dogma then this data (dogma) is not used in the decision process when calculations are processed. No dogma in the decision process equals a freethinker.  Since free will requires no interference from a superior power (your universal god or whatever) you conclude then freethinking requires it. But wait, you forgot about prior causes didn't you?

What is a prior cause? A prior cause is everything that you have ever learned or observed and now store in you memory banks or brain. So do you have free will or are you going to make a decision based on the knowledge you have stored in your brain? Can you make any other conclusion but that which you know?

What this means is the religious aspect is not processed as relevant even if I know about it as I regard the information as false. In programming it would be a path rejected as not meeting a parameter that has been defined. Your dictionary definition that you found not me said free will is the freedom to make choices that are not influenced by prior causes or by divine intervention. Everything that you have seen, experienced, or learned is a prior cause. All of this information is in your own processing unit, your brain. You will make your decision based on this information. This is not free will at all.

Summary - so you don't have to read it all:

1-Freethinking is the rejection of religious dogma or one who forms opinions independent from authority

2-Free will is the freedom of humans to make choices without divine intervention or determined by prior causes.

3-Prior causes are everything that you have learned, seen, and experienced it is your accumulated knowledge.

Definition of prior cause: prior - earlier in time or order; taking precedence

cause - a reason for an action or a condition; something that brings about an effect or a result; a person or a thing that is the occasion of an action or a state; an agent that brings something about; sufficient reason

Combined this means - things that have occurred earlier or before that bring about a result.

Conclusion - A freethinker has no free will as his decisions are made based on HIS own knowledge and database that will result in the only possible choice for him. As outside authorities (your universal mind or Yahweh, Allah etc.) are not involved in the processing and their very existence is rejected as data he meets the requirement of a freethinker.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:Atheists

hazindu wrote:
Atheists believe there is not free will?  I don't believe in any type of predestination.  It's the theist's concept of an all seeing, all knowing and all powerful god that is incompatible with fee will, but I don't believe in such god, or any god, so what do you suppose I believe in that binds my will?

There is theological determinsim. But now I am digressing. The point is that if you believe in "free will" (which many, if not most, atheists do...as is being made evident in your reply), then you are actually making an argument for the existence of a soul. Sorry, but the atheistic worldview does not permit you this luxury.

Also, for the record, I never said predestination; I said predeterminism. 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
PaulJohn

Paisley won' t understand everything you just stated, even though you have made it as simple as possible. Now I would personally changed "own knowledge and database that will result in the only possible choice for him." only possible choices for him" only because usually there are more than just one choice, how we come to that decision of a choice is determined as circumstances under which the decision or rational thinking is conducted under. But that's just me nitpicking Sticking out tongue

See the problem is that Paisley is assuming that freethinker means free will and choice to make it with out any influence at all, instead of rejection (which can be done without free will, as it has been shown many times over) of religious dogmatic beliefs or religious/public authority, in the decision or rational thinking process.