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
Paisley wrote:Thomathy

Paisley wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
Paisley wrote:
How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.

When someone stubs their toe they might say 'God dammit!' (Most often I say 'Ow!' because my toe hurts.)  This is a common expletive.  Even taken literally, the person is not blaming god, they'd be asking god to damn something.

Agreed. The expression "God damn it" literally suggests that an individual is calling upon God to punish somebody (actually something..."it" is generally considered to be impersonal). This is why such an expression is called cursing. The individual is literally asking that someone or something be justly punished or condemned (i.e. cursed).

So, let's place this in proper context. The so-called unbeliever stubs his toe on the bottom leg of a coffee table and screams "God F****** damn it!!!" Now, what are we to make of such behavior? 

Well, the individual is clearly angry (a present state of "rage" is probably a better description). But if he is angry, then he must be angry with someone or something? So, with "whom" is he directing his anger? Or, at "what" is he directing his anger?

1) Is he angry with the coffee table? Does he actually believe that an inanimate object deliberately had the intention to bring him pain? Maybe? But what does this reveal about the unbeliever's beliefs? Whenever you're angry, you're angry with an intelligent agent, not with an inanimate object or an impersonal situation. Inanimate objects or impersonal situations cannot be held morally responsible for unpleasant experiences. So we can easily dismiss this explanation; it's simply absurd.

2) Is he angry with himself? Possibly. But when you consider the worldview of atheistic materialism, then this doesn't really make any rational sense. Why? Because in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, every action an individual performs "could not have been otherwise." In other words, each and every event that one experiences was predetermined by the blind, pitiless forces of nature playing themselves out. So why is he blaming and cursing himself for something he had absolutely no control over? It's completely absurd. Besides, are we to really believe that the unbeliever is demanding that he be punished for being such a bumbling idiot? This will only compound his pain and will not alleviate his sense of righteous indignation.

3) Is he upset with the "universe" itself? Does he actually believe that the forces of nature are conspiring argainst him? Perhaps. But, how can you be angry at something that is not intelligent and therefore cannot held morally responsible? This is no different than being angry with an inanimate object (e.g. the coffee table). It's absurd.

4) Is he upset with a higher power or intelligence (i.e. God) whom he believes is deliberately against him? Most definitely. This is the only thing that makes a smattering of rational sense.

Thomathy wrote:
It is customary to use certain expletives in particular situations, this is a learnt trait, and thus they can carry connotations.  Sometimes expletives are used in place of other words or sentences and take over their meaning, for instance, 'Fuck off!' is understood to mean 'Go away!' or any other similar sentence, however, with the extra connotation that person uttering 'Fuck off!' is particular angry with whom they're telling to go away and has decided to convey all of that in their use of the expletive.
 

Agreed. An individual will curse another human being because he (the individual) is expressing righteous indignation and believes the other is guilty and deserving of retribution.

Thomathy wrote:
Your whole argument, however, is more simply refuted by pointing out that just because you believe it's cursing god to use god in an expletive does not mean that anyone who utters an expletive that includes the word god believes they're doing the same thing.  An Atheist certainly doesn't think that she's cursing god, she in fact can't curse god because she doesn't believe in god.  What you're arguing requires that the person uttering the expletive means to curse god and, as I've pointed out, that's not how people use expletives.

I have made a bullet-proof argument earlier in this post why the atheist does indeed exhibit anger directed towards God. The evidence for this behavior is played out everyday by such trivial mishaps as stubbing one's toe.

So, by your logic (as I and others have said)...

If we stub a toe on a table and say:

"Crap!"/"Shit!" we are commanding the table to defecate.
"Fuck!" we are commanding the table to have secual intercourse.
"That hurt" we are expecting the table to apologize.

etc.

"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
So, this is my daily post

So, this is my daily post just to say:  HEY PAISLEY!!  When are you going to acknowledge the fact that you don't know jack shit about Game Theory, and that those of us who do have already explained to you that it negates your argument?

 

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

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


Anonymoose (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I know

Paisley wrote:
I know atheists who claim to be practice a form of Satanism, replete with all the trappings of a black mass and ceremonial magic. This is why I limit my discussion of atheism to atheistic materialism.

Oh, THAT's the reason. Okay.

You know people who say they believe in Satan ? And they told you they're atheists ?

And you believe them ?

LOL !!


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Anonymoose wrote: Oh, THAT's

Anonymoose wrote:
Oh, THAT's the reason. Okay. You know people who say they believe in Satan ? And they told you they're atheists ? And you believe them ? LOL !!




There are groups of satanist that are also non-theist(atheistic) like for example: "LaVeyan Satanism"



More or less Satan serves as a symbolic representation in defining a life philosophy rather than a literal presence. I think it's a bit strange but to each his own I guess...


 

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


Anonymoose (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
tothiel wrote:There are

tothiel wrote:
There are groups of satanist that are also non-theist(atheistic) like for example: "LaVeyan Satanism"



More or less Satan serves as a symbolic representation in defining a life philosophy rather than a literal presence. I think it's a bit strange but to each his own I guess...


 

So they don't really believe, but they still hold black masses and do magic and stuff ? Weird. Seems like a waste of time.

Kind of makes me wonder what I would be, if I had God serve as a symbolic representation in defining a life philosophy rather than a literal presence. An atheistic theist ? Doesn't make much sense, does it ? Neither does an atheistic satanist, in my opinion.

Anyway, thanks for telling me about those guys. You learn something new every day.


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

jcgadfly wrote:
First, only the perjorative uses made it to the post I responded to. Glad to see you rectified it.

This is what happens when you respond to posts that are not specifically addressed to you. I first posted the neutral definition and only later posted the pejorative one. In both cases, I posted the hyper-link to the Wikipedia article. There was no deception

jcgadfly wrote:
Second, where did you get that all atheists are followers of scientism? I'd never heard of it until you brought it up.

I arrived at this conclusion based on the definition of "freethinking" as the atheist defines the term. If you profess to be a "freethinking atheist," then your beliefs must be based on science.

jcgadfly wrote:
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

source: Wikipedia "Freethought"

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

jcgadfly wrote:
The bottom line is that you've found a definition of "freethinker" that fits your belief about freethinkers and you won't change it no matter how much contrary (and correct) information is shown to you. Who's dogmatic again?

The bottom line is that my definition is based on a literal rendering of term "freethinker" - i.e. a"free thinker" is a FREE thinker. That being said, free thinking presupposes free will because decision-making is part and parcel of the thinking-process. "Robots with consciouness" are not free thinkers because their decision-making is completely predetermined. That there are atheists on this thread vainly scrambling to make some dubious argument that free will and indeterminism are compatible with atheistic materialism leads me to believe that I have struck a chord.

"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
Word games can be fun. I

Word games can be fun. I like this game very much too. Do you think someone can win? What would winning mean? A perfect metaphor?

Black and White. Right and Wrong. ??? 

"We are condemned to be free" Jean-Paul Sartre (received the Nobel Prize for his work)  Did he win ?

Atheists are free-er thinkers. Theists are the devil's robots of worship quilt, and fear. 

   "Devil" meaning wrong thinking. Dogma is our enemy to heal.

  I WIN !        Condemned because all is ONE .... I AM GOD .... (YOU?)  

The Who - Can You See the Real Me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Or4QGI80Y

 


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

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
First, only the perjorative uses made it to the post I responded to. Glad to see you rectified it.

This is what happens when you respond to posts that are not specifically addressed to you. I first posted the neutral definition and only later posted the pejorative one. In both cases, I posted the hyper-link to the Wikipedia article. There was no deception

jcgadfly wrote:
Second, where did you get that all atheists are followers of scientism? I'd never heard of it until you brought it up.

I arrived at this conclusion based on the definition of "freethinking" as the atheist defines the term. If you profess to be a "freethinking atheist," then your beliefs must be based on science.

jcgadfly wrote:
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

source: Wikipedia "Freethought"

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

jcgadfly wrote:
The bottom line is that you've found a definition of "freethinker" that fits your belief about freethinkers and you won't change it no matter how much contrary (and correct) information is shown to you. Who's dogmatic again?

The bottom line is that my definition is based on a literal rendering of term "freethinker" - i.e. a"free thinker" is a FREE thinker. That being said, free thinking presupposes free will because decision-making is part and parcel of the thinking-process. "Robots with consciouness" are not free thinkers because their decision-making is completely predetermined. That there are atheists on this thread vainly scrambling to make some dubious argument that free will and indeterminism are compatible with atheistic materialism leads me to believe that I have struck a chord.

Exactly your problem Paisley LITERAL definition, not the acutal meaning of the word, but the meaning of seperate words, and twist them to mean something other than the intended meaning of the word, instead of freethinker, you see FREE THINKER and make an incorrect assumption of the defintio of the word by applying a seperate definition for each word, hence free (whic doesn't mean free will as that it 2 seperate words) Free being the word that the 2 have in common and if you are going to be defining each word than free DOES NOT equal FREE WILL, which if you go here <a http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free you will find a board defintion of the WORD FREE, and none of it hinges on the word WILL. which if you want to define that it mean the following

1: desire, wish: as a: disposition, inclination <where there's a will there's a way> b: appetite, passion c: choice, determination 2 a: something desired; especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or power b (1)archaic : request, command (2)[from the phrase our will is which introduces it] : the part of a summons expressing a royal command3: the act, process, or experience of willing : volition4 a: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending b: a disposition to act according to principles or ends c: the collective desire of a group <the will of the people>5: the power of control over one's own actions or emotions <a man of iron will>6: a legal declaration of a person's wishes regarding the disposal of his or her property or estate after death; especially : a written instrument legally executed by which a person makes disposition of his or her estate to take effect after deathat will : as one wishes : as or when it pleases or suits oneself

. Therefore you just lost the debate thank you that's it, that's all, you lose this one. If you want to play the game of twisting words and the meaning of the word then you will a debate quickly because you lack the knowledge of the meaning of the word and twisting to fit your definition even though FREETHINKER has been defined even by your precious wikipedia and Merriam-Webster dictionary to mean something else FAR DIFFERENT than what you wish it to be.

Here from Merriam Webster

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freethinker">

Or from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethinker

which if you bother with it, none of it requires your defintion of free will, but I know you well, you will simply ignore the actual meaning and try to make it fit your defintion, no matter how far you bury you head in the sand, it doesn't change the defintion of it. And the defintion wasn't defined by Atheists, it was made way back in the 1600, and that for the modern movement of freethinking, that tradition goes way way way back to prehistoric times. But again bury your little head, close your eyes and ignore what the definition is.


Jiggles Vibe
Posts: 40
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
i must get this off my

i must get this off my chest, but putting the terms "free" and "will" together sounds incorrect. why would your"will" need to be "free"? will insinuates that you can do whatever you please or what you tell yourself to do, hence "will" yourself to do. i doubt  there's a need to say "free will". will is freedom on itself. Also, did you ever use the term "will power" in junction with "free" (e.g. i have the "free will power" to stop eating cookies)? does that sound right to you? think about it.

"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't even bother. This

Don't even bother. This asshat sophist fucktard does nothing but play word games to try to support his position. It's pathetic really.  Notice the other thread he has is in trollville - I'm guessing this one ends up there eventually too.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


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

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley is either being willfully ignorant, or truely is moronic in his understanding of term freethinker, as such and as stated before, with his vague and misconstrued defintion of free will, then freedom fighters must believe in free will, nor is there free press, or free agents, free market, free state, free fall, free throw, or in the end freedom of speech since every MUST believe in free will because ALL those words have free in them, as such using his method, if it contains free it HAS to be free will or nothing. Nice going Paisley, you lost the debate right from the beginning, your just to dogmatic to understand where you lost it at.

How is the atheist a free thinker when his worldview relegates him to nothing more than a "robot with consciousness?" You're not a free thinker. You're not even a participant. You're just a spectator in the game of life.

By the way, I am FREE to define free thinker as I see fit. I do not subscribe to your dogmatic definition and therefore, as such, I am not bound to it. Besides, my definition is actually in tune with the literal rendering of the term. Your definition is misnomer.

"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
Jiggles Vibe wrote:i must

Jiggles Vibe wrote:
i must get this off my chest, but putting the terms "free" and "will" together sounds incorrect. why would your"will" need to be "free"? will insinuates that you can do whatever you please or what you tell yourself to do, hence "will" yourself to do. i doubt  there's a need to say "free will". will is freedom on itself. Also, did you ever use the term "will power" in junction with "free" (e.g. i have the "free will power" to stop eating cookies)? does that sound right to you? think about it.

In a sense, you're right. The term "free" when applied to "will" is superfluous.  If you don't have "free will," then you actually don't have a "will" PERIOD. Eye-wink

"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
Yes you do , how much , I

Yes you do , how much ,  I don't know ? How much is there ?  Would a yard stick help ? 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
tothiel wrote:Such things

tothiel wrote:
Such things are not intellectual endeavors and you're quite simply elevating the issue to absurd heights. Its clear that these things have become common spur of the moment verbal reactions that express negative feelings such as 'pain', 'anger', or even 'frustration'.....etc.... Nothing more. There is no rhetorical victory to be had here.

For example: dictionary.com:
Goddamnit –interjection (sometimes initial capital letter) Informal: Sometimes Offensive.
(used to express anger, perplexity, amazement, etc.)

 

When an atheist says "God damn it" after stubbing his toe, then he is obviously expressing anger. This begs the question: "What is he angry at?" or "Whom is angry with?"

"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
Paisley wrote:tothiel

Paisley wrote:

tothiel wrote:
Such things are not intellectual endeavors and you're quite simply elevating the issue to absurd heights. Its clear that these things have become common spur of the moment verbal reactions that express negative feelings such as 'pain', 'anger', or even 'frustration'.....etc.... Nothing more. There is no rhetorical victory to be had here.

For example: dictionary.com:
Goddamnit –interjection (sometimes initial capital letter) Informal: Sometimes Offensive.
(used to express anger, perplexity, amazement, etc.)

 

When an atheist says "God damn it" after stubbing his toe, then he is obviously expressing anger. This begs the question: "What is he angry at?" or "Whom is angry with?"

You are, of course, going to make this simple thing way too complex but...

He is angry because he is in pain. He is angry at himself because he carelessly inflicted pain on himself.

Why the deity's name is trotted out is simple also. the term has been cheapened by its overuse by Christians and non-Christians alike. It is essentially meaningless even to most believers. Just like the oft-used phrase "born-again".

"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


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:tothiel


Paisley wrote:


tothiel wrote:
Such things are not intellectual endeavors and you're quite simply elevating the issue to absurd heights. Its clear that these things have become common spur of the moment verbal reactions that express negative feelings such as 'pain', 'anger', or even 'frustration'.....etc.... Nothing more. There is no rhetorical victory to be had here.

For example: dictionary.com:
Goddamnit –interjection (sometimes initial capital letter) Informal: Sometimes Offensive.
(used to express anger, perplexity, amazement, etc.)

 

When an atheist says "God damn it" after stubbing his toe, then he is obviously expressing anger. This begs the question: "What is he angry at?" or "Whom is angry with?"




Depends since it's not merely anger directed nor is it anything rational that's taking place.

(Using the coffee table and stubbed toe example: ) The fact that they don't believe the coffee table is at fault nor do they believe in a God/Gods leads to the idea that such things are not intellectually thought out reactions.(Speaking from experience I actually know this to be the case.) There is no reason to suspect that the phrase is being used to express anything more than an emotional response using language that is socially accepted as strong, vulgar, obscene. Further, this is exactly why taking the word 'shit' or the term 'motherfucker' literally when consulting them in the same context would be silly. It clearly has nothing to do with the literal meaning and in fact, you'll notice that foul language is generally interchangeable in regards to such things. Certain terms posses a shock value and in our society this is just one of those terms. It's reflecting a serious and or negative emotion. Nothing more.  

Basically and in similar but different words... Someone need not be applying the terms literally, and to choose to interpret them literally is just flat out being thick. Such terms have a contextual function and your just ignoring this. Stubbing my toe and yelling 'Goddamnit' is not me invoking God to damn the object I stubbed my toe on. It's me getting pissed off and having a strong verbal reaction in regards to the pain. The idea that there is an intellectual concede behind such things is ridiculous. The various terms by nature in this context are spur of the moment intellectually meaningless idioms at best.

For example:

If I were to say 'motherfucker' would you then suggest that I believe the object has a mother that it fucks and that it is morally bankrupt for doing such a thing? Further, would I in turn be applying a slippery slope argument suggesting these immoral behaviors have lead to the objects current devious state?  No. Why? Because the literal meaning is obviously not the function the language in question is serving....  They are merely spouting obscenities while in a flustered state of mind.
 

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:How is the

Paisley wrote:

How is the atheist a free thinker when his worldview relegates him to nothing more than a "robot with consciousness?" You're not a free thinker. You're not even a participant. You're just a spectator in the game of life.

By the way, I am FREE to define free thinker as I see fit. I do not subscribe to your dogmatic definition and therefore, as such, I am not bound to it. Besides, my definition is actually in tune with the literal rendering of the term. Your definition is misnomer.

Paisley, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question/request from Page 5. Also, I'm afraid that while you are, of course, perfectly free to define any term in any way you like, that does not mean anyone else is obligated to accept the validity of your non-standard definition.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Jiggles Vibe
Posts: 40
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Jiggles Vibe

Paisley wrote:

Jiggles Vibe wrote:
i must get this off my chest, but putting the terms "free" and "will" together sounds incorrect. why would your"will" need to be "free"? will insinuates that you can do whatever you please or what you tell yourself to do, hence "will" yourself to do. i doubt  there's a need to say "free will". will is freedom on itself. Also, did you ever use the term "will power" in junction with "free" (e.g. i have the "free will power" to stop eating cookies)? does that sound right to you? think about it.

In a sense, you're right. The term "free" when applied to "will" is superfluous.  If If you don't have "free will," then you actually don't have a "will" PERIOD. Eye-wink

? i kind of see what you mean, but again, your will doesn't need to be "free" in order for one to have a will.

on the other hand, it could be used in a different context.

i have free will to choose this. i have the choice to choose this.

i have free will to do this. i have the choice to do this.

is it in his will to do this? is it in his choice to do this?

these may need the term "free will" even if free is not included.

 

however, free will need not apply all the time

"willing" to think? choosing to think? i am not willing to think. i am choosing not to think.

his will is strong. his conviction is strong.

will you take out the trash? May you take out the trash?

will he be here on time? is he going to be here on time?

is it his will to do so? is it his choice to do so?

is it his will to take action? is it his choosing to take action?

i have the will power to fast. i have the self-control to fast.

does he will his feet to kick? does he command his feet to kick?

it has a will of its own. it has a choice of its own. it has a mind of its own.(choices, commands, emotions, thinking processes)

will by itself signifies self-control and freedom of one's self to command his mind and body without resorting to "free will" in those cases. 

still use "free will"? go ahead if you like, but it's totally not necessary to describe one with a mind of it's own that already has the freedom of choice because the term "will" covers it.

any thoughts?

"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Jiggles Vibe wrote:it has a

Jiggles Vibe wrote:

it has a will of its own. it has a choice of its own. it has a mind of its own.(choices, commands, emotions, thinking processes)

will by itself signifies self-control and freedom of one's self to command his mind and body without resorting to "free will" in those cases. 

still use "free will"? go ahead if you like, but it's totally not necessary to describe one with a mind of it's own that already has the freedom of choice because the term "will" covers it.

any thoughts?

I think what Paisley's referring to is the idea that if all things are directly caused by the interactions of the inescapable laws of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, etc), then no, there is no freedom of choice, because just as a rock cannot 'choose' to resist the physical effect of Gravity, so you cannot 'choose' not to react to the sum total of all the stimuli in your life in whatever way you will, in fact, react. Not only would you then react exactly the same way every single time you were placed in exactly the same situation (despite it being impossible to begin with, because each time the total stimuli would be different simply by including your memories of previous times), but you would be physically unable to make a different choice, because all of the electrochemical processes in your brain would be in exactly the same state, and so subject to exactly the same cascading electrochemical reactions.

In effect, the question could be asked: If the universe has no randomness, how are we anything but incredibly complex computers executing the programming built into us by the total effect upon us of the universe over time? If we were somehow placed in the exact same situation multiple times, we would, based simply on the physical laws of science, have no choice but to think the same things, in the same order, resulting in the same reactions. Every time. 1+1 never gets to equal 3. An insanely complicated math problem, no matter how many times you solve it, will always have the same solution if none of the parameters change.

So: If the universe is one incredibly complicated math problem, and each of us is one small piece of the problem, then no matter how many times we're answered, our part cannot ever resolve to something other than what it resolves to the very first time. It's only in variation of circumstances that response changes, and only in the mind-numbing complexity of years of billions of stimulus-response interactions, many completely unaware, that we achieve the illusion of spontaneous action... IF all things are directly caused by the prior state of the universe from moment to moment.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
BMcD ,  Kisses for you !  

BMcD ,  Kisses for you !     Are kisses free ?      


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Apparently Paisley believes

Apparently Paisley believes that if you call someone a "fucking asshole" you literally mean they are an anus being penetrated by anonymous others or if you call them a "cocksucking piece of shit" that they are fecal matter performing fellacio. I guess when I say "American Idol sucks" I am saying that if you have your TV tuned to that particular show it will start pulling objects in the room toward the TV. Or if I say "It was cold as a motherfucker last night" I am actually saying it was quite warm as someone who engages in sexual intercourse with their own mother must be alive and therefore have a temperature somewhere around 98.6° - which is very hot weatherwise.

 

By the way if anyone reading this replies "LMFAO" he must literally believe that not only were you engaging in anal sex while reading my post, but you actually laughed hard enough for your buttocks to actually fall off - and you should immediately head for the emergency room.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


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

MattShizzle wrote:

Apparently Paisley believes that if you call someone a "fucking asshole" you literally mean they are an anus being penetrated by anonymous others or if you call them a "cocksucking piece of shit" that they are fecal matter performing fellacio. I guess when I say "American Idol sucks" I am saying that if you have your TV tuned to that particular show it will start pulling objects in the room toward the TV. Or if I say "It was cold as a motherfucker last night" I am actually saying it was quite warm as someone who engages in sexual intercourse with their own mother must be alive and therefore have a temperature

You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness" and apparently one programmed with a limited vocabulary consisting mainly of vulgarity and profanity.

"Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Matthew 15:10-11
 

 

"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
Anonymoose wrote:Paisley

Anonymoose wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I know atheists who claim to practice a form of Satanism, replete with all the trappings of a black mass and ceremonial magic. This is why I limit my discussion of atheism to atheistic materialism.
Oh, THAT's the reason. Okay. You know people who say they believe in Satan ? And they told you they're atheists ? And you believe them ? LOL !!

Yes, the "atheistic" brand of Satanism is known as "LaVeyan Satanism."

Quote:
LaVeyan Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality, with influence from Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, while its rituals and magic draw heavily from occultists such as Aleister Crowley. Borrowing Crowley's terminology, its adherents define Satanism as a "Left-Hand Path" religion, rejecting traditional "Right-Hand Path" religions such as Christianity for their perceived denial of life and emphasis on guilt and abstinence.

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

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

You may laugh, but I am inclined to believe that the LaVeyan maxim "I am my own god" is actually the basis for all atheism.

Quote:
LaVey proposes instead that if all gods are creations of humans, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanists should instead internalize their gods and therefore worship themselves; hence the Satanic maxim, "I am my own god."

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

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

 

 

"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
Paisley wrote:Anonymoose

Paisley wrote:

Anonymoose wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I know atheists who claim to practice a form of Satanism, replete with all the trappings of a black mass and ceremonial magic. This is why I limit my discussion of atheism to atheistic materialism.
Oh, THAT's the reason. Okay. You know people who say they believe in Satan ? And they told you they're atheists ? And you believe them ? LOL !!

Yes, the "atheistic" brand of Satanism is known as "LaVeyan Satanism."

Quote:
LaVeyan Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality, with influence from Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, while its rituals and magic draw heavily from occultists such as Aleister Crowley. Borrowing Crowley's terminology, its adherents define Satanism as a "Left-Hand Path" religion, rejecting traditional "Right-Hand Path" religions such as Christianity for their perceived denial of life and emphasis on guilt and abstinence.

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

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

You may laugh, but I am inclined to believe that the LaVeyan maxim "I am my own god" is actually the basis for all atheism.

Quote:
LaVey proposes instead that if all gods are creations of humans, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanists should instead internalize their gods and therefore worship themselves; hence the Satanic maxim, "I am my own god."

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

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

 

 

Then you've made up your own opinions that don't square with reality. What a surprise.

Just like your version of pantheism.

"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


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

BMcD wrote:
I think what Paisley's referring to is the idea that if all things are directly caused by the interactions of the inescapable laws of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, etc), then no, there is no freedom of choice, because just as a rock cannot 'choose' to resist the physical effect of Gravity, so you cannot 'choose' not to react to the sum total of all the stimuli in your life in whatever way you will, in fact, react. Not only would you then react exactly the same way every single time you were placed in exactly the same situation (despite it being impossible to begin with, because each time the total stimuli would be different simply by including your memories of previous times), but you would be physically unable to make a different choice, because all of the electrochemical processes in your brain would be in exactly the same state, and so subject to exactly the same cascading electrochemical reactions.

In effect, the question could be asked: If the universe has no randomness, how are we anything but incredibly complex computers executing the programming built into us by the total effect upon us of the universe over time? If we were somehow placed in the exact same situation multiple times, we would, based simply on the physical laws of science, have no choice but to think the same things, in the same order, resulting in the same reactions. Every time. 1+1 never gets to equal 3. An insanely complicated math problem, no matter how many times you solve it, will always have the same solution if none of the parameters change.

So: If the universe is one incredibly complicated math problem, and each of us is one small piece of the problem, then no matter how many times we're answered, our part cannot ever resolve to something other than what it resolves to the very first time. It's only in variation of circumstances that response changes, and only in the mind-numbing complexity of years of billions of stimulus-response interactions, many completely unaware, that we achieve the illusion of spontaneous action... IF all things are directly caused by the prior state of the universe from moment to moment.

Thanks for the dissertation but just saying a "robot with consciousness" would have sufficed. This usually drives the point home.

"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
Sorry, I don't know if it is

Sorry, I don't know if it is my computer or if there are problems with the RRS application but I am not able to respond to all posts because some are being "cut off" at the bottom of a page. Also, I am now encountering problems with posting my own responses.

"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
Paisley wrote: Then you've

Paisley wrote:

Then you've made up your own opinions that don't square with reality. What a surprise. Just like your version of pantheism.

Unfortunately there is a new movement afoot which is attempting to peddle atheistic materialism under the guise of pantheism. This is what leads theologically illiterate individuals such as Richard Dawkins to characterized "pantheism" as "sexed-up atheism."

Quote:
Opponents of naturalistic pantheism allege that it constitutes an intentional misuse of terminology, and an attempt to justify atheism by mislabeling it as pantheism. They claim that naturalistic pantheists believe no more that nature, the universe, and everything are all God, than secular humanists actually believe that human beings are all gods. They claim that naturalistic pantheists no more really believe in a god than secular humanists, who are atheists but adhere to a "religion".

source: Wikipedia "Naturalistic pantheism"

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

Fortunately, there are theologically literate individuals such as myself who understand that true pantheism forms the basis for all the world's mystical traditions.

Quote:
Classical pantheism is a form of pantheism that equates existence with God without attempting to redefine or to minimize either term, and has an inclusive demeanor towards other world faiths. It is a classical concept that is represented by many religions and religious traditions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Kabbalistic Judaism, neopaganism, and the New Age, amongst many other world religions and philosophies.

Due to some of the changes in usage of the word "pantheism" today, classical pantheism is distinct primarily because of its simplicity and compatibility with other religious traditions. In many ways, classical pantheism is similar to monism, in that it views all things, from energy to matter to thought or time as being aspects of an all embracing personal god

source: Wikipedia "Classical pantheism"

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

If the power behind your belief is merely (as I think uou put it) a "transcendent, immanent force", why stick a name (particularly a Judeo-Christian apellation) on it at all?

Is it because your god concept is so meaningless you have to borrow from other religions?. It seems like your trying to have all religions while trying to distance youself from them.

"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


Anonymoose (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Yes, the

Paisley wrote:
Yes, the "atheistic" brand of Satanism is known as "LaVeyan Satanism."

Yeah, so I've been told. Are you going to tell me now that "atheistic" satanism isn't an oxymoron ? Doesn't it sound like a really big clue that the whole thing is just a joke ?

Paisley wrote:
Quote:
LaVeyan Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality, with influence from Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, while its rituals and magic draw heavily from occultists such as Aleister Crowley. Borrowing Crowley's terminology, its adherents define Satanism as a "Left-Hand Path" religion, rejecting traditional "Right-Hand Path" religions such as Christianity for their perceived denial of life and emphasis on guilt and abstinence.

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

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

Not only is it a joke, it's a really good one.

Paisley wrote:
You may laugh,

I already was, but thanks !

Paisley wrote:
but I am inclined to believe that the LaVeyan maxim "I am my own god" is actually the basis for all atheism.

Quote:
LaVey proposes instead that if all gods are creations of humans, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanists should instead internalize their gods and therefore worship themselves; hence the Satanic maxim, "I am my own god."

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

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

 

 

Lady, this whole Laveyan satanism business is obviously a huge prank being played on naive christians, and you're falling for it.
I don't know if that Lavey guy is still alive, but if he is, and he's reading your post, he's laughing his ass off.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Then you've

jcgadfly wrote:
Then you've made up your own opinions that don't square with reality. What a surprise. Just like your version of pantheism.

Unfortunately, there is a movement afoot that is peddling atheistic materialism under the guise of pantheism. This is what leads theologically illiterate individuals such as Richard Dawkins to characterized "pantheism" as "sexed-up atheism."

Quote:
Opponents of naturalistic pantheism allege that it constitutes an intentional misuse of terminology, and an attempt to justify atheism by mislabeling it as pantheism. They claim that naturalistic pantheists believe no more that nature, the universe, and everything are all God, than secular humanists actually believe that human beings are all gods. They claim that naturalistic pantheists no more really believe in a god than secular humanists, who are atheists but adhere to a "religion".

source: Wikipedia "Naturalistic pantheism" 

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

Fortunately, there are theologically literate individuals such as myself who understand that true pantheism actually forms the basis for all the world's mystical traditions.

Quote:
Classical pantheism is a form of pantheism that equates existence with God without attempting to redefine or to minimize either term, and has an inclusive demeanor towards other world faiths. It is a classical concept that is represented by many religions and religious traditions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Kabbalistic Judaism, neopaganism, and the New Age, amongst many other world religions and philosophies.

Due to some of the changes in usage of the word "pantheism" today, classical pantheism is distinct primarily because of its simplicity and compatibility with other religious traditions. In many ways, classical pantheism is similar to monism, in that it views all things, from energy to matter to thought or time as being aspects of an all embracing personal god.

source: Wikipedia "Classical pantheism"

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

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


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Anonymoose wrote:tothiel

Anonymoose wrote:
tothiel wrote:
There are groups of satanist that are also non-theist(atheistic) like for example: "LaVeyan Satanism"



More or less Satan serves as a symbolic representation in defining a life philosophy rather than a literal presence. I think it's a bit strange but to each his own I guess...

 

So they don't really believe, but they still hold black masses and do magic and stuff ? Weird. Seems like a waste of time. Kind of makes me wonder what I would be, if I had God serve as a symbolic representation in defining a life philosophy rather than a literal presence. An atheistic theist ? Doesn't make much sense, does it ? Neither does an atheistic satanist, in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for telling me about those guys. You learn something new every day.




I agree, it does seem like a waste of time and at first I had charged it as being merely satire. However, I guess some of them claim to be quite serious about the position...... Basically, I think it's strange as I said before and were it not for someone having brought it to my attention on another forum some time ago, I wouldn't have known what it was myself.
 

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:MattShizzle

Paisley wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Apparently Paisley believes that if you call someone a "fucking asshole" you literally mean they are an anus being penetrated by anonymous others or if you call them a "cocksucking piece of shit" that they are fecal matter performing fellacio. I guess when I say "American Idol sucks" I am saying that if you have your TV tuned to that particular show it will start pulling objects in the room toward the TV. Or if I say "It was cold as a motherfucker last night" I am actually saying it was quite warm as someone who engages in sexual intercourse with their own mother must be alive and therefore have a temperature

You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness" and apparently one programmed with a limited vocabulary consisting mainly of vulgarity and profanity.

"Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Matthew 15:10-11
 

 

 

Way to not answer, just as you've refused to actually answer anything here. Asshat.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
No surprise

It isn't really that surprising that Paisley avoids actually answering anything, he just spouts out the same old garbage because he has been shown that his own defintions are incorrect, he has nothing at all, therefore he just keeps on saying the same old things, avoiding answering any direct questions, and changing his stance when necessary. In the end, Paisley has no clue what he is talking about, amd just repeats the same phrases again and again, thinking that it will actually make people agree with his views, and he says we are just robots with conciousness.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
robots with consciousness

robots with consciousness ....

  Therefore, freewill, to the exact same amount as god. After all, what are we?, when all is god.  I think the theists are so awestruck by existence they make shit up. The atheists rationalize their awe.

 

 


Jiggles Vibe
Posts: 40
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:robots

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

robots with consciousness ....

If robots become conscious and aware of themselves, then that would qualify them to have souls. as for their will (free will if you prefer that), we'll just see.

"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Sorry, I don't

Paisley wrote:

Sorry, I don't know if it is my computer or if there are problems with the RRS application but I am not able to respond to all posts because some are being "cut off" at the bottom of a page. Also, I am now encountering problems with posting my own responses.

   RRS and many fancy web sites don't work correctly using the IE browser. Down load Mozilla Firefox 2 as an additional browser. It's only takes 2 mins and its easy to use AND it doesn't mess with anything on your PC nor change IE. I have them both open now. Fire Fox 2 is clean and what is required to properly use RRS.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Jiggles Vibe wrote:I AM GOD

Jiggles Vibe wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

robots with consciousness ....

If robots become conscious and aware of themselves, then that would qualify them to have souls. as for their will (free will if you prefer that), we'll just see.

  Well it would depend on their theology training, and "parents" !   

I AM a "SOUL" man 

SOUL MAN/ SAM AND DAVE/Old School

Let's do the robot boogie !  


Jiggles Vibe
Posts: 40
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Jiggles Vibe wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

robots with consciousness ....

If robots become conscious and aware of themselves, then that would qualify them to have souls. as for their will (free will if you prefer that), we'll just see.

  Well it would depend on their theology training, and "parents" !   

I AM a "SOUL" man 

SOUL MAN/ SAM AND DAVE/Old School

Let's do the robot boogie !  

 

Ever read, "I Am a Strange Loop"?

"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Ever read, "I Am a Strange

Ever read, "I Am a Strange Loop"?   No , but a quick google says I LIKE ! Very cool so far .... Thanks , did you read it ? Flying back to the google summaries now  .....    

  


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Way to not

MattShizzle wrote:
Way to not answer, just as you've refused to actually answer anything here. Asshat.

We all have to learn respect in this life. Of this, we have no choice. Hopefully, you won't have to learn it the hard way.

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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Thanks for the

Paisley wrote:

Thanks for the dissertation but just saying a "robot with consciousness" would have sufficed. This usually drives the point home.

Apparently not, as you'd used that turn of phrase several times and still had people seeking clarification on your intent. So, thanks for the brevity and conciseness, but when asked for clarification, repeating yourself does not suffice.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:MattShizzle

Paisley wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Apparently Paisley believes that if you call someone a "fucking asshole" you literally mean they are an anus being penetrated by anonymous others or if you call them a "cocksucking piece of shit" that they are fecal matter performing fellacio. I guess when I say "American Idol sucks" I am saying that if you have your TV tuned to that particular show it will start pulling objects in the room toward the TV. Or if I say "It was cold as a motherfucker last night" I am actually saying it was quite warm as someone who engages in sexual intercourse with their own mother must be alive and therefore have a temperature

You're not a free thinker, just a "robot with consciousness" and apparently one programmed with a limited vocabulary consisting mainly of vulgarity and profanity.

"Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Matthew 15:10-11 

Except that Matt was clearly not using such profanity against anyone, but simply demonstrating and example of how we often use idioms and phrases which have meanings which are not, strictly, the sum of the definitions of each word in them. With that in mind, I fail to see how your response addresses the point being made at all, which is a relevant one, as it directly addresses your opening premise.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:MattShizzle

Paisley wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Way to not answer, just as you've refused to actually answer anything here. Asshat.

We all have to learn respect in this life. Of this, we have no choice. Hopefully, you won't have to learn it the hard way.

Agreed. And I think many of the people here might well be wondering when you will learn that there is more to 'respect' than 'deference'; when you have a disagreement with someone, you treat them like an adult, as worthy of your time and consideration as you are of theirs. You look them in the eye and you defend the assertions you're making... or you stop making them and walk away.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote:Paisley

lieutenant24 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
"Robots with consciousness" are not capable of free thought. No further commentary is necessary.

Oh Paisley, at least have the decency to actually respond to my arguments. "Robots with consciousness" may or may not be capable of free thought, but that is not the question at hand. We are discussing freethought not free thought. How many times must I explain that the two are different?

I'm afraid you're wrong. There's no "maybe" about it. "Robots with consciousness" are not capable of free thought.

lieutenant24 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
You and your fellow atheists are understandably upset that the worldview you share relegates yourselves to the status of "robots with consciousness."

Firstly, that doesn't upset me at all. Secondly, you are shifting the focus of the argument from freethought to the nature of free will. Once again, if you wish to discuss a new topic, start a new thread. This one is too messy as is.

Wrong! I've been consistent with my OP. You're the one who's attempting to shift the argument. Free thinking requires free will. This is indisputable. Moreover, you are not a free thinker even according to your definition of the term because you are not FREE from the DOGMA of SCIENTISM.

"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
Magus wrote:So when I say to

Magus wrote:
So when I say to someone "Crap, I forgot my keys" I am really telling that person to take a crap?  Or is this different?

No, you're obviously upset with yourself because you said "I forgot" and are thus acknowledging personal responsibility. When you shout profanities after you stub your little toe, you're either angry with the coffee table (which is absurd) or God. Anger is always directed towards that which you believe is morally responble for inflicting you with pain or grief.

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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Magus wrote:So

Paisley wrote:

Magus wrote:
So when I say to someone "Crap, I forgot my keys" I am really telling that person to take a crap?  Or is this different?

No, you're obviously upset with yourself because you said "I forgot" and are thus acknowledging personal responsibility. When you shout profanities after you stub your little toe, you're either angry with the coffee table (which is absurd) or God. Anger is always directed towards that which you believe is morally responble for inflicting you with pain or grief.

If I stub my toe and shout profanities, I'm mad at me, because I'm the idiot who stubbed my toe. Also: There is no moral judgement involved. I am not 'morally' responsible... there was no malice or disregard for my safety... I just wasn't as aware as I should have been, with no moral component to the event. So obviously, I cannot be 'morally responsible'... it's just one of those things that happens, and I'm the one who did it.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
But I AM my first enemy to

But I AM my first enemy to heal , and so what is that thought?    I hate me !

   I still don't get your point P , what should I do ???     Change my mind? ,  but how can I ? , I am god     FREE AS GOD !  


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Wrong! I've

Paisley wrote:

Wrong! I've been consistent with my OP. You're the one who's attempting to shift the argument. Free thinking requires free will. This is indisputable. Moreover, you are not a free thinker even according to your definition of the term because you are not FREE from the DOGMA of SCIENTISM.

A)"Free thinking requires free will. This is indisputable." - They seem to be disputing you. I would say that while someone disputes your statement, you cannot call it 'indisputable' as a defense, as the very act of making such a claim in the face of dispute proves your defense in error.

B)Kindly explain just what the 'DOGMA of SCIENTISM' is. By this, I am not saying 'Please expand upon this', I am saying 'Please tell me precisely what dogma you refer to. Give examples. Show how these examples are dogmatic. Show how questioning these examples is forbidden, and that all who claim to follow the scientific method must hold to this dogma, and that if they fail to do so, they are in fact failing to follow the scientific method.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
YEAH , and how can we

YEAH B , and how can we improve  by your suggestions, Mr P ?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Error of Observation

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley, (80 97 105 115 108 101 121 44)

13 83 105 110 99 101 32 121 111 117 32 116 104 105 110 107 32 119 101 32 97 114 101 32 110 111 116 104 105 110 103 32 98 117 116 32 114 111 98 111 116 115 32 119 105 116 104 32 99 111 110 115 99 105 111 117 115 110 101 115 115 32 73 32 115 112 101 97 107 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 32 105 110 32 116 104 101 32 108 97 110 103 117 97 103 101 32 111 102 32 99 111 109 112 117 116 101 114 115 46 32 89 111 117 32 97 103 97 105 110 32 97 114 101 32 119 97 114 112 105 110 103 32 100 101 102 105 110 105 116 105 111 110 115 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 114 32 101 110 100 115 32 97 110 100 32 102 97 105 108 101 100 46 32 71 111 111 100 32 76 117 99 107 33

Apparently, what we have here is a "robot with consciousness" taking a fatal error. Sorry for the meltdown. You have my condolences and sympathy.

 

 

Paisley,

I have been waiting for you to correct your error of perception to post this response but it appears that you have no idea you made one. As you see I have not gone into a meltdown caused by a fatal error. You made an error in observation. As you have claimed to be a panentheist I am disappointed in this failure of observation by you. Since your belief assumes there is design and patterns as part of your worldview I really thought you would get my point. Your failure to recognize a simple ASCII code even when I gave you a clue to decipher it speaks volumes about you. In the heading I typed your name and in parenthesis gave the ASCII equivalent. As follows:

P=80 a=97 i=105 s=115 l= 108 e=101 y=121 ,=44

Hint: b=98, m=109, z=122, capital O=79, capital S=83

You don’t seem to have developed the ability of pattern recognition as evidenced by your failure to see a pattern in these numbers. What you saw was utter confusion, which is not the case; it is actually a paragraph making a clear statement. This leads me to question how it is that a simple ASCII character code looked like a robot with consciousness in a fatal error to you and yet you see design and patterns in the Universe. Perhaps you spend far too much time on theories and mysticism and too little time on reality. The whole point of this exercise was to see your reaction and you did as I expected.

I began to wonder after witnessing this failure in observation of yours just exactly what you really do know. Ditzy blondes (not meant as an insult I like blondes especially ditzy ones) can use a computer in the same manner as you have demonstrated. Do you really have no understanding? Are you nothing but a key pusher and a mouse clicker? Do you have any real understanding at all of the real world and the tools developed by the “robots of consciousness”? As someone in a complex technological world are you just someone that uses the inventions of others and have nothing to contribute except mysticism, your perceived philosophy and criticism of those that provide you with the tools you utilize? It is one thing to claim understanding of QM and quite another to rebuild your car engine. Do you have any clue how to design or even repair a computer? Can you repair a water pipe, replace a circuit breaker, build a wall, pour concrete, kill and skin a rabbit or even a fish? If you lost your technology would you be lost as well?

Ask and it shall be given you, Luke 11:9. Looks like someone needs a course in computers?

Paisley wrote:

Sorry, I don't know if it is my computer or if there are problems with the RRS application but I am not able to respond to all posts because some are being "cut off" at the bottom of a page. Also, I am now encountering problems with posting my own responses.

Make fun of “robots of consciousness” and the tools that the robots make give you issues. Maybe you are right, we are all part of the ‘universal mind’ and we instructed your computer to glitch because of your insults.

Consider your own comment here:

Paisley wrote:

We all have to learn respect in this life. Of this, we have no choice. Hopefully, you won't have to learn it the hard way.

Have you actually read your own comments in a detached manner?

 

You seem to be intelligent but have issues with people that claim to be atheists. You have demonstrated elitism, egocentric behavior, and consistent anger directed at atheism. I would suggest that you spend more time in reality and less time dwelling on things you can’t ever know, see your other thread for my comments about this. You have made yourself a magnet for criticism and have received harsh comments as a result. You take positions guaranteed to provoke anger, morph word definitions, use words in your own defined way and criticize when atheists point out your inconsistencies. I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish but so far it doesn’t appear to be gaining you any measurable results of benefit.

I have read your comment in the thread Free Will and Determinism http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14010 where you use a random number generator:

paisley wrote:

$PickANumber = int(rand(10)) + 1;

Each time the program runs, all the statements in the program will be executed in a completely deterministic fashion. However, each time the foregoing statement is executed, it will "pick" a number that is (at least in theory) completely random.

There is one glitch here. The above function is not really random. The number that is actually chosen is based on the internal clock time of the computer. That is, whenever the program runs, then whatever number is in the "thousandths of second place" will be used. However, for all intents and practical purposes, the function is random even though in reality it is completely predetermined.

But if this were truly a random function, then the number that was "chosen" would have been selected without any physical cause.

This suggests you have taken at least a class in computer languages. In your example here you actually take a similar position to what I have previously stated. If you consider a human mind to be analogous to a complex computer the mind will process the data in a deterministic manner. What changes the outcome and makes it indeterminate is the human mind continues to receive inbound data packets continuously. Learning is analogous to receiving updates to our software or entire new programs. So if I make a decision regarding a river flooding and say we are safe in our location, five minutes later I may reverse this decision as I have noted the rising flood waters. In this way you are actually correct that free will does exist but it is always altered by prior causes (knowledge & memory) as well. I will generally always hit a 2 card 16 against a face card in Blackjack unless I think the dealer has a 6 for a hole card based on premonition, blood alcohol level, attention, card counting or the fact I glimpsed the hole card.

In your random number generator it is generated as you say by the internal clock of the computer. It is always a deterministic number due to the clock. It does not receive any new data to alter its outcome, except from the clock, while the human mind does. The difference is a human may be composed of physical materials as is the rest of the Universe but he is running his own CPU which may not always follow deterministic rules of the physical world. As a part of physical reality the human is subject to the laws of science which are deterministic as you have in great detail explained but the human within these laws can still be indeterminate in his responses. That means that I appear to agree with you in some respects. The Universe can be deterministic but the human’s actions can be indeterminate within the setting. Feel free to place whatever label upon me you choose for this position.

I have no issue with you as a person, only your use of misapplied knowledge to pursue what appears to be a vendetta. As I said you seem very intelligent but yet you demonstrate an apparent lack of understanding. These comments were made in the hope of enlightening you. It is not my purpose to be disrespectful with you or create conflict. As with all things you are welcome to dismiss them outright if you so chose. As I said I see intelligence in you but it seems focused in a manner that is not productive. I can only wish that you consider this and act in a way from which you could benefit. I have no desire to correct your god belief you are welcome to it but perhaps having head on collisions is not the way to win. It would seem that the only thing you accomplish in this manner is incorrectly stroking your own ego and irritating others in a way counter productive to understanding.

Robert A Heinlein said it best, “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

____________________________________________________________
"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
Nice pauljohn. Feel the

Nice pauljohn. Feel the atheists love Paisley? Is love free? Whatever it is, let's turn it up ...... and so "shout at the devil" too  (dogma and unnecessary suffering   

"What a wonderful world"       

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jo29zxDaQ4&feature=related

   .... focus on the kids, and the needy .... We can do SO much better .... on that we can surely all agree .... so sharpen our "swords" of virtue, it was suggested. Arguing about god and freewill must come to an end .... so get it on and over with. I wish, and so believe, we have the CHOICE .... afterall, WE are GOD !