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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Well, saying that it "cast serious doubt on our undertanding of causality" says it all. This has major implications.

Yes it does, not least of all to your understanding of causality, Paisley, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Note it is not asserting that the events are "uncaused" in a simplistic sense. It is entirely consistent with my arguments here.

No, this is not the same thing you have in mind. You are not arguing for a different concept of  causality but for deterministic, linear causality(i.e. for each event there must be a cause and that all causal relations must follow a temporal sequence.) If you are foregoing the "arrow of time," then you are opening a whole new set of problems with major metaphysical implications.

"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
Paisley wrote:I agree.1) 

Paisley wrote:

 

I agree.

 

1)  You feel threatened by the coffee table and are attempting to fight it?

 

Unfortunately, this may very well be true in some cases, as humans we do tend to project human characteristics onto inanimate objects from time to time. However, I don't think it's as black and white as the statement above suggest since the details (as always) are going to vary from person to person, and, situation to situation.


 

Quote:
2) You feel threatened by yourself (because you are responsible for stubbing your toe) and are attempting to fight yourself?

 

Not quite. Anger can be directed inwardly regarding circumstance; for that matter, it can be directed outwardly regarding circumstance.

 

Quote:
3) You feel threatened by the "powers that be" which allowed this misfortune (stubbing your toe) come your way and now you are angry with God and attempting to confront him?

 

No.

 

Quote:
Incidentally, for someone who professes to have "no beliefs," you're very opinionated.

 

 

Doesn't apply to me.....

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Samuel wrote:ANY debate or

Samuel wrote:
ANY debate or discussion involving "free will" is heavily and entirley dependant on how one defines free will.

Agreed.

Samuel wrote:
Wading through countless of these debates, formal and informal, I have found it literally impossible to make any sort of progress unless the terms are completely defined and agreed upon.

I'll define the basic terms in the philosophical discussion of free will.

compatibilism = the view that "free will" is compatible with determinism.

incompatibilism = the view that "free will" is incompatible with determinism.

liberterianism = the view that "free will" is incompatible with determinism with the implication that given the same situation and circumstances an agent could have chosen otherwise.

The conventional understanding of free will is libertarianism. Most individuals actually believe they could have chosen otherwise (this is why they have regrets and experience guilt). The atheist is obligated by his philosophical commitment to materialism to deny libertarianism.

Incidentally, there are forms of theological determinism (e.g. Calvinsim). 

Samuel wrote:
I believe in free will generally speaking, we have the ability to make choices and yatta yatta yatta...
But technically who you are determines what choices you make, and who you are was determined, if you think about it, by when, where, and to whom you were born.  So TECHNICALLY, with God and fate out of the picture, we still technically don't actually have free will, because of how or decision making was formed to begin with.  But talking about that is also technically useless and not what people mean when they are referring to "free will."

I disagree. Just because atheists have not reflected on the intricacies of this does not mean it is meaningless. It just means they haven't thought through the implications of their worldview. And I am here to point some of these things out.

Samuel wrote:
And none of that is what people are referring to when they are saying "freethinking."  That is something completely different.  That means you think and belief without chains to religion, other people, or organizations.  Wether or not free will exists has nothing to do with that.

I know what atheists mean when they identify themselves as freethinkers. However, I am here to point out that their worldview does not actually permit themselves to classify themselves literally as "free thinkers."

The truth of the matter is that determinism actually implies pantheism, not atheism. Why? Because all intentional acts must be explained in terms of deterministic, physical causation. Therefore, logic dictactes that either infinite causality is expressing intelligence (because all events are determined by infinite causality) or else there is no intelligence in the world. To argue the latter presupposes intelligence; therefore, infinite causality must be intelligent (this is pantheism).

"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
Kind caring wise Paisley.

Kind caring wise Paisley. I'm quit positive you are not understanding the "awe" of the atheist, .... the "awe" you also share. This thread is largely a linguistic communication problem. Isn't it ???

The "materialist" recognizes the complexity of consciousness and that it may have a unique place in the  E/M  cosmos, of undetectable dimensions, as we now call them, that QM suggests.

Thing is , ALL is connected, All is ONE ....  Why freak on it?,  a Buddha would ask ....

   How would you preach your message Paisley ?  What is your point AGAIN ????

           


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

daedalus wrote:
Paisley, I attach the above post and add to it.  Hows this?

 

Please tell me which # you disagree with.

To begin with, in my OP of this thread, I did not argue for or against free will. I simply argued that there can be no "free thinkers" without free will.  

Having said that, and assuming that determinism is valid, then I basically agree with items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (not 8 ), 9, 10, and 11.

daedalus wrote:
1. Whatever I am, is because of the causal chain before me.

2. The causal chain exists whether it's source can be discovered or not.

3. All actions are based on this causal chain, AND other intervening causal chains that may cross my "path".

4. The causal chain that has led to "Me" could be one that has allowed me to a "Freethinker" in the sense that I don't accept what is a traditional way of thinking (after all, it is just a definition; just a word to distinguish between people who think differently - or rather, cmoe to a different conclusion).

5. "Freethinking" is still in relation to causal chains.  It is not really "free", it is just a different conclusion.

6. We ALL have our own causal chain, and will interact with other causal chains based on the decisions we make in reaction to events in our environment.

7.  We all make decisions based on a whole host of events that preceded us that we have no control over.

9. Our reaction affects other people, just as their actions affect ours.

10. Nothing exists in a vacuum in the philosophical sense.

11. Determinism simply suggests that our causal chain is exactly what it is.  It is less a predictive view, but an explanatory view.  That is, theoretically we MAY be able to know exactly what will happen, and what we will think 20 years from now, but we don't and that gives us the appearance of having control over our "path".

daedalus wrote:
8.  When we react, and hope to change our "path", it is actually still our causal chain.  (Whether there are multiple realities or not - they are all "ours" )

I am not saying I necessarily disagree with this statement. I am simply not sure what you are saying here. "Multiple realities" are all ours? What does this mean?

Items 12 and 13 are not really relevant to this thread. Be that as it may, I would agree with 12. I do not agree with 13. Number 13 is actually contradictory. If determinism is true, then there are no random events.

daedalus wrote:
12. A God would know the future only if Determinism is true. Otherwise, even a God could not know random events - if they are truly random.

13. If your god doesn't know the future, it is because of the random events affect the outcome of events - which means Determinism is true - since it is a causal chain that, even though has random events in it, is dependent on the event that precedes each event.

daedalus wrote:
14. Unless you can show that a unique, willful (not random) event can be create ex nihilio, then you can't show that there is Free Will.

If quantum indeterminacy is true, then science has evidence that physical events are occurring without physical cause. Atheistic materialism is incapable of accounting for uncaused events. (Actually, uncaused events invalidates materialism.) Also, there is scientific evidence that all mass/energy reduces to a quantum vacuum (essentially nothing). That virtual particles are popping in and out of existence smacks of creation ex nihilo. What do you think?

daedalus wrote:
15. If Free Will doesn't exist, then the Xian God, and many others has been proven to not exist.

I am not here to argue the "Christian God." That being said, determinism is not necessarily incompatible with certain forms of Christianity (e.g. it is my understanding that Calvinism teaches "compatibilism" ).

Also, pantheism is compatible with determinism.

daedalus wrote:
16. We can't prove a negative: We can't prove Free Will doesn't exist, but we can show that there is no evidence for it.

There is evidence for free will. It's called "first-person experience." And the fact that you expressed "hope that you may change your path" leads me to believe that you have this first-person experience too. Free will may will be illusory but the onus is upon you to dispel the myth by providing evidence that it does not exist. 

daedalus wrote:
I will add that science has also shown that our reactions are more bodily, and THEN (a fraction of a second later) our brain kicks in a either says "no" or does exactly what our body was going to do anyhow.  That is, the brain doesn't say "yes", or thinks about things. It only has veto power.  That is, science is showing that we have much less control over our actions than we ever realized. Adding support to Determinism.

Forgetting the fact that you are blithley making unsupported assertions (you didn't cite a source). This doesn't prove anything.

daedalus wrote:
You are who you are just because, and I am the same. We had no choice over the matter, and have no choice over what will happen in the future.  You will turn out exactly as your "causal chain" will end up, and where it is going. 

If determinism is true, then there is no separate "you" and "me." The only thing exercising intelligence is what you call the "causal chain." That the entire natural process exercises intelligence implies pantheism, not atheism. Remember, deterministic materialism implies that eveything that arises in the world is the result of the natural process playing itself out. IOW, naturual causation is responsible for the development of planes, trains, and automobiles. Moreover, determinisim actually implies some kind of anthropic principle because the fact that we are here discussing this matter could not have been otherwise.

"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
SEXY ATHEISM = PANTHEISM

 SEXY ATHEISM can =  PANTHEISM , PANENTHEISM , BUDDHISM  !                   


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
Kind caring wise Paisley. I'm quit positive you are not understanding the "awe" of the atheist, .... the "awe" you also share. This thread is largely a linguistic communication problem. Isn't it ???

The "materialist" recognizes the complexity of consciousness and that it may have a unique place in the  E/M  cosmos, of undetectable dimensions, as we now call them, that QM suggests.

Thing is , ALL is connected, All is ONE ....  Why freak on it?,  a Buddha would ask ....

   How would you preach your message Paisley ?  What is your point AGAIN ????  

Would you rather that I sing "I am the Walrus" like you?

http://www.metrolyrics.com/i-am-the-walrus-lyrics-beatles.html

 

"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
Yeah , I like it !

Yeah , I like it !


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
WE ARE ONE !The Beatles - I

WE ARE ONE !

The Beatles - I Am The Walrus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOKvonLrH8

                                 


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

Thomathy wrote:

Paisley, that's not an ad hominem and I really doubt that BMcD is angry.  He's likely annoyed.  In fact, I believe you mean to have written that, 'This ad hominem (sic) attack reveals annoyance.'  Stop being dishonest.  Also, if anger is not directed at a person whom, exactly, is it supposed to make feel quilty?  I don't believe you are really as stupid as you continue to prove yourself, but you give us all very little else to go on and so my nagging suspicion that you're actually a dolt continues.  Maybe you'll actually succeed in actually making someone angry before this thread gets closed down.

(This thread must be getting close to being closed, Paisley is absolutely as stubborn and as ignorant and dishonest as mehpisobeth, if not as insane, and there really is nothing left to debate about the original post or about the other topics which have been scraped up.)

Based on your post, it doesn't appear that you know the definition of "ad hominem."

"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 brother , let's have

Paisley brother , let's have a beautiful song contest !!!

                


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
ARABS (( to BACH ))Well,

ARABS (( to BACH ))

Well, regarding the contest, the up-loaders in Youtube are mostly young. BUT this I  found.  ((( My CD collection is much sweeter. )))

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3wef_F_xvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwGPCidA6tk

The Real Arabs !! , 3 min video ,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tCLjFwEOWs

....  some thoughts, from California,

Looking at the the mideast today reminds me of our own European history. The separation of church/state and the Bill of Rights was a huge lucky achievement. The Thomas Jeffersons of the mideast are being silenced. The TV / Radio is of course also muted.     

I am ashamed of our own media today, especially TV, that presents a biased degrading image of the muslim world. It is brainwash .... and it's all over the world .....

STOP DIVISION, no more "Theisms" , FIRST Say we are ONE ....

 


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

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Language is a precise tool. It should be used with precision. I encourage you to make the effort to do so, rather than the blunt-force linguistic trauma you seem prone to.

It was an ad hominem attack. And all your ranting and rambling is not going to change this basic fact.

Not at all. It was neither "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect" (definition 1 from Webster), nor "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made" (definition 2). In fact, I specifically avoided attacking your character. You will note, as I pointed out before, that I referred to perceptions others might hold about your character, and then opined that it might be due to a condition quite outside your control. Neither of these is an attack on your character (both, in fact, quite specifically leave the matter of your actual character completely out of the equation, and make no reference to it), and neither appeals to feelings or prejudices. Rather, I appealed to your understanding that your points are rendered less effective by the prejudices of others, an understanding you demonstrated being capable of having in the other thread, as I indicated.

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
BMcD wrote:
And once again: Anger need not be directed. Anger can just be.

"All anger is nothing more than an attempt to make someone feel guilty." (source: ACIM)

Well, then I hate to tell you this, but if that's supposed to be an authoritative and exhaustive explanation of all anger, it's woefully inadequate. Anger is often, in fact, a fear reaction. It's the emotional label for the 'fight' segment of the Fight/Flight reaction. While it is often wielded to evoke guilt, that's a learned behavior we develop. The real purpose of anger is often to allow us to confront, rather than flee, that which makes us feel threatened.

I agree.

1)  You feel threatened by the coffee table and are attempting to fight it?

2) You feel threatened by yourself (because you are responsible for stubbing your toe) and are attempting to fight yourself?

3) You feel threatened by the "powers that be" which allowed this misfortune (stubbing your toe) come your way and now you are angry with God and attempting to confront him?

You've missed the obvious (and I would say likely most often accurate) scenario:

4) You feel threatened by the situation and the sudden, surprising sensation of pain, and your reptile brain spins up the 'fight' reaction in response to the unknown. Now, once you're angry, and realize what's happened, this can easily transition into (2), but that's really more of a 'I have this anger, now what do I *do* with it?' reaction from the higher brain, as a mechanism for dealing with the physical stress that results from the chemical/hormonal component of the reptile brain's immediate reaction. The actual threat perceived is exactly not that: perceived. The perception of 'threat' comes from the very unexpected nature of the event, and the triggered emotional and chemical/hormonal response is a response to unknown danger, albeit a danger the reptile brain assesses as 'low risk', or we'd react by fleeing from the table.

Which, I admit, would be damned funny to see.

Paisley wrote:

Incidentally, for someone who professes to have "no beliefs," you're very opinionated.

Once more, I can only interact with the reality I perceive. If I invest those perceptions with no trust or confidence, then there is no belief engendered by taking a position of 'If what I perceive is real, then I perceive myself to hold this opinion. However, I cannot find cause to actively assert that either my perception of reality, or my perception of my own opinions, are true. I may be wrong.'

We've also covered that I tend to not complicate my style of prose by incorporating the full disclaimer into every statement, especially given that all of these statements are, or seem to be, made within the context of the perceptions of reality that I cannot place any confidence, trust, or faith in.

Really, Paisley, I accept that you're going to keep trying this tactic, but I would have to say it seems likely that it's going to continue to not be terribly effective.

"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
Heal the God of Abraham

Heal the God of Abraham DIVIDERS , they are our lost brothers and sisters .... LOST in the AWE  .....


Jim Smith
Theist
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-10-10
User is offlineOffline
Re Post 397 by daedalus

Thanks for your reply.  I'm sorry to hear about your job--I've been there.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:daedalus

Paisley wrote:

daedalus wrote:
8.  When we react, and hope to change our "path", it is actually still our causal chain.  (Whether there are multiple realities or not - they are all "ours" )

I am not saying I necessarily disagree with this statement. I am simply not sure what you are saying here. "Multiple realities" are all ours? What does this mean?

Simply that even if we believe we have changed our path, that it is still our path and was never going to be changed (though we think it is).  The reason we made the change is because of things that can be explained Deterministically.

 

Quote:
Items 12 and 13 are not really relevant to this thread. Be that as it may, I would agree with 12. I do not agree with 13. Number 13 is actually contradictory. If determinism is true, then there are no random events.
I don't know where you get this idea.  Of course random events can happen in a Deterministic Universe (we have shown that they certainly seem to through QT).

 

However, those random events may or may not have an impact on the macro world: to clarify.

 

A Cue ball is hit and heads towards the 8 ball.  It may hit a little tuft of felt, or a wind may marginally knock it, but all things can be explained using Newtonian Physics as it knock the 8 Ball into the pocket.

 

Now, the fact that, at the Quantum level, there is a dizzying fireworks display of random and non-random events has made no difference to the trajectory of the billiard balls.

 

Likewise, our chemicals are not affected by QM.  That is, the protein in our body stays protein, unless it intracts - predictabley - with something that breaks-down protein.

 

QT doesn't suggest that the way our bodies interact with the macro world are changed by events in the Quantum world - not appreciatively.  And here's the thing - even if they did affect our decisions, or life in some way, it would still be Deterministic.  Something is acting on US and we react to IT.

 

For example, it would be like you flipping a coin for every decision you make:  Are you excersizing Free Will because you are reacting to the random flip of the coin?  No.

Quote:
If quantum indeterminacy is true, then science has evidence that physical events are occurring without physical cause. Atheistic materialism is incapable of accounting for uncaused events. (Actually, uncaused events invalidates materialism.) Also, there is scientific evidence that all mass/energy reduces to a quantum vacuum (essentially nothing). That virtual particles are popping in and out of existence smacks of creation ex nihilo. What do you think?
Again, I don't know where you get your ideas of atheism or Materialism.

 

These are discoveries made by scientists and they were discovered because the math and evidence has led them to it.  They aren't being created ex nihlio: there is an energy field and that field's total value is 0. 

 

This may be happening without physical cause (if I understand you to mean Matter), but Matter & Energy are two things that are interlinked. Matter IS Energy.  Remember: E=mc2?

 

I would turn the particles popping into existence back to you: if this is so common, why do you feel the Big Bang needs some intelligence to start it?  And, if so, why is this same "being" doing it continuously?  Maybe god is just a mindless lighter that keeps flicking for eternity - that like we eat and naturally produce crap, god naturally produces particles ?

 

I think you vastly misunderstand atheism, Materialism and Determinism.  Would you care to read about them?

 

Quote:

There is evidence for free will. It's called "first-person experience." And the fact that you expressed "hope that you may change your path" leads me to believe that you have this first-person experience too. Free will may will be illusory but the onus is upon you to dispel the myth by providing evidence that it does not exist.

What is Hope?  It is the feeling created by the knowledge that things can be better because you've experienced it in some way. 

 

It's in reaction to something - not Willed ex nihilio from your mind.

 

 

Again, someone else came up with the term "Free Will" let them prove it exists.  Why would you ask me to disprove a negative?  i thought we have graduated past this.

 

I don't doubt that there is the existence of Will, but there is no reason to think it is Free.  We live in a universe in which things affect each other.

 

 

 

I will return - if it is what the universe determines....


 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov