Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why do you consider yourself more capable at interpreting the available body of knowledge than everyone whose literal jobs it is to report science accurately?
IF your analyses is correct, THEN you should publish it in a scientific journal and change climate science forever
ELSEWISE, why do you you trust a document from a dubious source that isn't even peer-reviewed?
In other words: Occams razor tells us that a single unqualified individual disagreeing with well-established science is most likely wrong, rather than the science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It could be about plausible deniability.
More likely than not he is doing the excact opposite. Lack of evidence for something that would require extraordinary evidence shows us that God is irrelevant. And the argument is silly regardless. In this world there are still flat-earthers, so God is not in any danger of proving himself at the expence of free will.
Worse, if God wants people not to believe in him then he wants them to burn in hell. I see that as deliberate irresponsibility, certainly evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I do the same, because I know that the benefit of my expenses would be lost to me as an individual. I recognize the dangers, but I am not a perfect drone for society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I totally agree with you that many people are either being hypocritical (they believe but don't act) or they are bullshitting (saying not truth but what serves their interests).
However when we consider evidence the climate is changing as a matter of fact, the scientific consensus is clear on this topic.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Any comments on the horrendous mistreatment of gay people that leads to suicide? What about Christians that themselves refuse to follow the commandments of God?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You want them to stop being themselves and to be ashamed of who they really are. Thats excactly the problem. You cannot change their sexual orientation like you can their behaviour -- all you can do is oppress it by threatening them with eternal fire and social pressure. Only a miracle could truly achieve the transformation they would need and apparently God isn't too keen on doing them these days. Your arrogance blinds you from realizing that you are no better than the gays.
We need them to stop being so proud of their sinning
Thats a straw man if I ever saw one. What makes you think that having sex makes someone proud? As far as I know they are not proud of being LGBT+, but because they are fighting oppression and nonsensical hatred. Their pride will evaporate when being LGBT+ is no longer proof of courage, that is to say, when you ceice being dicks.
We also want fags to stop spreading faggotry.
You misunderstand the issue at hand. Faggotry cannot be spread, it is limited by the number of fags that are born. The question is will you treat them as "ultra-sinners"?
They just want fags to stop doing degenerate things to each other
First of, pedophiles do not have sexual prefenses like LGBT, they have degenerate age prefences, your accusation fails. Pedophilia is not prohibited by the Bible anyways.
So basically your entire argument is a strawman of Christians.
Negative. I did not mention any Christian arguments. I only stated the facts about Christian behaviour being incompatible with ethics, science and even the Bible.
Created:
Some christians love to use the Bible to condemn the LGBT community. There are people who think that gay people are worse than everyone else - despite mainstream theology stating that all humans are born sinners by default. Apart from the logical fallacies at play, the behavior born from these views are outright unethical. The result of Christian demonization is often unjustifiable social sanctions, hate and stigma leading to depression and suicide among gays and others.
Allow me to present one of the most ignored messages in the entire Bible.
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.No human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, OPEN TO REASON, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
Allow me to summarize:
- Everyone is sinfull. The type of sin is irrelevant to God, nobody is better than anyone else.
- Your prayers will heal people consistently if you are actually righteous.
- God demands the avoidance of anger and verbal attacks -- he demands one is always gentle, peacefull and open to reason.
- If you do not actively help the weakest in society it shows that your faith is worthless and that you won't go to heaven.
This is confirmed by the savior himself. Jesus is written to have called for his diciples to take the gospel around the world, to heal the sick, sell their possesions, give to the poor. He said the one not willing to leave family behind and die for his cause was not worthy to be his diciple. Meanwhile, the average christian critic of LGBT+ is a selfish westerner who barely believes in --- far less follows --- the teachings of Messiah. The prayers of these people are not answered and any critique of others they make based on the Bible is both logically fallacious and utterly hypocritical. Their own salavation is highly dubious at best, and they certainly cannot claim any moral highground.
If you reject the scientific literature about genetic basis for LGBT+, the biblical narrative itsell will still affirms that all people are born sinfull and incapable of following God's standard. Even if the omnibenevolent entitiy called God abhors the genetic traits of a person he himself designed perfectly, it still makes no difference. Jesus tells us that the one without sin can cast the first stone -- which means nobody is entitled to downtroding others even if they are hopeless sinners. The fact that ignorant christians are murdering large percentages of LGBT+ people through their unethical words and actions, is astonishing.
What is the difference between throwing literal stones or verbal stones when the end result is the same: extreme pain and eventual death. Answer: ignorance. Christians are ignorant of their own footprint, of science, justice, ethics and even the values and expectations of their own savior. Just like in the middle ages.
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
The christian world overcame the curse of religion by thinking freely and critically as well as embrace secularism and allow the development of science. Our world is no longer culturally Christian. The Islamic world is a horrible place because they have yet to embrace secullarism. Christianity and Islam can both loose followers but the important thing is that the religious people ceise to act based on that religion.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Correct. Thats also why we can have more confident in science than any other source.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
There is a difference between state propaganda and the undeniable facts. Resisting oppression is a good thing; denying independently verified facts is not.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Both I and Oromagi know scientific literature and journals. The problem arises when the masses due to ignorance or laziness never navigates this landscape. The idea presented would serve a crucial role in making the science more accesible to rather large majority of the population. Nobody claims science itself needs of such a site.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Wikipedia is flawed in many ways, as it trades quality for relevance and size. I hope you know the difference between peer-reviewed studies and the average wikipedia article. The idea was to collect as much as possible of the highest quality knowledge into a wikipedia format. That way, the source would be extremely reliable.
Created:
If you're saying you want to completely silence conspiracy theorists, that's the bullshit I won't stand for.
Funny that you should mention conspiracy theories. I holeheartedly support the idea of intelectual discussion and the avoidance of groupthink to facility new creative solutions and perspectives. However, I still hate conspiracy theories. Crazy theories are one thing, conspiracy is some next level accusation. The idea that everyone else is dishonest and untrustworthy is, to put it mildly, bollocks. The fear of an establishment, victim mentality and superiority complex are dangerous too. So while I don't support censorship or shaming of unfortunate victims of conspiracy theories, I certainly cannot respect them like I do other beliefs.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Let me cite the idea as oromagi originally put it:
I would like to a see an international, science-backed project on the scale and order of the IPCC working to present a single, vigorously curated and comprehensively verified source of factual information readily and freely available online. Something like a Wikipedia but sticking strictly to thoroughly verified, peer-reviewed and consensus factual information.
Again -- there is no censorship or even calling out wrong information. All it does is make it easier to find correct information about different subjects.
If you're arguing that there needs to be science that's officially published in articles and textbooks, that happens already.
The argument is that the factual content of the most credible scientific literature should be made easy to navigate through for an average person in a format like a wiki.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You can't tell me what a scientific truth is
Scientific: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
To say somebody is denying a truth is ridiculous.
I deny your notion that truth cannot be denied. Either I am denying a truth, making your claim false, or your claim is false and I affirmed the truth by denying your claim.
Do you know what the scientific process is?
Did you read my inital post? I literally explain why the scientific method is the best way to arrive at truth and discuss problems science education faces.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Quit lying. My argument has nothing to do with popularity. I am saying that if you deny the scientific facts you are being unscientific. Notice how that is true by definiton.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Do you have any evidence or reason for making these accusations? Or do you naturally craft bollocks at whim.
Created:
I asked you what limitations you will have in place in order to inhibit this access.
You misunderstand the nature of the science promotion idea. There is no censorship or attack on anyone - the internet will be free as always. The people can chose to listen to alternative "facts" if they like. The idea was for an internation team of professionals to collect the most well-established scientific facts into a single place. That way, one can learn about the scientific facts without wasting time navigating the scientific literature or relying ong unreliable third party sites.
How is opinion different to fact
A fact is a valid observation about reality confirmed by evidence. No claim unconfirmed by evidence can be called fact. Opinions that directly contradict facts are by definition false. Just because someone disbelieves in the corona virus does not mean that there is valid reason for discussion. Opinions should be accepted for discussion only when they are based on the facts, not when they contradict them. In cases where evidence is lacking or unclear - thats where controversy is justified.
you are saying that
- the opinion of the qualified is to be taken as true without questioning it
- the opinion of the unqualified is to be taken as untrue without considering it
The former claim is false. Evidence is necesary for the confirmation of a fact, and not scientific theory has ever been established without intense scrutiny. The latter claim is true. Untill a claim is proven true it should be assumed untrue. The fallacy that you are making is failing to acknowledge the meaning between a fact and opinion. If your opinion contradicts the evidence it means it must be false unless the evidence changes. This is not called censorship, it is called logic.
Any who oppose any of its conclusions are deemed unworthy
Nope. The site does not attempt to judge people, its mission is to report the known facts. People who oppose the science can go challenge the science directly if they want.
Created:
Perhaps it's just not necessary for everyone to be aware of the truth.
I am a firm believer in pluralism of ideas and opinions, especially in a democracy. However for constructive discourse one needs a common ground of established facts. Let me give an example. How can one productively discuss public health policy without aggreing on the science of biology and socioeconomics? Maybe its not even possible. In other scenarioes ignorance of the truth can have devastating outcomes like a defunct climate policy. We should be gratefull for freedom of speech and public disagreement is a good sign -- but ignorance and misinformation should still be combated just like they try to combat the correct information.
Very few people possess the need to know thing.
I would say very few people are smart enoug to know that other people know more than them. Most people value truth and always attribute it to their own beliefs.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Who decides what's 'correct'?
Nobody will be allowed to controll the flow of information to their liking. Correct means free for error; in accordance with fact or truth. The hypothetical source of correct information won't filter things through biased lenses or make up things --- it will simply report whatever information the sum of research shows to be correct.
Yes, you did, you are just being cunning as hell about your wording.,
Just because I want the truth to be heard loudest doesn't mean I support any kind of censorship or silencing of others. You may be tempted to assume I am arrogant and want all opposition thrown out the window, but that is far from the truth. Just in this year many of the views I have been exposed to on this site have convinced me to change my mind. What makes you think I am sneakily a dogmatic thinker irking for media censorship?
Why are people lacking superficial qualifications not allowed to speak their mind?
Wy are unqualified people not allowed to write their own unscientific opinion in the world's collection of knowledge as if it were a fact? The answer is simple: Because they are not qualified and opinion is different from fact and their oppinion just so happens to contradict all scientific evidence. Do you really believe that for a factual source to be unbiased it has to embrace any and all opinions? What if two views contradict each other and the evidence clearly supports the first view?
What limitations will occur on their communicative tools?
None. You are imagining malintention where there is none. Nobody will be censored, the idea is to promote correct information and present it as such.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Don't put words in my mouth. I never spoke a word about disallowing certain viewpoints or cancelling others to create an echo chamber. I am all for debate and disagreement. My point that you ignored was that unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth. I hope we can all agree that we shoud promote facts rather than fallacies. The only relevant question is how to responsibly promote the truth.
You simply skipped over the important points of mine. Disagreing with a unanimous expert consensus regarding an established fact is almost always a sign that you are wrong. I am not saying scientists should stop discussing new ideas or considering the posibility of being wrong -- I am saying that we should distinguish between facts established through the scientific method and claims that lack evidential support. The former is dogmatism while the latter is skepticism.
And how would you achieve this 'loudness'? How would you 'quieten' those you deem unworthy and 'charlatan'?
You read what I said. Charlatans can spout on, this is not a case for censorship. The idea presented was a source that only contains accurate information. This would give truth a communicative advantage because everyone's go-to site for information would be reliable and factually correct. With the truth readily available lazyness would no longer be a hindrance for people. The vision is simply a world in which the default source is also the most correct. How excactly is this bad?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Groupthink is bad, but expert consensus is not. What is proposed is creating a universally accepted source of reliable information, not to censor inner discussion in the scientific community. I agree with oromagi that this is a good idea. Many laymen cannot dig into the literature themselves and certainly do not have a more correct picture of the data than actual experts. Unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth. I believe elevating the truth above everything else will be a beneficial change to the media landscape. By imposing scientific restrictions on what can be taught as fact, the proposed source would trancend controversy. After all, controversial issues are often the result of the lack of definitive evidence or scientific self-scrutiny. When science has settled an issue it means that all reasonable doubt has been silenced by overwhelming evidence. Those that reject expert consensus are not concerned with what is factually true. I feel that it is both reasonable and justifiable to promote the facts and discredit misinformation.
That is more, not less, open to groupthink shaming things outside the norm ideas into silence.
Scientists don't give a damn about what random charletans say, and the same is true the other way around. Shaming people into silence is both virtually impossible and unthinkeable for experts. The idea is not to silence people but to allow those who are qualified to speak louder than everyone else. How is this bad?
I feel the need to clarify that I am talking about promoting facts, not opinion. The ideological battles can continue raging on but with misinformation being called out.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Taking care of everyone does not in any way affect the average IQ scores because evolution has not had time to kick in just the last 3 generations. Intelligence increase can be attributed to medicinal and nutritional advancements. I agree with you that knowledge and intelligence are different. In fact that is the whole point. Many people are stupid not because they lack in IQ but because they lack or disagree with common proven knowledge. Do you have any idea of how to educate such people?
Created:
Truth be told, when supposedly educated people trust crystals more than vaccines, they are no different from uneducated peasants in the third world. They may be experts at reading, writing and believing nonsense; that doesn't make them educated by todays standards and they certainly cannot be called knowledgeable. The question we should be asking is whether or not it is even worth it to try and help them out, or even possible. To what extent can adults be educated?
There are many obvious obstacles truth must overcome in contemporary America:
- Religion and other forms of unfounded beliefs are firmly established in indoctrinated minds. Many people have become immune to truth. By definition, echo chambers prevent misinformation from being corrected - especially when faith or "anecdotal evidence" is trusted above real evidence that is verifiable.
- Lack of education is a hard nut to crack because many unconciously avoid finding, learning and remembering correct information. Sometimes it is not mallicious intent or indoctrination that causes the spread of misinformation, but rather intelectual laziness and lack of skepticism. When people have enough of an open mind, their brain falls out. People sorely need to recognize untrustworthy sources and fake facts, but they cannot do so without putting in some effort.
- Big lies feeds on widespread ignorance and distrust of authority (whatever all the experts agree on). Any attempt at helping people will be portrayed as an oppressive establishment stricking down dissent. For this reason, trying to cure ignorance can sometimes backfire.
- The greatest problem is that lack of education is not the real problem. The average IQ and knowledge is way higher today than most of history. But the way modern media works, people are educated in different directions. Factually accurate education is hard to come by, it is drowned in a sea of dishonest alternatives. The layman learns from his sources, trusting them regardless of their trustworthiness. Most such sources are driven by political, religious or ideological agendas to cherry pick information and perspectives. Even if they don't outright lie they hide the truth when it conflicts with their narrative. They shoot a constant barrage of fallacious arguments at the gullible person with devastating success, no matter the absurdity of their position.
- A person is likely to host a growing colony of misconceptions because there are a quadrillion ways to view the world, most of which are objectively incorrect. Human cognition also suffer from biases and logical fallacies obscuring our ability to decipher the validity of arguments and claims.
Finding the truth is not a piece of cake, quite the contrary. Science only finds the truth by studying all available evidence and exposing any hypothesis to intense scrutiny. Any charletan can claim that science is wrong -- but it takes the cumulative effort of scientists worldwide to find real flaws in their models. And when they do, they rejoyce because it means progress. If a person does not trust established science it means they do not understand how science is established. The most crucial element of rehabilitating a fool is to teach them how evidence works, how logic works, how to be skeptical and detect illogical propaganda.
They need to know WHY science is trustworthy -- only then can one learn to trust it. Trust is a good thing when you deserve it, and science definately deserves trust.
I am curious to hear what you have to add to this conversation. What other aspects are there to the problem? Am I over-exagerating it? What are possible solutions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The problem with "listen to the science" is that it doesn't add anything usefull to the conversation. Everyone agrees that we should base our actions on facts rather than fiction --- but people are generally bad at distinguishing credible science from bollocks. Listening to science is far too vague, it cannot prevent uneducated fools from trusting some random source because they don't know how to detect real science. "Listen to the science" may be misused as a justification to trust your own "research" into "the science". Put simply, people can listen to anything and believe it to be sciecne. A better way to communicate the consensus of science is to say:
"Be aware that ............ is a scientific fact you can't ignore".
This gets the relevant point across without relying on people's own ability to understand science. The average person won't read the peer-reviewed scientific literature just because some political figure asked them to --- if they are to hear sound scientific facts they must be told directly. When you are specific in your appeal to science you are simultaniously discrediting all the untrustworthy sources out there propagating bogous claims that contradict the evidence.
What I am saying is that "listen to the science" is ineffective because nobody knows how to tell science from bullshit. Politicians should cite specific facts instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
1) "Lets reform education." --- First of, make education fair. Simply living in a poor neighbourhood should not be reason for your school to lack necesary funding. Second, college tuitions should not put you in dangerous levels of debt and college should focus on teaching skills that actually are valuable in the workplace rather than purely academics and politics. Throughout the education process, at least untill high school, standardized testing and excessive homework should be abolished. These make children stressed and worsen their life quality while providing no concrete benefit. Having time for sleep, social life, recreational activities and resting is far more important and benefitial for students. We haven't changed the school system much since it was invented. If we want to reform it we will have to revise the way school works while utilizing new scientific findings about mental health in particular and learning generally.
Created:
I 100% this direction for the site. Even the most talented debaters get demotivated when nobody votes and the votes that are cast are written like by bots: that is to say, most votes are merely "FF" or some other short text with nothing to learn from. Making voting a big deal is absolutely the way to go.
Created:
Posted in:
Will is the ability to have priorities and make choices with future results in mind. Any conscious lifeform should have some form of will, but intelligent beings especially.
We choose according to our strongest desire at the moment of the choice.
True. And that desire comes from biological inclination and prior experience. This is just a simpler way of saying that the physical brain choses which neurons to fire based on how it has been molded by neuroplasticity. But none of these flashy science words affect the evergreen argument that your molded self controls choice.
choice doesn't even exist if physical determinism is true
Choice is to pick between options. The brain processed information and makes a conclusion on which action to take by sending out neurological signals to the rest of the body, the muscles in the particular. Chosing between juice and milk just involves the brain selecting the prefered option and activating the consumption of it. The whole process is deterministic yet the two cups were still there, in reach. Obviously, choice can be deterministic, unless you bake "free" into it's very definiton.
I believe humans have a will that is free to make choices, but it is not free to make spontaneous choices free from any prior desires or inclinations.
Then we pretty much agree that choice is bound by what preceeded it. Any such choice is by definition deterministic unless it's random.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
The existence of Free Will, as in the will to act in the world without God's knowledge & will, entails a non-existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent being, thus the non-existence of God.
Excactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
- We are discussing whether or not human will is free.
- Free will demands non-determinism, lest it can't be called free.
- Choice cannot violate physical determinism or the determinism of a creator's will.
- You agree with the latter claim, and believe in a creator God.
- Meanswhile, all scientific evidence supports the former claim.
- If we are to trust scientific evidence, (or your own statement), human will cannot be free.
Could you please provide an unambigous answer to the coming question? How free do you believe our will is, and what evidence supports your view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Your answers are far too ambigous. You seem to imply that free will is subject God's decree, and that freedom from said decree is only a requirement for "libertarian" free will. What is the difference between libertarian free will and normal free will, would you profess acceptance for the latter idea?
humans are moral agents capable of making decisions and being responsible for those decisions.
This is a truism. When a human decides to act a certain way, x happens. That person is then responsible for x.
This means that our decisions are not merely an illusion, nor are they strictly the product of brain states. Both Scripture and experience tell us that we make choices.
Our decisions are proven scientifically. MRI scans reveal them as bursts of brain activity leading up to a made conclusion. We can directly observe the existence of choices this way, and also infer it from human behavior. If humans did not make choices, we wouldn't be able to move or talk to each other. You apparently reject scientific evidence showing that choice is an emergent feature of the physical brain. Why is that? Considering the fact that choices must come from somewhere, it seems irrational to dismiss the evidence and scientific consensus by denying that choice is controlled by brain states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I have answered all your questions, now could you explain your own view.
- Do you believe in free will, if so, could you define it and provide evidence for it?
- How do you reconsile free will with belief in an omnicient creator God?
- There are very strong and clear arguments for free will being an illusion regardless of whether or not God exists. Do you ignore these or do you have rebutalls?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Our predetermined choices do matter and definately affect other people. A person saved from drowning lives on instead of dying, that's a clear difference. Whether or not the rescue mission was destined to succed does not change the outcome. If you only looked at the drowning person you would have no clue about his fortunate survival, but if you observed the whole universe you would know about the rescue mission far in advance. The only additional element in a deterministic world is that the universal observer could know with absolute certainty that the rescue mission would succeed.
How can our actions be the predetermined results of the universe's trajectory that we have no ability to change, yet our actions can change the trajectory of other people
Your implied critique of my statements is that a part of a predetermined universe must also be predetermined, so when we affect other people we aren't causing "real" change. The perspective here is very important. When I say we change a persons trajectory, I am saying that person A affect person B for better or for worse. From person B's perspective this interaction came as a surprise and led to a change in life course through the butterfly effect. A universal observer already knew this interaction would happen.
The trajectory of individuals is their life, while the trajectory of the universe is history. Neither violates strict deterministic causality, but only the latter is changed by external forces. That is to say, the universe is a closed system, while everything inside of it are open systems, subject to change by external forces. Still, the only indeterminism a person experiences is the predetermined interactions with external systems. The concepts of luck, free will and chance are illusions made from the limited perspective of human individuals.
When we change the trajectory of other humans, we are really just affecting their lives and their experiences --- we aren't violating determinism.
What I do have to admit is that determinism only applies to closed systems. If you define freedom as the effects of a system being open, then I would have to agree with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You seem to deny that there is any semblance of human will that can actually choose between two options in a way that is not inevitably determined by natural processes outside the individual's control.
All forces in the universe but gravity are understood as effects of particle interactions. As a sidenote, the laws of physics have been different in the past due to different physical conditions that changed the forms energy took on. The laws of physics should be viewed as just our mathematical description of how things behave, observations, rather than some external entity or law. When I say your brain can't break the laws of physics, what I am really saying is that the atoms in your brain aren't magical, they behave just as any other atom would do. Your choices are dependent upon the excact state of your brain, for the simple reason that it is the brain which makes decisions. Combining these ideas shows us that the physical laws only describe the choices we make and why we make them, they don't really controll them, as they aren't real laws.
More consicely: you are not "controlled" by physical processes. You are in fact a physical process yourself, one called life.
Could the school shooter have chosen to do otherwise based on your previous statements about the cause of human actions?
The problem with classical free will is that it assumes merely rewinding history without changing anything leads to a different outcome; thus invoking randomness into human decisions. I believe a school shooter's brain isn't random, meaning the decision to commit mass murder is caused by the mess going on up in his mind. To clarify: I am saying that any two different choices would have had to be made by different states of mind. Had a school shooters brain been different he would have made different choices --- not because he was forced to but because he would have been different as a person. The ability to chose otherwise is only actualised by having a different state of mind. Society has a moral responsibility to cultivate good states of mind, before and after the fact. Prevention and rehabilitation.
Here is the inconsistency . Trace that back to some cosmic beginning, and everything is ultimately the inevitable product of the Big Bang. You are powerless to change that trajectory.
The big bang is the furthest past our universe, so it logically follows that changes to this time period would produce a different contemporary world. The same could be said about any other time period, including yesterday. Yes, it is impossible for humans to change the trajectory of the universe --- the reason being that we are inside it. Whatever we do is already a part of the universe's trajectory, so our actions changing it makes no logical sense. I fail to see how merely describing determnism is an effective rebuttal, or why this view is incosistent. Regarding morality: Our actions do change the trajectory of other people, and that is ultimately what matters.
Created:
Posted in:
When we see a despicable man we see evil traits. Determinism tells us that the person couldn't have ended up differently, but it provides no reason as to why we should accept this trait existing. Defeating evil is still a good thing to do in a determinstic world, and your choice to fight for what's right is equally real. Determinism doesn't remove personal responsibility or justify evil. If anything, the notion that our actions directly controll the future should amplify our desire for virtue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
There is no clear definition I am afraid. But nobody would contest that a homeless boy in India pickpocketing tourists in order to survive, or a depressed suicidal drug adict in prison, are both examples of criminals actually being the victim of unfortunate circumstances. School shooters on the other hand have already made a decision to massacre before comming to School. Chosing to be a criminal means planning out an immoral act rather than getting progressively forced into a lifestyle by external circumstances. Such a criminal might not as easily regret their crime as they certainly justified the act beforehand and thus rejects the moral standards of society. To put it simply, some people have such a twisted mind that they want to become criminals and then chose to commit terrible crimes.
Now onto morals.
Behaviour that prevents the well-being of humans is undeniably a problem for human society. This is the core fact we must consider. Criminals exhibit this behaviour, but they are not themselves the problem. Determining what is objectively a problem requires moral reasoning. Logical scrutiny often exposes traditional standards and valued as flawed and inconsistent. Whenever this happens, society progresses. Whenever moral nonsense is fabricated, or read from old dusty books, groups of people suffer. Generally speaking, freedom and tolerance are good indicators of a moral society. Persecution and oppression of minorities indicate the opposite. Any moral standard that encourages oppression is at ods with the core idea of morality: that everyone be better off because of your actions. Invoking evolution to moraly justify rape is to misunderstand morality. Society's goal is the survival and prospering of not just the fittest but everyone else as well. A culture which doesn't value this end goal I would not call moral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The implication of the evidence I have presented earlier [#50] is that the cause of crimals is the way people were raised, their genes, their experiences; or something as random as a brain tumour causing pedophilic lust in a person. Factually speaking, a criminal is nothing more than a human with a smaller og bigger problem; and they certainly didn't all consciously chose to become criminal. There is no hard evidence that commiting a crime justifies, nay demands, punishment. The entire concept of "deserving" certain treatment is not clearly defined.Justice as a concept and an institution comes from the acknowledgement that we need to enforce our standards for good and evil. People exist who lack empathy and who are willing to take advantage of and even hurt other people. Punishment gives people non-virtuous motivation to pursue a moral lifestyle. A good justice system also priorities rehabilitative measures as to minimise the damage and cost crime causes society.
Created:
Posted in:
[--> EtrnlVw]:
Conscious life has no equations, no formulas or predictability of outcome.
Consciousness is the state of being aware and reactive to your surroundings. Anything with enough intelligence and sensory input can become conscious. Contrary to your notion that consciousness isn't systematic, the fact of the matter is that consciousness is an integral part of our brain structure: it is the sum of all information the brain choses to pay active attention to, and all thought-threads currently active. Without consciousness, the brain would be lost, drowning in endless unsorted information without structure. When we sleep the brain shuts down sensory driven consciousness and starts to rest and consolidate the experiences we have had through, for example, dreaming. On what basis you can claim that consciousness isn't predictable or systematical remains to be seen.
External factors could be an indication that something needs attention, but it does not dictate when where or what you decide to do.
That is your strawman. I am not saying that external "factors" dictate your choices --- that would be spooky action at a distance. What I am saying is that INTERNAL factors dictate your decision: namely, the excact physical state of your brain and body. The atoms in our body are not special or magical, they behave according to excact mathematical equations. The problem with your argument is that you muddle abstractions and concrete concepts. Let me delve into an example:
"Now let me clear up my premises, there are two distinct realities at play. You have our world which is based upon materials, processes and a calculated model. It is known what it will produce and the outcomes thereof.Then we have conscious life (our will) which is completely spontaneous and without materials, processes, models or preexisting knowledge.Since we exist within the world, we are subject to whatever occurs, but this still does not control our will, only our environment"
This mind-matter duality is a philosophical idea stemming back millenia. Unsubstantiated as it is, this claim still enjoys much popularity. But using it in this context as an argument does not follow even if we agreed to accept it as a premise. Regardless of whether or not supernatural "experience" of our brain's consciousness exists, our choices are NOT made at another plane of existence. According to all scientific evidence, choices are made inside the physical brain. Simpler "choices" like following a habit are less time-consuming for the brain to make and so they seem instantaneous and uncounscious. On the far end of the spectrum we have reflexes where the body makes a choice before the neural signals reach your brain. If by "choices" you mean the steady stream of conscious conclusions we come to then they are undoubtedly systematical and (to a sufficiently knowledgeable observer) predictable.
Again, my argument assumes that no scientificly aquired fact is discarded. Replacing known facts regarding humans and the universe with vaguely defined spiritual concepts is not a valid way to adress my argument. I am simply pointing out the fact that an omniscient creator couldn't create a strictly deterministic world like our own without also have predetermined everything. Therefore, the clasical concept of "free will" is incompatible with this form of theism. Only by invoking quantum randomness could one defeat my argument without changing definitions, moving goalposts or rejecting scientific facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I am saying that scientifically speaking, how we act is 100% determined by the past. Only the yet poorly understood quantum mechanical randomness could serve as a rebutall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
The big failing here is working backwards from the idea of some imagined "God". Rather you should work forwards from the idea of a "free will".
Problematically enough, free will is almost extinctively defined in contrast to a God's control. Scientists have known for quite a while that human choices are facilitated by biological processes controlled by external physical laws. The idea of free will as "the ability to have chosen otherwise" might fall solely on this fact: that we could not have acted differently without breaking the laws of physics. Yet free will is still a common idea. One reason might be that free will is defined as lack of deliberate controll by an external person; so that the physical laws of nature don't count against free will. But even with that definition an omniscient omnipotent creator still contradicts free will by violating the concept of non-planning and replacing it with a theistic version of fate: God's plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If you believe in a court system where people are punished for the crimes they commit - you demonstrate - no matter what you say with your mouth or computer - that you believe in free will - and that the individual is responsible for their own actions. Now of course - this culpability is going to vary upon the circumstances, mental health, IQ, brainwashing, blackmail, etc, but there are not many people in this world who would think that pedophiles should not be held accountable for their actions.
An eye for an eye is not the purpose of a justice system meant to help society. Punishment serves to protect society by discouraging crimes and enforcing the laws of society. A well-made justice system also understands the causes of crime and seeks to heal criminals. After all, the vast majority of criminals are people who have problems they most likely wished themselves out of. Culpability is a measure of how much of the blame can be put on external factors; the rest of the problem lies in the criminal's mind. This concept, however, does not require free will. An attempted terrorist can be put to death justifiably without invoking "personal responsibility" for his indoctrination since birth into islamism. Brain surgery can heal many pedophiles by literally removing the problem of pedophilic lust. A cure to such crime would make it nonsensical to punish the guilty afterwards as it would be a physically and psycologically different person with a different brain. Thinking of evil as "problematic traits within an individual" begs the question: is it the whole person or just the root problem that deserves the death penalty? Considdering our ability to change people to the better rather than punishing them, why should we use the abstract, unscientifical concepts of "free will" and "guilt" to justify actions by the state that we otherwise consider immoral? Is it enough to justify the blatant unfairness, missentencing and discrimination present in many courts?
My point is, people's choices are not always free, and we should seek to rehabilitate people rather than arrogantly act like a righteous objective judge when we are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Tolkien is the not the evil wizard and empire in the book Lord of the Rings. He is the author - And it would be absurd to blame him for the evil that others have done in the story.
This is true but not for the reason you think. Tolkien is not a creator in the same sense that God is, the world he creates is only imaginary, not real. Writing a story about pointless suffering isn't immoral, but creating a world of pointless suffering is. The Biblical God chose to create a world with sickness and disasters; but most importantly sin. Satan could only ever become evil and sinfull because God put him on that path, literally, by created him and his enivorement in a particular way as to cause his eventual downfall. His nature and nurture both originate from God who knows everything, even our thoughts before we think them. Now if you purposefully put your child in a position you know will lead to it becoming evil and commiting countless attrocities, then "second causes" don't
If I pay taxes - and the government takes that and uses it to pay for abortions, am I accountable or responsible for that abortion?
No, and this example is not a valid comparrison. God is not merely allowing evil things to happen in this world, he purposefully created it this way. You will notice that individual taxpayer neither know in full the future nor have the power to create any possible government. Funily enough, God does. He knew the outcome of his creation act, that is our evil world, and he could have picked any other alternative. Either God was ignorant of the evil his world would bring about, or he actively decided to create an world of suffering and evil. The former contradicts God's omniscient, the latter his alledged perfect moral goodness.
"Free will" is a cheap copout argument from a religion that teaches with clarity that God knows the future, even your thoughts. Didn't God plan outJesus's sacrifice before he created the world [1]? Aren't there countless specific examples of God forcing his will on individuals and later punishing them, as he did with pharao [2]? Doesn't God demand faith, obedience and worship from people lest they burn in hell? The answer to all of these questions is yes, so humans are indeed under God's controll. No choice is ever made that was not controlled by God directly or indirectly, as God is the author who planned our world's evil history.
Yet the evil occurred in that narrative and every person who reads that story can clearly denote the distinction. A first cause and a second cause.
The world of Tolkien wasn't created by Tolkien, it has its own mythology and Gods. Reading the story we know Tolkien's imagination is amoral by virtue of not having real consequence. Even if the middle earths existed in a paralell universe, Tolkien's world matching it would just be a coincidence as there is no causal connection. God on the other hand deliberately imagined our world as it is, with evil pain and suffering and the need for a savior. Then he went on to create it because he wanted to be worshipped by his own image even if for every diciple he would have to send dozens of people to burn in hell. Theology aside, an omnipotent God with acceptable moral standards would have created a different world than we currently live in.n
Again, CHOICES MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN EXTERNAL BEINGS DELIBERATE PLANNING ARE NOT REALLY FREE. The creator is responsible for his creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
what I'm saying is that conscious life is a spontaneous event, it runs in real time, present time.
As does every other phenomena we observe. Even light, which doesn't experience time at all, moves at a set speed linking its position to continous time. Humans are not the only living beings with neurological consciousness and the ability to think and plan, though our intelligence far superceed that of animals. If humans have "free will" by your argument, then do animals have it? What about bacteria, viruses, molecules? Linking free will to unpredictability and yet applying it only to humans is a special pleading --- which unfortunately is a logical fallacy.
Basically, it is NOT predictable.
Our world is very much predictable, we can accurately predict future events in terms of mathematical models. Imperfect information about all the rules and factors of the universe prevents us monkeys from knowing the future. Even if you invoke quantum mechanics or another source of randomness that would apply not only to human brains but also all matter. If you can't predict a persons actions perfecty because interactions between braincells are random, then you also can't predict turbulence or other chaotic phenomena. Besides, if our decicions are controlled by mystical randomness without known cause then how "free" would we be?
Even if God has some influence upon how the world will move forward, it has no relation to any predestination.
Let me clear up my argument's premises:
- The universe is predictable unless invoking randomness not from complexity but from "magic"
- Predestination is most likely true, history is not random, there is only one future.
The question is whether or not some omniscient God or "fate" already knows the future, and whether our actions were consciously planned. A God or source that didn't create our universe knowing its entire history beforehand leaves free will alone; both for us and for God. In this thread I critique the abrahamic Idea that an omniscient creator exist simultaniously with free will --- that is quite clearly a contradiction. A non-omniscient God as you described is compatible with free will; because it faces the same problem we humans have, being unable to know perfectly the result of one's possible actions.
Created:
Posted in:
I WAS SPEAKInG OF YOUR PERSONAL REASONS. Most other atheists, don't believe because of a lack of evidence. As you stated in the opt in a roundabout way, you don't believe because you like the ideal of free will. When I was an atheist. I simply did not believe, because there was a lack of evidence. Most atheists are that way. You however are unique.
I was raised a Christian and never had a say in what to believe. My parrents were steadfast in their faith and didn't want me to go to hell so they protected me from dangerous thoughts. I went to Christian primary school, a pentacostal church, and never had any atheist friends. I was so convinced of Christianity that I became a fundamentalist and wannabe preacher at age 12 due to a family mission trip to Moldova, and me being old enough to understand the seriousness of the Christian message. Later, my maturity rose even higher and my education grew more rigorous at high school. I began to put Christianity under scrutiny and needed to read and pursue apologetics to avoid a crisis of faith. Eventually, through the internet, I was exposed to real atheists and not just the cherry picked examples and straw-men Christianity presented in order to present a narrative of having "debunked" atheism.
Importantly it struck me, the realisation that every religion is just as "true" to their own believers, their holy books just as "legitimate", their activities and music just as enthrilling --- I was alarmed as to the falsehood of the propaganda fed to me. My religion wasn't logically or factually superior to others, and so why should I trust it when I already reject all other's. I only ever though Christianity was the one true religion because only it was supported by supposed "evidence" in philosophy in science --- and yet the only reason that is was because other religions's intelectuals were few (due to intelectualism and christianity both being most dominant in the west). Islamist's using many of the same theist arguments were ignored by Christianity. I understood how religion and spiritualism as a whole were just unproven ideas which lack sufficient evidential basis and which propagated through culture by manipulation of emotions and taking advantage of existential dread.
Only by separating myself from my religion could I ever hope to take an honest and unbiased look at it. And so I did, and haven't found any reason as to return. But I quite honestly believe that atheists are in a better position to find the "true" religion if there is any, solely because they aren't already loyal to any religion. Statistically speaking, no matter your religion or worldview, you are most likely wrong due to the sheer improbability of any particular human stumbling upon the truth in a world dominated by lies. I understand that many view all religions as true to some extent, but that idea fails to explain what is true specifically and what istn't in particular religions. The passions of religious people to their theology is understandable, I come from that place, but not in any way logical or justifiable.
I am an atheist because I love the truth. I won't let my pursuith of correct information be contaminated by religious dogma. I want clear answers to specific questions.
P1: IF some religion is objectively true, THEN the facts should prove this fact [Having a different standard for "religious" truth is by definition intelectually dishonest]
P2: The facts don't prove any particular religion, apologetics are long rebuted, and I don't find any religious arguments compelling
C: Intelectual honesty demands that I withold faith untill I am convinced by facts and evidence that a religious worldview is true
Most atheists are that way. You however are unique.
Nope. As explained in my previous reply to you, nobody has incentive or ability to chose what to believe for any reason. We all are convinced into believing, or we don't.
Atheism is caused by the failure of theism to convince, and nothing else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
@3RU7AL
do you refuse to believe in God, merely because you fear the truth, that you have no free will?
I do not want to sound condescending, but that is a stupid question based on an absurd premise. We humans don't fear the truth, we fear everything but the truth. No matter your intentions or values, you need to know the truth in order to plan ahead and make decisions. Lies, deception and illusions are intrinsically scary to us because misunderstandings have grave consequences. When you act on flawed information or false assumptions you make mistakes. Every mistake is made because of overlooked or unknown factors thwarting the plan. Plane crashes are mistakes, but 9/11 was a success, a deliberate terrorist attack. These terrorists had violent intentions and (to most) alien values; and yet they still valued accurate information --- that enabling them to succeed.
Religion loves accusing nonbelievers of not valuing the truth. Instead of admitting their failure to convince others, they claim that people chose to blind themselves. Those that remain unconvinced are not legitimately in need of better arguments, they are just commiting the fallacy of emotion. "You fear the truth", "you hate God", "You just want to sin", are just the most obvious examples. This accusation is far worse than the standard "the devil blinds you", as it places the blame on every nonbeliever. Whats funny is that RELIGION more than anything manipulates emotions to convince and controll people. This blatant double standard is a staple of intelectual dishonesty in religious discourse.
So no, my disbelief in theism is not caused by fear of determinism. If anything, my emotions and existential dreads drive me towards religion. To live forever in heaven is absolutely preferable to living in hell. If I though theism was true then I would not be an atheist. The notion that everyone secretly shares your religious beliefs is notoriously fallacious. Even more ridiculous is the implied fantasy power of beliefs. Me not believing in theism doesn't magically make God disappear; and I can't reclaim free will by simply believing I have it. The truth is unaffected by belief, and the vast majority of rational people know this.
Your question frames me as willingly delusional. Read it again with my critique in mind, and you will agree:
do you refuse to believe in God, merely because you fear the truth, that you have no free will?
I don't refuse to believe in theism for emotional reasons. I was raised a Christian. Theism has just spectacularly failed to convince my newly matured and educated self.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@3RU7AL
Deliberate creation ex-nihilo is the idea in theism that contradicts free will. Deimurg, if I understand you correctly, is a sentient intelligent being coming into existence by chance and subsequently expanding its controll of the world in which it lives --- yet without ever being able to break the laws that controlled the randomness in the first place. Deimurg is the personification of humanity. Deimurg is conquering the natural world and ruling it with an iron fist. Deimurg uses intelligence and planning to do that which pure randomness could not create. Deimurg can only speculate about a higher being creating the randomness, as it understands the concept of simulation --- how a small portion of a higher universe could be dedicated to hosting and creating new worlds, virtual worlds.
Most importantly, a Deimurg isn't fully in controll and doesn't know everything --- its subject enjoy some form of autonomy. Deimurg can't be blamed for all that happens.
But God can. Whatever happens would be directly controlled by him. Everything in our world would be his work, including evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your shut-up arguments are all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also, nobody choses what to believe, one is convinced by flawed/valid reasoning and experience.
Created: