Atheism: A Way to Discuss Free Will?

[Abishai100]

Atheism is very interesting, since it suggests that human beings create their own fate with free will and rational decision-making unaffected by the deeds or intervention of an all-knowing Creator (or God/Deity).

We can use atheism to discuss the parameters of free will itself.

Since theists believe there is a guiding God, what do they think is the range of free will?

We know from evolutionary biology that human DNA is pre-programmed to afford our species the regular ability to adapt to environmental changes. This 'adaptation-mechanism' hard-wired into the human genome is the 'scientific definition/translation' of what philosophers call 'free will.'

Theists might claim that God designed humans with this adaptive DNA which also affords the human race a sense of self-determined action-consequence sensitivity.

Atheists on the other hand might claim that adaptive reactions in human biochemistry is proof-positive that human beings evolve on their own, without the need of an overseeing Creator/God figure.

If humans do not need any 'external guidance,' how much free will do we have?

The intrigue associated with spiritual free will partially explains the intellectual allure of various theistic schools of thought (e.g., Catholicism, Satanism, Buddhism, etc.).

The intrigue associated with evolutionary adaptation partially explains the intellectual allure of various atheism-oriented schools of thought (e.g., Absurdism, Nihilism, Existentialism, etc.).

Therefore we can use atheism as a broad base to explore the general 'philosophical intrigue' associated with free will.

One of my favorite works to reference in free will discussions is The Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare), since it nicely presents the story of humans caught in an imprisoning web of 'contract claustrophobia' that requires simple human agency (and not necessarily an intervening God).

 

[ding]

Atheism is very interesting, since it suggests that human beings create their own fate with free will and rational decision-making unaffected by the deeds or intervention of an all-knowing Creator (or God/Deity).

We can use atheism to discuss the parameters of free will itself.

Since theists believe there is a guiding God, what do they think is the range of free will?

We know from evolutionary biology that human DNA is pre-programmed to afford our species the regular ability to adapt to environmental changes. This 'adaptation-mechanism' hard-wired into the human genome is the 'scientific definition/translation' of what philosophers call 'free will.'

Theists might claim that God designed humans with this adaptive DNA which also affords the human race a sense of self-determined action-consequence sensitivity.

Atheists on the other hand might claim that adaptive reactions in human biochemistry is proof-positive that human beings evolve on their own, without the need of an overseeing Creator/God figure.

If humans do not need any 'external guidance,' how much free will do we have?

The intrigue associated with spiritual free will partially explains the intellectual allure of various theistic schools of thought (e.g., Catholicism, Satanism, Buddhism, etc.).

The intrigue associated with evolutionary adaptation partially explains the intellectual allure of various atheism-oriented schools of thought (e.g., Absurdism, Nihilism, Existentialism, etc.).

Therefore we can use atheism as a broad base to explore the general 'philosophical intrigue' associated with free will.

One of my favorite works to reference in free will discussions is The Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare), since it nicely presents the story of humans caught in an imprisoning web of 'contract claustrophobia' that requires simple human agency (and not necessarily an intervening God).



View attachment 101481

Why do you believe that theists believe that God control's their behaviors? We don't. It is entirely up to us whether we raise or lower our standard of conduct. We can even do wrong and rationalize that we are doing right. Be that as it may, we are all subject to the consequences of our actions, theists and atheists alike. At the end of the day, whether or not we accept accountability is the determining factor on whether or not we will learn from our mistakes and progress as human beings or whether we we won't learn from our mistakes and doom ourselves to keep repeating them. It seems to me that this is a much more important topic than the bullshit topic you have created. No offense intended.

 

[ding]

Atheism is very interesting, since it suggests that human beings create their own fate with free will and rational decision-making unaffected by the deeds or intervention of an all-knowing Creator (or God/Deity).

We can use atheism to discuss the parameters of free will itself.

Since theists believe there is a guiding God, what do they think is the range of free will?

We know from evolutionary biology that human DNA is pre-programmed to afford our species the regular ability to adapt to environmental changes. This 'adaptation-mechanism' hard-wired into the human genome is the 'scientific definition/translation' of what philosophers call 'free will.'

Theists might claim that God designed humans with this adaptive DNA which also affords the human race a sense of self-determined action-consequence sensitivity.

Atheists on the other hand might claim that adaptive reactions in human biochemistry is proof-positive that human beings evolve on their own, without the need of an overseeing Creator/God figure.

If humans do not need any 'external guidance,' how much free will do we have?

The intrigue associated with spiritual free will partially explains the intellectual allure of various theistic schools of thought (e.g., Catholicism, Satanism, Buddhism, etc.).

The intrigue associated with evolutionary adaptation partially explains the intellectual allure of various atheism-oriented schools of thought (e.g., Absurdism, Nihilism, Existentialism, etc.).

Therefore we can use atheism as a broad base to explore the general 'philosophical intrigue' associated with free will.

One of my favorite works to reference in free will discussions is The Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare), since it nicely presents the story of humans caught in an imprisoning web of 'contract claustrophobia' that requires simple human agency (and not necessarily an intervening God).



View attachment 101481

Here are a few suggestions for worthy topics:

1. Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness through regular meeting with its adherents. What does atheism promote and how does it do it?

2. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. What has atheism done to serve the betterment of man and how has it done it?

3. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. What does atheism teach and how does it do it?

4. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. What has atheism done and how does it do it?

 

[Abishai100]

It seems to me that this is a much more important topic than the bullshit topic you have created. No offense intended.

None taken!

I'm simply trying to appraise atheism in terms of the arena of dialogue, not highlight its historic claims in context of watershed ideas.

In other words, since atheism generates a great deal of controversy, perhaps we can use the controversy to address notions otherwise too hairy to talk openly about --- e.g., "Are theists myopic about free will?"

Nevertheless, I will seriously consider your critical remarks.


Cheers,

 

[ding]

It seems to me that this is a much more important topic than the bullshit topic you have created. No offense intended.

None taken!

I'm simply trying to appraise atheism in terms of the arena of dialogue, not highlight its historic claims in context of watershed ideas.

In other words, since atheism generates a great deal of controversy, perhaps we can use the controversy to address notions otherwise too hairy to talk openly about --- e.g., "Are theists myopic about free will?"

Nevertheless, I will seriously consider your critical remarks.


Cheers,

No worries. I don't follow your question, "Are theists myopic about free will?" It seems to me that it is obvious that we are allowed to make our own choices in life. The only question is will we be honest with ourselves about our accountability when our choices do not end well. What are you trying to say with your question?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
certainly, when following purposefully predestined literature rather than natural course of events theirs can only be artificially attained goals.

.

 

[ding]

.
certainly, when following purposefully predestined literature rather than natural course of events theirs can only be artificially attained goals.

.

And it was free will that allowed you to write that, right?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
certainly, when following purposefully predestined literature rather than natural course of events theirs can only be artificially attained goals.

.

And it was free will that allowed you to write that, right?

And it was free will that allowed you to write that, right?

.
of course, I'm not a christian, what's your point ...

.

 

[ding]

.
certainly, when following purposefully predestined literature rather than natural course of events theirs can only be artificially attained goals.

.

And it was free will that allowed you to write that, right?

And it was free will that allowed you to write that, right?

.
of course, I'm not a christian, what's your point ...

.

That everyone has free will.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
certainly, when following purposefully predestined literature rather than natural course of events theirs can only be artificially attained goals.

.

And it was free will that allowed you to write that, right?

And it was free will that allowed you to write that, right?

.
of course, I'm not a christian, what's your point ...

.

That everyone has free will.

.

That everyone has free will.

is it possible to have a dialogue with you ...


it was pointed out christians are restricted to a book (of lies) and therefore do not have freewill but are restricted by the canonization 4th century to "your" political document and are not allowed freedom of thought - - > editing your book.


expl. of lie - No one comes to the Father except through me. - when you edit the referred too lie from your book you will have freewill otherwise you are an inert object.

.

 

[ding]

is it possible to have a dialogue with you ...

Absolutely, but starting that conversation off by stating that Christians are restricted to a book (of lies) is probably not the best way to do so.

My belief that I have free will is not based on any book. It is based on my observation that I am in control of my choices. Do you have a response for that? Because if you don't, then maybe I am not the one blocking conversation.

 

[BreezeWood]

is it possible to have a dialogue with you ...

Absolutely, but starting that conversation off by stating that Christians are restricted to a book (of lies) is probably not the best way to do so.

My belief that I have free will is not based on any book. It is based on my observation that I am in control of my choices. Do you have a response for that? Because if you don't, then maybe I am not the one blocking conversation.

.

My belief that I have free will is not based on any book. It is based on my observation that I am in control of my choices. Do you have a response for that? Because if you don't, then maybe I am not the one blocking conversation.

I give you an example for the discussion of freewill -

expl. of lie - No one comes to the Father except through me. - when you edit the referred too lie from your book you will have freewill otherwise you are an inert object.

and you ignore the example ...


the post is about what is the content of your political persuasion disguised as a religion that at its heart removes your freewill and entrusts it to a false preposition of a "son of god" that the individual Jesus never intended but was canonized in 4th century to control your mind - bing, the inert object.


by the way, I am subject to the Almighty whether they exist or not in an attempt to Triumph Good vs Evil that according to Noah's parable must be accomplished by everyone or no one will be allowed Admission to the Everlasting as being necessary anyway, so ... stop claiming the Commandment of the Almighty belongs to chritianity.

.

 

[ding]

is it possible to have a dialogue with you ...

Absolutely, but starting that conversation off by stating that Christians are restricted to a book (of lies) is probably not the best way to do so.

My belief that I have free will is not based on any book. It is based on my observation that I am in control of my choices. Do you have a response for that? Because if you don't, then maybe I am not the one blocking conversation.

.

My belief that I have free will is not based on any book. It is based on my observation that I am in control of my choices. Do you have a response for that? Because if you don't, then maybe I am not the one blocking conversation.

I give you an example for the discussion of freewill -

expl. of lie - No one comes to the Father except through me. - when you edit the referred too lie from your book you will have freewill otherwise you are an inert object.

and you ignore the example ...


the post is about what is the content of your political persuasion disguised as a religion that at its heart removes your freewill and entrusts it to a false preposition of a "son of god" that the individual Jesus never intended but was canonized in 4th century to control your mind - bing, the inert object.


by the way, I am subject to the Almighty whether they exist or not in an attempt to Triumph Good vs Evil that according to Noah's parable must be accomplished by everyone or no one will be allowed Admission to the Everlasting as being necessary anyway, so ... stop claiming the Commandment of the Almighty belongs to chritianity.

.

My belief that I have free will is not based on any book. It is based on my observation that I am in control of my choices. Do you have a response for that?

 

[Divine Wind]

...In other words, since atheism generates a great deal of controversy, perhaps we can use the controversy to address notions otherwise too hairy to talk openly about --- e.g., "Are theists myopic about free will?"....

Why do you think atheism is controversial? Is it, like theists, more about how it's used than who believes it?

The only, truly logical point of view is agnosticism; an admission that there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of anything beyond the natural universe.

Both atheism and theism are faith-based. Theists believe in something beyond the natural universe and atheists disbelieve there is anything beyond the physical. Both require faith that they are correct.

 

[ding]

...In other words, since atheism generates a great deal of controversy, perhaps we can use the controversy to address notions otherwise too hairy to talk openly about --- e.g., "Are theists myopic about free will?"....

Why do you think atheism is controversial? Is it, like theists, more about how it's used than who believes it?

The only, truly logical point of view is agnosticism; an admission that there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of anything beyond the natural universe.

Both atheism and theism are faith-based. Theists believe in something beyond the natural universe and atheists disbelieve there is anything beyond the physical. Both require faith that they are correct.

Do you know many agnostics? Because the ones that claim they are agnostic are the ones who are arguing exclusively against belief in God. I don't see them ever arguing the other side.

 

[Divine Wind]

Do you know many agnostics? Because the ones that claim they are agnostic are the ones who are arguing exclusively against belief in God. I don't see them ever arguing the other side.

Not many. Most people mind their own business. Agnostics even more so. It's the atheists and theists who are more likely to be pushing an agenda.

As for the ones you mention, I think they are atheists masquerading as agnostics.