The Validity of Religion

[Willieh]

Free will is being discussed next door fellas. :P

 

But on that note' date=' Static, when you say "That is the argument I am having. If you are trying to tell me that we can approach a situation differently because we can think, and thinking certain things would change what is going to happen, then you are wrong, because our thoughts are the results of whats going on in our brain, and what information our sensory nerves transmit to our brain", I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The fact that we can choose whether or not we kill the man, taking your example... is a restricted set of selections that stems from the situation at hand. We can either choose to "blow his head clean off" (...'kay, Clint Eastwood isn't making me sound convincing. :P) or let him live, and we are limited to those two choices because of the situation. And nothing really stops me from dancing the polka, then kicking the man into a coma instead, that would be a "differente choice" in one way, but I'd still be leaving him alive, which was one of the two original possibilities.

Also, as you might know by now, I was brought up as a Christian; when faced with the situation above, am I pre-destined to let him live based on prior events, namely my education? "Rationality", "thoughts" and "feelings" are all involved in the process of choice, and even then I can just go "what the hell" and start constantly changing behavioural patterns for the heck of it, one day I can kick a friend between the legs and the next day buy him lunch... If I feel like it. [b']"Free will" involves being able to choose between a number of options (kill the man, let him live or give birth to a horse are not in the same set of options because of the reality we live in), and if you don't choose based on your rationality and emotions, what would you choose based on? If there were no emotions in the process, then we'd be biological machines unable to choose.[/b] The concept of "free will" can only exist because of the realistic "limitations" of our species, saying that it does not exist because it is dependant on a series of factors is making the concept unable to exist in any other perspective; not having emotions and rationality would making everything boil down to instinct - we'd be irrational animals like all the others, and then we'd be unable to make choices. Knowing what the outcome of a choice will be is not another restriction of free will itself, after killing the man I can let myself get caught and go to jail or try to run away from the country and forge an identity. I'm aware of those outcomes, now I can either care about them or not

- they aren't necessarily restrictions to my choice.

 

And again... free will cannot be "absolute", you can't "choose" to turn your girlfriend into Jessica Simpson by snapping your fingers, because it's not a valid choice in this reality.

 

Maybe I interpreted your opinion completely wrong, but I think you're idealizing a concept of "free will" beyond any real possibilities, and the factors by which you say it does not exist are actually the ones that make it possible. ;)

[MarbleZone]

Hum, why did you bold that part and said nothing yourself? Am I missing some major mistake? :(

[Willieh]

Hum' date=' why did you bold that part and said nothing yourself? Am I missing some major mistake? :(

[/quote']

 

Lol because the bolded part was pretty much my entire argument.

[MarbleZone]

Oh, alright. :)

My intervention was aimed at Static actually; I admit to not having read all the other posts in this thread, because his point of view was the one which was almost the complete opposite of mine.

I'm still not used to using this part of the forum; I'll read other people's opinions more carefully next time so I won't be repeating what somebody else already said. Apologies ;)

[Willieh]

Oh' date=' alright. :)

My intervention was aimed at Static actually; I admit to not having read all the other posts in this thread, because his point of view was the one which was almost the complete opposite of mine.

I'm still not used to using this part of the forum; I'll read other people's opinions more carefully next time so I won't be repeating what somebody else already said. Apologies ;)

[/quote']

 

No, dont be sorry. Lol Static had Wombat supporting his opinion :P

[Cyber Altair]

may i butt in this please? this looks like a good debate :p

[Willieh]

Lol I've finally found a perfect way to sum up my views on religion.

 

 

This song...

 

Basically I dont "Not believe in God"; I just reject religion. I dont want to be fed these lies so they can try to rule me and give me guidelines. "Until the dates our fires overtake you, our father we forsake you."

[HelioSpark]

^than you're not atheist like you said you were, they don't believe in a god, and they reject religion.

 

and @Cyber Altair: Sure join the party^_^

[The Dark One]

^than you're not atheist like you said you were' date=' they don't believe in a god, and they reject religion.

 

and @Cyber Altair: Sure join the party^_^

[/quote']

 

Atheism. This word is constructed from a base, theism, and a prefix, a. The prefix a- alters the word to mean "the absence of-." Therefore, Atheism is defined as "The absence of Theism." This does not imply that one rejects God, or is otherwise negatively inclined against Theism, it just defines one as someone who does not believe in God.

 

Not believing in a God is entirely separate from believing there is no God. One is the absence of a belief, the other is actually a belief in and of itself. (Though not a religious one.)

 

Willie Addler seems to be defining himself as part of the latter grouping, which also inherently defines him as part of the former grouping. He is indeed an Atheist, but he is also more than that. Are you, Willie, by chance, a member of the Anton LeVay's Church of Satan? (I think that's how you spell his name.)

 

As for my beliefs, I'm Catholic, but very nonreligious, to the point of Agnosticism.

[Willieh]

^than you're not atheist like you said you were' date=' they don't believe in a god, and they reject religion.

 

and @Cyber Altair: Sure join the party^_^

[/quote']

The post above me is correct. He actually just described what I made so vague to understand. ^^

[Static]

^than you're not atheist like you said you were' date=' they don't believe in a god, and they reject religion.

 

and @Cyber Altair: Sure join the party^_^

[/quote']

 

Atheism. This word is constructed from a base, theism, and a prefix, a. The prefix a- alters the word to mean "the absence of-." Therefore, Atheism is defined as "The absence of Theism." This does not imply that one rejects God, or is otherwise negatively inclined against Theism, it just defines one as someone who does not believe in God.

 

Not believing in a God is entirely separate from believing there is no God. One is the absence of a belief, the other is actually a belief in and of itself. (Though not a religious one.)

 

Willie Addler seems to be defining himself as part of the latter grouping, which also inherently defines him as part of the former grouping. He is indeed an Atheist, but he is also more than that. Are you, Willie, by chance, a member of the Anton LeVay's Church of Satan? (I think that's how you spell his name.)

 

As for my beliefs, I'm Catholic, but very nonreligious, to the point of Agnosticism.

 

This is correct. ^^

 

Atheist -> Denies the existence of a "God" or a living Deity, but does not necessarily deny any religion that does not have a "God" figure in the version of the religion that they may believe.

 

It also Incorporates the people who Deny Religion as well.

 

Agnosticism -> Denies Religion, but does not necessarily Deny God or a "Living Deity(s)" existence.

 

Anti-Theist -> Denies Religion and denies the existence of a "Living Deity(s)." But is also against the Existence of founded religion.

 

Agnosticism should only apply to people who hold the beliefs and ethics of a former religion, but just don't belief in the way the religion teaches it, or thinks disdainfully of the greed of the "Peitous Leaders." (i.e. The Roman Catholic Church, The Church of Scientology, etc.)

 

Adler is an Atheist, but he does not necessarily deny Religion.

 

Frankly, being an Anti Theist is teh funn3st :P

[HelioSpark]

O.O wow I'm learning a lot in this thread^_^ thanks for clearing that up for me

[Willieh]

I guess I'm the type of atheist who believes in a godly deity or figure; but rejects/denys to follow or worship that figure. Idk, but either way I consider myself an atheist.

 

I=Agnosticism

[Static]

I guess I'm the type of atheist who believes in a godly deity or figure; but rejects/denys to follow or worship that figure. Idk' date=' but either way I consider myself an atheist.

 

I=Agnosticism

[/quote']

 

Then you're Agnostic. Why you would be is beyond me, because it is the part of god's existence that makes absolutely no sense, but the terms are now cleared up, and I will respond to Blackwind's long post when I get back from Chillin.

[The Dark One]

Adler. You're saying that you believe in a God but rebel against him? That would not be Atheism at all. That is called Theistic Satanism. (As opposed to Atheistic Satanism, which is basically a form of Anti-Theism.)

 

Also, I would like to emphasize my earlier point Static, because you worded your post slightly incorrectly. Atheism in its simplest form is more the absence of a belief in God rather than a belief that there is no god. Not that there's really any significant difference. I'm just pointing out that Atheism is what's left if you strip away the belief. It is the void, not another belief itself.

[Willieh]

Adler. You're saying that you believe in a God but rebel against him? That would not be Atheism at all. That is called Theistic Satanism. (As opposed to Atheistic Satanism' date=' which is basically a form of Anti-Theism.)

 

Also, I would like to emphasize my earlier point Static, because you worded your post slightly incorrectly. Atheism in its simplest form is more the absence of a belief in God rather than a belief that there is no god. Not that there's really any significant difference. I'm just pointing out that Atheism is what's left if you strip away the belief. It is the void, not another belief itself.

[/quote']

 

I don't rebel against god. I dont really believe in him. I just invoke the thought that there could be a possibility that either god or satan exist; I just deny the thought of either of them being existant. In a since I do believe that there is the possibility of there being a god, not that there definately is one, but I reject the acceptance of worshiping any form of a deity. In which case I am an atheist because I more than less deny the existance of either; and reject the thought of worshiping either.

 

It's hard to explain; there could be a god, but even if there is a god and a satan, I deny the belief of them.

 

All I'm really saying is that it is possible that there is a god and satan; that there is a possibility of an all mighty deity, however I deny the thought of such an existance.

 

I am by far NOT a satanist; I refuse to worship anything. I worship nothing, I believe in possibilities.

[The Dark One]

Interesting. I think I'd have to categorize you as an Anti-Theist again then.

[Willieh]

Religion is fool's gold.

 

It looks like something good and wholesome at first; but when you dig into it's history, you are told a horror story.

[Static]

Free will is being discussed next door fellas. :P

 

1. But on that note' date=' Static, when you say "That is the argument I am having. If you are trying to tell me that we can approach a situation differently because we can think, and thinking certain things would change what is going to happen, then you are wrong, because our thoughts are the results of whats going on in our brain, and what information our sensory nerves transmit to our brain", I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The fact that we can choose whether or not we kill the man, taking your example... is a restricted set of selections that stems from the situation at hand. We can either choose to "blow his head clean off" (...'kay, Clint Eastwood isn't making me sound convincing. :P) or let him live, and we are limited to those two choices because of the situation. And nothing really stops me from dancing the polka, then kicking the man into a coma instead, that would be a "different choice" in one way, but I'd still be leaving him alive, which was one of the two original possibilities.

 

 

2 Also, as you might know by now, I was brought up as a Christian; when faced with the situation above, am I pre-destined to let him live based on prior events, namely my education? "Rationality", "thoughts" and "feelings" are all involved in the process of choice, and even then I can just go "what the hell" and start constantly changing behavioural patterns for the heck of it, one day I can kick a friend between the legs and the next day buy him lunch... If I feel like it. "Free will" involves being able to choose between a number of options (kill the man, let him live or give birth to a horse are not in the same set of options because of the reality we live in), and if you don't choose based on your rationality and emotions, what would you choose based on? If there were no emotions in the process, [i']then[/i] we'd be biological machines unable to choose. The concept of "free will" can only exist because of the realistic "limitations" of our species, saying that it does not exist because it is dependant on a series of factors is making the concept unable to exist in any other perspective; not having emotions and rationality would make everything boil down to instinct - we'd be irrational animals like all the others, and then we'd be unable to make choices. Knowing what the outcome of a choice will be is not another restriction of free will itself, after killing the man I can let myself get caught and go to jail or try to run away from the country and forge an identity. I'm aware of those outcomes, now I can either care about them or not

- they aren't necessarily restrictions to my choice.

 

3. And again... free will cannot be "absolute", you can't "choose" to turn your girlfriend into Jessica Simpson by snapping your fingers, because it's not a valid choice in this reality.

 

4. Maybe I interpreted your opinion completely wrong, but I think you're idealizing a concept of "free will" beyond any real possibilities, and the factors by which you say it does not exist are actually the ones that make it possible. ;)

 

Numbered.

 

1. Well, you could, but given the fact that those choices could be thought of as "possible" when analyzed from another standpoint, or even if the person handling the gun thought of them, it makes no difference. They theoretically do anything, but they are going to do only one at the exact moment we are discussing.

 

2. The emotions we feel in our lives are determined by our brain, and our rationality is completely based on analysis' we make during our lives, and when we make a decision, these analysis' become a basis for our rational thought process. You can also say other things are involved in it, but it does not matter, because all of these things are predetermined anyway. Rationality and emotion are not conclusive evidence to say that free will exists, because how we feel and what we think is rational is based on our past, to the point in which the exact set of events preceding this create what will happen next. Emotion is not "different" than instinct, other than the fact that it can be more variable. Yes, we make choices in our lives, I technically have chosen to do everything I do, BUT, the fact that I chose what I did was based completely on what has happened prior, and given past circumstances, it occuring exactly the way it did is all that is possible. The wind blows the way it does because other wind affects it, things get in the way. Humans are the same, they act the way they do because of their environment and how their mind interperts it, the only difference is that we think we can make choices, we think we act.

 

3. Oh, but I can :P. I just cannot turn her into Amy Lee :(. lol

 

4. I'm proving that Marx's idea of free will is correct. There are no factors in humans, it is all just chemicals in our brains making us act, feel, and think the way we do based on what has happened prior to the occurence we are describing.

 

Oh, and we are biological machines. Glad to see you watched the video, but surprised to see you think you can disagree with Dendro.

 

The Dark One:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IGStlJuljU

 

An atheist is a person who does not believe that deities exist. In the posted video. 0:31. Check it, I am right. Not believing in a deity is denying its existence, because if someone asked you if you believed in a deity, you would say no.