PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 1, 2017 13:14:00 GMT
tpfkar Why should you care to disprove Christianity or they desire to stop being Christian if you believe and you convince them to believe that none of you have the power to effect any actual change whatsoever? for the halibutBecause determinism means causality. I find it baffling that you think that no free will means that nothing influences anything else and it seems like you are still conflating fatalism and determinism. Beliefs can be influences Micee why do you keep on engaging with this philosphically illiterate bafoon who thinks he is Bertrand Russell? YouMightRabbitYouMight or whatever his name is is the poster of boy of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 1, 2017 13:16:34 GMT
The notion of backwards time travel is incoherent. Time is nothing like a substance. It's not something you can "travel in." I am pretty sure it is only a metaphor. It would have to be something you can travel in in order to go backwards with respect to it.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 1, 2017 13:18:31 GMT
tpfkar Personally, I find it baffling that you think you can effect change by behaving differently even though events cannot be changed. Or that you can't grasp that clockwork determinism yields fatalism as a direct consequence. If you are standing over a ledge with water below and I push you in would you have an effect on the water even if you had no control? I am not a hard determinist like micee but he is right here.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2017 13:28:23 GMT
tpfkar I really hate to be called a "bafoon" by the guy who thunk his way into abusing kids. --- How about a months later one from you?
But the only situation in which sex with children is moral and should be allowed is when the child is capable of Informed consent. Now obviously a 7 year old can't do that but a 12 year old at the very least could.
--- Reply 10: Re: Is Sex with Children a bad thing? carmb09 replied 11 months, 3 weeks ago Definitely, I would estimate around 5 or 6 is the maximum age where they wouldn't be able to, but I really don't know.
Many children after they consent to sex with an adult are brainwashed into thinking they were raped and abused but that's just not true.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 1, 2017 13:32:08 GMT
tpfkar I really hate to be called a "bafoon" by the guy who thunk his way into abusing kids. --- How about a months later one from you?
But the only situation in which sex with children is moral and should be allowed is when the child is capable of Informed consent. Now obviously a 7 year old can't do that but a 12 year old at the very least could.
--- Reply 10: Re: Is Sex with Children a bad thing? carmb09 replied 11 months, 3 weeks ago Definitely, I would estimate around 5 or 6 is the maximum age where they wouldn't be able to, but I really don't know.
Many children after they consent to sex with an adult are brainwashed into thinking they were raped and abused but that's just not true. "thunk his way into abusing kids" is factually incorrect and grammatically incorrect. Either way I am not going to get in to another game of who can get the last word in with you.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2017 19:25:04 GMT
tpfkar I really have few words for some of you guys' responses. Change in the course of what's already inexorably going to happen. think I'm just happy
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2017 19:30:03 GMT
tpfkar Good lord you're brilliant! It is both factually spot on and grammatically correct for it's intention. And you come on back with first word any time you like. --- How about a months later one from you?
But the only situation in which sex with children is moral and should be allowed is when the child is capable of Informed consent. Now obviously a 7 year old can't do that but a 12 year old at the very least could.
--- Reply 10: Re: Is Sex with Children a bad thing? carmb09 replied 11 months, 3 weeks ago Definitely, I would estimate around 5 or 6 is the maximum age where they wouldn't be able to, but I really don't know.
Many children after they consent to sex with an adult are brainwashed into thinking they were raped and abused but that's just not true.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Apr 1, 2017 22:28:20 GMT
Some in the other thread has a similar story to mine.
I was never really a believer. I went to church every Sunday as it was just down the block and growing up in a small town you were expected to go.
I stopped going by around 8 or 9 and it was a few years later I started to look for my own answers. I got into astrology and then UFO's which took me into science fiction.
That combined with my interest in history and the sciences solidified my view that god does not exist.
I have dabbled in paganism and Wicca but did not really buy into that but it was more of away to connect with friends than an actual belief.
Belief or non belief never really came up in my early adult years. It was not something I thought about all that much.
It has been about 20 years since I came to the realization that the concept of god is nothing more than a human construct and can not exist as depicted in any human religion and the universe has no need of one.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 2, 2017 3:13:44 GMT
Some in the other thread has a similar story to mine. I was never really a believer. I went to church every Sunday as it was just down the block and growing up in a small town you were expected to go. I stopped going by around 8 or 9 and it was a few years later I started to look for my own answers. I got into astrology and then UFO's which took me into science fiction. That combined with my interest in history and the sciences solidified my view that god does not exist. I have dabbled in paganism and Wicca but did not really buy into that but it was more of away to connect with friends than an actual belief. Belief or non belief never really came up in my early adult years. It was not something I thought about all that much. It has been about 20 years since I came to the realization that the concept of god is nothing more than a human construct and can not exist as depicted in any human religion and the universe has no need of one. How fortunate you were to have not been brainwashed by the local church down the block. I can't even imagine how different your childhood was from mine. I've arrived at the same conclusion that you did, but it was a hard fought battle.
Were your parents non-religious; did they, too, go to the church down the block out of habit?
The religion of my parents was so overwhelming that it literally dictated their day-to-day lives, and my life along with it. I think I look at it now as some sort of obsessive need of certainty in an uncertain world that they just couldn't break away from.
Do you think that humans will ever let go of it completely?
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Apr 2, 2017 4:30:18 GMT
No my parents were not religious. I do not remember them going at all. Maybe when I was really young but I do not recall for sure. I lived across the street from my grandmother on my fathers side and several of his sisters and brothers still lived in town so we were kind of expected to go.
Religion was just something we did not talk about.
Religion itself is not the problem. There is nothing wrong with believing. It is how the belief manifests itself. So no we will never be without religion. It will change, some will die out and others will take its place but it will always be with us.
Hopefully mankind can get to the point where we are enlightened enough the 'my way or the highway' religions lose their hold and the real message is let through.
I do not see that happening in my or the next generations life time. Humans are too petty and someone is always looking for an edge over others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 8:00:06 GMT
tpfkar Personally, I find it baffling that you think you can effect change by behaving differently even though events cannot be changed. Or that you can't grasp that clockwork determinism yields fatalism as a direct consequence. previously on free willyFatalism is where you have a belief concerning what the inevitable outcome will be. So it would be a case of "the outcome x (where x is a specific prediction) will come about no matter what I do". I do not have knowledge of what effect, if any, my words will have, therefore I can only hope that they will be one of the factors that will determine that a number of Christians will lose their religious faith. I happen to know that good arguments can persuade people to lose their religion, and this knowledge that people can change their beliefs with exposure to new ideas and evidence is one of the factors that causes me to continue to persevere. Since I don't claim knowledge of whether my efforts will be doomed to failure, or will inevitably succeed, I cannot be said to have a fatalistic belief. As I cannot make accurate predictions about anyone's "fate", then I cannot be said to be espousing fatalism. In a narrow sense of the word 'fate' means 'predetermined outcome'; but not in the sense that it would prevent someone without knowledge of the future from playing their role in determining the outcome. You stated that it was folly for me to go along with my role in determining an outcome because no matter what I do people are always going to be set in their beliefs. That certainly implies that if free will doesn't exist, then someone's belief in God is immutable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 8:01:25 GMT
Because determinism means causality. I find it baffling that you think that no free will means that nothing influences anything else and it seems like you are still conflating fatalism and determinism. Beliefs can be influences Micee why do you keep on engaging with this philosphically illiterate bafoon who thinks he is Bertrand Russell? YouMightRabbitYouMight or whatever his name is is the poster of boy of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He must have a strong emotional investment in free will. Or be extremely obtuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 8:05:53 GMT
tpfkar I really have few words for some of you guys' responses. Change in the course of what's already inexorably going to happen. think I'm just happyThe thing you're not grasping is the fact that a determinist does not claim knowledge of what the ultimate outcome is going to be; so it doesn't make sense to abandon one's own role in bringing about that unknown outcome. Given that from my perspective, challenging free will is more likely to be a causal factor which brings about the change that I want to see, then my refusal to abandon my own personal crusade is in no way incongruous with my deterministic beliefs. If everyone refuses to challenge anything, out of the belief that a certain outcome is inevitable, then that is one way to guarantee that things won't change. That has nothing to do with free will whatsoever, any more than the way that a computer will make 'decisions' to bring about an outcome that the computer user has requested.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 2, 2017 10:31:55 GMT
There are different domains for modalities--logical, metaphysical/ontological, etc. In which sense are you claiming that it's impossible?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 11:11:03 GMT
tpfkar If that's the specific meaning you mean by "fatalism", why in the world did you try to ascribe it to my words. I implied precisely nothing about knowing outcomes ahead of time. The point is, if it is all pre-writ, then whatever your "role" is, it is a done deal. And whether you act in a certain way, or get intense, or upset, or stay completely sanguine or do exactly nothing will make absolutely no difference to the final outcome. Truly believing outcomes have been set from the beginning while simultaneously believing that if only you're more persuasive then things could work out better than they would otherwise is a serious breakdown of basic reason. Another wth hell employment of reason. My only point was that it is a shattered idea to think that anything you do will alter what you think can't be altered. Again, that's the pre-writ outcome, not that Newton's 3rd disappears. previously on free willy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 12:09:49 GMT
I was never really exposed to religion as a young kid. My family were nominally catholic, but they'd never been much in the way of believers and when they told their priest they were using birth control that was pretty much a parting of the ways with them and religion. I was never "taught to be an atheist", or taught not to be - religion was simply a non-factor in our house.
Living in the UK, we did have religious assemblies in school. I never thought about it much, it was just another thing the teachers made you do. I remember we did have a few muslim kids who got excused when the head led a prayer, and I wondered why they got out of it and I didn't. So one day I decided I'd just ignore the prayer bit. It was weird, because everyone else bowed and I didn't - but nobody saw me, because even the teachers bowed. So I just sat there looking across this sea of bent backs, which amused me.
Around age fifteen or so I came across the idea of atheism in books and that was really when I realised what I was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 17:29:59 GMT
There are different domains for modalities--logical, metaphysical/ontological, etc. In which sense are you claiming that it's impossible? It's certainly logically impossible, because you would have to choose your will, and choose how to choose the will that you use to choose the will, and so on to an infinite regress. I don't know about the other ones, but it is impossible to make a logical case for libertarian free will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 17:38:39 GMT
tpfkar If that's the specific meaning you mean by "fatalism", why in the world did you try to ascribe it to my words. I implied precisely nothing about knowing outcomes ahead of time. Well you implied that I shouldn't be trying to change people's minds about religion, because it's all futile. It very well may be futile, but I have no way of knowing that. Obviously, I can only act the way that I am predetermined to act; but I am being moved by forces beyond my control to try to disprove the Christian conception of God. One of the causal factors that plays into my behaviour is the fact that I have witnessed strongly held beliefs being eroded (usually over time and not instantaneously) by a strong and consistent application of logic. And it would be impossible for me to choose not to choose. The outcome of everything is pre-determined, but I don't know which of many possible (from the perspective of the present looking into the future) pre-determined outcomes will obtain. Obviously there is only one way it can go, but I don't know which way that is, and I cannot choose not to choose. Even though I don't believe in free will, I have to behave basically as if free will does exist, because the only option that is out of bounds is to not make any choices (removing myself from the situation and sitting in a catatonic state would also be a choice that could be made). I hope to be persuasive enough to convince a few people, but understanding the fact that people are emotionally committed to religion more than they are logically committed, I am aware that the chances of that particular outcome coming to pass are remote. I know that nothing that I will do will change what the ultimate outcome will be...but my behaviour itself is one of the myriad factors which will determine the ultimate outcome. It is impossible for me to abdicate my own role in bringing about the pre-determined outcome, because whatever I do next is what was already pre-determined to happen.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 17:40:04 GMT
tpfkar It's just plain fractured thinking to simultaneously hold that all is pre-writ and unchangeable and also that any action you could possibly "think" to do would make anything better or worse than 'it's going to be regardless. The only rational position to hold if you believe the first would be like oldsamvimes on super-steroids. previously on free willy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 17:49:32 GMT
tpfkar It's just plain fractured thinking to simultaneously hold that all is pre-writ and unchangeable and also that any action you could possibly "think" to do would make anything better or worse than 'it's going to be regardless. The only rational position to hold if you believe the first would be like oldsamvimes on super-steroids. previously on free willyI cannot abdicate my role in whatever the ultimate outcome would be. I currently have the illusion of many choices, when in fact there is only one option that I am bound to choose (that option being whatever I end up doing next). But the option of not choosing at all does not exist even as an illusion. As part of the grand system of the universe, I am compelled to do whatever I think at the time is going to make things better than (from the perspective of limited knowledge in the present) I think that they may otherwise turn out to be. So I am fulfilling my role as a tiny cog in the grand machine whether I wish to or not. Sitting in a catatonic state and avoiding trying to influence anything simply doesn't make any logical sense as something that I could be pre-determined to do (and even if I did, that would also be a determining factor in deciding future events in the universe).
|
|