|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 20:28:37 GMT
tpfkar I know you don't understand "much", not even you own mind.  It comes down to you fielding "deterministic" to impute some magic upon the non-remarkable cause & effect, of which we're all a constituent part of. "Free will", for anyone without tendentious purpose just means that we do what we choose according to our desires and our characteristics. You just think you can field "deterministic yields no free will", for your purposeful, incoherent definition of free will, as you say as a weapon against religion, even though you behave completely irrationally for someone who actually believes no real choice exists. We're the product of our inputs and our doings, as is easily known by the minimally competent and noncontroversial for all not trying to work something out of it.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.If you actually understood properly, you wouldn't think that there was anything irrational about me trying to convince people on the Internet to have beliefs tomorrow which are different from what they are today, because nothing that I've stated implies that a person's opinions remain static throughout their life. Any definition of 'free will' other than that which posits that human minds operate independently of causality is not sufficient for Christians to shift blame from God on to humanity (or claim that absolutely anyone can become 'saved'). Therefore, novastar (and other Christians) are clearly alluding to a version of free will which you are suggesting that you don't believe exists, but aren't being very clear about because you perhaps don't want to reject it even though you can ostensibly see that it is incoherent. And from your response it comes across as though you are conceding that novastar's interpretation of free will (the incoherent one that would need to exist in order to support her beliefs) is a verifiable aspect of reality. If I understood as you do, I'd likely be under close watch. You've said that you and everyone have no real choice; yet you quite frantically try to get them to choose differently. That there is no "real" choice may or may not be the true case, highly dependent on how you interpret things, but if you truly "know" that you and they are as you say just preprogrammed robots without real choice, then choosing to try to get them to choose differently without laughing at yourself at the crazy self-contradiction the molecules of fate are making your fingers do to the keyboard is unadulterated high irrationality. More evidence is the suggestion that I implied your position implied peoples' opinions remained static. I only laugh at you choosing to work hard to to get them to change when no matter what you choose to do, according to you, whether lying down in front of a train or getting possession of the treasured nuke suitcase could possibly make any difference one way or the other. Sure if one or the other happens it's a different scenario, but according to you, you're just a robot and really had "real" no input at all. Do you think player pianos get intensely emotional? Would it be rational for them to if they had a consciousness and knew they weren't really choosing the tunes? As for Christians, all the have to do is say "magic!, free will exists" and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can do is point out that God had to be either impotent or a bastard to set some up and not others. The good ones are still good and the sh!tty ones are still sh!tty, but the new bit is God is culpable for whatever they are. That things will only go one way is another uncontroversial thing that you try to work for purpose. People are still in there as a constituent part of it choosing and doing and making it go that way according to their desires and characteristics.
Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 10, 2018 0:29:06 GMT
So are you restricting this question to people who do not like their life on Earth? No, I am restricting this question to those hypocrite theists who claim that this life (even a happy one) is inferior to the afterlife and yet they do not practice what they preach. They do all they can to postpone death. It's human nature to want something better. So if the afterlife is better, why take extraordinary measures (like going to the doctor) to postpone death as long a possible. The answer, of course, is evolution. Evolution has given us the will to survive for as long as possible. (Those without a will to live do not pass this trait on to offspring). In other words, evolution contradicts the creationists theory of a happy afterlife. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 10, 2018 2:27:20 GMT
So are you restricting this question to people who do not like their life on Earth? No, I am restricting this question to those hypocrite theists who claim that this life (even a happy one) is inferior to the afterlife and yet they do not practice what they preach. They do all they can to postpone death. It's human nature to want something better. So if the afterlife is better, why take extraordinary measures (like going to the doctor) to postpone death as long a possible. The answer, of course, is evolution. Evolution has given us the will to survive for as long as possible. (Those without a will to live do not pass this trait on to offspring). In other words, evolution contradicts the creationists theory of a happy afterlife. If the afterlife is better, that doesn't mean that life on Earth isn't good. The afterlife is forever. Life on Earth is very short. So if you enjoy life on Earth, why wouldn't you want to experience it for as long as you can (which nevertheless is going to be an extremely short period of time)? There would be no need to hurry to the afterlife. But you'd want to milk something you enjoy but that's going to be very short for as much as you can. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 10, 2018 7:02:08 GMT
Your time on Earth is finite whether you believe in life after death or not. So why wouldn't you want to experience and enjoy it a bit longer? You might as well ask, "If you believe that your life is going to continue into next week, why wouldn't you leave Disney World after you go on just one ride?" It's finite within the body you encompass, but that's not to dismiss the cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth. In that sense, it makes it infinite. But then again, the cycle can also be broken. It's called transcendence. Buddha and Christ realized this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 7:31:09 GMT
No, I am restricting this question to those hypocrite theists who claim that this life (even a happy one) is inferior to the afterlife and yet they do not practice what they preach. They do all they can to postpone death. It's human nature to want something better. So if the afterlife is better, why take extraordinary measures (like going to the doctor) to postpone death as long a possible. The answer, of course, is evolution. Evolution has given us the will to survive for as long as possible. (Those without a will to live do not pass this trait on to offspring). In other words, evolution contradicts the creationists theory of a happy afterlife. If the afterlife is better, that doesn't mean that life on Earth isn't good. The afterlife is forever. Life on Earth is very short. So if you enjoy life on Earth, why wouldn't you want to experience it for as long as you can (which nevertheless is going to be an extremely short period of time)? There would be no need to hurry to the afterlife. But you'd want to milk something you enjoy but that's going to be very short for as much as you can. If heaven is perfect, then that surely means that the residents of heaven don't have regrets, including regretting dying too early. So the people in heaven would not share your perspective on this. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 10, 2018 8:12:26 GMT
No, I am restricting this question to those hypocrite theists who claim that this life (even a happy one) is inferior to the afterlife and yet they do not practice what they preach. They do all they can to postpone death. It's human nature to want something better. So if the afterlife is better, why take extraordinary measures (like going to the doctor) to postpone death as long a possible. The answer, of course, is evolution. Evolution has given us the will to survive for as long as possible. (Those without a will to live do not pass this trait on to offspring). In other words, evolution contradicts the creationists theory of a happy afterlife. If the afterlife is better, that doesn't mean that life on Earth isn't good. The afterlife is forever. Life on Earth is very short. So if you enjoy life on Earth, why wouldn't you want to experience it for as long as you can (which nevertheless is going to be an extremely short period of time)? There would be no need to hurry to the afterlife. But you'd want to milk something you enjoy but that's going to be very short for as much as you can. Well said, Mr. Slavery Doesn't Exist Anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 10, 2018 9:06:09 GMT
Your time on Earth is finite whether you believe in life after death or not. So why wouldn't you want to experience and enjoy it a bit longer? You might as well ask, "If you believe that your life is going to continue into next week, why wouldn't you leave Disney World after you go on just one ride?" It's finite within the body you encompass, but that's not to dismiss the cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth. In that sense, it makes it infinite. But then again, the cycle can also be broken. It's called transcendence. Buddha and Christ realized this. Yeah, if you believe in reincarnation/a return to Earth it would be different, maybe, although there the issue would be that once a particular life is over, your memory is apparently wiped, so that for a particular conscious manifestation, it's as if there's no afterlife after all. That would only not be the case for folks who believe that their personal identity continues from life to life with some degree of conscious awareness and/or memory retention. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 10, 2018 9:07:55 GMT
If the afterlife is better, that doesn't mean that life on Earth isn't good. The afterlife is forever. Life on Earth is very short. So if you enjoy life on Earth, why wouldn't you want to experience it for as long as you can (which nevertheless is going to be an extremely short period of time)? There would be no need to hurry to the afterlife. But you'd want to milk something you enjoy but that's going to be very short for as much as you can. If heaven is perfect, then that surely means that the residents of heaven don't have regrets, including regretting dying too early. So the people in heaven would not share your perspective on this. But we're not asking why people in heaven don't do something; we're asking why people on Earth don't do something. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 9:16:48 GMT
If heaven is perfect, then that surely means that the residents of heaven don't have regrets, including regretting dying too early. So the people in heaven would not share your perspective on this. But we're not asking why people in heaven don't do something; we're asking why people on Earth don't do something. Yes, but if heaven is supposed to be perfect, then 'I won't regret ending this early, therefore I may as well just go straight to paradise' would be a reasonable inference for someone on Earth to draw. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 10, 2018 10:13:25 GMT
But we're not asking why people in heaven don't do something; we're asking why people on Earth don't do something. Yes, but if heaven is supposed to be perfect, then 'I won't regret ending this early, therefore I may as well just go straight to paradise' would be a reasonable inference for someone on Earth to draw. Maybe, but aren't we asking why people really do what they do? |
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Feb 10, 2018 10:19:43 GMT
If you believe in life after death (redux) .... Two weeks ago, I started a thread about life after death. It immediately degenerated into a debate about whether suicide is in the Bible. So let's take suicide out of the equation. This question is for hard-core theists. So, if you believe in life after death, why not live dangerously. Do you visit a doctor? If you believe in life after death, why bother going to a doctor. Having a heart attack? Don't bother calling for an ambulance because you will soon "be in a better place". Why bother to get a flu shot because God will take care of you. If someone dares you to walk a tightrope across the Grand Canyon, go ahead because if you die, it's no big deal. Why not drive 120 MPH, it will save you time here and if you crash, it will shorten the time before you meet Jesus. In other words, do you reaaaaaaalllly believe in life after death, cause I sure have my doubts. I am not a christian, and I believe in reincarnation. I believe that earth is like a classroom, where we have to learn and grow through life experiences. We have to experience pain and beauty and love and hatred and joy and sorrow and all the complexities of being human, because that is what deepens the soul, and helps us gain Wisdom. Souls are forged like steel to become strong and wise and unbreakable, and that is done through challenge and hardship. I do believe that if the Lessons are too much for some people, they should be able to leave School early, but I still believe they will have to repeat the Lessons the next time around. So, I figure you may as well stick it out and deal with life's challenges, and allow yourself to grow, because that's the whole reason we're here.
I have no doubts about the afterlife, because I've seen so much that I couldn't doubt even if I wanted to. My inner skeptic has been silent for years now. Some things can't be explained.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 10, 2018 10:30:21 GMT
It's finite within the body you encompass, but that's not to dismiss the cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth. In that sense, it makes it infinite. But then again, the cycle can also be broken. It's called transcendence. Buddha and Christ realized this. Yeah, if you believe in reincarnation/a return to Earth it would be different, maybe, although there the issue would be that once a particular life is over, your memory is apparently wiped, so that for a particular conscious manifestation, it's as if there's no afterlife after all. That would only not be the case for folks who believe that their personal identity continues from life to life with some degree of conscious awareness and/or memory retention. It's the impermanence of it all, but only through the illusion of life here on earth. Consciousness is infinite\eternal. As for each of our earthbound experiences, I can't really answer if we recollect before rebirth, but much of our lives and where we are placed, is also part of the journey of our karma. It's all action and consequence and I'd like to think that you wouldn't refute this aspect of our lives. Due to consequence, NO-ONE gets away with anything in the end. That is just the simple law of the universe and creation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 11:28:27 GMT
tpfkar If you actually understood properly, you wouldn't think that there was anything irrational about me trying to convince people on the Internet to have beliefs tomorrow which are different from what they are today, because nothing that I've stated implies that a person's opinions remain static throughout their life. Any definition of 'free will' other than that which posits that human minds operate independently of causality is not sufficient for Christians to shift blame from God on to humanity (or claim that absolutely anyone can become 'saved'). Therefore, novastar (and other Christians) are clearly alluding to a version of free will which you are suggesting that you don't believe exists, but aren't being very clear about because you perhaps don't want to reject it even though you can ostensibly see that it is incoherent. And from your response it comes across as though you are conceding that novastar's interpretation of free will (the incoherent one that would need to exist in order to support her beliefs) is a verifiable aspect of reality. If I understood as you do, I'd likely be under close watch. You've said that you and everyone have no real choice; yet you quite frantically try to get them to choose differently. That there is no "real" choice may or may not be the true case, highly dependent on how you interpret things, but if you truly "know" that you and they are as you say just preprogrammed robots without real choice, then choosing to try to get them to choose differently without laughing at yourself at the crazy self-contradiction the molecules of fate are making your fingers do to the keyboard is unadulterated high irrationality. More evidence is the suggestion that I implied your position implied peoples' opinions remained static. I only laugh at you choosing to work hard to to get them to change when no matter what you choose to do, according to you, whether lying down in front of a train or getting possession of the treasured nuke suitcase could possibly make any difference one way or the other. Sure if one or the other happens it's a different scenario, but according to you, you're just a robot and really had "real" no input at all. Do you think player pianos get intensely emotional? Would it be rational for them to if they had a consciousness and knew they weren't really choosing the tunes? As for Christians, all the have to do is say "magic!, free will exists" and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can do is point out that God had to be either impotent or a bastard to set some up and not others. The good ones are still good and the sh!tty ones are still sh!tty, but the new bit is God is culpable for whatever they are. That things will only go one way is another uncontroversial thing that you try to work for purpose. People are still in there as a constituent part of it choosing and doing and making it go that way according to their desires and characteristics.
Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldYour point doesn't even make sense. Of course hearing other opinions is one causal deterministic factor which results in other people changing their mind. And the way that I act, including how I feel about the way I act is predetermined and there's no possibility for me to act or feel other than I have done. I'm a conduit for change (whether it's the change I want or otherwise), and it could not be any different, as not to act is an option which is always impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 10, 2018 12:16:04 GMT
tpfkar If I understood as you do, I'd likely be under close watch. You've said that you and everyone have no real choice; yet you quite frantically try to get them to choose differently. That there is no "real" choice may or may not be the true case, highly dependent on how you interpret things, but if you truly "know" that you and they are as you say just preprogrammed robots without real choice, then choosing to try to get them to choose differently without laughing at yourself at the crazy self-contradiction the molecules of fate are making your fingers do to the keyboard is unadulterated high irrationality. More evidence is the suggestion that I implied your position implied peoples' opinions remained static. I only laugh at you choosing to work hard to to get them to change when no matter what you choose to do, according to you, whether lying down in front of a train or getting possession of the treasured nuke suitcase could possibly make any difference one way or the other. Sure if one or the other happens it's a different scenario, but according to you, you're just a robot and really had "real" no input at all. Do you think player pianos get intensely emotional? Would it be rational for them to if they had a consciousness and knew they weren't really choosing the tunes? As for Christians, all the have to do is say "magic!, free will exists" and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can do is point out that God had to be either impotent or a bastard to set some up and not others. The good ones are still good and the sh!tty ones are still sh!tty, but the new bit is God is culpable for whatever they are. That things will only go one way is another uncontroversial thing that you try to work for purpose. People are still in there as a constituent part of it choosing and doing and making it go that way according to their desires and characteristics.
Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldYour point doesn't even make sense. Of course hearing other opinions is one causal deterministic factor which results in other people changing their mind. And the way that I act, including how I feel about the way I act is predetermined and there's no possibility for me to act or feel other than I have done. I'm a conduit for change (whether it's the change I want or otherwise), and it could not be any different, as not to act is an option which is always impossible. Your inability to read coupled with your complete irrationality makes perfect sense. I just pointed out that their "mind" changed. Not for anything you "chose" to do. And I pointed out directly that I understand that, according to your beliefs, you have absolutely no choice but to appear absolutely irrational in your thinking, as the gods of the Great Clack pre-destined since (before?)(the beginning of?) time. Just as by your beliefs I was pre-determined to mock the hilarity of the "thinking".  Things only ever happening one way is not controversial. That's how it should go anywhere but in shattered-mind land.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 0:16:44 GMT
tpfkar Your point doesn't even make sense. Of course hearing other opinions is one causal deterministic factor which results in other people changing their mind. And the way that I act, including how I feel about the way I act is predetermined and there's no possibility for me to act or feel other than I have done. I'm a conduit for change (whether it's the change I want or otherwise), and it could not be any different, as not to act is an option which is always impossible. Your inability to read coupled with your complete irrationality makes perfect sense. I just pointed out that their "mind" changed. Not for anything you "chose" to do. And I pointed out directly that I understand that, according to your beliefs, you have absolutely no choice but to appear absolutely irrational in your thinking, as the gods of the Great Clack pre-destined since (before?)(the beginning of?) time. Just as by your beliefs I was pre-determined to mock the hilarity of the "thinking". Things only ever happening one way is not controversial. That's how it should go anywhere but in shattered-mind land.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.Well I know that I only appear irrational to those who wish to retain some sense of mystery and sanctity about human life. But in any case, everything that I have done up to this point has been unavoidable. Clearly the fact that there is only one choice available is controversial, given that I'm not sure whethe you accept that as the truth, and it is clear that the theists you've been indulging with their belief in free will believe that God gave them the ability NOT to be limited to just one possible choice at any given juncture. It's clear that, to them, free will means something more than the ability to choose the only option available to them as a consequence of a long chain of causality. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 11, 2018 0:47:07 GMT
tpfkar Your inability to read coupled with your complete irrationality makes perfect sense. I just pointed out that their "mind" changed. Not for anything you "chose" to do. And I pointed out directly that I understand that, according to your beliefs, you have absolutely no choice but to appear absolutely irrational in your thinking, as the gods of the Great Clack pre-destined since (before?)(the beginning of?) time. Just as by your beliefs I was pre-determined to mock the hilarity of the "thinking". Things only ever happening one way is not controversial. That's how it should go anywhere but in shattered-mind land.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.Well I know that I only appear irrational to those who wish to retain some sense of mystery and sanctity about human life. But in any case, everything that I have done up to this point has been unavoidable. Clearly the fact that there is only one choice available is controversial, given that I'm not sure whethe you accept that as the truth, and it is clear that the theists you've been indulging with their belief in free will believe that God gave them the ability NOT to be limited to just one possible choice at any given juncture. It's clear that, to them, free will means something more than the ability to choose the only option available to them as a consequence of a long chain of causality. You're the wholly religious one of a cult looking for perfection based on a mystical, mythical "Objective". Who like any Jim Jonesian, Heavens Gater, or Branch Dividian wants to die but is so narcissistic he wants to take the world with him. And forcefully violate women on the way. So of course your "mystery and sanctity" is just projection like any aggrieved Christian falls back on. There's no "mystery and sanctity" with "get it while you can before you're dirt". But of course you're in such awe and worship that you ascribe all good things including valuing life as only coming from religion. You haven't dropped your procreation worship, you just mirror-imaged and got even more wacko with it. Nope, things only happening one way, much like us part & parcel of the cause and effect, is the the only thing rational and coherent, as opposed to your "choosing" to furiously attempt to get others to "choose" while simultaneously holding that real choice doesn't exist, or your demands for infinite regression to be a part of free will, your comical "imposition" of birthing and letting them decide but not of force-terminating by your own bloodlust, your delusion that your morals come from an Objective but the morals of athei-, whoops, I mean sane people who want to experience while things last and not mass murder everybody are just subjective. And of course the whole poison the atmosphere nuke the world teenage goth anarchist psychopath dreams. Cause & effect is what we're part of and do with our free will.  Making choices according to our preferences & who we are every day all day long. Regardless of your morbid pathetic mousy-murderous needs.
Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 23:37:46 GMT
But of course, you miss out the crucial part where you start channeling the Pope to dictate that people shouldn't be empowered to exercise contol over their own existence by being assisted to opt out if they determine that the suffering isn't worth it. Because if it weren't for what was causing them to want to die, they wouldn't want to die and we have to protect people from harm by forcing them to endure harm and making sure that they can't avoid being harmed. If there's only one choice you can make, that's not free. Especially when, because of the perspective from which you're inexorably approaching the choice, that one choice is frequently harmful to your own wellbeing and that of others. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 11, 2018 23:54:49 GMT
tpfkar But of course, you miss out the crucial part where you start channeling the Pope to dictate that people shouldn't be empowered to exercise contol over their own existence by being assisted to opt out if they determine that the suffering isn't worth it. Because if it weren't for what was causing them to want to die, they wouldn't want to die and we have to protect people from harm by forcing them to endure harm and making sure that they can't avoid being harmed. If there's only one choice you can make, that's not free. Especially when, because of the perspective from which you're inexorably approaching the choice, that one choice is frequently harmful to your own wellbeing and that of others. No, I didn't miss the part where you're a religious wacko projecting wildly. Wanting to forcefully violate countless and kill everyone for your death cult, even the other deranged, as opposed to supporting them to get through their illness. You even called successful treatment for them "brainwashing". And of course your really truly sane brilliance that killing someone instantly by putting a bullet into their brain not is "harming" them. And your further "libertarian" care for the mentally ill of wishing to make them available for sexual mutilation and as human meals for predators, as long as the mentally ill "assent" to it. And regardless of the ridiculousness of your patent illogic, even if one stipulated free will via some magic or another like your Great Objective, things would still only happen one way.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 23:59:36 GMT
tpfkar But of course, you miss out the crucial part where you start channeling the Pope to dictate that people shouldn't be empowered to exercise contol over their own existence by being assisted to opt out if they determine that the suffering isn't worth it. Because if it weren't for what was causing them to want to die, they wouldn't want to die and we have to protect people from harm by forcing them to endure harm and making sure that they can't avoid being harmed. If there's only one choice you can make, that's not free. Especially when, because of the perspective from which you're inexorably approaching the choice, that one choice is frequently harmful to your own wellbeing and that of others. No, I didn't miss the part where you're a religious wacko projecting wildly. Wanting to forcefully violate countless and kill everyone for your death cult, even the other deranged, as opposed to supporting them to get through their illness. You even called successful treatment for them "brainwashing". And of course your really truly sane brilliance that killing someone instantly by putting a bullet into their brain not is "harming" them. And your further "libertarian" care for the mentally ill of wishing to make them available for sexual mutilation and as human meals for predators, as long as the mentally ill "assent" to it. And regardless of the ridiculousness of your patent illogic, even if one stipulated free will via some magic or another like your Great Objective, things would still only happen one way.
Does Free Will Exist?You did gloss over the religious dimension to your own beliefs. "Get it while you can before you're dirt" doesn't imply anything about an overreaching government placing restrictions on one's freedom to seek out an end to one's existence, which may include involving consenting third parties who are willing to offer their services and products in order to ease the process along. So what you're responding with is a strawman argument, because as you know, I don't have any problem with the "get it while you can before you're dirt" part. And I've always maintained that free will, in any meaningful sense, would be logically impossible under any scenario that could be imagined by the human mind. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 0:13:57 GMT
tpfkar No, I didn't miss the part where you're a religious wacko projecting wildly. Wanting to forcefully violate countless and kill everyone for your death cult, even the other deranged, as opposed to supporting them to get through their illness. You even called successful treatment for them "brainwashing". And of course your really truly sane brilliance that killing someone instantly by putting a bullet into their brain not is "harming" them. And your further "libertarian" care for the mentally ill of wishing to make them available for sexual mutilation and as human meals for predators, as long as the mentally ill "assent" to it. And regardless of the ridiculousness of your patent illogic, even if one stipulated free will via some magic or another like your Great Objective, things would still only happen one way.
Does Free Will Exist?You did gloss over the religious dimension to your own beliefs. "Get it while you can before you're dirt" doesn't imply anything about an overreaching government placing restrictions on one's freedom to seek out an end to one's existence, which may include involving consenting third parties who are willing to offer their services and products in order to ease the process along. So what you're responding with is a strawman argument, because as you know, I don't have any problem with the "get it while you can before you're dirt" part. And I've always maintained that free will, in any meaningful sense, would be logically impossible under any scenario that could be imagined by the human mind. The only "religious dimension" is your awe and reverence of religion, borne of your own rabid religiosity and further evidenced by your continual cult framings. Regardless of your supplication to it, religion is the product of man and not the source of ideas like valuing life and protecting the vulnerable. Of course restrictions on third parties from sexually mutilating, eating and killing the mentally ill is not "restrictions on one's freedom to seek out an end to one's existence", it's protection from the murderous sexual psychopaths about. If one of sound mind has truly decided to end their own life it is a trivial physical process. Acting out and getting others involved and the authorities' notice is ironclad evidence of some combination of mental incompetence and motivations other than actual death. And of course, your strawman prattle is ludicrous, as "get it while you can before you're dirt" is wholly incompatible with the Catholic faith or your cult faith or any other projection you sillily try to throw up. Also I understand that you have such a need for free will to be something you can ineptly, counterproductively use against competitor religions, that you can't process stipulated hypotheticals. Or just don't have the cognitive competence, of course.
Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air. |
|
