if you were being rational youd get out there right now and make sure you get baptized by every christian confession there is, grow a beard, get your foreskin cut off, start worshipping every single hindu god, buy a buddha and beat up every chinese you encounter on your way
~80 years of this would be nothing compared to eternity in hell and i suppose you never can be too sure to have all bases covered

But what if I miss the one cult that actually has the Truth? What if one of those religions has a clause damning anyone for covering their bases? Can't risk it.

Here's the plan: I'll disbelieve everything in equal measure. They can't all send me to hell or reincarnate me as a dung beetle if I'm wrong ... can they?

Quote from Hankstar :

Here's the plan: I'll disbelieve everything in equal measure. They can't all send me to hell or reincarnate me as a dung beetle if I'm wrong ... can they?

I follow something along the lines of Confucians: Why worry about the afterlife when you hardly know life itself.

Being an agnostic (or a "rational agnostic" is there's such a term), I tend to avoid blindly following a particular faith. But I am open minded to all and instead of debating "who's right or wrong", I hold a "who cares? We are all in this together" view. Just as long as I or anyone else leads a nondestructive (to himself or others) and happy life that's all that really should matter (and really what religion is suppose to be all about).

None of the major religions really condemn you for not following their faith (cults and small sects such as Calvinism are exceptions). Therefore, I try to lead a happy, productive, and moral life.

When I die, if there turns out that there is a God, he wont condemn me for little trivial facts of "which faith do you belong to". What he should (and based on religion really does care about) is the integrity of your character and value of your past life.

A good moral caring atheist will have a better chance at getting into heaven than a hypocritical but "faithful" church going Christian sociopath.

And if there is no God? Well, that's the end of that, and at least:
1. I have no regrets
2. I'm not remembered with scorn

However, I do believe that there is such a thing as belonging to an wrong religion and that's belonging to something evil. If your "religion" praises the killings of random people or vigilantism then you really need to re-evaluate yourself. If you are just that kind of person (it can range from being evil to just a jerk on the "immoral" spectrum), well...can't say your going to hell, but you really need to re-evaluate yourself as well.

Excellent conversation from a buddhist perspective.

After all, we ( buddhists ) can explain away other peoples completely correct views as being perceived reality, as all most people see is what they believe to be true, rather than what really exists. As an example, look at a wooden table, at a perceived newtonian level it's a solid table. Now look at the same table at an atomic level, suddenly it becomes a few atoms and a lot of nothing for the atom's to move around in. At this level the table is clearly not solid. Yet it's still the same table.........

One thing I really enjoy about these conversations is the absolute certainty that people give to a matter of faith, which is by definition completely undefinable and intrinsicely lacking anything absolute.

All that anyone can be certain about are their own views ( and frequently people are fairly screwed up even there ) and certainly no one has any 'right' to demand that their personal view should be inflicted on anyone else.

I chose Buddhism personally as there's -
A: No preaching, all religions/views are fine and where ever people are is where their meant to be.
B: Being happy is the goal.
c: Life really is a joke !

But, I would never feel that this is for anyone but me, it's up to everyone to make their own choices in life, we all have complete free will, it's just that most people don't realise this fact and live their lives in self created boxes.

But again, thats fine cus that's their choice ( see the earlier point re free will ) because everyone choses where they are spiritually and where ever people are is where they should be on their journey.

A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Zeus.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Jahweh.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Brahma.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Allah.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of God.

Atheists are cowards: in every religious issue they follow the opinion of the majority.

Or: everyone's an atheist with regard to Zeus, Thor, Baal & The Great Galactic Squid - atheists just go one god further

Quote from Racer X NZ :

I chose Buddhism personally as there's -
A: No preaching, all religions/views are fine and where ever people are is where their meant to be.
B: Being happy is the goal.
c: Life really is a joke !

Or ... did Buddhism choose you? Interestingly enough, I stopped by Buddhism on my way out of religion altogether, as I'd always had respect for its concept and its respect for other faiths - or the absence of faith. I still have more respect for Buddhism than any theistic religion. That A, B & C is pretty much how I try to live anyway. Sadly though, I think it's a three-part Golden Rule that a lot of organised religions and their followers completely miss. Blinded by centuries of brutal competition for souls, maybe ...

Quote from wsinda :

A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Zeus.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Jahweh.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Brahma.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Allah.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of God.

Atheists are cowards: in every religious issue they follow the opinion of the majority.

Pehaps its just that us Atheists believe in something a little more tangible - like ourselfs.
We just seem to know what is right and what is wrong, this comes from within ourselfes, and not from a Sunday morning singsong.

We just don't to need a crutch to help us get along. we have the brains and the balls to do it all by ourselfs - so who's a coward?

Quote from Polyracer :

We just seem to know what is right and what is wrong, this comes from within ourselfes, and not from a Sunday morning singsong.

Yep, and so do the theists. In his article The Moral Instinct, Steven Pinker argues that our moral judgment stems from a mechanism that evolution built in our psyche, and that sacred books have little weight in these matters.

Quote :

We just don't to need a crutch to help us get along. we have the brains and the balls to do it all by ourselfs - so who's a coward?

Don't be offended, I'm an atheist myself. My post was all in jest.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Thanks for that Jak. Although all i get in the spreadsheet is the above information and a flower

Change the values then - The Formulas do all the work for you.

Quote from wsinda :

Don't be offended, I'm an atheist myself. My post was all in jest.

Sry bro - my mistake

Guess its a thousand hail Satans for me then

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Excellent conversation from a buddhist perspective.

After all, we ( buddhists ) can explain away other peoples completely correct views as being perceived reality, as all most people see is what they believe to be true, rather than what really exists. As an example, look at a wooden table, at a perceived newtonian level it's a solid table. Now look at the same table at an atomic level, suddenly it becomes a few atoms and a lot of nothing for the atom's to move around in. At this level the table is clearly not solid. Yet it's still the same table.........

Most if not all Eastern Religion really doesn't care exactly what you believe. They mainly care about internal personal character (which is what the other Western/Middle Eastern religion SHOULD care about too) Hindu even allows it's members to join another religion (Gandhi became a Christian as well).

But the Chinese religion, Buddhism, Taoist and Confucianism do not conflict with each other. In fact, it is best to follow or at least have the knowledge of all three.

What is not natural is supernatural.

Assume everything in the universe is governed by natural law.

You are a part of the universe therefore you are governed by natural law.

The matter in your brain is a part of the universe therefore it is governed by natural law.

Your decision to become an atheist is governed by natural law.

My decision to believe in God is governed by natural law.

So, what are we arguing about?

I guess natural law makes us argue.

For the materialist, there is simply no way around this problem no matter how much he protests.

But the atheist can never admit to anything supernatural because that would leave just slightest crack and the entire pantheon of gods would come bursting through.

Quote from somasleep :

For the materialist, there is simply no way around this problem no matter how much he protests.

What problem? Yes, your belief in god is a result of your human brain doing it's thing. I fail to see how that makes that belief correct. It's a completely flawed argument.

What we're arguing about: absolute certainty of something that, by definition, is uncertain. The core issue of this argument is the believers' claim of knowledge of something which basically cannot be known.

That which is supernatural is, by definition, undetectable, unobservable and unknowable by any natural means. Since all we humans have at our disposal are natural means of observation & detection, all a supernatural believer can ever do is think, speculate, feel or just plain wish that the supernatural exists. He can't know.

On the flip side, a rational person can't know absolutely that the supernatural doesn't exist. He can, however, maintain that if it did exist he still wouldn't be able to detect it, purely because he can only observe things via his natural senses. The rationalist can also demand to know how it is that believers presume to know it exists when they are as bound by natural law as anyone else. How indeed do you prove the existence of the unobservable?

The rational person will always leave a door open in his mind to be proven wrong (otherwise he wouldn't be very rational), but since he, like any human, only has his natural senses to go on, anything supernatural wishing to prove its existence would have to employ natural means in order to be observed.

Just a very quick reply, it's 3am here and i need sleep so i ain't got time to argue right now, but

Quote from somasleep :

Your decision to become an atheist is governed by natural law.

My decision to believe in God is governed by natural law.

Romans 8:29-30
For those whom he (God) foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Sounds like we ain't got no say in the matter.

Quote from Hankstar :

That which is supernatural is, by definition, undetectable, unobservable and unknowable by any natural means. Since all we humans have at our disposal are natural means of observation & detection, all a supernatural believer can ever do is think, speculate, feel or just plain wish that the supernatural exists. He can't know.

hm i hadnt thought of that angle
therefore free will (if it exists at all) cannot be supernatural

True, agreed.

Hypothetically, even if free will did have a supernatural source, there's no way any of us mere carbon-based mortals could ever know, or even be reasonably sure. We might read about it in a book, and the book might assert the book itself is the truth - but since the book was written on paper, with pens and ink, by mortal humans, all within the boundaries of natural laws - well I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this ...

Quote from Shotglass :

hm i hadnt thought of that angle
therefore free will (if it exists at all) cannot be supernatural

You're a human being. You make choices every day of your life. Why do you need a scientific proof that you have free will?!

I don't have a scientific proof but rather a logical proof. The claim, "I have no free will" is self-contradictory. If the claim is true then the we don't have any freedom to agree or disagree. We can reject the claim because it makes truth unknowable.

Doesn't that make sense?

Maz4200,

My argument is a logical argument and not a Biblical one. I argue that a supernatural aspect is needed to explain human qualities.

Why not just admit that while physics is great for explaining rocks, planets, and stars it doesn't do a good job explaining people?

Somasleep, you continue to avoid directly addressing any of the points myself or anyone else has raised. Simply continuing to assert as absolute fact that the supernatural not only exists but is necessary for human qualities leads to a conclusion that you're either ignoring what everyone else has to say, that you have no relevant response to it or that you don't understand it well enough to respond meaningfully.

Quote from somasleep :

The claim, "I have no free will" is self-contradictory.

Noone made that claim. Shotglass basically said "if free will exists it must be natural" ... since it would exist in beings which are natural and who can only perceive by natural means, his statement makes perfect sense.

Quote :

I don't have a scientific proof but rather a logical proof.

Since when are logic and science exclusive? Proof that's grounded in science is basically by definition logical. Proof is any evidence shows an argument to be true. The sub-category is irrelevant. You can either prove something or you can't.

Quote :

My argument is a logical argument and not a Biblical one. I argue that a supernatural aspect is needed to explain human qualities.

Spock would call "fail" on that train of logic. To attempt to argue logically that a supernatural aspect is necessary is oxymoronical. Anything supernatural is, logically, unavailable to human perception because we can only perceive that which exists naturally. Logically, using logic to explain that which, logically, we can't even perceive, is the very height of illogical thinking.

As for this argument that the supernatural is a necessary requirement for being human, I've yet to see anything approaching any substance. At this point the very core of your argument is itself insubstantial, etheric, invisible...supernatural, if you will.

And if this allegedly logical argument for the supernatural isn't Biblical, I'd be interested to hear where your concept of the supernatural come from in the first place.

Quote from Hankstar :

Anything supernatural is, logically, unavailable to human perception because we can only perceive that which exists naturally. Logically, using logic to explain that which, logically, we can't even perceive, is the very height of illogical thinking.

I'm sure you must have a relative who has passed away. Now if tomorrow they knocked on your door and had tea with you, would that count as supernatural?

If you saw a burning bush that didn't burn but heard a loud booming voice saying, "I am the Lord your God!" Wouldn't you call that supernatural?

Your claim that the supernatural is unavailable to human perception fails.

If 7 loaves and 2 fish somehow multiply to feed a crowd of 4,000 that would count as supernatural, woudn't? That would be perceivable wouldn't it?

But my claim is not about Biblical miracles. I'm just proving that your claim that the supernatural is unavailable to human perception is false.

If an apple falling from a tree stopped in mid air, that would suggest something supernatural. Of course, you could speculate about natural causes like an invisible alien playing games or a gravitational anamoly but one would be justified in believing it to be supernatural, right?

We directly perceive free will. We experience an ability to act and choose freely. What makes it supernatural is simply our perception that our choices are not bound by what is typically understood as "natural law" (physics, chemistry, biology).


Now if you want an oxymoron then try this: a scientific explanation of free will.

I hope I answered your questions. If I missed something please ask.

Quote from somesleep :

If I missed something please ask.

Only the point. You give me a list of things that would conceivably fall into the supernaturally-inspired, like a zombie grandmother, non-burning burning bushes that have delusions of grandeur and, for crying out loud, the fanciful loaves and fishes story and expect that'll sway me. How exactly do these hypothetical, fictional situations give any weight to your argument that free will and humanity require the supernatural? They're completely bloody irrelevant!

Quote :

Now if you want an oxymoron then try this: a scientific explanation of free will.

That's only oxymoronical if you start off by assuming free will can't be explained scientifically or naturally. I don't assume free will can be explained scientifically, or even that it can be explained at all. What I have confidence in is this: IF free will is a uniquely human phenomenon, the only way we will ever explain it is through natural scientific examination, which is all humans can comprehend. I'm not someone with any expertise in neuroscience, psychology or anthropology or any field that could begin to properly investigate free will as a human phenomenon (though I've mentioned my untrained thoughts on free will in previous posts) but I know when & where my knowledge begins & ends and I make no claims to know what I can't possibly know. You, on the other hand, make the crucial (and common, among the religious) mistake of starting off with a cluster of emotional, faith-based, unproven (unprovable) assumptions and working backwards from them.

You still have provided nothing with which to back up your baseless assumptions that free will is supernaturally bestowed or that supernatural intervention is necessary for humanity to function. You can continue to list as many hypothetical what-ifs as you like but they won't even begin to constitute an argument, let alone evidence for your position. Once again, you sidestep the point and derail the argument with irrelevancies.

Last time: tell me WHY (on what basis, how, etc) you think humanity needs the supernatural & WHY free will in particular requires supernatural intervention - or just stop posting. If all you're going to do is say "it just has to" or list hypothetical ghost-story situations (as if they have any bearing on this topic) then there's nothing left for us to discuss.

Quote from Hankstar :

You give me a list of things that would conceivably fall into the supernaturally-inspired, like a zombie grandmother, non-burning burning bushes that have delusions of grandeur and, for crying out loud, the fanciful loaves and fishes story and expect that'll sway me. How exactly do these hypothetical, fictional situations give any weight to your argument that free will and humanity require the supernatural? They're completely bloody irrelevant!

You miss the point here. You claimed that it was impossible to physically observe a supernatural event.

Quote from Hankstar :

Last time: tell me WHY (on what basis, how, etc) you think humanity needs the supernatural & WHY free will in particular requires supernatural intervention - or just stop posting. If all you're going to do is say "it just has to" or list hypothetical ghost-story situations (as if they have any bearing on this topic) then there's nothing left for us to discuss.

I simply assumed that the problem of free will was well understood by most. Do we choose or does the state of our brain and environment choose for us? Are our choices determined by prior physical states? Or are they random?

I assumed the "problem of free will" was well understood. My position is not something I invented. It's a well known argument (so I thought).

It's very late here in New York so I can't go into a lengthy explanation right now. I'll try and explain later.

Quote from somasleep :

Now if you want an oxymoron then try this: a scientific explanation of free will.

Did I just not give a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation on now free will is in fact biological and independent of any supernatural factors?

Quote from somasleep :

I hope I answered your questions. If I missed something please ask.

There's nothing wrong with admitting that your not correct in an argument. You can at least acknowledge that me, hankstar's and other's points make sense and correctly address your situation. I've admit fault and ignorance many times throughout the entire time that I was here.

But right now, you seem the kind of guy that no matter now much times someone say the moon is white you still believe that the moon is purple.

Start reading and thinking, but until then there's no reason why I should keep posting...

Seems we are being unfair to somasleep here, all he has to argue with, is his faith in his particular God which could be one God of many.
True he also has one book that has remained constant for around two thousand years now..... well apart from misstranslation and corruption by those with their own agendas.

But on the other side of the argument you only have accumulated logic and science compiled in hundreds of thousands of books - all mostly agreeing with each other on vital points.

All of these scientific journals have contributed something to the progress of a constantly changing modern society which is far removed from a bunch of shepherds in a far away land a long time ago.

To be accepted into modern thinking, a scientific theory has to be submitted and questioned and proven by people who have a full grasp of the physics and technical detail involved.

somasleep - your fish/loafs and burning bush means absolutely nothing here - or to any individual with a searching questioning mind, because for the most part we regard it as unprovable lies anyway.

You believe it if you want to, that is your choice - well at least you think it is, if you want to convince us of your arguments then you need something that is much more substantial in the way of observable proof.

Simple faith and faith on its own, will not do.

I hope you will forgive me for jumping in, here, but I wish to suggest that it would be useful for your discussion, to agree upon a definition for your terms. "Free will" is a term that, in my experience, is not clearly defined.

A well-known philosophical riddle is: "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" It seems to me that the answer to this question depends upon what is meant by "make a sound." If one means, "produce sound waves in the surrounding air" then we can expect that the answer is yes, assuming constant natural laws; if one means, "produce a hearing sensation," then the answer is no, since it has been stated, as part of the question, that no one hears the tree fall.

"Will" may perhaps be regarded as synonymous with "intent," and I suppose that it is likely that there can be agreement with the proposition that human beings can have intent, and act according to it. "Free" means "without constraint" and it may be presumed that "constraint" would include "necessity to act as an effect, resulting from a cause," so that "free" would mean "having no cause" or "undetermined." Alternatively, this may not be what is commonly understood as the meaning of the word "free" in the context of "free will;" it may instead be that "free" means "not having been caused by a thing or event that has been specified."

"Reason" assumes determination by logical implication (logic is a methodology designed for achieving accurate inference), and "science" tends to assume predictability (including, by comparitive probability), since its basic intent seems to be to understand phenomena and to be able to explain and predict their behavior. This makes the whole issue of "free will" perhaps insoluble by reason or science.

Anyway, I suggest that your debate is likely to be successful in reaching some reasonable, agreed-upon conclusion, only if you start with agreed-upon premises/definitions of terms.


As an aside, I will also suggest that one should be careful about using the words "science" or "scientific." Science is not characterized simply by the use of reasoning; it is defined by the Scientific Method, which necessarily includes the experimental confirmation of any hypothesis - reasonable, or not.