See Alot Of Different Stuff Here So...

It didn't go out in the 1800s! Determinism has been gaining even more evidence since the 1800s. Relativity is not the full story, neither is Quantum Mechanics. QM also is not the ticket to free will; it merely introduces probability into the workings of nature, but you cannot go from newtonian clockwork to QM dice rolling and think you've found your free will there. You only trade a more predictable determinism for a more chance based determinism; there is still no data regarding an "agent" which has "free will".

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect it based on the evidence. The post you quote can be rewritten as "If there is no such thing as free will, then arguing against that by saying that therefore opinions wouldn't have value, doesn't make much sense, because value is something that is also governed by this lack of free will, so whether or not something has value to you would also simply be a process the entire universe is producing inside your mind at that moment"

The debate of free will vs determinism is really couched within (or couches) the debate of whether or not there is such a thing as a Self; I assume when you say "free will", you are describing an agent, a Self, which is able to act against the flow of the rest of the universe. That is, were we to remove that agency magically from that person, and turn them into an automaton, we should see a difference in how events play out.

But from a variety of sources we see data strongly suggesting two things; our realities as individuals are shaped wholly by the realities of circumstance and the rest of the universe (determinism), and when we look for the agent inside our mind who is doing the choosing, whether through neuroimaging (nada) or through introspection (zip) there is a void.

Sam Harris makes a great analogy to this illusion:



Consider the analogy of the perceived square in the middle of this image to that of the Self. Our mind is sure that we see a square, in fact for those not familiar with this illusion, it can take some real effort to point out why the square is not really there in the image. It is the same way with the Self; our mind perceives a "selfhood", but when we stare into it through introspection and brain studies, or when we walk through our theories on the evolution of consciousness, the illusion falls away, just like the square in the image. That is the definition of an illusion; something that looks to be one way, but disappears when looked at carefully. The question arises "How can we convincingly show that there is no Self" . . . it is mirrored by "How can we convincingly show that there is no square in this image"? All we can do is to point at the lack of a square and keep pointing and keep looking until we feel comfortable enough to conclude that there never was a square after all, just the illusion of one. It is persistent, even after this knowledge, because of neurophysiology, but that does not grant it true existence.

A clever person can ask "Yes, but to whom is this illusion true? WHO is being fooled by it? THAT one is your self!" but this is only to point out limitations in our language which has been developed around the very useful notion of the social Self. We simply lack the vocabulary and syntax to not make clumsy statements where we can't avoid using the terms "I", "me", "my", etc. Pronouns come with the package, but they may not actually point at anything concrete.

 

Ok, let's look at them.

What are the attitudes, beliefs, and practices that atheism uniformly holds? You can say one belief is the belief that there is no God; I will grant that belief for this discussion. You have yourself one belief that all atheists hold in common. How about attitudes? There are none which are defined by atheism. How about practices? There are none which are defined by atheism.

To what? There is nothing to conform to . . . atheism has no sacred texts or guidelines. You can't "double dip" here and say that we are scrupulously conforming to our belief in no god; we are merely holding that belief. Scrupulous conformity here refers to a social hierarchical order, a shared ethos, something which atheism lacks.

If you point at atheist churches, I will say that I am against those churches, and I am an atheist; therefore I already show a lack of conformity.

Perhaps here you are thinking of Science? Materialism? Those are actually not part of the atheism package . . . they are often found together, but atheism does not speak to these directly.

I would say the defining characteristic of atheism is a lack of belief in the utility of faith; that being said we could say that many atheists have for example, "faith in the good of their common man", or something like that. But this is not held as a religious identity amongst the atheists as a group . . . this is a personal conviction of certain atheists . . . others may lack this conviction!

 

I wasn't saying that Determinism went out in the 1800s. I was just saying that seeing the Universe as only Deterministic went out in the 1800s.

And I would argue that there is still something that sees the illusion of self. If there wasn't, then how could you see the illusion of self in the first place? If there was only the illusion of self, and no Self to observe that, then there would be no conclusion about the illusion of self.

This is basically an argument between Buddhism and Hinduism I would imagine.

 

I would say that attitudes and practices can vary in every Religion, and do in fact. But they are all held together by a common belief or beliefs. I can't fully agree that they may lack practices. Do you mean Ceremonies? Because there are some. http://www.atheistcentre.in/HistoryAtheistCeremonies.html

Ok, so you might be against some forms of conformity within Atheism but there still is a conformity element is there not? Some people refuse to go to Church also but can still be Christian. What's the difference?

Since Strong Atheism defines itself as a positive belief that there is no God, I would argue that that requires a certain amount of faith, but that's just me.

 

That example certainly illustrates how we are prone to pattern seeking and I would even go further, to say that it shows there are many automatic short cuts in our mental processes when encountering phenomena. However, does a explanation of understanding the misperception or a maneuver like justifying that squares are in fact present if we segment part of the pixels coordinate system, allow any room for compatibilism?

 

...those sound like the same thing... in either case both views are alive and well.

You're right, there is something that sees the illusion of self, but to call that thing self, is to err; because when we introspect and look at that thing which is perceiving all things, we find it is not a self at all. This is not something I can show you, this is an experiment you must conduct for yourself. Tell me what a self is and then tell me what you see when you gaze at the internal witness within. It is more akin to pure space; the cosmos looking at itself, but not as a separate individual.

That is indeed a point of contention between those two views, but it is also an argument within science. we can do our best here to not be rigid in ideologies in this discussion and not care which side said what.

Did you actually read your link? It describes common cultural ceremonies, ironically most of which have religious roots. These are not atheistic ceremonies . . . these are performed by primarily religious people in society, and the website is explaining to the reader that atheists do not lack any ceremony in their lives, because we still live in societies where things like naming ceremonies and death ceremonies take place. Atheism on its own provides no ceremonies.

Agreed, and some atheists can decide to have an "atheist church" and still be atheists. Conformity element to what? Remember you are encroaching now into arguments against particular atheists and not atheism itself. Atheism contains no dictum to conformity other than to question it.

Sure, but not the same kind of faith that theism usually does. It's the same kind of faith as the faith you have that your entire life isn't really an illusion and you are actually a homonculous inside a test tube in a demon's lab. It's more of an assumption based on the utility of that assumption and on the complete and total lack of evidence to the contrary. It's like the 'faith' we have that evidence should be valued . . . we simply have to start -somewhere- and pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps out of solipsism if we want to get anywhere. Once having crossed the river however, we would be wise to leave that boat behind.

I have a positive belief that there is no god . . . same way i have a positive belief that there are no leprechauns . . . if you want to say that i have faith that there are no leprechauns then i ask you to stand back and look at the worldview which is causing you to seriously consider the existence of leprechauns and ask whether it is a discerning one or whether one's mind can be so open that we may hear the wind whistling between one's ears . . .

I don't see any merit to compatibilism at all . . . it seems to me to be wanting to have its cake and eat it too

 

Dude, did you even peruse the site at all? These are Atheists in India, though it is an international organization. They are fighting far more that we are here in the US.
For instance most superstitions are attested to women, especially during puberty, menstruation and pregnancy.

I heard a story a couple of weeks ago where a young teen was agonizing over her fathers death. He had been sick quite some time, it was believed the cause of his illness was the girl had violated the taboo of not touching her father, or even entering the kitchen, during her period. all of her family and neighbors believed this to be the cause of his illness, and ultimately his death.

They are laying this shit on a 14 year old girl? Many also believe shit like viewing a solar eclipse will cause deformed babies.

If you want to indite atheists for being "religious" at ever opportunity, go ahead. There are bigger fights in the world than quibbling over semantics.

I'm not a part of this organization but I completely approve of their approach.

http://www.atheistcentre.in/HistoryAtheistCeremonies.html

"Right from birth to death of an individual, religions prescribe many ceremonies. Some of these are directly or indirectly connected with god and religion. As India is a multi religious, multi-ethnic and mutli-cultural with multitudes of people, regional variations of these customs are abundant.

Over the years the ceremonies became rigid and intransigent and people are forced to follow the age-old customs and traditions by habit and peer-group social pressure.

Atheists and humanists have to build an alternative to religion. Hence, atheists developed their own ceremonies, which are based on gender equality and social justice. Atheists know that there is only one life, no rebirth or hell or heaven. Atheists are individually and socially responsible for their actions and behaviour. Humans are makers of their systems, transcending caste, religion, and all other parochial considerations."

 

I will address your points by numbers because I can't seem to copy and paste your responses at the moment.

1. I think that Quantum Mechanics blew the door open to the realization that Determinism isn't the only consideration of the Universe and how it operates. This is what I mean that Determinism isn't the only view anymore. It still clashes very much with QM even 80 years later.

2. It's hard to say what Self is, but it's also hard to say what Space or Consciousness is, too. There is still something finding or not finding anything when looking for a self. This not finding IS the finding because it points one to the witness itself, the one who is doing the looking in the first place. This is the Self.

3. Was just pointing it out.

4. I'm just saying that at the Atheism Centre that certain Ceremonies are carried out. One doesn't have to go to these Churches, but people are, and they are performing the Ceremonies. The commonality is that there is a lack of anything Supernatural, and this uniform secular Ceremony is itself unique to Atheism.

5. Conformity element to meeting at Churches and having specific styles of Ceremonies. I would be making the same general argument towards particular Christians a​s well as not all Christians go to Church.

6. It's all a matter of opinion of whether one has experienced God or not.

 

If they're nothing to do with Religion at all then why do they have to build something in the first place? This building of community based on common beliefs is very akin to Religion

 

Still don't get it do ya...pfft

 

Anyway, regarding Free Will...it's probably kind of pointless to go in circles about debating that one. Whether it exists or not, you're still going to eat when you're hungry, and you're still going to do whatever that you do at any moment. It's a purely Philosophical question.

 

Issues of free will are probably much more worth discussion than the merits, or lack thereof, regarding atheism being a religion. The issue of free will directly gets to the core of what it means to be human, and involves issues ranging from ethics, to technology, to consciousness, to perhaps even beliefs.

 

At the end of the day, though, what is the true difference? Whether we come to an agreement about whether one has free will or not, what changes exactly?

 

I want to also address the point that I agree that when you look within, you don't find a self, which I would equate to the Ego. The Ego is rather a movement of thoughts and sensations, and there is no actual agent or entity there. So in this sense, you are right. There is no self.

But Self with a capital S would in my opinion be that which is looking, not finding a self, and seeing that it's just a movement. This Looking itself I would call the Self. The Eternal Witness, which is the Universe looking at itself, but non-personally, as you said. This Self isn't personal, but it is contained within all beings, which points to Oneness and one could perhaps call this God. So this kind of marries the two Buddhist and Hindu concepts together.

 

Potentially someone's whole life..


For instance, let's say there are a few different murder scenarios, each victim was shot.


The first scenario the assailant was young child who got a hold of their parents gun.


The second scenario was an adult who reportedly has a fit of rage, uncharacteristic of their personality and is later found to have developed a brain tumor.


The third scenario was from an individual that has a history of deviant violent behavior.


Do we assume they are all equally "free" or not to make the decisions they did and therefore receive the same sentences.

 

The majority of what you have there is very similar, if not a paraphrase, of the ideas put forward by the "Law of One" teachings, except your take on free will.
According to that viewpoint It is free will that allows for the myriad manifestations of this primordial energy or "Infinite Intelligence" as it is referred to.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?c=Cosmology

"The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible."

 

Isn't this already a debate, though? I'd say murder is murder. But I don't think that determining whether there is free will or not changes the sentence, or should change the sentence. But that's more an issue of Law than anything else. Juries make mistakes all the time, so no matter what the determination is of Free Will vs. no Free Will, there's still going to be debate about murder in the Court of Law.

 

So you maintain a young child which may have no idea of how a gun even works be sentenced the same as an adult with a clear intent and motive?

Interesting, I'm sure there are some, if not many who disagree with that view, which is why questions regarding free will are relevant outside of philosophy.

In the instance of the adult individual who has clear motives and warning signs to such behavior, a better understanding of free will could help determine whether such a person truly has no control over their behavior it free will is an illusion and possible barriers to put in place to prevent the crime, or if free will exists that such a person freely commits heinous acts.

 

No, I don't maintain that a young child get the same sentence, simply because it's a child. I don't really feel that the free will question has any relevance, though. It's no different than a question of insanity vs. sanity in a murder. If there's some sort of murder, there should be some sort of consequence, whether they were in "control" of the situation or not.

 

Ok, well I am thankful there are those who address the implications of free will, by raising questions and providing interesting circumstance that make it apparent the issue of free will has wide ranging implications, in a vast array of human experience and phenomena.