Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy do you think that agent-causation is a necessary condition for being free? Do you have an arguement for this claim, or do you just take this to be analytic?
I notice that many Atheists on this thread get very angry and judgemental at Theists for being self delusional , or dishonest , or brainwashed etc etc . However , if we really do have no free will then theists are just programmed to be this way. Religion is a product of nature not men. Better to get angry with evolution than the individuals. Would you ...[text shortened]... there - are you willing to either drop your anger or drop your determinism?
See my point?
Originally posted by bbarrOnly free within the way of maya—
Why do you think that agent-causation is a necessary condition for being free? Do you have an arguement for this claim, or do you just take this to be analytic?
though knowing the One that abides behind
the many veils and voices of the mind,
even Jesus was the dance of Shiva.*
(Now I’m going to duck my head...)
_________________________________
* The Shiva of Kashmiri Shaivism, which is strictly non-dualist, with only a few differences from Advaita Vedanta.
Originally posted by StarrmanIt is not out of step with rationality at all, it is rational to accept the illusion since it is in tune with our senses and interactive events. Even if I believe that free will does not exist and do not accept the illusion, it does not undermine the application of opinion and or reason to propositional claims. STARRMAN
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]So you believe that free will doesn't really exist but still behave as if it does? Ultimately you must believe that theists are idiots because nature has determined them to be so (not because they have chosen to be numbskulls) Therefore , logically , your anger at them is irrational because they can do no differ ...[text shortened]... , it does not undermine the application of opinion and or reason to propositional claims.
This is BS. It can never be rational to accept an illusion knowingly. You either believe you have free will or you don't . If you do then your experience of free will is NOT an illusion for you because you trust your experience of it is telling you the truth. If you don't then you must believe that your experience is therefore illusionary and rationality dictates you reject the illusion for the reality of no free will. You can't have you cake and eat it . Or perhaps you can? But then don't try playing the self delusion card on theists in future.
Mkae you mind up. To me it sounds like you do actually believe in free will. But the implications of this are we don't live in a totally deterministic universe.
Originally posted by StarrmanThere is no incongruency here. You have it backwards, I accept the illusion STARRMAN
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]So you believe that free will doesn't really exist but still behave as if it does? Ultimately you must believe that theists are idiots because nature has determined them to be so (not because they have chosen to be numbskulls) Therefore , logically , your anger at them is irrational because they can do no differ ...[text shortened]... , it does not undermine the application of opinion and or reason to propositional claims.
wHAT??🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Originally posted by knightmeisterOnce again your bizarrely skewed epistemology comes to bear. Of course you can accept an illusion willingly, ever been to see a magic show? Ever suspended belief in actual events whilst watching a film? Ever acted as if somebody hasn't said something you know they have to save embarrassment?
It is not out of step with rationality at all, it is rational to accept the illusion since it is in tune with our senses and interactive events. Even if I believe that free will does not exist and do not accept the illusion, it does not undermine the application of opinion and or reason to propositional claims. STARRMAN
This is BS. It can never be r ...[text shortened]... e will. But the implications of this are we don't live in a totally deterministic universe.
Originally posted by knightmeisterGo back and read the rest of the post, then think about the post you made which it was a reply to. Then try really, really hard to work out how my post reflects on yours. If you can't understand it, then give yourself some more smileys.
There is no incongruency here. You have it backwards, I accept the illusion STARRMAN
wHAT??🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Originally posted by bbarrO.K., so I guess you have no argument. You just presume that compatibilist accounts of free will are false. That's too bad, since libertarian accounts are incoherent.
Why do you think that agent-causation is a necessary condition for being free? Do you have an arguement for this claim, or do you just take this to be analytic?
Originally posted by StarrmanHow can accepting an illusion be congruent with rationality? Are you saying that the only rational thing to do is to live by an illusion knowingly? If so , this is impossible because if you know it's an illusion then you can't delude yourself.
Go back and read the rest of the post, then think about the post you made which it was a reply to. Then try really, really hard to work out how my post reflects on yours. If you can't understand it, then give yourself some more smileys.
Originally posted by knightmeister
How can accepting an illusion be congruent with rationality?
I wasn't aware illusions were of the same class of things as reason and necessarily connected with them. I have already given you examples.
Are you saying that the only rational thing to do is to live by an illusion knowingly?
If I believe that there is no free will because of evidence which I reason is weighty enough to lend credence to, I do not then have to accept that position in my everyday life. I can give you a million examples of where you know it's the way you should act and yet you choose not to. There's no necessary connection between knowing something and acting in accordance with it.
If so , this is impossible because if you know it's an illusion then you can't delude yourself.
Again, that statement doesn't follow. Why can't I? You haven't offered a single thing supporting your claim.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOr, rather, if you were educated you could debate with me. I find it strange that you feel so comfortable declaiming on free will without knowing the first thing about the positions that have been articulated and defended over the course of the last few thousand years.
If you drop the lingo I can debate with you. What are you trying to say?
Anyway, here's my first question:
Do you think, in normal circumstances, your deliberations influecne your choices?
Originally posted by StarrmanI can give you a million examples of where you know it's the way you should act and yet you choose not to. There's no necessary connection between knowing something and acting in accordance with it.STARRMAN
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]How can accepting an illusion be congruent with rationality?
I wasn't aware illusions were of the same class of things as reason and necessarily connected with them. I have already given you examples.
Are you saying that the only rational thing to do is to live by an illusion knowingly?
If I ...[text shortened]... doesn't follow. Why can't I? You haven't offered a single thing supporting your claim.[/b]
What are you on about? You know that your car will work most of the time so you get in it. You make countless decisions everyday based on the belief that that is the way the world is so you will act accordingly to it. I would like you to now stick your hand in a electric socket and switch it on. Why won't you? Think about it.
Originally posted by bbarrI still don't know how to answer your question. BTW In many cases I think it's a positive advantage to be less educated . I 'll take wisdom over intellectualism any day.
Or, rather, if you were educated you could debate with me. I find it strange that you feel so comfortable declaiming on free will without knowing the first thing about the positions that have been articulated and defended over the course of the last few thousand years.
Anyway, here's my first question:
Do you think, in normal circumstances, your deliberations influecne your choices?