Do Atheists believe in free-will?

[jarofthoughts]

Interesting read, almost all of which I agree with. One point which I'd like to elaborate on is your.

"But if all our decisions are predetermined, how can we defend punishing criminals? Well, since the punishment contributes to the sum of experiences, this would seem to be the proper way to deal with the problem. But it also suggests that perhaps it might be possible to prevent criminals from appearing in the first place. So if anything, this is an argument in favor of a deterministic approach."
​

One might also want to consider that just as the criminal could not have done other than commit the crime, neither can we not rule for or against him. We are as much bound to cause/effect as is he. And I would hesitate to argue that determinism needs such examples to justify itself. Determinism is a well thought out concept that I believe can stand on its rationality alone.

Thanks.
I was arguing from a Behaviouristic point of view, but I agree that the wording needs some work. What I was basically trying to say was that even if we accept that everyone's behaviour is in large parts down to the sum of their experiences, and thus that they are 'forced' to behave in a certain way, for instance by committing crimes, that still doesn't remove punishing criminals from the table. The punishment would then act as a negative reinforcement towards not committing crimes, and thus what might have started as an argument against Determinism turns out to fit right along the initial reasoning.

 

[Skwim]

Thanks.
I was arguing from a Behaviouristic point of view, but I agree that the wording needs some work. What I was basically trying to say was that even if we accept that everyone's behaviour is in large parts down to the sum of their experiences, and thus that they are 'forced' to behave in a certain way, for instance by committing crimes, that still doesn't remove punishing criminals from the table. The punishment would then act as a negative reinforcement towards not committing crimes, and thus what might have started as an argument against Determinism turns out to fit right along the initial reasoning.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I don't believe in free will personally as I think Benjamin's Libet's findings sit fine with me but even if free will existed I should think it would cause much greater conundrums to theism than atheism because it would take away the omnipotence of a so called omnipotent classical Abrahamic God so we can act independently of such a God and thus weakening his powers and position.

 

[Yerda]

That's nice, but hardly conducive to a discussion. However, I did look at a synopsis of the book and see he simply advocates compatibilism. That's nice for him, but one I regard as a cop out. In effect he says, "Yeah determinism is true, but if we redefine free will as such and such then it still exists." It's like saying, "sure dinosaurs still exist" and then giving the definition of a gecko for "dinosaur."

He argues from a compatibilistic viewpoint. Yes.

I don't think you've quite done justice to his position, or the philosophical thought that underlines it. I'm having a go at a paper of his along the same lines. I'll gather my thoughts and post something more conducive to discussion later on. How's that?

By the way, your response was awful patronising. I don't know if it was intentional. If not, cool. If so, it's not nice and certainly not helpful.

 

[Skwim]

He argues from a compatibilistic viewpoint. Yes.

I don't think you've quite done justice to his position, or the philosophical thought that underlines it.

Not having read Dan Dennett's book it's pretty hard to have not done justice to his position. Unless, your saying my comment does not do justice to any compatabilistic position.

I'm having a go at a paper of his along the same lines. I'll gather my thoughts and post something more conducive to discussion later on. How's that?

I look forward to it.

By the way, your response was awful patronising. I don't know if it was intentional. If not, cool. If so, it's not nice and certainly not helpful.

I wasn't being patronizing. When people say, "go read XYZ so you know what I mean" it stops the discussion dead in its tracks because even if I was to read XYZ, by the time I finished the thread would have been long buried. So such a tactic is hardly a fitting one for productive discussion. If someone doesn't know how to express themselves that's unfortunate, but the burden of that inability shouldn't be shifted to others. So while my remark may be a little sarcastic it was not patronizing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As an atheist, I don't know whether I believe in free will or not. As someone who is married, I'm absolutely certain it doesn't exist.

 

[Orias]

As an atheist, I don't know whether I believe in free will or not. As someone who is married, I'm absolutely certain it doesn't exist.

:clap

 

[Where Is God]

This question is lame. It is like asking if all zebras are white with black stripes or white with black stripes. Some do believe in freewill, some don't. We do not have a dogma so the only thing that ties all atheists together is the rejection of the belief in any or all gods.

 

[Orias]

We do not have a dogma .

That's a lie

Though most are capable of realizing themselves.

 

[Where Is God]

That's a lie

Though most are capable of realizing themselves.

So what is our dogma? I haven't heard of it.

 

[Orias]

So what is our dogma? I haven't heard of it.

There are five different doctrines that I can think off of the top of my head.

It should also be noted, that just because an atheist doesn't follow a certain doctrine, does not mean that they posses no dogmatic sense about themselves.

The easiest dogma that should be realized is the unified principal of what makes One an "atheist".

Under the other denominations of atheism also comes doctrines of it, it is simple. You wouldn't make a new branch of "atheism" without explaining what it is, and its prinicipals.

If atheism wasn't dogmatic or indoctrinated, it would cease to exist as it is.

I will exclude the atheistic fundamentalists as holding an real value towards the creation of these doctrines, since they are fundamentalists and no One likes those except for other fundamentalists

 

[Where Is God]

If atheism wasn't dogmatic or indoctrinated, it would cease to exist as it is.

That doesn't make sense to me. So if no one wrote about the specifics of his or her atheistic beliefs, everyone would believe in God? I don't.

 

[Orias]

That doesn't make sense to me. So if no one wrote about the specifics of his or her atheistic beliefs, everyone would believe in God? I don't.

Not at all, you simply follow the example of "atheism".

Again, just because an atheist choses not to follow or adhere to the numerous atheistic doctrines out there, does not mean that atheism itself possesses no dogma.

Its not a very logical statement to say that a group of people posses no dogma, because thats makes them a group of people, One common principal. The other doctrines are just components to the main trunk of atheism, which may or may not compliment One's determined position.

 

[Where Is God]

Not at all, you simply follow the example of "atheism".

Again, just because an atheist choses not to follow or adhere to the numerous atheistic doctrines out there, does not mean that atheism itself possesses no dogma.

Its not a very logical statement to say that a group of people posses no dogma, because thats makes them a group of people, One common principal. The other doctrines are just components to the main trunk of atheism, which may or may not compliment One's determined position.

What I am saying is, the only dogma that every atheist would agree to is simply one sentence, "Atheism is the rejection of the belief in any God." That is atheism's dogma. Any other characteristic of an atheist's beliefs simply is of his own and is not defined exclusively by atheism.

 

[Orias]

What I am saying is, the only dogma that every atheist would agree to is simply one sentence, "Atheism is the rejection of the belief in any God." That is atheism's dogma. Any other characteristic of an atheist's beliefs simply is of his own and is not defined exclusively by atheism.

Thats basically what I said.

You said atheists don't possess a dogma, and I simply said that was untrue

 

[Where Is God]

Thats basically what I said.

You said atheists don't possess a dogma, and I simply said that was untrue

Well like I said, this question is lame because atheism has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief in free-will.
You were arguing with something that wasn't really my point.

 

[Orias]

Well like I said, this question is lame because atheism has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief in free-will.
You were arguing with something that wasn't really my point.

It does, since every conceptualization effects the next.

But I am not here to debate or argue, since its not a debate thread.

I simply pointed out something you said was untrue, that was my point.

 

[Where Is God]

It does, since every conceptualization effects the next.

But I am not here to debate or argue, since its not a debate thread.

I simply pointed out something you said was untrue, that was my point.

Ok we have a dogma, my point was that our dogma does not relate or dictate if atheists do or do not believe in free will.

 

[KittensAngel]

Absolutely. Free will is only possible in truth, within the realm of the atheist or agnostic. Free will can not exist within the domain of an Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Deity that creates humans bearing the fault that would garner them the curse of sin and sinner, to then be judged by the supreme being that created it all to be possible.

 

[Skwim]

Absolutely.

I assume this is in reply to the OP title question, "Do atheists believe in free will." I agree, but not as an absolute. There are many atheists, some right here on RF, that don't believe in it.

Free will is only possible in truth, within the realm of the atheist or agnostic.

Don't know what you mean by "realm," but I fail to see how it only exists among those who don't believe in a god, and no one else.

Free will can not exist within the domain of an Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Deity that creates humans bearing the fault that would garner them the curse of sin and sinner, to then be judged by the supreme being that created it all to be possible.

Well, I agree that it doesn't exist, but not because some god created humans in a certain way. Perhaps you'd like to explain.