Do Atheists believe in free-will?

[KittensAngel]

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.

And that is their prerogative. The question was do atheists believe in free will? This atheist does. As do the atheists I know. I don't presume to speak for all atheists and I have enough respect for the author of the OP to presume they don't think their question addresses every atheist on earth, nor would they presume any atheists who cares to reply speaks for all atheists.

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.

It's rather easy, when one considers those Theists who believe in an all knowing, everywhere present, all powerful deity.
There is no thing that omniscience can not know. Therefore, if one believes in a supreme being, which would have to possess omniscience, then that would preclude themselves as lesser beings from being able to commit to free will choices. Because while they may believe they are making an independent free choice, omniscient omnipresence would see that as simply furtherance of the predestination of the human being that omnipotence created and thus made 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.

I believe I did explain. My answer was in the context of free will and Deity. Perhaps you'd like to read it again.

 

[Skwim]

It's rather easy, when one considers those Theists who believe in an all knowing, everywhere present, all powerful deity.
There is no thing that omniscience can not know. Therefore, if one believes in a supreme being, which would have to possess omniscience, then that would preclude themselves as lesser beings from being able to commit to free will choices. Because while they may believe they are making an independent free choice, omniscient omnipresence would see that as simply furtherance of the predestination of the human being that omnipotence created and thus made possible.

Stick around and keep an eye open.

I believe I did explain. My answer was in the context of free will and Deity. Perhaps you'd like to read it again.

Okay I will. Let's see . . . .

"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."

​

. . . .Nope. It still doesn't explain why "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."
Sorry.

 

[Willamena]

It's rather easy, when one considers those Theists who believe in an all knowing, everywhere present, all powerful deity.
There is no thing that omniscience can not know. Therefore, if one believes in a supreme being, which would have to possess omniscience, then that would preclude themselves as lesser beings from being able to commit to free will choices. Because while they may believe they are making an independent free choice, omniscient omnipresence would see that as simply furtherance of the predestination of the human being that omnipotence created and thus made possible.

Well, that works for those theists that do not hold to "god" that exists immanently. Take away the past and the future and predestination isn't empowered by omniscient omnipresence.

 

[Orias]

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

Says who?

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.

I'd like to know which "deity" you are talking about. That would clear a lot up, since my "God" has done no such thing, and actually boils at the lack of consideration of this statement.

 

[Where Is God]

Some do, some don't. Why are we still even talking about this, we are arguing over what "free-will" actually is more than the OP.

 

[KittensAngel]

Okay I will. Let's see . . . .

"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."

​

. . . .Nope. It still doesn't explain why "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."
Sorry.

That's quite alright. I accept that you still fail to understand. Perhaps it's my responsibility that I'm not able to speak in a manner that communicates to your understanding.

 

[KittensAngel]

Says who?

Says me. And the decorum afforded, personal opinion.

I'd like to know which "deity" you are talking about. That would clear a lot up, since my "God" has done no such thing, and actually boils at the lack of consideration of this statement.

Well, if your God doesn't fit that description, then your boiling and choosing to feel the personal observation that was not speaking at all about or to your God, by your own admission, is your free will taking umbrage where none reasonably applies.
Find peace, instead of reason to be so angry because you imagine everyone must certainly be talking to you.

 

[KittensAngel]

Well, that works for those theists that do not hold to "god" that exists immanently. Take away the past and the future and predestination isn't empowered by omniscient omnipresence.

Astute observation. Thank you. Perhaps that will clear things up for those who failed to read the specific characteristics attending what I described as those Theists God. Thank you again.

 

[Orias]

Says me. And the decorum afforded, personal opinion.

So only atheists can believe in free will?

Well, if your God doesn't fit that description, then your boiling and choosing to feel the personal observation that was not speaking at all about or to your God, by your own admission, is your free will taking umbrage where none reasonably applies.

Sounded like you were talking about that silly Abrahamic "God".

And umbrage most certainly does apply when One person attempts to speak for the majority.

Find peace, instead of reason to be so angry because you imagine everyone must certainly be talking to you.

You don't know me

And this is a forum site, you don't have to talk to me for me to direct your posts.

 

[KittensAngel]

So only atheists can believe in free will?

If that's how you choose to read it.

Sounded like you were talking about that silly Abrahamic "God".

And that would mean I wasn't talking about your God. Now you get it.

And umbrage most certainly does apply when One person attempts to speak for the majority.

See: my personal opinion.
Last time I checked I spoke as an atheist and was not elected to the lofty position of speaking for all atheists, as you infer.

You don't know me

Everyone reading anyone has an opportunity to know what they show themselves to be in print. While anyone can be anyone on the net, who they are behind that is what they do in that regard. Liar or truth, it comes from the person who commits to the effort to be or pretend to be on the net. And as such everyone get's to know something about that, regardless of how real it is, when someone else puts a pseudonym to it and commits irretrievable moments of their life at a keyboard, so as to do it.

And this is a forum site, you don't have to talk to me for me to direct your posts.

Silly person, you don't direct my posts. I choose to speak to you as easily as you choose to read me and speak back.

 

[Orias]

If that's how you choose to read it.

I can only read what you write, so answering my question would be nice

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

By the looks of it, that would be a yes.

And that would mean I wasn't talking about your God. Now you get it.

I was simply providing the point that your description of someone's deity could be misleading, since that same exact description of a person who believes in a diety could also believe in free will.

See: my personal opinion.
Last time I checked I spoke as an atheist and was not elected to the lofty position of speaking for all atheists, as you infer.

Its good you clarify that now, as your previous statement made it seem otherwise.

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

Everyone reading anyone has an opportunity to know what they show themselves to be in print.

Well I am not here to read people, I am here to read what they write and the sincereity of what they perceive.

While anyone can be anyone on the net, who they are behind that is what they do in that regard.

In what regard?

Liar or truth, it comes from the person who commits to the effort to be or pretend to be on the net. And as such everyone get's to know something about that, regardless of how real it is, when someone else puts a pseudonym to it and commits irretrievable moments of their life at a keyboard, so as to do it.

Do you purposefuly speak in broken English?

Silly person, you don't direct my posts. I choose to speak to you as easily as you choose to read me and speak back.

Ah, but I directed your post. Which is why you are speaking to me.

 

[KittensAngel]

Re: the above quotations - whatever you think Mr.DeMille.:flirt:

Do you purposefuly speak in broken English?

Do you perceive it that way because English appears not to be your first language?

Ah, but I directed your post. Which is why you are speaking to me.

Oh that's too cute. Delusional as to the protocols invested in communication,while cute for the deficit demonstrated as a sense of pride.

You remind me of Setians I know who believe they rule the world and everything in it, because they've achieved Xepher. Aquino and I still chuckle over that one.

I do believe you have concluded your "direction" now.
Let us see, shall we?

 

[Orias]

Do you perceive it that way because English appears not to be your first language?

I perceive that you only care to make sense to yourSelf.

Oh that's too cute. Delusional as to the protocols invested in communication,while cute for the deficit demonstrated as a sense of pride.

Yes, we all know delusional people like to think others are delusional.

You remind me of Setians I know who believe they rule the world and everything in it, because they've achieved Xepher. Aquino and I still chuckle over that one.

I do believe you have concluded your "direction" now.
Let us see, shall we?

Hmmm...something smells like a spawn of Blackwood.

 

[waitasec]

free will is actually a state of mind...imo.

to those believers that adhere to an all knowing all present deity who is hovering over them watching their every move, this idea seems to be quite contradictory to believing they have a state of mind that is free...you are no longer able to think freely because of the fear of thought crime...i am of course referring to the abrahamic god.

to be truly free is to be free of fear and ultimatums. weather we are truly free from the circumstances beyond our control that no doubt affect our daily lives remains to be debated...

 

[charles brough]

Do Atheists believe in free-will?
Why or why not?

Generally, atheists and all other non-theists believe in natural cause and effect. That, when interpreted with brutal objectivity leads to the conclusion that if everything could be known, it would be possible to predict the course of everything forever into the future. We would not have the free will to do anything that was not caused, known and predicted.

But of course, we can never come to know everything. Never! All we can do is keep improving the accuracy of what we do know.

So, in that sense, we are "free agents." We still need to think things out before rushing thoughtlessly about. After all, there is no such thing as "an accident," just someone taking too much risk. )(

 

[Skwim]

Generally, atheists and all other non-theists believe in natural cause and effect. That, when interpreted with brutal objectivity leads to the conclusion that if everything could be known, it would be possible to predict the course of everything forever into the future. We would not have the free will to do anything that was not caused, known and predicted.

But of course, we can never come to know everything. Never! All we can do is keep improving the accuracy of what we do know.

So, in that sense, we are "free agents." We still need to think things out before rushing thoughtlessly about. After all, there is no such thing as "an accident," just someone taking too much risk. )(

I think "ignorant agents" would be more accurate.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Generally, atheists and all other non-theists believe in natural cause and effect. That, when interpreted with brutal objectivity leads to the conclusion that if everything could be known, it would be possible to predict the course of everything forever into the future. We would not have the free will to do anything that was not caused, known and predicted.

This is exactly right, and this is why I consider myself a Causal Determinist.
That also means that I do not hold to the classic notion of Free Will.

As you've pointed out though, that still makes us Free Agents in that there is no puppet-master pulling our strings.
We still act in accordance with internal and external factors.

We are the result of genes + the environment they have found themselves in up until now (which essentially amounts to every experience and effect we have ever been exposed to) responding to our current environment.

 

[waitasec]

i must say...i've changed my mind about my idea of free will...
i never looked at it from this perspective...one of the many things i've learned here on RF

 

[Orias]

What exactly is the "classical notion of free will"?

 

[jarofthoughts]

What exactly is the "classical notion of free will"?

To my understanding it is that we possess free will that is unattached to physical reality and can make choices independent from it, making it non-deterministic.