How to deal with people who deny free will?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Years? Within an hour you can obtain more than a representative sample than you could possibly need or use.



These sources use TVs and newspapers, only they are searchable. So you don't have to read lots of articles or dig through archives, as someone has done that for you. More importantly, you can quickly look and see things like how often the word "subjective" and "discourse" is used and in what contexts to realize that every time you use the term "common discourse" or "subjective" you are using academic language (and incorrectly).

I am disappointed you are still with that lame non-argument that you cannot use technical language in describing how common discourse works. It is hopeless that you will ever say anything sensible how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life.

 

[JustWondering]

Your argumentation rejects freedom and emotions

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Let's cut to the core of your problem shall we? Your upset with people who don't believe in a mystical "free will" that comes from a soul or some other unsubstantiated supernatural source that supports your supernatural belief system. Then, being unable to interact with others who don't share your particular beliefs in a mature and civilized manner decide to demonize and insult them. Does that pretty much sum up what this thread is about? I could also care less about this "common discourse" nonsense you keep going on about. Since you seem intent on alienating and insulting those who do not share your opinions and beliefs further discourse (of any kind) with you is a waste of my time. Good day sir.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am disappointed you are still with that lame non-argument that you cannot use technical language in describing how common discourse works.

I'm using your rule book. You'r the one who insists one using words only as they are used in "common discourse", which is a contradiction in terms but hey! You don't actually use your terms correctly anyway, so the fact that your rules are inconsistently applied isn't exactly shocking.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm using your rule book. You'r the one who insists one using words only as they are used in "common discourse", which is a contradiction in terms but hey! You don't actually use your terms correctly anyway, so the fact that your rules are inconsistently applied isn't exactly shocking.

Playing debating games..... If you have anything sensible to say about how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life, then say it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay, so I just trawled through nine pages of this. I laughed, I cried, I buggered off and got a coffee halfway through to steel myself for the rest.
And having done all that, I chose to make this post. I did this, near as I can tell, of my own free will. Buggered if I know, to be honest.

So in terms of common discourse in the sense I THINK it is meant by the OP, choosing is simply the application of my own free will, hopefully informed but not controlled by my rational thinking processes and emotions.

At this point, though, it's much more interesting to watch the game of rope-a-dope that's developed. Besides, I am pretty sure my opinion will be discarded by the OP, since I'm an atheist, and therefore clearly (in his mind) a hardcore materialist who thinks all actions are pre-ordained by electronic impulses, or something.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Okay, so I just trawled through nine pages of this. I laughed, I cried, I buggered off and got a coffee halfway through to steel myself for the rest.
And having done all that, I chose to make this post. I did this, near as I can tell, of my own free will. Buggered if I know, to be honest.

So in terms of common discourse in the sense I THINK it is meant by the OP, choosing is simply the application of my own free will, hopefully informed but not controlled by my rational thinking processes and emotions.

At this point, though, it's much more interesting to watch the game of rope-a-dope that's developed. Besides, I am pretty sure my opinion will be discarded by the OP, since I'm an atheist, and therefore clearly (in his mind) a hardcore materialist who thinks all actions are pre-ordained by electronic impulses, or something.

Ofcourse it is discarded, it is your own idea, and not even trying to be an accurate reflection of common discourse.

Like I said, one can for instance make the observation that people talk in terms of alternative futures in relation to decisions. Huckabee can become president, or Clinton.

That sort of simple observation, is what really matters. Obviously this leads to hypothesize, if maybe it is in common discourse that, fundamentally, choosing is to make a future the present or not, or is choosing to make one of alternative futures the present?

If it is found that choosing as in making a future the present or not, is also used in common discourse, then it would appear, as by logic, that it is the most fundamental meaning of choosing used, and that the other meaning is a complex meaning of "choosing between", and not just only choosing. I am not sure.

Looking at common discourse, you have the issues
1. the alternative futures
2. the decision
3. the result of the decision
4. what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

That is how I investigate, straightforwardly, reasonably.

And ofcourse the issue of significance is 4.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ofcourse it is discarded, it is your own idea, and not even trying to be an accurate reflection of common discourse.

Well, some value my ideas. I often do. I like to form them after researching a topic. Your use of 'common discourse' is frankly not helpful. Are you using it as a term of common vernacular, or are you using is as a technical term? If the former, then I think my post was an accurate reflection of common discourse. If the latter, then I'd suggest you are misusing the term.

Like I said, one can for instance make the observation that people talk in terms of alternative futures in relation to decisions. Huckabee can become president, or Clinton.

Yep. Okay.

That sort of simple observation, is what really matters. Obviously this leads to hypothesize, if maybe it is in common discourse that, fundamentally, choosing is to make a future the present or not, or is choosing to make one of alternative futures the present?

It's simply not clear what you mean when you structure sentences in that fashion. I end up being forced to guess your meaning, which makes the conversation frustrating (for both of us, I would suspect).
All I can guess from what you say here is that you are suggesting people assess the possible outcomes of choices, and that a choice is a decision to accept one of those outcomes (alternative futures).

However, I am reluctant to respond, since I'm unsure if I've understood you accurately. If you could confirm that, or reword, I'll respond in full.

If it is found that choosing as in making a future the present or not, is also used in common discourse, then it would appear, as by logic, that it is the most fundamental meaning of choosing used, and that the other meaning is a complex meaning of "choosing between", and not just only choosing. I am not sure.

I don't agree that people choose to make a future the present or not, but again, not sure I am able to discern what your words are intended to convey.

Looking at common discourse, you have the issues
1. the alternative futures
2. the decision
3. the result of the decision
4. what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

Okay, I understand what you mean here.

That is how I investigate, straightforwardly, reasonably.

It's extremely straight-forward, but also at an extremely macro-level.
How are alternative futures identified? In your earlier example, you identified Huckabee and Clinton as options, which is fine. It made sense as an example. But choices are not commonly binary in nature. The ability of the 'chooser' to even identify alternative futures, for example, have major impact in the choice.

And ofcourse the issue of significance is 4.

How does that relates to the OP? I ask that honestly, since I was assuming your issue with atheists/materialists was that you saw them all as hardcore determinists. That theory (determinism) would basically suggest that (2) on your list is inevitable, and free will an illusion. To be clear, I am NOT a determinist, but mentally I generally insert 'determinist' when you say 'atheist/evolutionist/materialist/etc', since that is with whom you actually seem to have an issue.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, some value my ideas. I often do. I like to form them after researching a topic. Your use of 'common discourse' is frankly not helpful. Are you using it as a term of common vernacular, or are you using is as a technical term? If the former, then I think my post was an accurate reflection of common discourse. If the latter, then I'd suggest you are misusing the term.



Yep. Okay.



It's simply not clear what you mean when you structure sentences in that fashion. I end up being forced to guess your meaning, which makes the conversation frustrating (for both of us, I would suspect).
All I can guess from what you say here is that you are suggesting people assess the possible outcomes of choices, and that a choice is a decision to accept one of those outcomes (alternative futures).

However, I am reluctant to respond, since I'm unsure if I've understood you accurately. If you could confirm that, or reword, I'll respond in full.



I don't agree that people choose to make a future the present or not, but again, not sure I am able to discern what your words are intended to convey.



Okay, I understand what you mean here.



It's extremely straight-forward, but also at an extremely macro-level.
How are alternative futures identified? In your earlier example, you identified Huckabee and Clinton as options, which is fine. It made sense as an example. But choices are not commonly binary in nature. The ability of the 'chooser' to even identify alternative futures, for example, have major impact in the choice.



How does that relates to the OP? I ask that honestly, since I was assuming your issue with atheists/materialists was that you saw them all as hardcore determinists. That theory (determinism) would basically suggest that (2) on your list is inevitable, and free will an illusion. To be clear, I am NOT a determinist, but mentally I generally insert 'determinist' when you say 'atheist/evolutionist/materialist/etc', since that is with whom you actually seem to have an issue.

You are not trying to reflect common discourse accurately, that is not credible. It is all argued towards what you believe, and not toward how people in general actually talk.

Further in an election, you have these 2 alternative futures, then a decision is made by the electorate, and then one of those futures becomes the present, one of the candidates has become the president in the now. People simply use these words future, decision, now etc. That is the general structure in the way the people talk in terms of choosing.

You do not understand because your mind is only tuned to cause and effect, like all atheists, and not to alternative futures and then a decision making a now. That is sort of a reverse arrow of time from normal cause and effect understanding. You are just assuming the logic in common discourse is in line with current science, which is not the case at all.

My issue is with how people become in daily life when they reject free will is real. It is not a philosophy issue, but a practical issue, of how they generally ignore emotions.

 

[Sunstone]

My issue is with how people become in daily life when they reject free will is real. It is not a philosophy issue, but a practical issue, of how they generally ignore emotions.

LMAO!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are not trying to reflect common discourse accurately, that is not credible. It is all argued towards what you believe, and not toward how people in general actually talk.

Further in an election, you have these 2 alternative futures, then a decision is made by the electorate, and then one of those futures becomes the present, one of the candidates has become the president in the now. People simply use these words future, decision, now etc. That is the general structure in the way the people talk in terms of choosing.

You do not understand because your mind is only tuned to cause and effect, like all atheists, and not to alternative futures and then a decision making a now. That is sort of a reverse arrow of time from normal cause and effect understanding. You are just assuming the logic in common discourse is in line with current science, which is not the case at all.

My issue is with how people become in daily life when they reject free will is real. It is not a philosophy issue, but a practical issue, of how they generally ignore emotions.

There's actually a complete disconnect between what I said and your response. If you're too biased to just converse with me, just tell me and I won't waste my time. No skin off my nose. But I persist in the hope that you're not cutting and pasting your posts from a pre-prepared monologue.

1) I am actually trying very hard to understand what you are saying. I don't think I argued a damn thing. Just trying to understand your point, and get some sort of coherent basis for dialogue.
2) In an election, there are more than 2 alternative futures. However, there are 2 probable futures. I'm fine with the election thing, mate. As I said, it makes sense as an example. But if you truly want to examine 'choosing' as a general topic, decisions are almost never binary. In extremely simplistic terms, the voter can choose not to vote.
3) Can you please desist in telling me what all atheists are like. I am NOT a determinist. Atheism says exactly NOTHING about my opinion on free will. If I were a determinist, then your biased points make more sense. I am NOT a determinist. You are demonstrating ignorance and bias in equal parts when you conflate atheism with determinism.
4) I have no clue what science says about the logic in common discourse.
5) I do NOT REJECT FREE WILL...my goodness...

It's actually possible to just create a thread, state in the OP that you're interested in exploring your own ideas, and post away happily. A journal, in effect. This is a useful tool for examining your own ideas and the like. However, if you are going to put up an open thread like this one, then it behooves you to actually deal with the responses given, rather than dismiss them due to the religious non-affiliation of the poster. If you have an issue with my post, then articulate what it is, rather than posting some blanket statements which continually conflate atheism with determinism, and blithely dismiss people as 'wrong' without the smallest of explanations.

Open thread = communication

You're going to need to invest effort in making yourself more understandable if you're honestly interested in dialogue, rather than monologue.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There's actually a complete disconnect between what I said and your response. If you're too biased to just converse with me, just tell me and I won't waste my time. No skin off my nose. But I persist in the hope that you're not cutting and pasting your posts from a pre-prepared monologue.

1) I am actually trying very hard to understand what you are saying. I don't think I argued a damn thing. Just trying to understand your point, and get some sort of coherent basis for dialogue.
2) In an election, there are more than 2 alternative futures. However, there are 2 probable futures. I'm fine with the election thing, mate. As I said, it makes sense as an example. But if you truly want to examine 'choosing' as a general topic, decisions are almost never binary. In extremely simplistic terms, the voter can choose not to vote.
3) Can you please desist in telling me what all atheists are like. I am NOT a determinist. Atheism says exactly NOTHING about my opinion on free will. If I were a determinist, then your biased points make more sense. I am NOT a determinist. You are demonstrating ignorance and bias in equal parts when you conflate atheism with determinism.
4) I have no clue what science says about the logic in common discourse.
5) I do NOT REJECT FREE WILL...my goodness...

It's actually possible to just create a thread, state in the OP that you're interested in exploring your own ideas, and post away happily. A journal, in effect. This is a useful tool for examining your own ideas and the like. However, if you are going to put up an open thread like this one, then it behooves you to actually deal with the responses given, rather than dismiss them due to the religious non-affiliation of the poster. If you have an issue with my post, then articulate what it is, rather than posting some blanket statements which continually conflate atheism with determinism, and blithely dismiss people as 'wrong' without the smallest of explanations.

Open thread = communication

You're going to need to invest effort in making yourself more understandable if you're honestly interested in dialogue, rather than monologue.

Your say so, no that is not good enough acceptance of free will. Especially since all the wellknown atheist intellectuals who say to accept free will, attach a logic of being forced to the words. Called compatibilism, as in free will is compatible with the logic of cause and effect.

And since you don't understand pretty much a word I am saying when I talk about choosing, and as I am, trying to, accurately reflect common discourse about choosing, I don't see that you accept free will is real.

And still, you are not arguing towards how people talk in terms of choosing, but argue towards how you believe choosing "really" is. Where what you regard as really true is just a function of your atheistic conceptions of things. What is the point of arguing about there being 3 options in a decision? That is bleedingly obvious it can. Why do you argue about that, except to generate confusion. There are 2 or more options, or there is 1 or more option, in a decision, as it is in common discourse.

The reason I assume atheists generally don't accept free will are many. Like that they never support any creation theory, they know of 0 decisions in the entire history of the universe. But mainly it is because atheism is a denial of God the holy spirit, and the spirit is basically essential in any functional concept of choosing. In theory one could not believe in God the holy spirit, and still believe in the human spirit, in practise atheists do not accept either is real.

Any reasonable and straightforward investigation of how people talk in terms of choosing will show, that people regard issue no4, what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, as a matter of opinion. At least my investigation showed that, and I can't imagine anybody not seeing the evidence of it if they investigated it. But then, everybody is an oracle about free will, and nobody does investigation of how people talk in terms of choosing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your say so, no that is not good enough acceptance of free will. Especially since all the wellknown atheist intellectuals who say to accept free will, attach a logic of being forced to the words. Called compatibilism, as in free will is compatible with the logic of cause and effect.

Wasn't looking for your acceptance, big fella.

And since you don't understand pretty much a word I am saying when I talk about choosing, and as I am, trying to, accurately reflect common discourse about choosing, I don't see that you accept free will is real.

I don't understand you because your use of language is confusing. My failure to understand you has nothing to do with free will, or my belief in it. Or my lack of belief in it. It's a separate, and completely disconnected communication issue.

And still, you are not arguing towards how people talk in terms of choosing, but argue towards how you believe choosing "really" is.

You really struggle to converse, don't you? Just what is it you think I am trying to argue towards? I'm trying to understand your meaning. At this point I have no clue what that is. Feel free to blame me for that.

Where what you regard as really true is just a function of your atheistic conceptions of things.

Do tell? Funny, next time I argue with an atheist about how the world works, I'll have to remember we are a hive mind.

What is the point of arguing about there being 3 options in a decision? That is bleedingly obvious it can. Why do you argue about that, except to generate confusion. There are 2 or more options, or there is 1 or more option, in a decision, as it is in common discourse.

I like it when you say 'bleedingly obvious'. It's easier to understand your meaning. Decisions are not A or B. Nor are they even A or B or C. That's actually quite a determinist way of thinking, in some ways. Life doesn't travel down defined paths like that.

The reason I assume atheists generally don't accept free will are many. Like that they never support any creation theory, they know of 0 decisions in the entire history of the universe. But mainly it is because atheism is a denial of God the holy spirit, and the spirit is basically essential in any functional concept of choosing. In theory one could not believe in God the holy spirit, and still believe in the human spirit, in practise atheists do not accept either is real.

Cool. You go ahead and conflate belief in the divine and belief in free will. Own it. After all, it's your very own theory. You should name it.

Any reasonable and straightforward investigation of how people talk in terms of choosing will show, that people regard issue no4, what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, as a matter of opinion. At least my investigation showed that, and I can't imagine anybody not seeing the evidence of it if they investigated it. But then, everybody is an oracle about free will, and nobody does investigation of how people talk in terms of choosing.

I work on very large scale software implementation projects, and spend way too much time making decisions, second guessing them, arguing with people over whether the outcome was what we expected, working out what lessons we can learn for the next similar decision...
Believe me or not, I really can't control that. But sure, I'd see 4 as opinionative as well. Not trying to be difficult, and I've said it multiple time, but 'how people talk in terms of choosing' is kinda obtuse. Are you literally talking about the conversations people have when making a decision? Are you talking about the internal conversation in their mind? Your use of common discourse makes it sound like you mean verbal communication, but it's simply not a normal way of describing anything.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wasn't looking for your acceptance, big fella.



I don't understand you because your use of language is confusing. My failure to understand you has nothing to do with free will, or my belief in it. Or my lack of belief in it. It's a separate, and completely disconnected communication issue.



You really struggle to converse, don't you? Just what is it you think I am trying to argue towards? I'm trying to understand your meaning. At this point I have no clue what that is. Feel free to blame me for that.



Do tell? Funny, next time I argue with an atheist about how the world works, I'll have to remember we are a hive mind.



I like it when you say 'bleedingly obvious'. It's easier to understand your meaning. Decisions are not A or B. Nor are they even A or B or C. That's actually quite a determinist way of thinking, in some ways. Life doesn't travel down defined paths like that.



Cool. You go ahead and conflate belief in the divine and belief in free will. Own it. After all, it's your very own theory. You should name it.



I work on very large scale software implementation projects, and spend way too much time making decisions, second guessing them, arguing with people over whether the outcome was what we expected, working out what lessons we can learn for the next similar decision...
Believe me or not, I really can't control that. But sure, I'd see 4 as opinionative as well. Not trying to be difficult, and I've said it multiple time, but 'how people talk in terms of choosing' is kinda obtuse. Are you literally talking about the conversations people have when making a decision? Are you talking about the internal conversation in their mind? Your use of common discourse makes it sound like you mean verbal communication, but it's simply not a normal way of describing anything.

A lot of debating tactics nonsense again, and no investigation of how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life. It is all bogus, you do not accept free will, you just like to say the words, it has no content.

And I am sure that in real life your atheistic intellect is busily working away to destroy any notion of superstitious nonsense of things which can't be evidenced, which includes emotions, not just gods.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A lot of debating tactics nonsense again, and no investigation of how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life. It is all bogus, you do not accept free will, you just like to say the words, it has no content.

Very slowly, and very clearly, let me say this;
I cannot debate you, as you are not coherent to me. I don't even know which 'side' I would be on. Imagine that, a godless heathen agreeing with you? No, no, can't have that, so let's just obfuscate the whole topic.

Quite apart from that, of course, you posted this thread in a frigging 'General Religious Debates' section of the boards. Heaven forbid anyone should use 'debating tactics'!

And I am sure that in real life your atheistic intellect is busily working away to destroy any notion of superstitious nonsense of things which can't be evidenced, which includes emotions, not just gods.

I find it easier to just not employ people with emotions. I also regularly conduct bag searches, and confiscate various superstitious articles, such as rabbit's feet, splinter's of the true cross, or non-believer's heads.
I have asked you this before, but (as always) you decline to converse, and instead throw unsubstantiated poo at the wall in the hope some sticks; You don't talk to many atheists in RL, do you?

In terms of your argument, if you wish to make yourself understandable, I'd suggest offering some links to articles expressing aspects of your view. Either that or there's not much point to me burning another lunch break trying to have an actual conversation with you. Your call, big fella.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Very slowly, and very clearly, let me say this;
I cannot debate you, as you are not coherent to me. I don't even know which 'side' I would be on. Imagine that, a godless heathen agreeing with you? No, no, can't have that, so let's just obfuscate the whole topic.

Quite apart from that, of course, you posted this thread in a frigging 'General Religious Debates' section of the boards. Heaven forbid anyone should use 'debating tactics'!



I find it easier to just not employ people with emotions. I also regularly conduct bag searches, and confiscate various superstitious articles, such as rabbit's feet, splinter's of the true cross, or non-believer's heads.
I have asked you this before, but (as always) you decline to converse, and instead throw unsubstantiated poo at the wall in the hope some sticks; You don't talk to many atheists in RL, do you?

In terms of your argument, if you wish to make yourself understandable, I'd suggest offering some links to articles expressing aspects of your view. Either that or there's not much point to me burning another lunch break trying to have an actual conversation with you. Your call, big fella.

To talk about the simple idea about how time works in choosing, that the alternatives are in the future, and that the decision brings one of them to the now, and then you don't comprehend anything anymore, you are having communication problems, and whatnot.

You just like to say the words free will, it is meaningless. You don't support any creation theory, you know 0 decisions in the entire history of the universe, it is all just a sham to appear to be supporting free will because it is politically correct.

You well know , or perhaps it only becomes apparent to you now, that the only practical concept of choosing there has ever been is the traditional concept of it, in which the spirit chooses. Which concept is based on common discourse. So then you bail out not understanding anything.

If you have something sensible to say about how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life, then say it, but otherwise you know, you are just another atheist combatting against freedom intellectually.

 

[sincerly]

To talk about the simple idea about how time works in choosing, that the alternatives are in the future, and that the decision brings one of them to the now, and then you don't comprehend anything anymore, you are having communication problems, and whatnot.

You just like to say the words free will, it is meaningless. You don't support any creation theory, you know 0 decisions in the entire history of the universe, it is all just a sham to appear to be supporting free will because it is politically correct.

You well know , or perhaps it only becomes apparent to you now, that the only practical concept of choosing there has ever been is the traditional concept of it, in which the spirit chooses. Which concept is based on common discourse. So then you bail out not understanding anything.

If you have something sensible to say about how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life, then say it, but otherwise you know, you are just another atheist combatting against freedom intellectually.

MNS, I have followed this subject/OP from the first. Therefore, I am aware of your tactics. Since I have had given to me your views, by my "free-will"/"choice" I have "sorted through your proposals" and you will consider me as "insulting you"/ "slapping you" etc. You comprehend that all the red above is your wording/explanations by which I evaluated your posts.

Wrong, the decisions I make are the result of my "free-will" and the un-coerced answers all of which went into them. The "Spirit didn't do any choosing" for me. With your leading,as seen in the posts,That "spirit" could not have been the Holy Spirit.

An open dialogue("common discourse") with you, isn't an open will to your will or leading by.

When one makes a free-will decision/choice, depending upon the nature of the thing, the results can be now or future.

It is my impression from these posts, that subtly you are manipulating into "Islam". Right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To talk about the simple idea about how time works in choosing, that the alternatives are in the future, and that the decision brings one of them to the now, and then you don't comprehend anything anymore, you are having communication problems, and whatnot.

I comprehend plenty, big fella. What I DON'T comprehend is you. This doesn't appear to be something you are interested in correcting, given that you have ignored my requests for links to any sort of external sources where I might be able to see a more complete and coherent explanation of the ideas you are fruitlessly trying to present.

You just like to say the words free will, it is meaningless. You don't support any creation theory, you know 0 decisions in the entire history of the universe, it is all just a sham to appear to be supporting free will because it is politically correct.

I like to say free will? Hmmm...free will...free will...
Well, it doesn't do that much for me. I was expecting I might get like a delicious little shiver down my spine or something, but naw. Let's see....
I don't support any creation theory involving divine or supernatural beings. That's true. I would also offer the fact that I don't KNOW how we were created.
I know 0 decisions in the history of the universe? *blinks*
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's amusing coming from someone who expressed some of the most closed-minded, bigoted, half-formed, incoherent opinions, and dresses them up as facts.
As for political correctness, I could give a crap. I'm telling you my thoughts. Accept them, don't accept them, your choice. Don't doubt for a second that what I present here is my thoughts though. I have neother lied nor misrepresented myself. Any who know me in the least can feel free to tell me otherwise, but since you don't know me at all, I'd suggest you pull your head in a little, and stop seeing every non-believer in the world as having a single dogmatic set of beliefs. Dogma is not something I am interested in. If I were, there are several religions I could join which offer it in spades.

You well know , or perhaps it only becomes apparent to you now, that the only practical concept of choosing there has ever been is the traditional concept of it, in which the spirit chooses. Which concept is based on common discourse. So then you bail out not understanding anything.

Actually, I think what you have is a nail, and a pretty-half arsed hammer, and you're repeatedly driving a single point home. Why dance around your point? In your opinion, spirit is required for 'choosing'. You've done not the least thing to support that belief, you've offered not the least amount of supportive evidence, and you haven't even offered a clear philosophical reason behind this, be it of your own forming, or of another.

Not all who have disagreed with you in this thread are atheists, but there mere act of them disagreeing leads you to rejecting their point of view. So why post? Mushrooms are happy to sit in a corner, stay in the dark, get fed crap and live their life. But if you want to put your opinion up on a religious education forum, and in the general religious debates area, it would imply that your are willing to both justify and defend your point of view.

Tip : Defending a point of view requires more than digging in, and blindly spouting the same catechisms endlessly.

If you have something sensible to say about how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life, then say it, but otherwise you know, you are just another atheist combatting against freedom intellectually.

By 'sensible' you mean 'if I agree with you'.
IN summary, I believe in the concept of free will, but would say my opinion is more gut than scientific.
I don't believe in spirit.
You equate spirit with the only possible way free will exists, hence I am unable to have a meaningful conversation with you, as you take a dogmatic and unsophisticated view of the world.

I've asked multiple times, but you don't meet many atheists in real life, do ya?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In your opinion, spirit is required for 'choosing'. You've done not the least thing to support that belief, you've offered not the least amount of supportive evidence, and you haven't even offered a clear philosophical reason behind this, be it of your own forming, or of another

I have explained that if you investigate common discourse in terms of choosing, it is shown that it is regarded as a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. That was issue no 4.

Again, all you have done is say the words you accept free will, and any discussion on it you start screeching that it is incomprehensible.

That you require evidence for the spirit means that you reject subjectivity altogether, since the root of all subjectivity is regarding what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does as a matter of opinion. What is liked, or disliked, it is proposing as a matter of opinion that there exists love or hate in the heart, by which love the word like is chosen, and by which hate the word dislike is chosen.

The reason this is incomprehensible to you is simply because of your attachment to atheism, to social darwinism, to original sin of making what is good and evil into a matter of fact. That is why you are screeching in rejection, without any argumentation whatsoever on how choosing works.

Philosophically we can see that the practise in common discourse to regard what makes the decision turn out the way it does as a matter of opinion, is valid. A fact is obtained forced by evidence, resulting in a copy of what is evidenced. Ofcourse one cannot use a principle of being forced at the center of the concept of free will, that would destroy the freedom in the concept, it would make the concept dysfunction. That is why it cannot be regarded as a matter of fact what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, but must be regarded as a matter of opinion. The freedom inherent in forming an opinion, preserves the freedom in the concept of choosing, while the force inherent in obtaining a fact destroys the freedom in the concept of choosing.

And I meet plently of atheists in real life, and I can sense that intellectual emotion destruction machine operating in dealing with them. That ruthless discarding of anything for which there is no evidence, it is quite apparent.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

MNS, I have followed this subject/OP from the first. Therefore, I am aware of your tactics. Since I have had given to me your views, by my "free-will"/"choice" I have "sorted through your proposals" and you will consider me as "insulting you"/ "slapping you" etc. You comprehend that all the red above is your wording/explanations by which I evaluated your posts.

Wrong, the decisions I make are the result of my "free-will" and the un-coerced answers all of which went into them. The "Spirit didn't do any choosing" for me. With your leading,as seen in the posts,That "spirit" could not have been the Holy Spirit.

An open dialogue("common discourse") with you, isn't an open will to your will or leading by.

When one makes a free-will decision/choice, depending upon the nature of the thing, the results can be now or future.

It is my impression from these posts, that subtly you are manipulating into "Islam". Right?

Again, I am not interested in listening to some oracle on how free will really is, the question is how do people talk in terms of choosing in daily life. And the general structure of the discourse is of alternatives in the future, and the decision is what makes one of those futures the now.

 

[sincerly]

Again, I am not interested in listening to some oracle on how free will really is, the question is how do people talk in terms of choosing in daily life. And the general structure of the discourse is of alternatives in the future, and the decision is what makes one of those futures the now.

MNS, Right! You are not interested in a dialogue concerning free-will. You are wanting a monologue and a turning over of one's will for your control.

Oh! the Creator GOD doesn't coerce one to Love HIM; and the prophets were given plenty of information for all to have a conformed "choosing" of/by the "will" to decide the now/future of many things.
What is chosen today may not be valid in the future----Why? Because of many varied factors.
One's Will may change as well. Most people do not live moment to moment, nor even day to day. One's free-will comes into play with decisions exercised/changed often and daily--on a varied number of situations.
Of those varied situations subject to one's Free-will, what specific are you designating "common discourse"? Since so far in the posts, there is only generalities.