Yet Another Thread on Freewill

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's a contradiction ..
You suggest a "received will" that is obeyed, can be happy "doing what it pleases".

No, it's not. You don't seem to be able to understand me. If you did, you would have no problem with that comment. That description could very well describe all of us. If will is received by the self rather than generated within the conscious theater in which the self finds itself, the line you called contradictory does describe us. No free will, just a received and obeyed will, and we're active and can be happy. Why is that difficult? Why can't you conceive of that except as contradiction? Is it your refusal to let go of the possibility that will is not free for religious reasons, making any formulation that doesn't include it cause you to call it contradictory even without identifying the contradictory claims or explaining why you consider them mutually exclusive?

 

[nPeace]

Hmm... A thought popped into my head. I remembered a quote I had heard from a Determinist, "Even though determinism is true we have to behave as if freewill were a fact". So it seems to me that even if you believe in determinism you can't act as if it were true.

That's because if you believed in determinism, you would have created a thread about determinism, rather than free will.
The fact you choose to post on the topic of free will demonstrates you weighted carefully the decision.
Don't mind me. I'm not going down this road again. I just was determined somehow to write this. So you are right. Determinism wins.

 

[dybmh]

We're just not communicating, so I think it's time to end the discussion. You want to discuss the mind of God, which is of little interest to an atheist, and I want to discuss the validity of critical thinkers assessing the claims about gods, which seems to be of no interest to you.

Now you want to argue that I'm not agnostic while simultaneously telling me that I can't know your mind, and quibbling whether you consider your beliefs knowledge.

Plus, it seems to be getting personal and emotional for you. I see you struggling to contain your impulse to strike out, and you're doing a pretty good job, but it's not necessary. It goes with the territory when one challenges the cherished beliefs of the faithful.

I'm reminded of the movie My Little Chickadee, in which Mae West has approached the bench in a courtroom trial, and the judge asks her (paraphrased), 'Ms. West. Are you trying to show contempt for this court?' to which she replies, "No, your honor, I'm doing my damnedest to conceal it."

There's an interesting asymmetry there. I never feel that way when by beliefs are challenged, and don't see emotional reactions from the other critical thinkers, either, but these are different cultures with different assumptions about what debate is and rules of acceptable conduct.

So thank you for your time, but discussing gods like they exist just isn't helpful to me.

Yup, it's impossible to be an arrogant know-it-all and agnostic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yup, it's impossible to be an arrogant know-it-all and agnostic.

Not your finest hour. Take a deep breath. Try to write less personally and less emotionally. You'll feel better about.

Speaking of arrogant know-it-alls, I'm suspecting that you don't know what agnostic means. Do you think being atheist precludes it? Do you think disagreeing with you precludes my being agnostic. Do you think you know my position on gods better than I do? Do you think I deny their existence? Where did you get the idea that I'm not agnostic? Have you ever known a person who asserted that gods don't exist but called themselves an agnostic anyway?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it's not.

Of course it is. "doing as you please" means that you are the one making the decisions what to do.

Is it your refusal to let go of the possibility that will is not free for religious reasons..

No .. you are just not making any sense.

..making any formulation that doesn't include it cause you to call it contradictory even without identifying the contradictory claims or explaining why you consider them mutually exclusive?

..see above

 

[dybmh]

Not your finest hour. Take a deep breath. Try to write less personally and less emotionally. You'll feel better about.

Speaking of arrogant know-it-alls, I'm suspecting that you don't know what agnostic means. Do you think being atheist precludes it? Do you think disagreeing with you precludes my being agnostic. Do you think you know my position on gods better than I do? Do you think I deny their existence? Where did you get the idea that I'm not agnostic? Have you ever known a person who asserted that gods don't exist but called themselves an agnostic anyway?

I'm cool as a cucumber, wrong again.

An agnostic cannot be a know-it-all by definition.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Hmm... A thought popped into my head. I remembered a quote I had heard from a Determinist, "Even though determinism is true we have to behave as if freewill were a fact". So it seems to me that even if you believe in determinism you can't act as if it were true.

Because without the application of will (free or not) you wouldn’t act at all.

 

[Nakosis]

Because without the application of will (free or not) you wouldn’t act at all.

If only everyone saw it that simply.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because without the application of will (free or not) you wouldn’t act at all.

We act and apply our will as humans since humans were first human whether free or not.

Stating the obvious as the 'sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon,' does not lead to any meaningful conclusion.

''. . . you wouldn't act at all.' ????? Needs explanation!