• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

You have free will but are only free to follow the rules.

nameless

The Creator
And as I said before, all choices have consequences. Absolute freedom, the freedom to make choices and not have to face the consequences of those choices, does not exist anywhere.

absolute freedom? nice to see you finally recognized what exactly freedom is !!!
this is actually 'freedom of belief' is, in your terms 'absolute freedom of belief'.

freedom of belief is not possible? then why is the term 'freedom of belief'? This is here for just to offer freedom from consequences on selecting a belief, i dont know from which nation you are, but according to 'freedom of belief' practised by various nations, the believers has to face no consequences due to that.
 
Last edited:

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
No, it doesn't. That's already been pointed out to you. So basically if what you say is true, then a person with a head injury is doomed to go to hell. Decision making (you asked for this - I try to keep neurology out because it makes me look like a know it all, but you're ignoring the facts that have already been stated) is a product of inhibition and self control. Both are concious mind actions controlled by the pre-frontal lobe of the neo-cortex. People with lesions to this area of the brain are known to consistently make choices that yield small immediate rewards over long term larger gains (ie; savings bonds, proper diet, and god). The amygdala also plays a role in making a decision, by evaluating the emotional relevance of a decision. That's why we sometimes know something seems to make sense, but we just can't bring ourselves to do it. That's of course why low seratonin levels makes people less co-operative in social situations. That's also why people make bad decisions when sleep deprived. Dood, it's all neurochemical. Belief is not a matter of choice - it's unconcious. Choice is concious, beleif is not. It comes from the reptilian brain, which means it's beyond our control. Try forcing yourself to believe that Bon Jovi is a candy bar. Good luck. You don't choose to believe it's an 80s hair band, you simply do. (if you don't, then we have to talk about some other neural conditions).

I'm aware of all that. I'm not trying to negate it or argue the point. I've been trying to keep it simple here and that, unfortunately, has led to ambiguity. Such is the price of simplicity.

All I'm trying to say is that the decision making process, whether conscious or unconscious, is something that is controlled by your faculties, your brain, your ego, your consciousness, whatever you choose to label it and it is not something that I can control.

If I tell you that Bon Jovi is a candy bar you do not immediately accept it as true. No matter how much I threaten or coerce, I cannot force you to accept that fact, or any fact, as true. It's a process that is governed entirely by your own mind. Even if I put a gun to your head and say that you must believe that Bon Jovi is a candy bar, it doesn't make your mind accept it.
 

MSizer

MSizer
....Even if I put a gun to your head and say that you must believe that Bon Jovi is a candy bar, it doesn't make your mind accept it.

Exactly. You can't "blame" me for not believing you in that case, I can't help it. It's the same thing for god. I look far and wide and nothing convinces me that such a thing exists. I can't help that. Therefore, if it turns out that I'm wrong, and I get punished for my disbelief, that makes god quite the jerk.
 

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
absolute freedom? nice to see you finally recognized what exactly freedom is !!!

So by your definition of freedom, I can believe that by flapping my arms I can fly to the moon. The fact that gravity makes that impossible doesn't matter. Simple freedom of belief makes it so.

this is actually 'freedom of belief' is, in your terms 'absolute freedom of belief'.

And I've said already, absolute freedom does not exist anywhere. All actions have reactions, all choices have consequences, and there are always outside constraints. This is reality.

freedom of belief is not possible? then why is the term 'freedom of belief'? This is here for just to offer freedom from consequences on selecting a belief, i dont know from which nation you are, but according to 'freedom of belief' practised by various nations, the believers has to face no consequences due to that.

Oh, so if I believe that it's okay to walk down a street randomly killing people, these countries wouldn't stop me because I believe it's okay and I have freedom of belief.
 
Last edited:

nameless

The Creator
So by your definition of freedom, I can believe that by flapping my arms I can fly to the moon. The fact that gravity makes that impossible doesn't matter. Simple freedom of belief makes it so.
you desperation is evident, kindly read today's post of yours after few days.

When a nation allows 'freedom of belief', does it mean a person can fly by flapping his hands to moon?
Honestly, i accept i dont have enough confident to argue with you if you continue like this, see how moronic statements they are !!!

'Freedom of belief' means that no one has right to question or interfere in your belief.

And I've said already, absolute freedom does not exist anywhere. All actions have reactions, all choices have consequences, and there are always outside constraints. This is reality.

all actions have reactions, so for selecting a belief, someday someone would defintely punish you, fine !!! :facepalm: :thud:
i cant wait to give you a award for letting me know this law for belief.

Oh, so if I believe that it's okay to walk down a street randomly killing people, these countries wouldn't stop me because I believe it's okay and I have freedom of belief.

we are talking about freedom of belief not freedom of action, still your explanation for freedom of action is wrong, here it is - A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference.
 
Last edited:

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
you desperation is evident, kindly read today's post of yours after few days.

No desperation, exasperation maybe, frustration certainly, but no desperation.

When a nation allows 'freedom of belief', does it mean a person can fly by flapping his hands to moon?

You continue to miss my point. You are arguing for absolute freedom, no consequences, no constraints. That kind of freedom doesn't exist.

Honestly, i accept i dont have enough confident to argue with you if you continue like this, see how moronic statements they are !!!

What did I say about personal insults?!

Freedom of belief' means that no one has right to question or interfere in your freedom of belief.

Freedom of belief means that you have the right to believe whatever you want.

all actions have reactions, so for selecting a belief, someone would defintely punish you, fine !!! :facepalm: :thud:

I didn't say that. Reaction does not necessary mean punishment.

we are talking about freedom of belief not freedom of action, still your explanation for freedom of action is wrong, here it is - A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference.

Freedom of action is part of free-will. That's what this thread is about. And your definition is 100% correct. Free-will means that you can act without control or interference, but it says nothing about the consequences of your actions.
 

nameless

The Creator
No desperation, exasperation maybe, frustration certainly, but no desperation.
yea, you should be so, for all the contradicting statements you made in this thread, and still continuing.


You continue to miss my point. You are arguing for absolute freedom, no consequences, no constraints. That kind of freedom doesn't exist.
To me there is only just freedom and that itself is absolute. And what freedom to me is no one should purposefully cause me any inconvinience and vice-versa.
this is the freedom all nations are talking about, and is practised all over.

Freedom of belief means that you have the right to believe whatever you want.
that is more correct, but for you to understand i said in that way, since your definition for freedom is almost unheard.


I didn't say that. Reaction does not necessary mean punishment.

what reaction you were talking about all this time?


Freedom of action is part of free-will. That's what this thread is about. And your definition is 100% correct. Free-will means that you can act without control or interference, but it says nothing about the consequences of your actions.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference, read carefully !!! see the way you changed the meaning of that sentence.
Seems like you are purposefully acting ignorant.
 
Last edited:

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So basically, we have free will as long as we do God's will.

Some free will that.

Regards
DL

Not like that, and allow me to clarify. God would set up many chances for you to know him, and believe in him, then you will be absolutely FREE either to accept and embrace that chance or reject it.
 

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
The free will debate is a joke.

Assuming, arguendo, that a deity created you, all of your actions are the result of the tools you've been given -- your nervous system or soul -- interacting with the environment in which you've been placed. Divine judgment is therefore entirely illogical, and this debate is a joke.
 

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
To me there is only just freedom and that itself is absolute. And what freedom to me is no one should purposefully cause me any inconvinience and vice-versa.
this is the freedom all nations are talking about, and is practised all over.

No it isn't. All nations grant certain freedoms but those freedoms cease when they intersect with law. You can't walk down a street killing people because the law says you can't. So even the freedoms granted by the nations of the world have limits.

what reaction you were talking about all this time?

Any and all, not just punishment or death. Every choice you make has a consequence. It's not always something good or bad, it simply is.

Absolute freedom means that no matter what choice you make there will be no consequences, action without reaction. Absolute freedom also means that there are no restraints, no limits.
I want to go through a locked door but I don't have the key. Absolute freedom would say I can still go through that door. The lock makes no difference. The fact that I want to go through that door is enough to cancel the lock out.
I've been banging my head against a wall saying that kind of freedom doesn't exist.

A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference, read carefully !!! see the way you changed the meaning of that sentence.
Seems like you are purposefully acting ignorant.

I didn't change the meaning of anything. Look at the last four words:

"Without control or interference"

That is what makes it free. I can't control what choices you make and, even if I try to interfere, you can still choose for yourself. That is free-will. The statement says you can make your own choices, however it says nothing abut being 'free' from the consequences of those choices.
 
Last edited:

nameless

The Creator
No it isn't. All nations grant certain freedoms but those freedoms cease when they intersect with law. You can't walk down a street killing people because the law says you can't. So even the freedoms granted by the nations of the world have limits.

you are rejecting my posts completely, as i pointed out before, interfering in others freedom cannot be considered to be freedom.

free·dom (frdm)
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty.

i should say that almost every post of yours is rubbish and self-contradictory, that proves your argument is just non-sense.

Any and all, not just punishment or death. Every choice you make has a consequence. It's not always something good or bad, it simply is.

See, again you are repeating them, there is no such thing called absolute freedom, interfering in others freedom cannot be considered to be freedom.
You wants freedom to kill and torture others to included in the freedom. Freedom is something personal. There wont be any consequences for enjoying the freedom. There is consequences only when you stops others from enjoying their freedom.

Absolute freedom means that no matter what choice you make there will be no consequences, action without reaction. Absolute freedom also means that there are no restraints, no limits.
I want to go through a locked door but I don't have the key. Absolute freedom would say I can still go through that door. The lock makes no difference. The fact that I want to go through that door is enough to cancel the lock out.
I've been banging my head against a wall saying that kind of freedom doesn't exist.

again see how moronic your statements are !!!
how can you think by granting you freedom of belief you can go through a locked door? !!!
freedom offers you to perform actions without interfering in others freedom, of course can go through the locked door if you are capable of that. A disabled person would not be able to walk that does not mean he has been forbidden to walk by his nation.

I didn't change the meaning of anything. Look at the last four words:

"Without control or interference"

then why there are the rest of the words, those are explanations for 'freedom of action'. The four words those you pointed out wont make the complete sense for freedom.
 
Last edited:

cardero

Citizen Mod
The free will debate is a joke.

Debater 1: So if I wanted to commit suicide I could do it because I have free will?
Debater 2: Certainly.
Debater 1: Okay, so I commit suicide-
Debater 2: But there’ll be consequences
Debater 1: WILL YOU STAY OFF THE CONSEQUENCES!!!
Debater 2: Well I’m just saying that if you kill yourself there are going to be consequences. First off, you’ll be dead.
Debater 1: WHAT DO YOU THINK I’M TRYING TO COMMIT SUICIDE FOR!!
Debater 2: Okay, calm down, lower your voice.
Debater 1: Okay, so I commit suicide and I go into the afterlife and then what?
Debater 2: You’ll be judged by God and will probably receive a punishment for killing yourself.
Debater 1: Receive punishment from God? You just told me that God gave me free will.
Debater 2: Yes but I also told you that there would be consequences.
Debater 1: But now you’re saying there’s punishment, I was just exercising my free will now you’re saying I have to pay for it?
Debater 2: Naturally.
Debater 1: This free will is costing me more and more as we go along. Let me get this straight; God gives me free will to make my own choices and then when I make a decision to do what I want to do you’re telling me that the guy who gave me free will could penalize me for making that choice?
Debater 2: Now that’s the first thing you said right.
Debater 1: I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!!
Debater 2: Okay, relax, don’t get excited.
Debater 1: Okay, so I commit suicide because I want to end my life with my free will that God gave me, I go to heaven, I receive a punishment from God and this punishment is….
Debater 2: I don’t know.
Debater 1 and 2: Third base.

Debater 1: Woooooooo!

ACBaseball.jpg
 
Last edited:

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
Not like that, and allow me to clarify. God would set up many chances for you to know him, and believe in him, then you will be absolutely FREE either to accept and embrace that chance or reject it.

Rhetorical B S.

Show any case where God has given any one any chance.

Prove your statement without hearsay or Bible say.

Regards
DL
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Rhetorical B S.

Show any case where God has given any one any chance.

Prove your statement without hearsay or Bible say.

Regards
DL

Why Me?

"Why did this have to happen to me?" Gerda exclaimed angrily. "You smoke a pack of cigarettes everyday and you are perfectly healthy! I never smoked a single cigarette my whole life and i get lung cancer. It should have been you! You should have cancer, not me!"

I was angered by what Gerda has said to Ragia. To wish cancer on my wife, the warmest, kindest, and gentlest person i have known, regardless of Gerda's condition, was uncalled for.

"That's a strange statement coming from a rabid atheist," I told Ragia. "To whom is she complaining--nature? You mean to tell me that from her perspective, she can't see how one of the near infinite sequence of causes and effects that have occurred since the big bang has led to her contracting cancer? Why should she have been excluded from one of life's innumerable accidents, if there is no God?"

We receieved a call from Gerda when she was in Germany seeking a cure. I was stunned when she asked me, "Will you pray for me?"

Although i tld Gerda that i would pray for her, i was thinking that it probably would be more effective if she prayed for herself.

"If i ever get over this thing, i'm definitely going to make a serious study of religion, "she swore earnestly, her voice cracking with emotion.

Her doctors in Germany subjected Gerda to a very new treatment. Altough her cancer had advanced quite far and they gave her little hope, the treatment was appearntly successful, and she returned to Lawrence with no detectable traces of the disease. Her battle with the illness definitely brought about a profound change in Gerda, but not in the way one might expect.

As far as i could tell, she never followed up her promise to "make a serious study of religion." She remained a vociferous and aggresive an atheist as ever. That is not surprising, since many an unbeliever has momentary second thoughts in a crisis, but her outlook on life turned dramatically inward. Gerda had always cherished her friends and was very loyal and generous toward them. When this point came up in a conversation she told me, "That was a big mistake of mine. I've learned how precious life is It was foolish of me to have given so much of myself to others. I'll never do that again."

About a year and half after Gerda was given a clean bill of health, her doctors found that her cancer had returned. This time they insisted that there was nothing they could do for her since the disease had progressed too far.

"What kind of God would do this to me?!" She complained to my wife, quite out of the blue.

Ragia usually would not respond to Gerda's antireligious diatribes. If Gerda wanted to discuss religion calmly and respectfully, she was more than willing, but when she would take on a mocking tone, Ragia preferred to ignore her.

"Maybe one who is giving you another chance" Ragia blurted, surprising herself.

It wasn't like Gerda to gibe an opponent the final word, especially when debating religion, but she remained silent and pensive Perhaps it was because of her deteriorated physical condition.

Gerda isolated herself from her friends during the last few months of her disease. She told Ragia on the phone that she did not want anyone to see her "like this." Gerda and her husband had taught in the math department at Kansas University. I found out about her passing from a department memorandum. It stated that her family would not be holding a service for her and that those who wished could donate to a scholarship fund established by her husband in her memory.

Human suffering has always posed an enormous dilemma for religious thought. Is it to entertan bored, capricious, and rival gods? Is it punishment for our sinful natures? Is it something from which we must be saved? Is it necessary aspect of creation to be transcended though spiritual training and mediation? Is it the product of chance accidents that occur in a godless universe?

All of these questions take for granted that human suffering is damaging and undesirable. This is natural, since it reflects the human perspective, the point of view of one who feels victimized.

However, the Quran has a very different view of human eartly suffering. It claims that it is necessary and key element in the human growth process, and that all of us, good and bad, sinful and righteous, believer and unbeliever, will and must experience it.



From Losing My Religion, a book by Jeffrey Lang. pages 80-83
 

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
TashaN

Every WORD says that we will suffer. Big deal.

It is one thing to recognize reality. it is something altogether different to think that some absentee super God is micro managing so that we all get our fair share.

Get away from fantasy.

Regards
DL
 
Top