Determinism: The Destroyer of Atheism

[The_Cosmos]

@Rorschach

Sxb give up on this coward, I have never seen a combination of such stupidness and cowardice combined together like this, he is nothing more then a cheap charlatan , doesn't even know what he is ranting about.

The question was very simple, every prominent quickademic atheists from the biologist, to the physicists, to the chemist all the way to expert nueroscientist that even used the latest apparatus around today to study the brain, have come to the conclusion that free-will and free-choice is an illusion.

I have quoted a handful of each and his rebuttal is semantics, philosophy, even at first countering them all from his mothers basement that 'free-will' does exist

Then do a 180 shift position and argue that these are philosophical concepts with no empirical evidence, then when they are presented, he needs to do more research on the topic

Then like the bipolar kid that he is, instead of shutting up and reading on the topic as he said he needed to, starts of on a bizarre never seen before tirade that 'atheism' is independent from everything and there is no common scientific view.

When pressed on this, the brain parasite kicks in and he goes into a fit. I honestly believe he is mentally sick and feel sorry for him, ignorance is a curse of God, go easy on him.





@simulacrum

Don't hide from this discussion pal, and I hope you won't take a page out the Cosmo's bipolar play book to counter and make yourself look like another laughing stock to all the silent readers.

Take a position, tell us your views! do you agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists or not?


@VixR

This is the second time I have mentioned you, don't go hiding on such a critical subject, make your points, do you agree with the overwhelming atheist scientists that everything is hard-wired and determined or not?

Oh shut the hell up already, you moronic mutant inbred. Nobody has been more intellectually dishonest and complete fucking regarded then you have. And the fact that you treat atheism as a belief system (polytheism) is evidence of that basic retardation.

The question was very simple, every prominent quickademic atheists from the biologist, to the physicists, to the chemist all the way to expert nueroscientist that even used the latest apparatus around today to study the brain, have come to the conclusion that free-will and free-choice is an illusion.

And my answer was, how does the opinion of prominent atheism reflect on atheism as a whole? You claimed that there is scientific consensus on the matter of free will and that was a complete fucking lie that you have avoided to answer. Your argument rests on the logical fallacy that atheism is defined by what other atheists say, because they're somehow 'prophets' or 'gods' as you have regurgitated many times on this forum. This explicit level of dishonesty is precisely why you're a moronic inbred.

I have quoted a handful of each and his rebuttal is semantics, philosophy, even at first countering them all from his mothers basement that 'free-will' does exist

My replies have been consistent throughout this entire weak charade that you tried to throw at atheism. My reply was that I wasn't concerning myself with the wider philosophical/scientific question of free will but I was engaging in the theological feudalism presented by your religion which is not linked to the wider discussion.

Then do a 180 shift position and argue that these are philosophical concepts with no empirical evidence, then when they are presented, he needs to do more research on the topic

This is clearly a lie you just concocted after you couldn't present an actual argument against my last reply to you (which you conveniently ignored).

1) this is a philosophical question and has been for over a thousand years.

2) I said there is no conclusive evidence to determine, scientifically, whether or not we have free will

3) I said I need to do research on the subject of free will from the perspective of philosophy/science which you have shown you know nothing about by conflating the two fields. You also claimed that determinism destroys evolution and science as a whole pretty much. It seems that you lack any knowledge of what it is that you argue.

Then like the bipolar kid that he is, instead of shutting up and reading on the topic as he said he needed to, starts of on a bizarre never seen before tirade that 'atheism' is independent from everything and there is no common scientific view.

When did I claim that there is no scientific common view, you fucking moronic inbred?! You can't argue against the actual points I made so you pretty much lie?!


I said there is no scientific consensus, as you've clearly implied throughout, on the matter of free will and determinism which isn't even a real scientific question as those terms don't have a fixed definition. Keep lying...


Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities and that's all! According to you it's a polytheistic religion with many different human gods that we all bow down to and worship!

When pressed on this, the brain parasite kicks in and he goes into a fit. I honestly believe he is mentally sick and feel sorry for him, ignorance is a curse of God, go easy on him.

The irony is that you believe that real brain parasites exist and have taken over our brains. You the only person that is woke!


And then he called me the mentally unstable one!

 

[Rorschach]

@Inquisitive_

Wallahi I was in the process of responding to @cos with blocks of text before I read your message. Not a difficult thing since all he did was question a source refuting 'Lucy' (that I didn't use btw) and brushed it off as nonsense, then proceeded to vomit . He didn't answer a single question, all he does is regurgitate the same nonsene (I mean that copy past crap in the middle was unncessary)

He then throws in a couple of conjured presumptions like: "You're whole reason for not accepting the evidence is because you blindly follow what mummy and daddy have fed to you", even though he knows nothing of my journey. It's like he's jousting with a phantom religionist, which shouldn't be surprising since all of his responses are exact copies of the atheist template for discourse.

There are few things in his response that makes no sense like his confusion that I brand Donald Johanson a liar, even though he knows I view his research findings as false. I mean what the hell did he expect? How is the chimp Lucy have a foot shaped almost identically to ours? I guess sometimes when 1 + 1 has to equal 3, the quackademics will count the plus sign as a unit.

I mean look at this crap:

White people have white skin because they have a reduced quantity of melanin in their skins, eyes and hair which allows them to absorb the sunlight might better. Black people on the other hand developed a high quantity of melanin giving them darker skin, eyes and hair, because it enabled them to deflect much of the sunlight which contained UV (ultraviolet radiation) which can cause skin cancer. Point is, evolution doesn't occur in a vacuum and the reason why it evolved so little was because it didn't really have to as it lived in both land and tree which meant it can survive the sudden environmental changes that bring about a necessity to evolve.

What is the point of writing that? If arguing a principle in fluid mechanics like the bernoulli formula, would you paste some crap describing the property of water?

He believes in these theories wholeheartedly but when asked to defend specific points in it, will refer you to generic books on molecular biology, a quotation from the same people we're branding as liars, or a GCSE bitesize animation. He will never answer it using his own words. Just mockery, regurgitation of text, and appeal to authority. Rinse and repeat. We have quite the budding Sam Harris here (a complement to him I'm sure).

There is no benefit in circular arguments. Lakumdiinukum waliya diin. We will find out on the day of reckoning I guess.

 

[The_Cosmos]

@Inquisitive_

Wallahi I was in the process of responding to @cos with blocks of text before I read your message. Not a difficult thing since all he did was question a source refuting 'Lucy' (that I didn't use btw) and brushed it off as nonsense, then proceeded to vomit . He didn't answer a single question, all he does is regurgitate the same nonsene (I mean that copy past crap in the middle was unncessary)

He then throws in a couple of conjured presumptions like: "You're whole reason for not accepting the evidence is because you blindly follow what mummy and daddy have fed to you", even though he knows nothing of my journey. It's like he's jousting with a phantom religionist, which shouldn't be surprising since all of his responses are exact copies of the atheist template for discourse.

There are few things in his response that makes no sense like his confusion that I brand Donald Johanson a liar, even though he knows I view his research findings as false. I mean what the hell did he expect? How is the chimp Lucy have a foot shaped almost identically to ours? I guess sometimes when 1 + 1 has to equal 3, the quackademics will count the plus sign as a unit.

I mean look at this crap:



What is the point of writing that? If arguing a principle in fluid mechanics like the bernoulli formula, would you paste some crap describing the property of water?

He believes in these theories wholeheartedly but when asked to defend specific points in it, will refer you to generic books on molecular biology, a quotation from the same people we're branding as liars, or a GCSE bitesize animation. He will never answer it using his own words. Just mockery, regurgitation of text, and appeal to authority. Rinse and repeat. We have quite the budding Sam Harris here (a complement to him I'm sure).

There is no benefit in circular arguments. Lakumdiinukum waliya diin. We will find out on the day of reckoning I guess.

Wallahi I was in the process of responding to @cos with blocks of text before I read your message. Not a difficult thing since all he did was question a source refuting 'Lucy' (that I didn't use btw) and brushed it off as nonsense, then proceeded to vomit . He didn't answer a single question, all he does is regurgitate the same nonsene (I mean that copy past crap in the middle was unncessary)

It has taken you over a whole day to reply to something that was essentially basic, which really indicates that you have nothing to argue against. You have shown yourself to not only lack any understand of the basic functions of evolution but have also unapologetically stated that your rejection of evolution stems from its contradiction against the religious teachings you've been indoctrinated to hold since birth. You then go on to essentially make a bold faced lie by claiming I didn't answer any of your points. What makes this even funnier is that you accused me of copy and pasting when in fact all I did was clearly quote my sources and the bits I was interested whilst you have been exposed to copy your BS source word for word without even citing it, I only found it because I had to know where you were getting this nonsense from. What even funnier is that you deny my claim that you used a bullshit source which I provided, not knowing that I will hold you accountable to that bold lie.

Here is what you wrote:

"Separated by 200,000 years, these fossils were almost identical--making a good case for little evolutionary change in this hominid species. From fossils found at a site south of Hadar, the Middle Awash, we know that Australopithecus afarensis existed as far back as 3.8 million years ago, so it seems to have lived for almost a million years, remainingremarkably similar for all that time. 8 "

The 8 at the end of the paragraph is linked to the website that I accused you of getting your sources from. I am literally flabbergasted as this clearly epic fail at lying.

He then throws in a couple of conjured presumptions like: "You're whole reason for not accepting the evidence is because you blindly follow what mummy and daddy have fed to you", even though he knows nothing of my journey. It's like he's jousting with a phantom religionist, which shouldn't be surprising since all of his responses are exact copies of the atheist template for discourse.

It's funny how you try to defend your integrity but in doing so, you make yourself look even worse.

The grounds in which I made that claim against you comes from your own confessions.We can see from your confessions that you rejected evolution on the grounds that it creates a contradiction to your faith instead of following the evidence, "We operate in the finite revelation our Lord has given us. Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Manhypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we eitherreject or accept subject to the strength ofevidence provided." As you can see from this quote, you've presented yourself as nothing more than a blind follower of the religion of your parents on which you've been indoctrinated since birth. You demand the evidence conform to your religious beliefs rather than your religious beliefs presenting evidence for its claims.

Again, you failed miserably!

There are few things in his response that makes no sense like his confusion that I brand Donald Johanson a liar, even though he knows I view his research findings as false. I mean what the hell did he expect? How is the chimp Lucy have a foot shaped almost identically to ours? I guess sometimes when 1 + 1 has to equal 3, the quackademics will count the plus sign as a unit.

You seem to be utterly confused, there is a big difference between calling someone a liar and claiming their finding are false. To claim he is a liar is to claim that he is purposely deceiving whilst claiming his finding are false (you fail to show that) can imply that they are incorrect. I answered the question of australopithecus afarensis feet:

"The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk.

The close spacing of the footprints is evidence that the people who left them had a short stride, and therefore probably had short legs. It is not until much later that early humans evolved longer legs, enabling them to walk farther, faster, and cover more territory each day."

How do we know these are early human footprints?

The shape of the feet, along with the length and configuration of the toes, show that the Laetoli Footprints were made by an early human, and the only known early human in the region at that time was Au. afarensis. In fact, fossils of Au. afarensis were found nearby to the footprints and in the same sediment layer, telling scientists that Au. afarensis was in the area at the same time the footprints were left.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/footprints/laetoli-footprint-trails

As you can see I have clearly answered your points but you conveniently denied this and continued asserting that your points weren't answered, points that you pulled out of your arse with those bullshit sources.

You then insult the academics from the respected fields of science. I mean, how is it that someone who believes humanity is a result of a single couple whose children fucked each other to give birth to humanity, can mock the academics of science?! The same academics who created this very internet that you are using. But I guess that's not what happened... god and magic must of created the internet, right?

What is the point of writing that? If arguing a principle in fluid mechanics like the bernoulli formula, would you paste some crap describing the property of water?

He believes in these theories wholeheartedly but when asked to defend specific points in it, will refer you to generic books on molecular biology, a quotation from the same people we're branding as liars, or a GCSE bitesize animation. He will never answer it using his own words. Just mockery, regurgitation of text, and appeal to authority. Rinse and repeat. We have quite the budding Sam Harris here (a complement to him I'm sure).

There is no benefit in circular arguments. Lakumdiinukum waliya diin. We will find out on the day of reckoning I guess.

I blame this retardation on Somali cousin marriages, it bloody creates inbreds as we've seen on this thread.


It's very interesting how you completely ignored everything that came before that paragraph and chose to take my entire argument out of context. Nonetheless, it was a response to the question of why AAs evolved so little for nearly a million years before their extinction. I was arguing that in order for evolution to take place, there has to be some need for it to occur because species don't just evolve from a vacuum. I was saying that since AAs live both on land and up on trees, they could survive the need for evolution on the grounds that they can survive the climate/environmental changes required to trigger a need to adapt and that paragraph was an example that you would've seen have you not been so intellectually dishonest.

You then go on to practically try and make out my intellectual integrity as if it is something that is terrible. If I make claims and if I were to argue for something on an academic level, I have to back them up with academic sources rather than just make bold claims or throw around BS sources as you've done. I defended all your claims against evolution via my own words that I then backed up with evidence from respected academic sources, instead of accepting this fact you accuse me of not answering your points or you misconstrued my points to fit your own narrative. You claim I appeal to authority but provide no evidence to suggest anything on that level.

The day of reckoning... go on living your life deluding yourself in myths and fantasies that isn't even unique to your own religion. Go on being a slave to your own indoctrination. Go on asserting that your god is merciful whilst he burns people for eternity for finite crimes. I will not delude myself.

 

[Naissur]

He used primitive pagan rituals and beliefs to dispute the concept of a Creator altogether.

It's like looking at an individual with Down Syndrome and labeling all human beings as deficient. He was being dishonest but you fell for it because it tows your line.

Just saying man.

You terribly lack self-awareness. The argument in this thread was so completely one-sided it made me cringe for you and the brain parasite guy. It now got to the point where it's just sad. Somewhat decent (as far as being 'interesting' goes) arguments can be made for theism, but you are both tons of readings and common sense ownership away from being able to making it. As for the scientific side of things, you couldn't be more out of your depth if you tried to!

 

[Rorschach]

It has taken you over a whole day to reply to something that was essentially basic, which really indicates that you have nothing to argue against.

Are you doing this on purpose? Why are you so presumptuous? That sentence is empty and useless. As if you're politically point scoring...

Again you haven't answered the question , all you're doing is ing about the sources, and repeating your theories. In the future, when someone disputes a specific point in a story/theory, try not to repeat the whole story/theory back to them.

I see no merit in this to be honest. You're not willing to have a discussion.

II bashaal saxiib.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@Rorschach

There is no benefit having a discussion with him, he is a waste of space, so much so he reminds me of the Surah Ancaam verses 27/28


"If you could but see when they are made to stand before the Fire and will say, "Oh, would that we could be returned [to life on earth] and not deny the signs of our Lord and be among the believers."

"But what they concealed before has [now] appeared to them. And even if they were returned, they would return to that which they were forbidden; and indeed, they are liars."


When I see the likes of him, the piety and gratefulness in my lord increases, even the ultimate real thing beyond this discussion is not enough for his ilks, I used to feel sorry the likes of him until I came across this verse more then a decade ago, then it completely stopped, because you realise the type of wicked people your dealing with.

This topic isn't even for the likes of him, it's more for all those silent readers, those doubtful, slightly touched by this Europhile disease, to show them the incoherence and contradictions, if it was just for his consumption, I wouldn't even waste a breath on him, his ilks are never the prime audience for this.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Are you doing this on purpose? Why are you so presumptuous? That sentence is empty and useless. As if you're politically point scoring...

Again you haven't answered the question , all you're doing is ing about the sources, and repeating your theories. In the future, when someone disputes a specific point in a story/theory, try not to repeat the whole story/theory back to them.

I see no merit in this to be honest. You're not willing to have a discussion.

II bashaal saxiib.

I have answered every single point that you have made regarding all the points you've made, instead of addressing them though you chose to ignore them and comment on the small paragraph I made at the beginning which highlights a decent observation.

Then you accuse me of not wanting to have a discussion!!


You only wanted to lambaste your ignorance all over the damn place unopposed and I made sure to quench that. Then you claimed in the original posts to know what a scientific theory is but then continued to assert it in the context of the laymen understanding of that word.


Why do I waste my time with these moronic inbreds??

 

[The_Cosmos]

@Rorschach

There is no benefit having a discussion with him, he is a waste of space, so much so he reminds me of the Surah Ancaam verses 27/28


"If you could but see when they are made to stand before the Fire and will say, "Oh, would that we could be returned [to life on earth] and not deny the signs of our Lord and be among the believers."

"But what they concealed before has [now] appeared to them. And even if they were returned, they would return to that which they were forbidden; and indeed, they are liars."


When I see the likes of him, the piety and gratefulness in my lord increases, even the ultimate real thing beyond this discussion is not enough for his ilks, I used to feel sorry the likes of him until I came across this verse more then a decade ago, then it completely stopped, because you realise the type of wicked people your dealing with.

This topic isn't even for the likes of him, it's more for all those silent readers, those doubtful, slightly touched by this Europhile disease, to show them the incoherence and contradictions, if it was just for his consumption, I wouldn't even waste a breath on him, his ilks are never the prime audience for this.

I love how you ran away from my comments after you've observed that you cannot come to this forum with your one sided inbred nonsense. Now you throw around a bunch of primitive verses that easily shows that your religion is full of shit.

 

[VixR]

The Europhile cultureless conformist community on this site are always quick to attack the religious people on the topic of ‘free-will’; totally oblivious of course that in their core doctrinal believes there is no such thing as ‘free-will’, as supported by virtually all Europhile quackademics.

If we are nothing but a bunch of atoms and molecules firing off into various chemical reactions, with each individual being unique, it stands to reason by any rational mind that there can’t be ‘free-will’ nor ‘free-choice’ because you have no control over those atoms, molecules and they ways in which react and fire across the brain, hence it's perfectly logical to be 'born' gay to them, and in the future it will be argued that serial-killers and paedophiles cannot be blamed, because they are pre-determined to be this way.

An atheist thus can never make a ‘truth statement’, which is ‘objective’ in nature, and thus requires ‘free-will’ and free-choice to make it which violates ‘determinism’

Hence every statement from an Atheist can only be ‘subjective’ to their own unique chemical molecular structure and unique reactions, unless they rise above their bondage of captivity that is determinism and affirm free-will which violates atheism and takes them out of it's fold.


This is the conundrum and incoherence the Europhile community has grappled with since their inception, coming up with all types of side-terms like soft-determinism hard-determinism to muddy the waters, lets look at a few of their quotes.

Even the Neuroscientist agree there is no 'Free will' or 'Free Choice'

Determinism doesn't violate and isn't in conflict with the difference of thought and opinion, it just holds that the origins of our thoughts and opinions are causal in nature.

Accepting or denying determism neither "nullifies" atheism nor is it in conflict with belief/faith.

 

[VixR]

@Inquisitive_ What are your thoughts on Qadr?

 

[VixR]

The Islamic tenet of Qadr is at odds with free will and divine omniscience, and the problem is worsened in certain sects of Christianity where a belief in predestination is also accepted.

As for determinism, like I said it's not at odds with faith as demonstrated, or esp it's lack as you attempted to present, but neither is it the necessary view to hold without other contending views on the subject outside hard determinism and free-will advocacy. It's not a black and white question.

 

[simulacrum]

Now that Inquisitive has destroyed atheism, I'm going to Jummah prayers tomorrow, Inshallah.

 

[Inquisitive_]

Determinism doesn't violate and isn't in conflict with the difference of thought and opinion, it just holds that the origins of our thoughts and opinions are causal in nature.

Accepting or denying determism neither "nullifies" atheism nor is it in conflict with belief/faith.

I don't think you have given the subject good thought, if you agree with the premise, you are basically saying we are mere robots hard-wired for everything, nothing more then wondering idiots with delusions of grandeur that are under the illusion we have choice and free-will much like Sam Harris quote depicts it perfectly which I posted.

This very conversation was already pre-determined and coded somewhere in my physiology and yours, I'll let you speculate were. How you don't see this conundrum and logical contradiction which is something pretty much all the prominent atheist wrote about even Dawkins who admits it's a contradiction whom I even quoted, along with countless others is beyond me.

This whole topic is a classic tale of the laymen trying to refute the scientific experts they hold in high esteem. If you go with the majority of physicists, biologists, all the way to the nueroscientists of the same ideology, who say free-will and choice is an illusion and we are fully determined.

It's game-over, because as a pre-programmed robot, your believes, your opinions, your morals and everything else is subjective and unique to your individual make up, this very conundrum drove many of the deep thinkers towards insanity.