Determinism: The Destroyer of Atheism

[Inquisitive_]

Definition Determinism
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.

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.

Our circumstances, in line with the strict determinism of physics and biochemistry, predetermine all our choices and therefore, free will is an illusion. Bertrand Russel [chapter illusion of choice]

Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have (Harris, 2012, p. 5, emphasis in original).

there is still determinism in quantum theory, but it is on a reduced scale…in quantum theory the ability to make exact predictions is just half what it was in the classical Laplace worldview. Nevertheless, it is still possible to claim that there is determinism (Hawking, 2001, p. 108).

Questioner: Dr. Dawkins thank you for your comments. The thing I have appreciated most about your comments is your consistency in the things I’ve seen you written. One of the areas that I wanted to ask you about and the places where I think there is an inconsistency and I hoped you would clarify it is that in what I’ve read you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn’t to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book from the initial condition of the big bang it was set that this would be the product of what we see today. I would take it that that would be the consistent position but I wanted to know what you thought about that.


Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It’s not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I’ve ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write, has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn’t seem to make any sense. Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.”

Questioner: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable

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

There is no doubting that it feels like we have free will. Neurologists have often wondered - as the neurones in the brain fire, caused by cascades of previous firings, and themselves causing other to fire in accordance with the laws of biochemistry, do some neurones fire because of free will? Every technological breakthrough in apparatus that can be used to study the brain has found itself being used to attempt to study free will and deliberation. But now "it is safe to say that more and more neuroscientists are gradually coming to the conclusion that free will does not exist"7, writes Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics based in New York

 

[The_Cosmos]

Definition of Atheism - "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." This does not include any beliefs, doctrines or whatever. Atheism has no authority that you can impose and no people whom are elevated on the position of prophets. Atheism is simply a definition and nothing more.

The question of free will is not something that defines atheism and ones own opinion on the matter is subjective to that individual. Atheism has no set of beliefs, it's a mere definition of people who lack a belief any deities. Pretty much all the people you've mentioned were and are prominent atheists and thus you assume they must have some sort of an authority, as that of a prophet perhaps. If you seriously believe this, not only are you ignorant but completely delusional. Atheism is a definition and not a belief system and thus the prominent atheists and their views are that if their own and not a mere definition as that of atheism. If you disagree, provide evidence from reliable sources that asserts the authority of the prominent atheists you've mentioned.

Moving on, the reason why atheists, like me, assert the problem of free will against religions is built on the idea of exposing the contradictions of their beliefs. I myself haven't really focused on the question of free will from a non religious matter but from an Islamic perspective, I've made extensive research which lead me to the sound conclusion that Islam and free will are not compatible. Now, if they're not compatible that means that life isn't a test and thus the whole thread of heaven and hell are meaningless. If there is no free will then Allah cannot hold you accountable for your actions. From a philosophical perspective, it's very difficult to defend free will and I acknowledge that. Nonetheless, my atheism is built on the irrationality of the belief in god and not whether free will exists or not.

 

[Inquisitive_]

Definition of Atheism - "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." This does not include any beliefs, doctrines or whatever. Atheism has no authority that you can impose and no people whom are elevated on the position of prophets. Atheism is simply a definition and nothing more.

I know your desperate to untangle yourself from the tentacles and confines of singular 'believe' and doctrine, by trying to argue away that there is no points of reference or core principles that are agreed upon and hence no points of attack.

Anyone with just a rudimentary rationale will know your notion is just hearsay, there is no community on the face of this earth 'more' in agreement with each other in terms of doctrines then the Europhile atheists.

You cannot be an atheist without believing in big bang, evolution, ball earth and the quackademic physics, biology and chemistry that are used to explain it. It's not even possible to understand this all, hence you have to follow it blindly as you do, your statement is that of a coward, that wants to run away before the discussions have even started.

The question of free will is not something that defines atheism and ones own opinion on the matter is subjective to that individual. Atheism has no set of beliefs, it's a mere definition of people who lack a belief any deities.

Your statement not only comes against the majority of contemporary atheists in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology but also the neuroscientist that deal with the brain, nervous system, nerve cells and spinal cord using the latest technologies.

I am I supposed to take your statements? over theirs? a guy that lives in the basement of his parents? explain to us how you can have free-will when your nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions?

Atheism is a definition and not a belief system and thus the prominent atheists and their views are that if their own and not a mere definition as that of atheism. If you disagree, provide evidence from reliable sources that asserts the authority of the prominent atheists you've mentioned.

I can sense the defeatist attitude in your writing, don't look for a way out, defend your believes, can I be an atheist and not believe in evolution? can I be an atheist and not believe in the big bang theory? can I be an atheist and believe in flat-earth?

You know damn well I can't so stop this cowardice act, You use big bang, evolution and flat-earth to disprove the existence of God in your debates with others, why run away from them now?

Moving on, the reason why atheists, like me, assert the problem of free will against religions is built on the idea of exposing the contradictions of their beliefs.

Why don't you start with the contradictions in your own believes regarding free-will? and how none of your Europhile atheist professors, experts, from this era and the previous DON'T believe in Free-will ?

Why not get your own house in order first? and solve the contradiction how you believe in free-will but the fast majority of the atheist expert scientist community doesn't? are you a neo-atheist?

I myself haven't really focused on the question of free will from a non religious matter but from an Islamic perspective, I've made extensive research which lead me to the sound conclusion that Islam and free will are not compatible.

The reason you haven't focused on it, is because you falsely thought the atheist community and it's scientist believed in free-will, which they unanimously don't, but you still do, why not focus on this incompatibility and clear incoherence which you are suffering from as an individual?

If there is no free will then Allah cannot hold you accountable for your actions.

Why don't you explain to us why you are going against all the scientists, experts, specialist in the various sciences, such as biology, physics, chemistry and even neuroscientist all fellow atheist whom argue against free-will? Mind you, whose assessment and rational I would have agreed with had I been an atheist myself?

Why have you decided to take an opposite stance? how does a bunch of atoms and molecules colliding against each other have the free will or choice to do so? are you directing them? if so, explain to us how you are and what mechanisms you are using?

From a philosophical perspective, it's very difficult to defend free will and I acknowledge that. Nonetheless, my atheism is built on the irrationality of the belief in god and not whether free will exists or not.

Its impossible to defend in your believe system, it's very easy in mine but that's a separate topic will not discuss here.

Your atheism is not built on 'irrationality' of God and that I can tell from the few posts I have read off you, you use the following core concepts to argue against God

- Use Free will to argue against God which Atheism overwhelmingly argues against as well which is self defeating

- Use Darwin biological evolution to argue against God

- Use Flat Earth to argue against scripture of God (I believe in flat-earth, everyone is running scared of me on this)


That's you in a nut-shell from what I have seen, this topic is crushing you on the first and you are already running away from it, because you understand the implications of believing in 'determinism'

The moment you do, your finished, there is no 'truth statement' anymore, nothing that comes out of you or any Europhile scientist mouth is 'objective' anymore, because for something to be objective requires 'free-will' and free choice.

Hence the ramifications are big because everything you or your scientist say will be relegated to subjective relativism, which is the case in a deterministic world view with no free-will or choice, were every action or thought is unique to the individual only, just as the chemical reactions taking place is unique to the individual only.

At least your smart enough to understand this conundrum and catch 22 situation I have put you in, because you attacked a group of people for it for years, because you innately understood its incoherence, but never thought it would one day come back to bite you because your entire expert scientist atheist community believes in it.

I applaud you for this, your smarter then I thought you were. Atheist philosophers have gone insane just pondering over this conundrum, I don't want the same to happen you.

Because when God becomes irrational and Atheism becomes irrational, it's a gateway to insanity, I will leave you to ponder over this.

 

[The_Cosmos]

I know your desperate to untangle yourself from the tentacles and confines of singular 'believe' and doctrine, by trying to argue away that there is no points of reference or core principles that are agreed upon and hence no points of attack.

Anyone with just a rudimentary rationale will know your notion is just hearsay, there is no community on the face of this earth 'more' in agreement with each other in terms of doctrines then the Europhile atheists.

You cannot be an atheist without believing in big bang, evolution, ball earth and the quackademic physics, biology and chemistry that are used to explain it. It's not even possible to understand this all, hence you have to follow it blindly as you do, your statement is that of a coward, that wants to run away before the discussions have even started.




Your statement not only comes against the majority of contemporary atheists in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology but also the neuroscientist that deal with the brain, nervous system, nerve cells and spinal cord using the latest technologies.

I am I supposed to take your statements? over theirs? a guy that lives in the basement of his parents? explain to us how you can have free-will when your nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions?




I can sense the defeatist attitude in your writing, don't look for a way out, defend your believes, can I be an atheist and not believe in evolution? can I be an atheist and not believe in the big bang theory? can I be an atheist and believe in flat-earth?

You know damn well I can't so stop this cowardice act, You use big bang, evolution and flat-earth to disprove the existence of God in your debates with others, why run away from them now?



Why don't you start with the contradictions in your own believes regarding free-will? and how none of your Europhile atheist professors, experts, from this era and the previous DON'T believe in Free-will ?

Why not get your own house in order first? and solve the contradiction how you believe in free-will but the fast majority of the atheist expert scientist community doesn't? are you a neo-atheist?




The reason you haven't focused on it, is because you falsely thought the atheist community and it's scientist believed in free-will, which they unanimously don't, but you still do, why not focus on this incompatibility and clear incoherence which you are suffering from as an individual?



Why don't you explain to us why you are going against all the scientists, experts, specialist in the various sciences, such as biology, physics, chemistry and even neuroscientist all fellow atheist whom argue against free-will? Mind you, whose assessment and rational I would have agreed with had I been an atheist myself?

Why have you decided to take an opposite stance? how does a bunch of atoms and molecules colliding against each other have the free will or choice to do so? are you directing them? if so, explain to us how you are and what mechanisms you are using?




Its impossible to defend in your believe system, it's very easy in mine but that's a separate topic will not discuss here.

Your atheism is not built on 'irrationality' of God and that I can tell from the few posts I have read off you, you use the following core concepts to argue against God

- Use Free will to argue against God which Atheism overwhelmingly argues against as well which is self defeating

- Use Darwin biological evolution to argue against God

- Use Flat Earth to argue against scripture of God (I believe in flat-earth, everyone is running scared of me on this)


That's you in a nut-shell from what I have seen, this topic is crushing you on the first and you are already running away from it, because you understand the implications of believing in 'determinism'

The moment you do, your finished, there is no 'truth statement' anymore, nothing that comes out of you or any Europhile scientist mouth is 'objective' anymore, because for something to be objective requires 'free-will' and free choice.

Hence the ramifications are big because everything you or your scientist say will be relegated to subjective relativism, which is the case in a deterministic world view with no free-will or choice, were every action or thought is unique to the individual only, just as the chemical reactions taking place is unique to the individual only.

At least your smart enough to understand this conundrum and catch 22 situation I have put you in, because you attacked a group of people for it for years, because you innately understood its incoherence, but never thought it would one day come back to bite you. I applaud you for this, your smarter then I thought you were.

You cannot be an atheist without believing in big bang, evolution, ball earth and the quackademic physics, biology and chemistry that are used to explain it. It's not even possible to understand this all, hence you have to follow it blindly as you do, your statement is that of a coward, that wants to run away before the discussions have even started.

It seems that you're exposing the pseudo intellectual that you really are.

Oxford dictionary - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Cambridge dictionary - someone who believes that God does not exist

Could you please provide citations for your claims that to be an atheist you must believe in Evolution, Big Bang, spherical Earth, and so on? You accuse atheism of being a belief system when it's quite the opposite. You accuse me of holding doctrines based on atheism but like I keep regurgitating, atheism is only a definition of people merely lacking a belief in any deities.

Nice try though.

Your statement not only comes against the majority of contemporary atheists in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology but also the neuroscientist that deal with the brain, nervous system, nerve cells and spinal cord using the latest technologies.

I am I supposed to take your statements? over theirs? a guy that lives in the basement of his parents? explain to us how you can have free-will when your nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions?

Your arguments are built upon the notion that atheism is like that of religion (you'll only look more stupid if you assert this) and like religion it must therefore have authorities, which it does not have. You can very well throw around what many atheists believe or don't believe, you simply cannot present them as authority for atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a definition intended to describe those who lack a belief in a God.

Do we have free will? From my brief look into this issue, I have chosen to take the agnostic position. The reason why I tackle the religious in this matter is because they already have a well established opinion. They believe we do have free will because god gave it to us. I challenge this idea as it creates clear contradictions with the omniscience of god and his preordainments.

I can sense the defeatist attitude in your writing, don't look for a way out, defend your believes, can I be an atheist and not believe in evolution? can I be an atheist and not believe in the big bang theory? can I be an atheist and believe in flat-earth?

You know damn well I can't so stop this cowardice act, You use big bang, evolution and flat-earth to disprove the existence of God in your debates with others, why run away from them now?

I think you're very confused as your rhetoric seems incoherent and not based on actual facts. Atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in any deities and that all. What does this mean? It means that, in theory, one can be an atheist and not believe in evolution, Big Bang, atomic theory and whatever the scientific evidence throws our way. You can be an atheist and believe that there's a supernatural realm that exists. Although this is very rare to find, to be an atheist the only requirement is that you lack a belief in any deities at the very least and assert that there is no god at the very most. Nothing else. There are no set of doctrines or beliefs that atheists must.

If you think otherwise, I challenge you to provide reliable sources to counter my understanding of atheism. This highly delusional stuff you espouse.

Why don't you start with the contradictions in your own believes regarding free-will? and how none of your Europhile atheist professors, experts, from this era and the previous DON'T believe in Free-will ?

Why not get your own house in order first? and solve the contradiction how you believe in free-will but the fast majority of the atheist expert scientist community doesn't? are you a neo-atheist?

The problem is that there are no contradictions. Everything you suppose atheism is, is built on lies. You have made one logical fallacy after another to try and support your baseless assertions. You first make assertions about atheism, which are wrong, in order so that you can support your points. You then go on to make an argument from authority stating that since these atheists believe this, all atheists must then believe the same thing. Like I keep repeating, atheism is a definition and therefore cannot be defined by what atheists believe or say. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deities. This is not cowardice or running away, this is just spitting out facts.

Atheist experts?!

You are seriously grasping at straws here. This is becoming very nonsensical.

The reason you haven't focused on it, is because you falsely thought the atheist community and it's scientist believed in free-will, which they unanimously don't, but you still do, why not focus on this incompatibility and clear incoherence which you are suffering from as an individual?



Why don't you explain to us why you are going against all the scientists, experts, specialist in the various sciences, such as biology, physics, chemistry and even neuroscientist all fellow atheist whom argue against free-will? Mind you, whose assessment and rational I would have agreed with had I been an atheist myself?

Why have you decided to take an opposite stance? how does a bunch of atoms and molecules colliding against each other have the free will or choice to do so? are you directing them? if so, explain to us how you are and what mechanisms you are using?




Its impossible to defend in your believe system, it's very easy in mine but that's a separate topic will not discuss here.

Your atheism is not built on 'irrationality' of God and that I can tell from the few posts I have read off you, you use the following core concepts to argue against God

- Use Free will to argue against God which Atheism overwhelmingly argues against as well which is self defeating

- Use Darwin biological evolution to argue against God

- Use Flat Earth to argue against scripture of God (I believe in flat-earth, everyone is running scared of me on this)


That's you in a nut-shell from what I have seen, this topic is crushing you on the first and you are already running away from it, because you understand the implications of believing in 'determinism'

The moment you do, your finished, there is no 'truth statement' anymore, nothing that comes out of you or any Europhile scientist mouth is 'objective' anymore, because for something to be objective requires 'free-will' and free choice.

Hence the ramifications are big because everything you or your scientist say will be relegated to subjective relativism, which is the case in a deterministic world view with no free-will or choice, were every action or thought is unique to the individual only, just as the chemical reactions taking place is unique to the individual only.

At least your smart enough to understand this conundrum and catch 22 situation I have put you in, because you attacked a group of people for it for years, because you innately understood its incoherence, but never thought it would one day come back to bite you. I applaud you for this, your smarter then I thought you were.

I've just quoted the rest as much of it is just repetition of what you wrote in previous paragraphs. More Straw man and more appealing to authority.

Why am I against all the scientists? Well I'm not against all scientists as their is no clear unanimous understanding of this topic any intellectual community. In fact, the majority of scientists don't really tackle the issue of free will at all. I work with scientific evidence, there is no conclusive scientific reasoning as to whether we have free will or not.

You then go on to espouse more delusional rhetoric.

1) I use free will to argue against the existence of god because Islamic doctrine has an underlying belief concerning this matter. Islam asserts that Allah knows everything and has preordained everything whilst meanwhile claiming that everyone has the ability to choose. I argue that this doesn't logically add up. You then claim that atheism overwhelmingly argues against free will as well!! Not only are incapable of having a fact based and honest discussion, you lack any sense to use reason. There is not a single credible and authentic source, that can back up your assertions asserting atheism. I challenge you to provide a reliable and authentic source.

2) Evolution is a fact of science and has nothing to do with atheism. There are theists who espouse to the scientific fact if evolution like the Catholic Church. (I doubt you'd any heed as you've been brainwashed since birth to believe only that which was asserted as truth).

3) Nobody is running scared, it's just that nobody wants to debate a scientifically illiterate, conspiracy theorist, who has zero regard for the scientific method.

Furthermore, you seem to confuse things a little. There's a difference between the philosophical question of free will and the theological question of free will. I tackle the theological aspect.

To conclude I will simply say in order to not have a long and meaningless debate, I'm going to demand that you educate yourself on the meaning of the word 'atheism'. If you are unwilling to do this, I will simply not waste my time with someone who doesn't want to have a debate/discussion from the point of view of facts and evidence.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@The_Cosmos

This is the most remarkable suicidal post I have ever read, it beggars believe, I have never seen this stuff, this is cowardice on another level, simply running away by arguing that there is no reference point, you can believe in flat-earth, disbelief in evolution, throw away big bang, in fact throw away the whole of science, but remain an atheist as long as you reject God?

What exactly are you rejecting God on then? what are your foundations and argument? aren't they supposed to be this new age scientific stuff that's coming from the community of scientist that your bizarrely dismissing now? your telling me your beloved community has no core unity on this?Remarkable stuff ! I am absolutely astonished by this line of argument, everyday you get something new from this community.

If that's your truly your position, then why are you using heliocentric arguments against @Burhan to disprove God arguing the Quran espouses flat earth ? why are you using the arguments of Free-will and evolution to disprove the Supreme being to many other posters on here? don't you see the paradox in your statements ?

The fact that you use those arguments, which are also espoused by your fellow circle of scientists community and fellow atheists, is a prove that you believe in them, so why are you throwing a tantrum and running away when I am trying to question you on those very same principles and believes you espoused during your debates on here with others, we you used them to try and disprove God?

Your comment that the scientist community doesn't tackle free-will is moronic, a dozen books were written about it, there is more material on it then most of the stuff you espouse in these forums, I know this, because I have read a dozen of them. The contemporary scientist try to avoid it, as it's a very problematic self-destructing discourse, hence why I made this topic, to bring this to the forefront which is getting you so nervous you want to turn it into a semantic debate.

In religious theology or discourse, using for example the Abrahamic faiths, which is what I am arguing based on, there is no concept of 'atheism', your either a monotheist or a polytheist, and I view you as a form of confused polytheism worse then paganism which I already made a thread about, but for the sake of this topic, I will concede this for now and come down to your interpretation.

Simple questions for you in keeping with the premise of this topic, do you believe in free-will or not? if yes, explain to me why you believe in free-will, how you came to this conclusion and which part of your free 'will' and 'choice' determines those billions of reactions taking place in your body.

We know that we have no influence over our race, colour, height, genetics and many more things, so explain to me how it's possible to have control of your 'will' and 'choices', I am interested to hear.

 

[Rorschach]

What @The_Cosmos is engaging in is intellectual cowardice. Anytime he's challenged on his views he falls back to the definition of atheism: "but I simply disbelieve in God, that's all". Yet you use almost identical arguments to the vast majority of atheists online when refuting religion.

So let me get this straight; you disbelieve, with certainty, that a God or gods don't exist correct? Don't you see that merely holding this view (with certainty) you're batting for a team? Would you agree that it's impossible to disprove the existence of God? So for you to say God doesn't exist, you've taken a unprovable position yourself, just like the creationists you antagonise.

When brother @Inquisitive_ brilliantly exposes several conundrums within your community, you backtrack into a pointless debate over semantics. It's a bulletproof tactic of yours: " I will continue to bash religion using so and so's material/viewpoint as my primary source, but when said people (your 'prophets') are called out I am simply a person who disbelieves in God/gods."

If you were consistent in this thought process you would simply state your God-less position in life, and would let the religious folks be. But as soon as you engage in refutation using a set compilation of source material, you've automatically opened yourself up for others to challenge you on your position, because for the debate to continue we must assume that you hold their (new-age atheists) position.

What's an atheist who doesn't believe in contemporary science? A unicorn. []

Like it or not Atheism is a defined 'non-belief' system. Unless you're agnostic?

Brother @Inquisitive_, keep up the good work son.

 

[The_Cosmos]

What @The_Cosmos is engaging in is intellectual cowardice. Anytime he's challenged on his views he falls back to the definition of atheism: "but I simply disbelieve in God, that's all". Yet you use almost identical arguments to the vast majority of atheists online when refuting religion.

So let me get this straight; you disbelieve, with certainty, that a God or gods don't exist correct? Don't you see that merely holding this view (with certainty) you're batting for a team? Would you agree that it's impossible to disprove the existence of God? So for you to say God doesn't exist, you've taken a unprovable position yourself, just like the creationists you antagonise.

When brother @Inquisitive_ brilliantly exposes several conundrums within your community, you backtrack into a pointless debate over semantics. It's a bulletproof tactic of yours: " I will continue to bash religion using so and so's material/viewpoint as my primary source, but when said people (your 'prophets') are called out I am simply a person who disbelieves in God/gods."

If you were consistent in this thought process you would simply state your God-less position in life, and would let the religious folks be. But as soon as you engage in refutation using a set compilation of source material, you've automatically opened yourself up for others to challenge you on your position, because for the debate to continue we must assume that you hold their (new-age atheists) position.

What's an atheist who doesn't believe in contemporary science? A unicorn. []

Like it or not Atheism is a defined 'non-belief' system. Unless you're agnostic?

Brother @Inquisitive_, keep up the good work son.

So let me get this straight; you disbelieve, with certainty, that a God or gods don't exist correct? Don't you see that merely holding this view (with certainty) you're batting for a team? Would you agree that it's impossible to disprove the existence of God? So for you to say God doesn't exist, you've taken a unprovable position yourself, just like the creationists you antagonise.

This is precisely what I am talking about when I address the issue of intellectual dishonesty. Atheism is defined as anything from a lack of belief to completely disbelief. I have constantly asserted that my disbelief arises from the mere fact that religion is built on unverifiable and unscientific nonsense, which there is no evidence for. That doesn't mean I am absolutely certain there is no god, it means provide the bloody evidence so that then we can acknowledge the existence of this being. The real question of proof lies on the proponent and the proponents are those who assert on the existence of a deity.

What @The_Cosmos is engaging in is intellectual cowardice. Anytime he's challenged on his views he falls back to the definition of atheism: "but I simply disbelieve in God, that's all". Yet you use almost identical arguments to the vast majority of atheists online when refuting religion.

I'm the one accused of intellectual cowardice yet their argument for this rests on, "but other atheists use similar arguments!" So what?! What does that prove? You theists are honestly incapable of having an honest discussion built on intellectual honesty. Acknowledge what atheism is instead of trying to bring it down so that you can define it on the same grounds as your religion. Atheism is not a belief and it has no doctrine, it has no set of beliefs and atheists are not a monolithic.

When brother @Inquisitive_ brilliantly exposes several conundrums within your community, you backtrack into a pointless debate over semantics. It's a bulletproof tactic of yours: " I will continue to bash religion using so and so's material/viewpoint as my primary source, but when said people (your 'prophets') are called out I am simply a person who disbelieves in God/gods."

If you're going to treat atheism as a religion, when it is not, and hold every atheist accountable for what another atheists says or does, then how am I the one practicing intellectually cowardice. Your entire crusade against atheism is built on around what other atheists have said or don't without acknowledging that atheism is but a definition.

Islam has a fixed set of belief system which I can tackle and provide my sources against, atheism has no set of beliefs and therefore the opinions of other atheists is not argument against atheism.

"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as 'a belief that there is no God'."

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

If you were consistent in this thought process you would simply state your God-less position in life, and would let the religious folks be. But as soon as you engage in refutation using a set compilation of source material, you've automatically opened yourself up for others to challenge you on your position, because for the debate to continue we must assume that you hold their (new-age atheists) position.

Well then go on! Do it! I'm open to discussions about my position but this isn't even remotely built on that. It's built on what he or she might of said who also happens to be an atheist.

"because for the debate to continue we must assume that you hold their (new-age atheists) position."

What the hell is that exactly?! My position rests on my mere lack of belief in your god and I make arguments for why that is. If you believe that atheism doesn't make sense, go ahead and argue against it but do so on the grounds of how it is defined.

Like it or not Atheism is a defined 'non-belief' system. Unless you're agnostic?

What do you mean by 'defined' exactly? Atheism isn't a belief and its definition doesn't extend beyond that of a lack of belief in any gods.

@The_Cosmos

This is the most remarkable suicidal post I have ever read, it beggars believe, I have never seen this stuff, this is cowardice on another level, simply running away by arguing that there is no reference point, you can believe in flat-earth, disbelief in evolution, throw away big bang, in fact throw away the whole of science, but remain an atheist as long as you reject God?

What exactly are you rejecting God on then? what are your foundations and argument? aren't they supposed to be this new age scientific stuff that's coming from the community of scientist that your bizarrely dismissing now? your telling me your beloved community has no core unity on this?Remarkable stuff ! I am absolutely astonished by this line of argument, everyday you get something new from this community.

If that's your truly your position, then why are you using heliocentric arguments against @Burhan to disprove God arguing the Quran espouses flat earth ? why are you using the arguments of Free-will and evolution to disprove the Supreme being to many other posters on here? don't you see the paradox in your statements ?

The fact that you use those arguments, which are also espoused by your fellow circle of scientists community and fellow atheists, is a prove that you believe in them, so why are you throwing a tantrum and running away when I am trying to question you on those very same principles and believes you espoused during your debates on here with others, we you used them to try and disprove God?

Your comment that the scientist community doesn't tackle free-will is moronic, a dozen books were written about it, there is more material on it then most of the stuff you espouse in these forums, I know this, because I have read a dozen of them. The contemporary scientist try to avoid it, as it's a very problematic self-destructing discourse, hence why I made this topic, to bring this to the forefront which is getting you so nervous you want to turn it into a semantic debate.

In religious theology or discourse, using for example the Abrahamic faiths, which is what I am arguing based on, there is no concept of 'atheism', your either a monotheist or a polytheist, and I view you as a form of confused polytheism worse then paganism which I already made a thread about, but for the sake of this topic, I will concede this for now and come down to your interpretation.

Simple questions for you in keeping with the premise of this topic, do you believe in free-will or not? if yes, explain to me why you believe in free-will, how you came to this conclusion and which part of your free 'will' and 'choice' determines those billions of reactions taking place in your body.

We know that we have no influence over our race, colour, height, genetics and many more things, so explain to me how it's possible to have control of your 'will' and 'choices', I am interested to hear.

you can believe in flat-earth, disbelief in evolution, throw away big bang, in fact throw away the whole of science, but remain an atheist as long as you reject God?

Yes! Note that a complete rejection of god isn't the only thing that makes you an atheist, having a mere lack of belief in any gods also does.

What exactly are you rejecting God on then? what are your foundations and argument? aren't they supposed to be this new age scientific stuff that's coming from the community of scientist that your bizarrely dismissing now? your telling me your beloved community has no core unity on this?Remarkable stuff ! I am absolutely astonished by this line of argument, everyday you get something new from this community.

What's more astonishing is the fact that you lack any real set of understanding of what atheism actually means. You keep telling me, the atheist, that to be an atheist you must believe this and that when you provide no evidence for what you're saying (not surprising since your whole religion is built on no evidence). There is no real community of atheists as atheist themselves are only United by their lack of belief in god and nothing all. We're more different then we are alike but are often United by the systematic abuse that we get from religious societies around the world.

I'm not dismissing what scientists are saying, the question of free will is not one that has complete scientific evidence to prove it or disprove it. Some scientists vouch for it and others don't. It's dependent on how you interpret the facts.

Now, my atheism is built on my rejection of religion, Islam in particular, on the grounds that it is morally deficient, scientifically illiterate, and lacks any sense to provide evidence to substantiate itself. If you want to question this then that's completely fine, but don't treat atheism anymore than it is and try to identify it as a belief system with a set of doctrines that it doesn't have.

In religious theology or discourse, using for example the Abrahamic faiths, which is what I am arguing based on, there is no concept of 'atheism', your either a monotheist or a polytheist, and I view you as a form of confused polytheism worse then paganism which I already made a thread about, but for the sake of this topic, I will concede this for now and come down to your interpretation.

Theology doesn't demand you to be religious in order to understand it, you can be an atheist and still question some of the fire beliefs. As I have stated earlier, my free will argument against Islam is built on what is says and how it contradicts itself with preordainment. This doesn't mean my position on free will is question as that doesn't suppose any theological grounding.

There is the theological argument on free will and the philosophical and I tackle the theological. There's a world of difference.

If that's your truly your position, then why are you using heliocentric arguments against @Burhan to disprove God arguing the Quran espouses flat earth ? why are you using the arguments of Free-will and evolution to disprove the Supreme being to many other posters on here? don't you see the paradox in your statements ?

There is no bloody paradox!

Those arguments are built on established Islamic teachings which are rebuked by well established scientific evidence. I adhere to the scientific evidence that accords to a spherical planet and I use that against Islam which I believe states the opposite. What you fail to acknowledge is that atheism is not a grounded belief system and so how I argue against religion may differ to how another atheist does. What the majority of atheists believe doesn't define what atheism actually is. You've claimed atheism means this and it means that, I'm educating on the fact that it doesn't. Atheism has but one requirement and that is to hold a mere lack of belief.

Simple questions for you in keeping with the premise of this topic, do you believe in free-will or not? if yes, explain to me why you believe in free-will, how you came to this conclusion and which part of your free 'will' and 'choice' determines those billions of reactions taking place in your body.

We know that we have no influence over our race, colour, height, genetics and many more things, so explain to me how it's possible to have control of your 'will' and 'choices', I am interested to hear.

The most sensible question you've asked all day!

My answer would be one that is built on scepticism. This is a question that I haven't dealt with outside the realms of theology which has a really black and white view of this and hence makes it easier to discuss. My supposed answer would be that we do but I'll concede that this is a very difficult position to defend. It's not complete free will, its the position that free will can sort of rest equally with that of determinism. My arguments are built off of the works of Daniel Dennet.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The free will argument in theology is somewhat different to the philosophical and scientific argument because theology also focuses on the supposition of a deity who has omniscience. Therefore my argument is built on the philosophical argument for compatibility which is not equal to the compatibility espoused by theologians.

 

[Rorschach]

This is precisely what I am talking about when I address the issue of intellectual dishonesty. Atheism is defined as anything from a lack of belief to completely disbelief. I have constantly asserted that my disbelief arises from the mere fact that religion is built on unverifiable and unscientific nonsense, which there is no evidence for. That doesn't mean I am absolutely certain there is no god, it means provide the bloody evidence so that then we can acknowledge the existence of this being. The real question of proof lies on the proponent and the proponents are those who assert on the existence of a deity.



I'm the one accused of intellectual cowardice yet their argument for this rests on, "but other atheists use similar arguments!" So what?! What does that prove? You theists are honestly incapable of having an honest discussion built on intellectual honesty. Acknowledge what atheism is instead of trying to bring it down so that you can define it on the same grounds as your religion. Atheism is not a belief and it has no doctrine, it has no set of beliefs and atheists are not a monolithic.



If you're going to treat atheism as a religion, when it is not, and hold every atheist accountable for what another atheists says or does, then how am I the one practicing intellectually cowardice. Your entire crusade against atheism is built on around what other atheists have said or don't without acknowledging that atheism is but a definition.

Islam has a fixed set of belief system which I can tackle and provide my sources against, atheism has no set of beliefs and therefore the opinions of other atheists is not argument against atheism.

"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as 'a belief that there is no God'."

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism



Well then go on! Do it! I'm open to discussions about my position but this isn't even remotely built on that. It's built on what he or she might of said who also happens to be an atheist.

"because for the debate to continue we must assume that you hold their (new-age atheists) position."

What the hell is that exactly?! My position rests on my mere lack of belief in your god and I make arguments for why that is. If you believe that atheism doesn't make sense, go ahead and argue against it but do so on the grounds of how it is defined.



What do you mean by 'defined' exactly? Atheism isn't a belief and its definition doesn't extend beyond that of a lack of belief in any gods.





Yes! Note that a complete rejection of god isn't the only thing that makes you an atheist, having a mere lack of belief in any gods also does.



What's more astonishing is the fact that you lack any real set of understanding of what atheism actually means. You keep telling me, the atheist, that to be an atheist you must believe this and that when you provide no evidence for what you're saying (not surprising since your whole religion is built on no evidence). There is no real community of atheists as atheist themselves are only United by their lack of belief in god and nothing all. We're more different then we are alike but are often United by the systematic abuse that we get from religious societies around the world.

I'm not dismissing what scientists are saying, the question of free will is not one that has complete scientific evidence to prove it or disprove it. Some scientists vouch for it and others don't. It's dependent on how you interpret the facts.

Now, my atheism is built on my rejection of religion, Islam in particular, on the grounds that it is morally deficient, scientifically illiterate, and lacks any sense to provide evidence to substantiate itself. If you want to question this then that's completely fine, but don't treat atheism anymore than it is and try to identify it as a belief system with a set of doctrines that it doesn't have.



Theology doesn't demand you to be religious in order to understand it, you can be an atheist and still question some of the fire beliefs. As I have stated earlier, my free will argument against Islam is built on what is says and how it contradicts itself with preordainment. This doesn't mean my position on free will is question as that doesn't suppose any theological grounding.

There is the theological argument on free will and the philosophical and I tackle the theological. There's a world of difference.



There is no bloody paradox!

Those arguments are built on established Islamic teachings which are rebuked by well established scientific evidence. I adhere to the scientific evidence that accords to a spherical planet and I use that against Islam which I believe states the opposite. What you fail to acknowledge is that atheism is not a grounded belief system and so how I argue against religion may differ to how another atheist does. What the majority of atheists believe doesn't define what atheism actually is. You've claimed atheism means this and it means that, I'm educating on the fact that it doesn't. Atheism has but one requirement and that is to hold a mere lack of belief.

The most sensible question you've asked all day!

My answer would be one that is built on scepticism. This is a question that I haven't dealt with outside the realms of theology which has a really black and white view of this and hence makes it easier to discuss. My supposed answer would be that we do but I'll concede that this is a very difficult position to defend. It's not complete free will, its the position that free will can sort of rest equally with that of determinism. My arguments are built off of the works of Daniel Dennet.

All that I've gathered from your post is that you're an agnostic, not an atheist. You don't believe that there is no God/gods, but rather are waiting for an explanation/argument that would prove its/their existence.

Once you start recognising the big bang, evolution, etc. as indisputable facts, you've adopted into the atheist belief system.
The frustrating thing is that most 'atheists' are really agnostics who parrot atheist intellectual talking points. If you are unsure of a God figure, why do you hasten to fill the void with other theories that are equally unproven? Can you prove to me that the big bang happened? Or that apes transitioned into humans? You'll point me to theories, as a deist would point you to scripture. But as with all things, I would hit a deadend (e.g. where did the elements that were instrumental in the big bang come from?) which would require a leap of faith.

To you a leap of faith is justifiable in scientific theorising, but the same can't be afforded to religion.

 

[The_Cosmos]

All that I've gathered from your post is that you're an agnostic, not an atheist. You don't believe that there is no God/gods, but rather are waiting for an explanation/argument that would prove its/their existence.

Once you start recognising the big bang, evolution, etc. as indisputable facts, you've adopted into the atheist belief system.
The frustrating thing is that most 'atheists' are really agnostics who parrot atheist intellectual talking points. If you are unsure of a God figure, why do you hasten to fill the void with other theories that are equally unproven? Can you prove to me that the big bang happened? Or that apes transitioned into humans? You'll point me to theories, as a deist would point you to scripture. But as with all things, I would hit a deadend (e.g. where did the elements that were instrumental in the big bang come from?) which would require a leap of faith.

To you a leap of faith is justifiable in scientific theorising, but the same can't be afforded to religion.

All that I've gathered from your post is that you're an agnostic, not an atheist. You don't believe that there is no God/gods, but rather are waiting for an explanation/argument that would prove its/their existence.

This is another typical point that theists love to push without seriously understanding what they're saying. The position of agnosticism is actually no different to that of atheism, one would argue that agnosticism is actually that of atheism. Nonetheless, as I have constantly clarified on this forum, I am an Agnostic Atheist. More confusing labels, I know but please bare with me. I'll post a diagram that illustrates this in a not so confusing terms.

Agnostic atheism is pretty much the default position of atheism and hence why I just call myself an atheist. I am agnostic on the question of the existence of god but due to the lack of evidence, I lack any belief in this deity. Agnosticism is a question of knowledge and atheism is a question of belief. Are you agnostic on the question of god, or do you assert that god exists?

I hope this explains my position better. I have made this same point on other threads.

Once you start recognising the big bang, evolution, etc. as indisputable facts, you've adopted into the atheist belief system.
The frustrating thing is that most 'atheists' are really agnostics who parrot atheist intellectual talking points. If you are unsure of a God figure, why do you hasten to fill the void with other theories that are equally unproven? Can you prove to me that the big bang happened? Or that apes transitioned into humans? You'll point me to theories, as a deist would point you to scripture. But as with all things, I would hit a deadend (e.g. where did the elements that were instrumental in the big bang come from?) which would require a leap of faith.

Another point of theistic ignorance is not understanding what a scientific theory actually is. I have stressed this throughout my time on this forum. I'll do it again for your benefit.

Scientific theory - "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

I would add to that by saying that there is nothing in science which can be regarded as being more reliable than a scientific theory. The problem arises about the lack of scientific understanding among all societies which then confuse average understanding of terms and confuse them for scientific understanding of those words. You're confusing a scientific theory for a scientific hypothesis which is essentially an educated scientific guess. Examples of scientific theories are Germ theory, Atomic theory, Theory of gravity, the earth orbiting the earth and so on. All of these things are scientific theories but I doubt you'd argue that gravity is 'just a theory'. The Big Bang and evolution are all substantiated scientific theories with evolution being the most well substantiated of any scientific theory ever.

"As a deist would point you to scripture."

I don't think you know what a deist is either. A deist is someone who believes their to be a higher power but doesn't uphold to any religion. If a deist believes in some sort of scripture, which he then believes came from god, is essentially a religion which then revokes the definition of a deist from that person. You are a theist not a deist as you are a believer in Islam.

"But as with all things, I would hit a deadend (e.g. where did the elements that were instrumental in the big bang come from?) which would require a leap of faith."

If you always move to asking what came before that, which is completely valid, you're essentially opening the same question to your god. If the Big Bang must have a cause, where did your god come from then? My position is that of agnosticism on the matter of the universe's beginning. I have no clue where it came from, all scientists have are a bunch of educated scientific guesses for the time being and no conclusive evidence. Of course, Allah created the universe from nothing and exists on nothing. If that's the case, why can't we just say the same for the universe? I mean, there is literally zero evidence to substantiate a belief in the existence of god so why can't we just stop where our understanding stops? We don't know where the Big Bang came from so let's use the scientific method to figure out how it came to be instead of just making ancient claims and then demanding the science conform to it.

To you a leap of faith is justifiable in scientific theorising, but the same can't be afforded to religion.

Like I've stated above, a scientific theory is not a leap of faith and has a mountain level high of evidence that enable it to be called a scientific theory. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould described it best when he said:

“...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”

In simple terms, theories explain the observable data. Also, that explanation must be established via evidence.

 

[Raamsade]

All that I've gathered from your post is that you're an agnostic, not an atheist. You don't believe that there is no God/gods, but rather are waiting for an explanation/argument that would prove its/their existence.

You're conflating different things. One can take perfectly defensible position that the God of the Quran or Bible doesn't exist. One can do this by examining evidence for such god along with contradictions, inconsistencies and disconfirming evidence. When this approach is used, one can say Allah doesn't exist in the same way one can say Big Foot or Aliens don't exist. But when you reference some abstract entity called "god" then it becomes difficult to draw solid conclusions. The god of Quran is not abstract as Allah is well-defined, and has attributes and characteristics (interestingly, has moods strikingly similar to those of humans - anger, sadness, etc) that can be scrutinized.

But all this is missing the point: The natural state of affairs is non-existence until such time as evidence is presented. I didn't exist until I was born. This reply didn't exist until I typed it up. Similarly, Allah doesn't exist until such time as his exponents present evidence. In other words, the burden of proof rests with claimants (Hint: YOU!).

Once you start recognising the big bang, evolution, etc. as indisputable facts, you've adopted into the atheist belief system.

Your pathological rage against Atheism is clouding your judgement. Science is for everyone not just for Atheists. The world is a better place thanks to wonders of modern science. You are using a piece of technology that wouldn't exist without science.

 

[Rorschach]

I hope this explains my position better. I have made this same point on other threads.

It doesn't, you've merely stated a convenient paradox. How can you hold two positions at the same time? If you have no evidence to prove God's existence, does it automatically warrant you to take the opposing viewpoint? It's like staring at a single blank wall and proclaiming that there are no paintings in the whole house. If you find that there is insufficient proof to convince you, the only position you can hold is that you can neither prove nor refute the existence of a deity. Full stop. Not some hybrid illogical definition coined by atheists themselves.

I know what a scientific theory means. I was using the big bang (which I'm personally not discounting) and the theory of evolution as examples of believing in the unproven.

I am neither a theist nor a deist (mis-wrote previously thank you for correcting) but a Muslim.

 

[Rorschach]

Your pathological rage against Atheism is clouding your judgement. Science is for everyone not just for Atheists. The world is a better place thanks to wonders of modern science. You are using a piece of technology that wouldn't exist without science.

Tell me what else I don't know about myself. I think Cosmos will agree that our back and forth has been civil, so I have no idea why you'd brand me a pathological anything.

I personally have no problem with the big bang nor other scientific theories (besides Darwin's pet project). I was using it as a device in my argument.

The natural state of affairs is non-existence until such time as evidence is presented.

I found this little gem rather intriguing since I completely disagree with it, The natural state of affairs is that all things came from something, and that nothing can come from nothing. Hence I believe that the natural state of being is the subconscious belief in a higher power. To me, this is the null hypothesis.

 

[The_Cosmos]

It doesn't, you've merely stated a convenient paradox. How can you hold two positions at the same time? If you have no evidence to prove God's existence, does it automatically warrant you to take the opposing viewpoint? It's like staring at a single blank wall and proclaiming that there are no paintings in the whole house. If you find that there is insufficient proof to convince you, the only position you can hold is that you can neither prove nor refute the existence of a deity. Full stop. Not some hybrid illogical definition coined by atheists themselves.

I know what a scientific theory means. I was using the big bang (which I'm personally not discounting) and the theory of evolution as examples of believing in the unproven.

I am neither a theist nor a deist (mis-wrote previously thank you for correcting) but a Muslim.

It doesn't, you've merely stated a convenient paradox. How can you hold two positions at the same time? If you have no evidence to prove God's existence, does it automatically warrant you to take the opposing viewpoint? It's like staring at a single blank wall and proclaiming that there are no paintings in the whole house. If you find that there is insufficient proof to convince you, the only position you can hold is that you can neither prove nor refute the existence of a deity. Full stop. Not some hybrid illogical definition coined by atheists themselves.

I'm sorry but you seem to not understand that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, they're two things that tackle different questions. Agnosticism is a question of knowledge whilst atheism is a question of belief. Do I know there is a god? No. Do I believe there is a god? No. Add the two terms and you get agnostic atheistic. They're not paradoxical and it's a term that actually exists and is perfectly valid. The only people who think there is a distinction are theists who, like you, have their own agendas to defend. Things don't have to be mutually exclusive simply because you don't understand the logic behind it.

"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

There is literally nothing paradoxical about this.

I know what a scientific theory means. I was using the big bang (which I'm personally not discounting) and the theory of evolution as examples of believing in the unproven.

Now that's a nonsensical claim. The Big Bang and evolution are both well substantiated and well accepted scientific facts which are explained by equally well substantiated scientific theories. If they were unproven, they wouldn't be regarded as scientific theories.


I want to ask you this. Don't you think it's quite odd how the aspects of science you seem to be sceptical about are those that contradict your religious belief? I mean, Muslims don't question the validity of the theory of gravity not the validity of the germ theory. It's always that which questions your faith which is rejected as 'unproven'. Evolution is unproven because it leaves no doubt that Adam and Eve is false.

 

[The_Cosmos]

@Rorschach

I found this little gem rather intriguing since I completely disagree with it, The natural state of affairs is that all things came from something, and that nothing can come from nothing. Hence I believe that the natural state of being is the subconscious belief in a higher power. To me, this is the null hypothesis.

That sort of thinking is based off of our mindset that we have acquired here on this planet that we evolved in. There are Photons that have been seen to come in and out of existence as will. Electrons can be in two places at the same time.

Anyways, if everything requires the chain of cause, where does the chain end? I put up the proposal that it ends where the scientific evidence ends otherwise, I can can simply ask "who created your god?" Allah exists on nothing and created everything on nothing. Your argument is literally built on special pleading. God is the exception because he's supernatural.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@The_Cosmos

Those arguments are built on established Islamic teachings which are rebuked by well established scientific evidence. I adhere to the scientific evidence that accords to a spherical planet and I use that against Islam which I believe states the opposite

You said it yourself in the bold, so why ignore the same well established scientific fact that you cannot have free-will nor choice in a deterministic world ?

All the major well known Neuroscientists, evolutionary biologist, physicists all the way to chemists, are pretty much in unison agreement on this principle, all of them are either atheists or agnostics, many of whose work your regularly quote?

There is not a single prominent deist, proponents of intelligent-design or credible religious embracing scientist that have ever argued for 'determinism', the way the scientists in the atheist/agnostic communities do.

I know you want to hide from this, through semantics, cowardice dodging, subject changes etc. but I will not let you of the hook, this topic is about 'determinism' vs Free-will, essentially The Cosmos Vs The Entire Atheist/Agnostic Scientific community.

This is a question that I haven't dealt with outside the realms of theology which has a really black and white view of this and hence makes it easier to discuss. My supposed answer would be that we do but I'll concede that this is a very difficult position to defend. It's not complete free will, its the position that free will can sort of rest equally with that of determinism. My arguments are built off of the works of Daniel Dennet.

Don't try muddy the waters my friend with theology/philosophical determinism or the soft/hard determinism that is argued, that malarky is not going to fly.

Your answer is much like the confused Answer of Dawkins which I quoted, you are trying to argue that free-will does exist and so does determinism, which is a complete paradox.

Explain to me which part of your chemistry or biology deals with determinism and which elements deal with free-will and choice, I will accept any pseudo scientific argument you bring, I would just like to see you bring some, so we can progress this discussion.

 

[The_Cosmos]

@The_Cosmos



You said it yourself in the bold, so why ignore the same well established scientific fact that you cannot have free-will nor choice in a deterministic world ?

All the major well known Neuroscientists, evolutionary biologist, physicists all the way to chemists, are pretty much in unison agreement on this principle, all of them are either atheists or agnostics, many of whose work your regularly quote?

There is not a single prominent deist, proponents of intelligent-design or credible religious embracing scientist that have ever argued for 'determinism', the way the scientists in the atheist/agnostic communities do.

I know you want to hide from this, through semantics, cowardice dodging, subject changes etc. but I will not let you of the hook, this topic is about 'determinism' vs Free-will, essentially The Cosmos Vs The Entire Atheist/Agnostic Scientific community.




Don't try muddy the waters my friend with theology/philosophical determinism or the soft/hard determinism that is argued, that malarky is not going to fly.

Your answer is much like the confused Answer of Dawkins which I quoted, you are trying to argue that free-will does exist and so does determinism, which is a complete paradox.

Explain to me which part of your chemistry or biology deals with determinism and which elements deal with free-will and choice, I will accept any pseudo scientific argument you bring, I would just like to see you bring some, so we can progress this discussion.

You said it yourself in the bold, so why ignore the same well established scientific fact that you cannot have free-will nor choice in a deterministic world ?

All the major well known Neuroscientists, evolutionary biologist, physicists all the way to chemists, are pretty much in unison agreement on this principle, all of them are either atheists or agnostics, many of whose work your regularly quote?

There is not a single prominent deist, proponents of intelligent-design or credible religious embracing scientist that have ever argued for 'determinism', the way the scientists in the atheist/agnostic communities do.

I know you want to hide from this, through semantics, cowardice dodging, subject changes etc. but I will not let you of the hook, this topic is about 'determinism' vs Free-will, essentially The Cosmos Vs The Entire Atheist/Agnostic Scientific community.

I haven't ignored the scientific facts, I am simply reserving judgment on the matter until I get myself educated on it. My expertise was centred around the religious perspective on the issue of free will and I have articulated that from their perspective, free will cannot coexist with preordainment. Note that this is very different from the scientific/Philosophical question of free will. The only person muddying the waters here is you my friend.

Could you provide any sources to validate a consensus among the scientific community on the issue of free will/determinism? All I can see are nothing but bold claims and zero substantiated evidence to support them.

The reason why theists don't is not because they're rational or whatever, it's because they hold onto a notion of god that is all benevolent and only judges people on their actions. This is very different to the scientific question of free will which doesn't focus on any higher power. They understand that sending people to hell for actions they could not avoid, is not something an all good and fair god would do. Moreover, I have provided refutations against their compatibility arguments.

You seem to be uninterested in having an honest and logical debate. You seem to stoop to logical fallacies like that of the argument from authority (these atheists say this so that means atheism believes this) and you straw man (because these people believe this YOU must also believe the same thing). The only cowardice going on is coming from you.

If you're asking me for my own personal perspective on the issue, that's absolutely fine.

Another thing you seem to be obsessed with is the positioning of atheism as a belief system on par with that of religion. You somehow think that believing in determinism destroys atheism when all the people you've mentioned are atheists and determinists. Atheism has no claim on science, it is only a definition. If this question destroyed atheism I don't doubt those brilliant academics would've pointed this out too.

Don't try muddy the waters my friend with theology/philosophical determinism or the soft/hard determinism that is argued, that malarky is not going to fly.

Your answer is much like the confused Answer of Dawkins which I quoted, you are trying to argue that free-will does exist and so does determinism, which is a complete paradox.

Explain to me which part of your chemistry or biology deals with determinism and which elements deal with free-will and choice, I will accept any pseudo scientific argument you bring, I would just like to see you bring some, so we can progress this discussion.

Well this discussion isn't progressing because you refuse to distinguish atheism from a belief system. You think that destroying the notion of free will destroys atheism. That's beyond delusional.

Theology argues that god gave man free will, I say that contradicts the Islamic belief that also asserts determinism. Islam plays the free will and determinist card on the grounds Allah is one who gave us free will but also preordained everything. I'm not muddying anything when I point out that this is different from the academic debate on free will. I argue against theological free will.

As for the academic question, I will examine the arguments and come to a different conclusion. I have been so fixated on the religious perspective that I didn't really look into the academic perspective.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@The_Cosmos

Your honest enough to state you don't know, and are looking to investigate, when you have, we will continue this discussion, if you want to know my opinion on free-will, I am happy to give so, but not on this thread so as to stop derailment. I will comment in your other thread.

The difference between us my friend is that, when I was first introduced into scientific materialism and those that espouse it like Daniel Dennet whose materials you are just beginning to read, which I have read a decade ago cover to cover, with an open-mind because back then I wasn't even religious.

Just like the many other heaps of books I have read from various authors on the subjects of chemistry, biology, quantum, philosophy, astronomy etc the conclusions I drew were different from you, it actually turned me into a religious person from a irreligious one before.

What is even more astonishing as I kept reading for a decade, is the colossal amount of knowledge required in so many different sciences to a very good degree just to be a scientific materialist, a feat impossible to achieve for the majority of people, hence my description of you as a cheap charlatan contrarian polemicist quackademic.

Read and study on the topic, and we will reconvene again soon. I have read at least 5 books on the subject. You cannot espouse evolution and argue for free-will and free-choice, it's absolute lunacy which I am sure you'll come to find out soon, once you study and reflect on it.

 

[The_Cosmos]

@The_Cosmos

Your honest enough to state you don't know, and are looking to investigate, when you have, we will continue this discussion, if you want to know my opinion on free-will, I am happy to give so, but not on this thread so as to stop derailment. I will comment in your other thread.

The difference between us my friend is that, when I was first introduced into scientific materialism and those that espouse it like Daniel Dennet whose materials you are just beginning to read, which I have read a decade ago cover to cover, with an open-mind because back then I wasn't even religious.

Just like the many other heaps of books I have read from various authors on the subjects of chemistry, biology, quantum, philosophy, astronomy etc the conclusions I drew were different from you, it actually turned me into a religious person from a irreligious one before.

What is even more astonishing as I kept reading for a decade, is the colossal amount of knowledge required in so many different sciences to a very good degree just to be a scientific materialist, a feat impossible to achieve for the majority of people, hence my description of you as a cheap charlatan contrarian polemicist quackademic.

Read and study on the topic, and we will reconvene again soon. I have read at least 5 books on the subject. You cannot espouse evolution and argue for free-will and free-choice, it's absolute lunacy which I am sure you'll come to find out soon, once you study and reflect on it.

What is even more astonishing as I kept reading for a decade, is the colossal amount of knowledge required in so many different sciences to a very good degree just to be a scientific materialist, a feat impossible to achieve for the majority of people, hence my description of you as a cheap charlatan contrarian polemicist quackademic.

Read and study on the topic, and we will reconvene again soon. I have read at least 5 books on the subject. You cannot espouse evolution and argue for free-will and free-choice, it's absolute lunacy which I am sure you'll come to find out soon, once you study and reflect on it.

What should've even more astonishing is that you believe you must hold such a high level of knowledge in order engage in science. This is of course nonsense in that it's not very difficult to engage in the scientific evidence that is presented to you. I have on many occasions provided the reasoning behind why I accept evolution as a scientific fact, something that I don't need to do. It's easy to throw around names but I back what I am saying up with evidence.

"You cannot espouse evolution and argue for free-will and free-choice, it's absolute lunacy which I am sure you'll come to find out soon, once you study and reflect on it."

Wait, what?! What does evolution and free will have to do with each other?!



You have accused me of being a charlatan but I doubt that you even know what you're bloody talking about!

 

[Naissur]

Just like the many other heaps of books I have read from various authors on the subjects of chemistry, biology, quantum, philosophy, astronomy etc the conclusions I drew were different from you, it actually turned me into a religious person from a irreligious one before.

Absolutely nothing you ever wrote in here indicates that you have any clue on these subjects. In fact, I'm convinced you're lying. In fact, everything you write in this forum indicates you lack any scientific or philosophical knowledge whatsoever. You believe the earth is flat ffs!