A thing about religious (and other) people and the illusion of free will

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that much I do agree. Fully. I did say that one of the reasons God or other supreme beings are thought up the way they are is because them being more human is something people can relate to, even though it doesn't equate to truth or what supreme beings, if they existed, really are.

You can't negotiate with a flooded river, but maybe you can negotiate with a river god. We might wonder how tied relatability is to biological determinism.  Even in a counter-hypothetical world where free will exists..so does what biological determinism is mentioning.  

Then again you've got guys like HP Lovecraft who imagine alien gods that offer us none of the transactional benefits of our relatable gods.  Only to kill us first and quickly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why pass up the chance to insinuate that people who disagree with you are self-deceived?

Because that would be dishonest?

Right, which only damages the credibility of anyone leveling this sort of personal attack.

[Ahriman]

Because that would be dishonest?

Right, which only damages the credibility of anyone leveling this sort of personal attack.

So you believe in free will right?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right, which only damages the credibility of anyone leveling this sort of personal attack.

So you believe in free will right?

As noted above, I am agnostic on the matter.

[Ahriman]

So you believe in free will right?

As noted above, I am agnostic on the matter.

OK but if you had to choose, would you say people have a meaningful level of free will, or is everything beyond our control?

[Thumpalumpacus]

As noted above, I am agnostic on the matter.

OK but if you had to choose, would you say people have a meaningful level of free will, or is everything beyond our control?

I simply don't know. I can see fair points on both sides, but there are too many unanswered questions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Right, which only damages the credibility of anyone leveling this sort of personal attack.

So you believe in free will right?

My personal Rule of So states that any response that begins with "So..." should be checked carefully for a strawman argument.

QED

[ShinyCrystals]

I was not being snarky, at all. And furthermore, I was not trying to start a debate or try to prove anything, too, with evidence. If you must know, neuroscience says that it is the subconsciousness that determines human actions, not the conscious mind. Still, I am sure I know what you are trying to do, and you did the same with @bucky Ball earlier on this thread. I am not falling for that a second time.

Because I was not trying to cause a debate, and because I can see where this is going, you're not going to be shown evidence. I was not asking for a debate, I was only asking a question. I am not doing this.

That's fine. I will still comment as I see fit. I'm trying to elucidate exactly what this evidence is. Your refusal to produce it is a you problem. I'm also trying to figure out what you two mean when you use certain words in non-standard meanings. Don't blame me for wanting clear English in a discussion, and don't get pissy at me for it.

And yes, starting a reply with "um" is snarky, at least online.

In conversation, a word that announces one's contempt for and hostility toward the person they're about to contradict. Most common on the Internet, for obvious reasons.

So yeah. I didn't ask for you to state that there's evidence. I want to read the source material for myself so I'm not getting it filtered through your biases.

[...] since it is said by neuroscience that it is the subconsciousness deterministically making the "decisions"

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

And how are these decisions known to be deterministic? What if someone has conditioned themselves -- by their own decision and design -- to respond a certain way in a certain circumstance? Is it determinism if one makes a conscious choice to become a doctor, and then unconsciously perseveres through difficulties in med school without thinking?

You are loading your points with assumptions.

First, in this case, "Um" being used by me was not intended as a snarky response. Also, I am not getting "pissy", nor was I really blaming anyone. That said...

Where have you been? Others here have shown to not believe in free will, so what makes me special? With that, I do not think you can call my posts biases, let alone assumptions.

Thirdly, I doubt you would be able to see the reasoning behind anything I link to as evidence, and just continue to be agnostic towards it for the sake of it. That is why I do not see any reason to go ahead and link it to you, let alone continue this. Next time, try controlling any desire to comment you may have, as in suppressing it. You might try to start unwanted trouble, otherwise. 

I do not see a need to do what you ask me, knowing what will happen, so I am done with you here. No further statements.

[Thumpalumpacus]

First, in this case, "Um" being used by me was not intended as a snarky response. Also, I am not getting "pissy", nor was I really blaming anyone. That said...

Fair enough.

Where have you been? Others here have shown to not believe in free will, so what makes me special? With that, I do not think you can call my posts biases, let alone assumptions.

I've addressed others besides you. You yourself mentioned my disagreement with Bucky.

Thirdly, I doubt you would be able to see the reasoning behind anything I link to as evidence, and just continue to be agnostic towards it for the sake of it. That is why I do not see any reason to go ahead and link it to you, let alone continue this.

Masking the refusal to present any evidence with a personal attack and poisoning the well. Don't think it ain't noticed.

Next time, try controlling any desire to comment you may have, as in suppressing it. You might try to start unwanted trouble, otherwise. 

I'll let you know when I want your advice on posting. I don't try to start trouble and much prefer to disagree agreeably. But hey, insinuations, a refusal to present support for your bald claims often elicit rudeness from those who cannot answer the questions reasonably.

In the meantime, this advice of yours reads simply as a very verbose and convoluted "shut up!"

I do not see a need to do what you ask me, knowing what will happen, so I am done with you here. No further statements.

"That which may be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" ... or serious consideration.

Be advised, I will still reply when and as I see fit, here and elsewhere, your desire to shut up dissenting voices aside.

[ShinyCrystals]

First, in this case, "Um" being used by me was not intended as a snarky response. Also, I am not getting "pissy", nor was I really blaming anyone. That said...

Fair enough.

Where have you been? Others here have shown to not believe in free will, so what makes me special? With that, I do not think you can call my posts biases, let alone assumptions.

I've addressed others besides you. You yourself mentioned my disagreement with Bucky.

Thirdly, I doubt you would be able to see the reasoning behind anything I link to as evidence, and just continue to be agnostic towards it for the sake of it. That is why I do not see any reason to go ahead and link it to you, let alone continue this.

Masking the refusal to present any evidence with a personal attack and poisoning the well. Don't think it ain't noticed.

Next time, try controlling any desire to comment you may have, as in suppressing it. You might try to start unwanted trouble, otherwise. 

I'll let you know when I want your advice on posting. I don't try to start trouble and much prefer to disagree agreeably. But hey, insinuations, a refusal to present support for your bald claims often elicit rudeness from those who cannot answer the questions reasonably.

In the meantime, this advice of yours reads simply as a very verbose and convoluted "shut up!"

I do not see a need to do what you ask me, knowing what will happen, so I am done with you here. No further statements.

"That which may be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" ... or serious consideration.

Be advised, I will still reply when and as I see fit, here and elsewhere, your desire to shut up dissenting voices aside.

Hey everyone, did you notice something? I thought I heard something, but I am not sure.