The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh i don't know Apo, it looks like he may be fooling at least one person. Marx, if you arent willing to question your own assumptions, then why should I do it for you? You have the answer you feel comfortable with, why argue it out? Perhaps that's just in your nature, as it is in your nature to manufacture a clever con...even one where you are yourself the victim (but don't feel bad, it;s in all of our natures...or is it?) Can you stop believing in free will?



(I try to avoid arguing ancillary points, and there's a reason for it. I asked you a simple question, whether or not you could demonstrate the existence of a thing called free will. You cannot. People such as yourself can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage, and honestly, I'm sick of it. So, time to put up or shut up.)

---

-And this is why....

Define your nature and your subjective experience in an objective scientific term if we are to take you seriously! You keep stating that it must be 'your' nature without defining the term in any rational sense. Define your nature!!

Just your everyday average human nature, as best as we can describe it. I'm limited by the same things that you are limited by, we're both working with the same toolkit, our responses to many things can be easily predicted by those who make it their business to do so. My nature need not be stated in a rational sense, and why would you assume that it could be, we are not rational creatures..we are rationalizing creatures.

Define the difference between choice and free will otherwise that statement is entirely irational.

You're the one that wishes for this to be so, it's your job to make it so, not mine to show you why it is not.

If you allow this definition then you must subscribe to his statement that your argument is an illusion as well. Otherwise define the separation between your statement and the 'illusion'. You are assuming your position without stating an argument for it.

I allowed a definition for a word, nothing more. You seem to have run farther than the rope allowed amigo.

This is entirely your opinion without any rational backing.

I'm sorry, I didn't see any evidence, so I just assumed we were talking about each others opinions. It is your opinion that my remarks lack reason, perhaps reason is subjective? I think it's more likely that or one or both of us are wrong. Guess where my money is. My opinion (my predictable opinion, btw) is that without evidence, we're just talking about whatever happens to pop into your head at any given time.

Also this is exactly the sense and spirit of the argument because it is relating to free will in an athiest ideology. Also there is no mention or argument relating to faith in this discussion.

Oh heavens no, nothing to do with religion, free will isn't something I get to hear bandied about day in and day out, why oh why would I make such a comment? Lord only knows. I say "free will" itself is a religion, and judging by your response to my skepticism..I'd say I'm at least close to correct.

There is no mention of judgement in this discussion entirely. You have presupposed your own notions of Christianity and entered them into this argument without any just reason.

Welcome to atheist forums, where we discuss this subject ad naseum. Demanding that atheists account for something which has nothing to do with any god was strange at the very start (believe I mentioned that pages ago). I'm sorry you're joining the discussion so late..but I had no choice in that. Personally, I call massive bullshit btw. The OP makes this an issue for atheists, and why exactly? Does someone else have an explanation that we should consider? Have they demonstrated that free will exists? If so, why are you wasting all of my time with this? Just show me the evidence that convinced you. Show me the explanation they gave, and explain to me how it became the responsibility of atheists at large.

Course, none of this stopped you from blathering on about free will, or the irrationality of others, or whatever goes through your head in these one way exchanges. You've demanded that I explain something and I have explained to you that I don't think there's anything to explain along the terms you demanded. You demand that someone disprove an argument you have not given enough thought or effort into. You damend many things, I only made one demand of you, which you have not, and apparently cannot meet.

Demonstrate that free will exists. Then, and only then, will we require an explanation for it. Until that time it can be written off entirely as "something Marx believes in".