Determinism vs Free Will

[Violet]

Believing in a god usually requires the belief in free will, (at least, it does for YHWH), but believing that there is no god does not demand either the belief in free will nor the belief in determinism and I was wondering in general where the atheist community stands on this.

I disagree entirely already In fact... determinism has throughout the ages been primarily considered as religious.

I cannot speak for the rest of the atheist community, although I am quite sure that most atheists have no capacity to believe a damn thing. It's hard to believe things when you don't have a brain, after all ^_^

Just so we've got our definitions clear...

Determinism is basically the belief that there is a cause for every effect for everything which entails that everything is ultimately predetermined by a chain of causes.[quote]
Not necessarily... but for the most part workable. There are problems that might be encountered under such a definition... such as 'causeless causers', and a cycling state of existence. But I'll go with it.

[quote]Note: Cause and Effect has been proven through Science time and time again, however, determinism is still essentially a philisophical theory, because until we prove that there is a cause and effect for everything that happens in the universe, (like qauntum mechanics and the big bang theory), we have yet to prove that determinism is irrefutably true. Although attempting to prove that randomness exists does not neccessarily support the argument of free will.

...?!

May I grill you... please!? Why should I even jokingly ask?! You're getting grilled! Like a cheeseburger! (Hmmm... i wonder what a burger of cheese would taste like... isn't that self-contradictory? ^_^)

Then I am filled with mercy... :S Very well... I shall not shred the above quote ^_^ (hints: 1: science "proves" nothing, it only provides evidence for belief. 2: We need not prove a thing to come to a scientific conclusion of its fact, else we would have no scientific conclusions. 3: there is no argument for free will... only misunderstandings about what determinism means. 4: lingual pedantry: please don't capitalize 'cause', 'effect', or 'science' excepting grammar. )

Free will is defined as: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.

Free will and determinism can be compatable, (known as Compatibilism). This is the belief that Free Will is simply another factor in the causal chain of events. It still involves the belief in predetermination.

As you have defined 'free will' and 'determinism', they cannot be compatible. By your definition of 'determinism', all things come from prior causes. By your definition of 'free will', will is free of determinism. Hence: incompatibility. You either have incomplete determinism... or you have determined will... and neither of which is what you would appear to imply.

So, my questions for you are, what do you believe? Do you think the question matters? (Are there any pros and cons to believing either?) If you do believe in Free Will then what exactly is it? (What kind of properties does something like Free Will possess? Is it spiritual and how so?)

When discussing philosophy... one should be less interested in the benefits of a certain belief, and rather more interested in debate, comparing opinions, and learning from the both

I am a nihilistic existential determinist. I believe that everything happens based on prior 'events', that all of it is inherently meaningless, and that meaning is given by observing, inferring, and attributing what is perceived (all of which is done subjectively). I think that the question of "does free will exist" is a question worth considering (if one has not already done so)... and on occasion worth revisiting when another asks it of this one

Personally, I'm a determinist. I think the question matters, because I believe that the belief in Free Will causes unhealthy degrees of guilt and self-contemp. It's no secret that most of us are not entirely the people we wish we were. Most of us want to be happy, outgoing, adventureous and fearless and yet we're not also so. We're not always happy and we're not always fearless, either. This in itself seems to me like a contradiction to free will.

At least I am happy with the first 3 words ^_^

I do not believe that free will necessarily cause either guilt or self-contempt. Why would this be so?

I actually am precisely the person I want to be... rather I am concerned with the status of my platform.

Who is this "we"? Why would there not be people who are always happy, or without fear? How would the lacking of existence of such contradict 'free will'?

If I want to be happy and I have free will then why can't I just flick a switch and be happy? If I'm in a war and I don't want to feel guilt for the soldiers I'm killing and would much rather be apathetic, then why can't I switch on apathy?

Perhaps it would be precisely because you have free will that you cannot 'flip a switch' to be happy. After all, there would be no physical cause that could be 'corrected' to make you happier... and all you would be left with would be your unhappiness. Plenty of people do go to war with no guilt for what they kill... but the same applies to apathy as to happiness.

There's my two cents, I'd be more than happy to hear yours.

I'd rather give my 2 cents to a friend who could turn it into 1000 USD inside of a year... but there is my opinion for you.