Determinism vs Free Will

[JoeNoshow]

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

In that case, I was referring to YHWH. I admit, I made the err of assuming I knew something about other religions which in all honesty I don't. My knowledge of religion pretty well starts and ends with christianity, because that's what I primarily hear about in my geographical location. My apologies.

"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"

Sorry if I've misinterpretted this. Are you claiming that atheists are mindless? That seems like a harsh assertation as it pertains to a sterotypical assumption.

"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. )"

Okay, my mistake. In that case what I meant to say is that science has demonstrated the liklihood of cause and effect. Now, obviously there is an argument for free will, because otherwise people wouldn't believe in it. Perhaps there isn't a scientific argument, but what I'm interested in is people's individual arguments. My apologies about my grammer, I admit that I am not perfect.

"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."

Perhaps then it would be fair to allow people to define the terms however they see fit. I was simply asserting my own definition of the terms. I merely included compatibilism so that people were aware of the argument's presence.

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

Some people fall prey to the notion that they are ultimately in control and can will themselves to do anything. (Free Will). When they discover that they can't will themselves to do anything they blame themselves, because they feel like they're choosing to fail.

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

That's great! You must be quite content.

"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'?"

We is in reference to humanity as a whole. The reason I think that free will implies that there would be no unhappy people and no fearful people is because my basic understanding of humans is that we pursue happiness and avoid pain. Feel free to argue that if you wish.

So, assuming that people do in fact want to be happy and do in fact wish to avoid pain then people with free will should be free to will themselves into happiness and it would seem reasonable that they'd be inclinded to do so.

Perhaps you regard freewill differently. It could be regarded as the freedom to will without pre-emptive, restrictive measures to prevent that will, but I regard it as the freedom to will whatever you please without emotional, psychological, neurological barriers.

"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."

Is that comment for the sake of showing your cunning or are you mocking the fact that I'm willing to express my opinion and hear out yours?

---

My point is that if somebody murders someone do you say "Oh, they're not really responsible for the murder, they couldn't help it"? No, it's absurd.

People need to be held responsible for their actions, it's not a question of right or wrong, but responsibility within a society.

People have to be held accountable, because otherwise we'd live in a world of anarchy. People want to be happy so if somebody steals their products or murders a relative then they're going to want to do something to prevent that person from doing those things again.

However, I think this is all cause and effect. Mental and physical discontent causes a person to commit a crime. Crimes are basically situations where somebody's actions conflict with somebody else's peace and prosperity. When somebody commits a crime the effect is people becoming discontented and upset with the criminal. So they lock up the criminal.

I think it's important though to focus on rehabilitation rather than simply locking away the 'bad guys'. I think under the right circumstances a lot of people would do a lot of cruel things if they thought it was going to make them happy. In other words, I think a lot of people could be criminals, bad guys or sinners under the right circumstances.

I value the idea of rehabilitating the criminals, when possible, to allow them to be happy and compatible with society so that they're not infringing on the happiness of others. Perhaps one day humanity will cure the psychopath who is known to have neurological damage and as a result lacks the capacity for empathy. Sure, societies only option is to lock the psychopath up, because he'll feel no remorse or guilt from exploiting others and causing them pain, but despite the neccesity to hold him accountable it isn't ultimately his fault.