What do moderates think Jesus died for?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Understanding the whole of things.

Why do you talk like it's 1811?

You asked a question.  That's my answer.

[Alan V]

If you approach the problem of human fallibility rationally, you will understand there are degrees involved.  Rationality is better than irrationality.  Evidence is better than unverified stories.  Science is better than superstition.  We are not completely hopeless on our own, unaided by any deity.  In fact, we've made real progress.

Right. We are insufficient on our own.  That doesn't mean we are always wrong, but we aren't always right either.  So why put everything on unreliable beings?

The rest are open to interpretation.  Rational ideas can lead to a wrong conclusion, just as irrational choices can lead to the right result.  Evidence can be helpful, but it can also be detrimental if interpreted wrong.  Science is sometimes superstition, and sometimes what we assume to be superstition ends up being the science of tomorrow.

What progress are you suggesting we've made?  I see a volatile world, but maybe we view the world differently.

Learning to live by probabilities, and sometimes being wrong, is just an inescapable part of the human condition.

Why put everything on unreliable beings? Because, as I have already pointed out, we have no real choice. Even in relying on someone or something other than ourselves, we are relying on our own assessments and interpretations of them. It's inescapable.

Life is really hard.

As for the progress we have made, look around you. Science has solved many age-old human problems, and is working hard on most others. We know many things now we didn't know even 100 years ago. That doesn't mean we will ultimately succeed, but for now we are much better off.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Right. We are insufficient on our own.  That doesn't mean we are always wrong, but we aren't always right either.  So why put everything on unreliable beings?

The rest are open to interpretation.  Rational ideas can lead to a wrong conclusion, just as irrational choices can lead to the right result.  Evidence can be helpful, but it can also be detrimental if interpreted wrong.  Science is sometimes superstition, and sometimes what we assume to be superstition ends up being the science of tomorrow.

What progress are you suggesting we've made?  I see a volatile world, but maybe we view the world differently.

Learning to live by probabilities, and sometimes being wrong, is just an inescapable part of the human condition.

Why put everything on unreliable beings?  Because, as I have already pointed out, we have no real choice.  Even in relying on someone or something other than ourselves, we are relying on our own assessments and interpretations of them.  It's inescapable.

Life is really hard.

You nailed it.

We differ in that I believe we do have a choice and it can be escaped, just not on our own.

[Gwaithmir]

[quote pid='1875777' dateline='1546980244']
If the people who say there is no God are fools, then why should I listen to them, let alone assume them superior?

Psa 14:1 A Psalm of David." target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Wiki: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Better to listen to God and seek wisdom.  

Prov 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Prov 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

[/quote]

"And they shall stand in despair before the white cliffs of the world, and shall chant from their empty tomes in vain, for their words are nothing! And Erú shall prevail against His enemies and they shall be cast into the Void, for their enchantments are naught and their gods are helpless before Him." (The Silmarillion, 17:82)

Checkmate Christians. Anyone can quote scripture.

The fool says in his heart that there is no God, but the wise man says it to the world.

[tackattack]

So Max and Thoreauvian, neithier one of you we actually have no real choice? So there is no free will for either of you?

[Alan V]

So Max and Thoreauvian ... there is no free will for either of you?

Actually, I have argued in favor of free will at several different atheist forums. 

Above I wrote, "As I have already pointed out, we have no real choice.  Even in relying on someone or something other than ourselves, we are relying on our own assessments and interpretations of them.  It's inescapable." I didn't mean that in the sense of having no free will in the matter. We can always choose something irrational, even when rationally we are constrained to just one choice.

The fact that we are always relying on our own assessments and interpretations is really just another way to say we do have free will. We do things for reasons and not merely because of physical causes.

[Nihilist Virus]

So Max and Thoreauvian, neithier one of you we actually have no real choice? So there is no free will for either of you?

What exactly is free will without desires already in place to act on?

Don't we necessarily act upon desires that we had no control over being there in the first place?

[Alan V]

What exactly is free will without desires already in place to act on?

Don't we necessarily act upon desires that we had no control over being there in the first place?

That's one argument. However, not all of our desires are based on unconscious motivations alone. If I want to do what is reasonable, for instance, I may have to work against what I would prefer to do.

In other words, we have all sorts of conflicting desires and must choose between them. We do this by consciously considering them, assigning priorities, constraining some while pursuing others, assigning certain times and places for certain desires, or just holding to what seems true and reasonable regardless of what we feel.

[tackattack]

I agree Thoreauvian, nihilist was proposing that our only inputs are desires we can't control. In a materialistic view there can be no free will and we're all just robots, following programming.
We have multiple inputs for desires to inform our actions. Some can be responsive to instinctual desires, but the mere fact that we can plan our wife's 40 birthday a year in advance means at least some of those desires are non-reactionary and in line with free will. I think the materialist view on a lot of things is rock solid and valuable, but I don't think it informs the entirety of the human condition. Thanks for the clarification Thoreauvian, I appreciate it.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

So Max and Thoreauvian ... there is no free will for either of you?

Actually, I have argued in favor of free will at several different atheist forums. 

Above I wrote, "As I have already pointed out, we have no real choice.  Even in relying on someone or something other than ourselves, we are relying on our own assessments and interpretations of them.  It's inescapable."  I didn't mean that in the sense of having no free will in the matter.  We can always choose something irrational, even when rationally we are constrained to just one choice.

The fact that we are always relying on our own assessments and interpretations is really just another way to say we do have free will.  We do things for reasons and not merely because of physical causes.

I have the ability to make choices. I don't believe any of us are determined to be puppets.

---

What exactly is free will without desires already in place to act on?

Don't we necessarily act upon desires that we had no control over being there in the first place?

That's one argument.  However, not all of our desires are based on unconscious motivations alone.  If I want to do what is reasonable, for instance, I may have to work against what I would prefer to do.

In other words, we have all sorts of conflicting desires and must choose between them.  We do this by consciously considering them, assigning priorities, constraining some while pursuing others, assigning certain times and places for certain desires, or just holding to what seems true and reasonable regardless of what we feel.

Agreed 100 percent.