I don't really see what free will has to do with religion. I was playing off of this point: "Without free will our lives are meaningless."
If you're just going to die in the end, with all of your memories destroyed, then what's the point? That's why many people accept religion on "faith", in the same way you just take free will as an "axiom". Even people who used to be atheists.
I take the existence of free will as an axiom, because the alternative is stupid. That's why many take religion and an afterlife as an axiom. I wouldn't call the alternative "stupid", but certainly disconcerting. However, if you have an inquiring mind it's hard to avoid these kinds of questions.
You can just ignore them for awhile because they don't lead anywhere, but eventually you're mind wanders back to them. Enter the "failed atheist" who finds religion later in life.
You might also want to consider the concepts of responsibility, justification, and ethics, all of which are linked to free will but have very little to do with the laws of physics (just like free will!). If you believe in evolution, and believe evolution is just a result of physics, then all of these concepts fall out. What we feel is a result of our physical brains.
Remember, you are *in* the past. But I can't make sense of that. If it is the past then it cannot happen again. Is it being replayed, and what, re-experienced? Is there free will in the replay? Doesn't make any sense to me. If it is not a replay, then it is not the past.
Suppose you decided to interact with the past by approaching Bob just as he was about to choose a drink from a vending machine. Illustrating the dilemma of being *in* the past. If it can be interacted with, that destroys the concept of time, and what it means to be a conscious, free-will being living from moment-to-moment.
You know that you are aware. Sure, but it doesn't answer deeper questions about the nature of awareness.
No matter if it turns out that you were programmed by some alien scientist using advanced technology...you are still a human being with free will. Most people cannot accept "free will" if they are merely running inside a computer following simple rules, any more than you would prescribe "free will" to the winding river.
Good day. You too.
I wish to explain them, not to belittle you, but to hopefully increase your understanding if you wish. Different poster here, but I hope you won't mind if I jump in.
We believe in modern scripture, modern prophets, and modern personal revelation. Knowing God is a very personal experience but there is an order established with a hierarchy of leaders to prevent false prophets and confusion. I have to ask: Have you considered the alternative view that all organized religion is just man-made philosophy wrapped in mythology? As a theory, where do you think it fails?
If I make an instinctive choice, is that not free will? Why not? Just because my consciousness wasn't involved? It's a pervasive idea. People have been acquitted for murder committed while sleepwalking.
Suppose there is a person Bob who actually does have free will according to your definition. (Go on, think of your definition of free will right now, and assume that Bob has it.) I don't think anybody has a good definition of what it is. Or what consciousness is. However, it seems tied to our physical brains, which are just following the laws of physics. Even if their are some random dice being thrown.
Now suppose you recorded every action he made in his life, then time-traveled back to when he was born. At that point, if your time-traveling self does not actually interact with Bob, you could certainly observe all his actions being played out as you recorded them. If you are going "back" in time, then there's this idea that reality is being replayed -- is there consciousness during this replay? If not, then it's like watching a playback of a movie -- you don't assume any consciousness or free-will is happening at the time of playback.
Or is it possible that, while others can predict my decisions, my decisions are still my own because I still made them? But what are you? Are you just a machine following the laws of physics? Does the clock pendulum swinging back and forth have free will? Does a river winding it's way downstream?
God knows what we will do, yes...but does that make him a Puppeteer, or could we see him as a wise Father, giving his children instructions, but letting them explore and discover what lies ahead on their own, sad that some of them will fall on the wrong path due to their own unfortunate flaws, yet happy to see those who will triumph? If you create a smart and powerful computer that is indistinguishable from a human, does it have free will, even though it's operation is completely deterministic? Will you, as the creator, fully understand it?
What if you created a universe for it to "live" in. You could choose to influence it's behavior, or just sit back and watch the show. Maybe at some point it'll start asking deep questions about itself, and the nature of reality, and dream up an all-loving, all-powerful God. Or <insert-your-religion-here>.
Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling. So would I, except for the other people who think it's worth lots of money.
Haven't you read the Lotus Sutra, or did you skip class that day? No, I haven't, and if the Wikipedia entry is accurate, it sounds like more mystical bullshit invented by man:
"The tradition in Mahyna states that the Lotus Sutra was written down at the time of the Buddha and stored for five hundred years in the realm of the dragons (or Ngas). After this, they were re-introduced into the human realm at the time of the Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir. The tradition further claims that the teachings of the Lotus Sutra are higher than the teachings contained in the gamas and the Sutta Pitaka (the Sutra itself also claims this), and that humankind was unable to understand the Lotus Sutra at the time of the Buddha (500 BCE). This is the reason given for the need to store the Lotus Sutra in the realm of the dragons for 500 years, after which humankind was able to understand the Lotus Sutra."
the only true prize means you begin to demonstrate the attitudes necessary to cast off the shroud of this false existence The fastest way to cast off the shroud is to kill yourself. Why haven't you yet?
I used to always get the cheap $1 razors when I was in college because I was cheap. But the Mach 3 and furthermore the Fusion make a great improvement. I used to be on the Gillette upgrade treadmill, but got off it years ago at level 3. I switched to disposable, single blade Bic Sensitive. Cost less than a quarter a piece, and honestly, they work fine.
With the cards, the merchant can at least continue doing business on other transactions, even while the disputed ones are in dispute. Merchant accounts can be frozen and all incoming money held if it looks like they are committing fraud -- this includes withdrawing money from the merchant's bank account where they normally get deposits, if they owe money. It really is no different than PayPal, except that PayPal isn't part of a larger banking organization like Visa (a disadvantage because there's no oversight and less competition).
It's hard to tell just how bad PayPal is, because they are very large, and there will always be some problems. Also, people tend to bias their side of the story when something happens -- it wouldn't surprise me if many of the merchants complaining were actually doing shady stuff. No doubt some people get screwed over.
I wish there was more transparency in these disputes. It's all behind closed doors so both parties could be up to no good. I'd like to see a third party handle arbitration in an open manner.
An "agnostic" is apparently an atheist (someone who lives without a belief in gods) who thinks the label atheist offends religious people. I would describe many people as "agnostic", but not in the Dawkins sense. They know that religion is kinda hokey, but they won't outright reject what the main religions have to say. They are uncertain, and so shrug their shoulders and say "who knows for sure?", and leave it at that.
Then there are some atheists who I would describe as being so certain that there is no higher power that they really do reject any possibility of it.
That's the problem with the terms "atheism" and "agnostic" for somebody who subscribes to the Dawkins point of view. There's no commonly understood word for "this is nonsense, but I'm willing to change my mind or consider other theories".
I see a lot of comments here seeming to suggest that theistic beliefs are delusional or irrational because there's not good science to support them. The science often contradicts them. They also contradict themselves and are best explained as an invention by man.
A lot of religions and the idea of the gods behind them is that they provide answers to these questions. Better to throw out the religion and think rationally about stuff like ethics. Religions prescribe from a supposedly higher authority and leave less room for debate.
Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but given that science doesn't seem well equipped to provide meaningful insight on some of these issues Science explains a lot about why people act the way they do. For instance, genetics and lying robots. As computers get more and more powerful, we may soon be facing uncomfortable questions about robot consciousness and ethics.
I thought Francis Collins' book 'The Language of God' was very interesting. *reads review* Ok, while I have nothing against philosophizing about the meaning of life, it seems to me he just went through a contorted exercise to eventually accept Christianity (his own version of it, anyways).
The system you describe uses terms such as 'basis for believing', 'presume', 'pending', 'probably false'. These are not terms that are concordant with the scientific method. Actually they are. Everything in life and science is "presume" and "pending". It's simple Bayesian principles. What seems most likely given the evidence? If new evidence comes along, then you have to take it into account. Where do you start from? It's all personal observation and what we presume to be common understanding.
Philosophically, I think you are 100% correct, but scientifically the best you can say is that there is no evidence for gods etc (and so religion should receive no recognition or support from a rational society) - but that's all. You can go further and say the current evidence for religion works against itself -- it inconsistent and is best explained as a product of man, and not a true depiction of a higher power. There's still room, of course, for further evidence.
You don't have to pay an arm and a leg for decent stuff. Best PC speakers I ever had were a pair of $20 Boka 81000, bought something like 10 years ago. Music sounded fine. They had bass and treble controls. Good power. Sadly they broke. I tried cheap speakers made in China that I got from Best Buy, but they sounded like shit. Even $50 speakers weren't nearly as good.
Seriously, I don't understand how something could be so cheap yet so good, but now I can't find a replacement. I remember when I bought them the guy behind the counter laughed, and I thought he was mocking me for my purchase, but he was just amused at what a great deal they were. I thought at the time "whatever, they're just desktop speakers", but man do I miss them!
I have been very introverted most of my life, until recent events caused a dramatic change in my personality. Weird. What happened in your life that you flipped your personality?
Yeah, I'm that guy, and I'm also always correct. The funny thing is I can't tell if you're joking or not. Probably not is my guess, but kudos to you if you are.
Certainly, but the guy's attempt at countersuing is either designed to point out how idiotic the whole suit is or he's exactly as greedy as Lucas. It's standard operating procedure to sue in retaliation when somebody sues you. Whether the counter-suit has merit or not is a secondary consideration.
The local convenience store used to have a monitor at the checkout counter that displayed continual advertisements, and enough of us complained that the entire franchise chain has severed their relationship with the advertising company that was responsible. Why didn't you just shoot the convenience store owners in the head? They were just as responsible for the advertising. Surely shooting everybody in the head who does stuff that you don't like is the ultimate solution to all our problems. Much better than voicing your opinion and getting people to change their behavior through non-violent means like you did here.
Or maybe I don't like your message, and I think you should be shot in the head. And the fundamentalist religious guys have a good point too -- going against the word of God should be punished with a shot to the head. And the Republicans, for crimes against the Constitution, should be shot in the head. And the Democrats, for wasting our tax payer dollars, should be shot in the head.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're just going to die in the end, with all of your memories destroyed, then what's the point? That's why many people accept religion on "faith", in the same way you just take free will as an "axiom". Even people who used to be atheists.
You can just ignore them for awhile because they don't lead anywhere, but eventually you're mind wanders back to them. Enter the "failed atheist" who finds religion later in life.
Yup, I was an idiot.
What if you created a universe for it to "live" in. You could choose to influence it's behavior, or just sit back and watch the show. Maybe at some point it'll start asking deep questions about itself, and the nature of reality, and dream up an all-loving, all-powerful God. Or <insert-your-religion-here>.
How do your thoughts protect you from somebody violent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Sutra
"The tradition in Mahyna states that the Lotus Sutra was written down at the time of the Buddha and stored for five hundred years in the realm of the dragons (or Ngas). After this, they were re-introduced into the human realm at the time of the Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir. The tradition further claims that the teachings of the Lotus Sutra are higher than the teachings contained in the gamas and the Sutta Pitaka (the Sutra itself also claims this), and that humankind was unable to understand the Lotus Sutra at the time of the Buddha (500 BCE). This is the reason given for the need to store the Lotus Sutra in the realm of the dragons for 500 years, after which humankind was able to understand the Lotus Sutra."
It's hard to tell just how bad PayPal is, because they are very large, and there will always be some problems. Also, people tend to bias their side of the story when something happens -- it wouldn't surprise me if many of the merchants complaining were actually doing shady stuff. No doubt some people get screwed over.
I wish there was more transparency in these disputes. It's all behind closed doors so both parties could be up to no good. I'd like to see a third party handle arbitration in an open manner.
Then there are some atheists who I would describe as being so certain that there is no higher power that they really do reject any possibility of it.
That's the problem with the terms "atheism" and "agnostic" for somebody who subscribes to the Dawkins point of view. There's no commonly understood word for "this is nonsense, but I'm willing to change my mind or consider other theories".
tags yourself. Two line breaks to start a new paragraph.
Yeah, Slashdot formatting is goofy and hard to understand. You'd think Plain Old Text meant something like <pre>, but it doesn't.
Seriously, I don't understand how something could be so cheap yet so good, but now I can't find a replacement. I remember when I bought them the guy behind the counter laughed, and I thought he was mocking me for my purchase, but he was just amused at what a great deal they were. I thought at the time "whatever, they're just desktop speakers", but man do I miss them!
Your posts are badly formatted (hardcoded line breaks don't flow right). As somebody who appreciates "better", I hope you take this in good spirit.
Or maybe I don't like your message, and I think you should be shot in the head. And the fundamentalist religious guys have a good point too -- going against the word of God should be punished with a shot to the head. And the Republicans, for crimes against the Constitution, should be shot in the head. And the Democrats, for wasting our tax payer dollars, should be shot in the head.
Whee!