Ron Toczek said, “‘The politics of governing a body of human beings is made difficult because each human sees HIS own drives and wants differently from any other human and also prioritizes those drives and wants differently from other humans and also thinks that HIS drives, wants and prioritizations are more important than all the other humans living within the same governing sphere.’”
Abraham Maslow created a visual aid in the shape of a pyramid depicting the levels of human needs, psychological and physical. Now, whether his theories should be taken seriously or not in this age I don’t know. But I have noticed text books still introduce students to “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” in management and marketing segments of business courses.
The point is, when you know all the factors that contribute causally to the weather then the weather can be predicted. Likewise, when you know all the factors that contribute causally to particular human behavior, then the behavior can be predicted. Now when one gets angry at certain predictable behavior, then that too is predictable, because we humans are animals and feel the need to bite back. But we humans are also hypocrites, which Richard Dawkins calls, “inconsistent.” He probably uses the better term.
Ron Toczek said, “‘It appears that a human’s governing sphere can exist in various sizes from some type of small family organization to that of a large empire and some humans seem to be advocating some sort of global governing sphere.’”
Humans cluster into packs/herds/flocks/troops/groups/gangs/congregations for a reason. The behavior is instinctive. But such clustering also necessitates a leader to follow and a pecking order (peer hierarchy).
The world has pretty much always had a “One World Government,” in the sense that throughout history the “known world” was conquered and subjugated to the authority of some individual or central governing body. I see no reason to assume history will not repeat itself. A “one world government” is just as inevitable as hurricane activity is in the future. The masses are ruled because it is in their nature to be ruled.
Ron Toczek said, “‘The drives and wants and prioritizations of individuals are all determined by the emotional state of the individual but with the realization that many of these needs depend upon the cooperation of the other humans, Human beings also have the good fortune to possess a rational faculty which enabled them to compromise their needs for the good of all within a select group.’”
Philosophers are trained to rationalize. They are supposed to be the best rationalizers in the world. However, in many instances they vehemently disagree amongst themselves. I suspect when some individuals “compromise their needs for the good of all within a select group,” the compromise has less to do with a “rational faculty” than Ron Toczek evidently presumes. In fact, the “rationale” could be inventing rhetorical excuses for unconscious processes that led to the compromise–excuses which are functionally smoke screens that conceal the actual causal factors involved. The same can be said about the “rationale” of “‘The disgruntled ones [who] either stayed and mildly complained or left to form a different group.’” (brackets mine)
what blows me away about determinists is the countless amount of times they argue over and over and call other people stupid for not believing them. I mean if it was determined, you would think they would understand to accept people for following their own destiny. It’s so funny. Then you have people who say oh no, it was determined they would get mad at the people who believe in free will. But then again… GIVE me a break!! hahaha the typical destiny excuse..
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don’t mean that “fate” or “God” predestined the event. They simply mean that the oil-spill on the curve of the busy road meant that an accident was inevitable. To take the position that The Big Bang or God predestined the spill and ensuing accident is a religious position, because it is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific.
Also, determinism is a general philosophical thesis with variation. Read the Wikipedia article.
Also, it can be argued that the “determinists” who get mad do so because the anger was cause by something, just like the ignorance of individuals has a cause.
Hairy, my son’s 5 lb Chihuahua was murdered by the 90 lb pit bull next door. Neither talking about free will nor determinism will cause our anger and grief to go away. Humans are animals and feel an intense desire to bite back in such situations.
Forget about causation for a moment. Outside of that, I feel that most people on YT preaching determinism/singularity seem to be pretty negative about it. They don’t seem happy and when they see someone believing in free will, they seem even less happy. I don’t really understand the point of trying to prove determinism. What are the benefits of that? On the other hand, people who talk about free will do seem atleast happier. That’s from what i have observed.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, you are so deluded by a belief in free will that you assume a “determinist” can freely choose to act as you presume he would–instead of as nature has made him. The fact is, a person’s behavior is determined his genetic endowment, which is traceable to the evolutionary history of the species, and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed.
Also, anecdotal evidence is often more fantasy than fact; therefore, such is not accepted by science.
Have you ever heard the adage, “ignorance is bliss.” There is much truth in the statement. In fact, some of the writers of the Old Testament noted the same phenomena in The Book of Ecclesiastes. The author(/s) went on to say that it is better to be wise and miserable than to be a fool living in bliss. And I’ll agree. But of course, one can not freely choose to be wise. Wisdom is determined by the same factors that determine a person’s behavior, mentioned above (genetic-environmental interaction)
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:37 PM
@unseenstrings I also don’t get that. If the dog was killed based on determinism, then yea i can see determinists people determined to not get mad at all, but instead understand that it was out of anybodies control. If i were a determinists i don’t think i would get mad about the dog. Instead, i would be like a robot because i would understand this was the only thing that could have happened. So i still find humor in the fact that determinists people still act like they have free will.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic you keep harping on and on about determinism and I’ve already pointed out that determinism is a complex philosophical position with much variation. I couldn’t imagine you rambling on and on about determinism if we were trying to ascertain the innerworkings of a porpoise brain. So why do you bring so much irrelevancy into discussions concerning the complex physical system that is commonly referred to as the “human” brain? Free will is a pseudoexplanation. Define free will if you can
How do you suppose a robot with AI on par with human intelligence is suppose to act? The same survival mechanism evolution built into humans would need to be built into a “Terminator” type robot in order for it to function efficiently. Suppose the human brain were reverse engineered. Suppose nano-technology and new discoveries in quantum mechanics allowed AI researchers to built a robot with a quantum computer brain as intelligent as you. Would you claim the machine had free will or just humans?
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:38 PM
@unseenstrings see that’s what i don’t get about determinists. They choose to continue to argue and act like they have free will. Then they say well it’s only because something caused me to get mad. But then it’s like you can use that excuse every time and it’s just that, an excuse. After a while who cares if you say something caused it or i say you caused it, still an excuse.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, you cannot logically assert “They continue to argue and act like they have free will.” You can say that in your blissful state of ignorance and limited awareness they seem to you to have free will. And I couldn’t argue against that point. But of course, I could try to point out some the the causal factors involved
@unseenstrings Well you can say that there anger is caused by something, but like i said i thought u were gonna say that, seems to me like an excuse either way. If i were a ”determinist” i would accept everything and never get mad at other peoples opinions. Disproving determinism doesn’t prove free will, but in order to have free will you have to have atleast these 2 things, which are the ”feeling” of free will and we have to have indeterminism. So with that said, atleast it’s better..
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, let me see if I have this correct: if a nonhuman animal gets angry, then the anger has a cause? But if the human animal gets angry, then you say we cannot say there was a cause because you would then say that is an excuse and not a reason why. Interesting. I think your state of confusion is primarily caused by your blind belief in free will.
A feeling you are God doesn’t make you God. A feeling you have free will doesn’t mean you do. Indeterminism doesn’t prove free will.
Einstein said, “Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me.” And Richard Dawkins pointed out that we are “inconsistent,” which I referred to as hypocrites. Your sweeping generalization about all “determinists” is quite illogical. Some “determinists” TRY not to get mad because of their awareness that free will is an illusion.
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:24 PM
@unseenstrings Oh come on. Most animals are not as smart as humans. A human has an ability to rationalize. Im saying humans can make excuses. Animals are not even smart enough to make excuses. I didn’t say indeterminism doesn’t prove free will. But neither does determinism. Im saying it opens the gate for free will. Determinism would completely rule it out. And in order to have free will, you have to at the very least feel it. If you feel like a robot, you don’t have it for sure.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, I’m “rationalizing.” You’re “rationalizing.” But we don’t agree. Philosophers are the best “rationalizers” in the world and they vehemently differ in their rationalizations. Seems you put too much faith in the human ability to be rational. In fact, I’ve already mentioned that the findings of split-brain research indicate patents use the linguistic side of their brain to “rationalize” behavior initiated by the opposite side–behavior that the linguistic side was wholly ignorant of.
No doubt one person will “rationalize” homosexual behavior & another will “rationalize” heterosexuality. The Christian will “rationalize” a belief in “God.” And the atheist will rationalize just the opposite. What you really mean is the human robot experiences particular feelings–feelings that it did not freely choose. And this biological robot is driven to & fro by the feeling, but makes up excuses for the ensuing behavior. Yet he calls his own excuses, rational, & claims others invent excuses
@JLeeMagnetic, 2 points invalidate your argument. 1) You can not logically state what being a robot would feel like unless you were a robot. (This is besides the fact that, in a sense, you are a biological robot created by natural selection.) 2) Awareness of possible threats and awareness of available options determine choice behavior more-so in certain instances than so called, “intelligence.” (We humans have learned to use the greater awareness of our dogs to our advantage.)
@unseenstrings And you just said that im in a state of confusion. Im not because you haven’t got me understood. Im saying once you know better, you can’t keep making the same excuse over and over. Otherwise that is being immature.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, wow, you keep making up the same excuse over and over for human behavior. Now you’re saying the person who does so is immature. I say you are merely being illogical for repeating that human behavior is caused by a magic thing that you call free will. And I say your actual maturity has nothing to do with whether your “premise” is logical or not.
Free will is superfluous. It adds nothing to our understanding of the way the human brain functions in the real world
@unseenstrings I also believe you have the free will for what your sexual orientation is.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, so you’re saying you’re personally driven by nature to feel equal attraction regarding both homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. But you choose to have one type of relationship instead of the other. Interesting. Maybe you’re bisexual. That would explain why you feel attracted to men and women, but choose–for whatever reason (I still cannot imagine a human choosing to do something without feeling the choice was necessary or desirable)–one over the other.
Once I felt a need to make a decision but was in the dilemma of indecision. The necessary strength of feeling didn’t bubble into conscious awareness to stimulate me into choosing. So, to fulfill the choice requirement, I flipped a coin. Now be aware that just because a person cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss with over what is considered pure chance, the outcome of the coin toss is causally determined. A lack to predict outcome does not mean the phenomena was free from causality.
@JLeeMagnetic, would you make all the same choices that you now make, providing you’d never been taught language? No, you wouldn’t, because language and how you’ve learned to use it is a causal factor that has an effect on the way you think. You can do what you will, but you cannot will yourself to experience a particular will without first experiencing the will to do so, i.e., you can do what you WANT, but you can not freely choose the WANT before it is experienced. watch?v=v6fk8m3WxwI (my vid)
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:13 AM
@unseenstrings but that is common sense, has nothing to do with free will. that paragraph you wrote does not prove or disprove anything.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, free will is akin to God in the sense that it is a metaphysical claim. And such claims cannot be proved nor disproved by physical beings functioning in a physical world according to physical laws. However, love, pain, learning, hunger, thirst, fear, are a few of many words that make no sense in a world ruled by free will. Your choices are determined by such factors in combination with “who you are.” And, like a robot, you had to develop into “who you are” before you could choose.
@JLeeMagnetic, when I stated some common causal factors that have an influence on choice behavior, you said, “but that is common sense…” And you went on to deny the factors contradicted free will. WTF? Now, that’s sad.
Yes, its true that the facts I stated are common sense. But here is another fact for you: Free will is common nonsense. It is an illusion passed down to us from our ignorant ancestors.
@unseenstrings Yea but if i was determined to say that, then there was no other possibility. So I really believe that it is completely insane for a determinists to judge anyone for there actions. It is insane. Because it’s like interacting with a rock. Im a rock. There is nothing that is going to change my path. Knowing that, you should agree and say hmm he’s right. That motherfucker.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, you’re a dynamic physical system. A rock isn’t. A very sophisticated robot with AI would also be a dynamic physical system. A rock can’t do what such a robot could do. But that doesn’t mean the robot would have free will any more than it means you have free will.
The fact that causality is true means that our conversation could effect the way each of us think. Free will would mean that you are not only free from such influences but from all influences–even “supernatural” ones.
If you had free will then you would be more like a rock rolling down a hill than the dynamic physical system that you are. No words could alter your path. No threats of hell-fire could make you afraid to think certain thoughts or question what you’d been taught. You could decide today to believe in a different god every day of the year. And you could start off the New Year as an atheist. Your mind would be free from the psychological ploys of salesmen, politicians and preachers alike. Free will?
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:54 PM
@unseenstrings Robot? I never said anything about being a robot. I am not sure what you are trying to say. I don’t think you read what i wrote and just started to write whatever you felt like.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, you said, “If you feel like a robot, you don’t have it for sure.” You insinuated that a robot would feel like a robot. I stated that unless you were a robot then you cannot state what it would feel like to be a robot. And since you are a biological robot of sorts created by natural selection, and since you’ve developed the feeling of having free will, then a robot can be programmed to feel as if it had free will. You don’t seem to understand what you said or what I stated in reply
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:56 PM
@unseenstrings Yes a complex rock. You are no more free than a rock. Even if you are more complex and move around, you are no more free. If causality is true, you cannot affect the way one thinks. The reason is because that was predetermined and was supposed to happen that way. You did not change anything. you feel like you did. You are still a rock. Just like rocks bouncing off each other. There is no error.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, earlier you stated that if someone keeps using the same excuse then he is immature. I found the word usage a bit unsophisticated. Now I suspect your reasoning and word usage may have revealed a bit about you. You’re a kid–a rebellious adolescent who thinks he has everything figured out. Now I could be wrong because naiveness isn’t exclusive to youth. I’ve met older people who had lived sheltered lives that seemed to be as naive as you
You are spouting lots of logical fallacies
So far seems every time you open your mouth you puke out a logical fallacy. I see an argument from ignorance. I see an argument from repetition. I see a continuum fallacy. I see an equivocation fallacy. I see a circular cause and consequence fallacy (free will). I see a false dilemma fallacy. I see fallacy of the single cause. I see an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. I see a mind projection fallacy. I see the hasty generalization fallacy. I see an appeal to ridicule fallacy & exaggeration fallacy
@JLeeMagnetic a dog isn’t a rock. He is a dynamic physical system. I can use vocalizations to have a causal effect on a dog’s mind. I can use vocalizations (words) to have a causal effect on the human mind too. But you want to call the human “a rock.” And you want to deny the fact that words can causally effect the human mind. I pointed out that a person with free will would be more akin to a rock than we are. Free will could not be influenced by anything. But you seemed to have ignored the fact
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:57 PM
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you are absolutely insane. The reason is because whatever i thought, was not my fault. Therefore for you to say stuff like wtf? and that’s sad, is insane. I am just like a rock bouncing down a hill, i have no control over what i do. You should be the person to understand that. You keep pulling a switch on me and saying but, if, yea. There is no butt. It is the way it is. You are doomed my friend. so am i.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, “insane,” now there you go with the ad hominem fallacy. And if any fallacy can be construed as evil in the world of logic, the ad hominem fallacy would be at the top of the list. You see, the ad hominem is an attack on the person instead of the argument being presented. It is quite irrelevant whether you are a naive bisexual young man or not. It is quite irreverent whether you are under psychiatric care. What matters in the world of logic is the argument you present, nothing else.
I can ask “WTF?” when I notice how my statements are being misrepresented. Did you read the Wiki article on determinism as I suggested. You are still spouting the same fallacious BS. Knowing the facts increases your awareness. You seem to be afraid to face up with the facts. What causes you to call a complex dynamic physical system a “rock.” A rock isn’t a complex dynamic physical system. Dogs are. Humans are. But not rocks. What causal factors have you in a state of denial? Its all your fault.
The San Andreas Fault is the earth’s fault. But I try to avoid use of the word “fault” because it is incompatible with reality. You see, one sense of the word requires “free will” to be assumed. And I already know free will is an illusion. Therefore, one meaning of the word promotes an illusion.
I’ll remind you again: when people talk about an event being causally determined, most don’t mean that “fate” or “God” predestination the event. Read the Wikipedia article as suggested please.
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:58 PM
@unseenstrings You are not free to do anything unseenstrings.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, your apparent ignorance and denial of the facts is sad. You see, I can do anything I WANT, providing it is within my physical limitations. However–and this is extremely important–I do not consciously create the WANT that I experience. Why did I WANT butter pecan ice cream in one instance but strawberry cheese-cake flavor in another? I did not choose to WANT one or the other. I merely experienced the want and chose accordingly. Now I WANT more to keep my blood glucose level down.
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:59 PM
@unseenstrings you are insane to even try to convince me since im a rock.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, yes its sad that you are so naive and represent determinism in such a distorted fashion. But, I do realize that if you are a young person as I suspect, then maybe life will teach you some important lessons as you continue to grow and get older–thereby increasing your awareness. However, if you happen to be a naive older person, then that would be really sad. Well, I guess if you died at a ripe old age in a blissful state of ignorance, it wouldn’t be so very sad for you personally
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:44 PM
@unseenstrings Unseenstrings, you’re saying i represent determinism in a distorted fashion? With all due respect, isn’t determinism just determinism? I mean aren’t I correct that if determinism is true, then that means i was determined to act naive? So how is that sad if I can’t do anything about it? You understand what Im saying? Say it in a way that makes sense to me.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, well if you have a reading comprehension problem and couldn’t quite grasp the Wikipedia article, then why didn’t you say so. I’ll try to explain as simply as possible. Determinism is an idea with variations that are hotly debated in philosophical circles. Are you a academic philosopher? I’m not. And I cannot imagine entering into a argument about something that even professional philosophers can’t agree on. However, causality is a simplified form of determinism used by everyone.
You use it. I use it. Science uses it. The doctor, when you go for a check up, uses it. Police investigators use it. The school cook uses it. When you set your alarm to awake in the morn, you assume causality. When I press the brake-pedal in my car, I’m assuming causality. When the doctor finds a disease, he assumes causality. When the police investigate a robbery, they look for profile, motive and other causal factors. Pretending the robber had free will is reserved mainly for court-room drama.
No one starts engaging into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when we discuss the functions of a car. No one engages into deep philosophical disputes concerning determinism when he wonders about the disease he has be diagnosed with. In fact, we can talk about the universe and the formation of our sun and solar system, yet no one starts engaging into hotly debated philosophical issues. The human brain is the only issue that gets infected with hotly debated philosophical disputes.
The logic boils down to this: If hotly debated philosophical issues are irrelevant to the scientific study of all other complex physical systems then it is irrelevant to the study of the human brain. In fact you can never truly understand any system when disputes abound. Science lets philosophers hammer out disputes between each other and science gets down to being scientific. Science has even been able to provide empirical data that contradicted long held philosophical beliefs
Naturalism Org
@JLeeMagnetic, one last causal factor relevant to why you appear like a rock, seemingly unaffected by my words: when a gazelle sees a lion attack and kill another gazelle, the imagery stored in memory is long-lasting and hard to erase. The human had an evolutionary history that also resulted in such terrifying memories being long-lasting and hard to erase. Furthermore, once the human has been effectively taught language, words can be used to create terrifying imagery and even illusions, etc, etc
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:00 PM
@unseenstrings So then it’s not my fault then right Unseenstrings? Im just a victim of the history of humans.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, remember what I said about the word, “fault?” Of course it is your fault, providing you consider the way you are a fault. The San Andreas Fault is the earth’s fault. If you had brown eyes and considered that a “fault,” then that would be your fault too. Yet I must ask, why do you want to use a word that isn’t clear and concise? It can only cause confusion. How about instead the word defect? Of course you have a defect, providing you consider yourself defective. Thats your opinion.
However as I’ve pointed out before: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. And they don’t pop into existence by magic but develop according to physical laws.
You really don’t seem to be reading or absorbing my previous replies. I guess that is another defect
Are you insinuating that if you’d been placed in a sterile room at birth and attended by masked caretakers, never taught language or how to potty, and let out yesterday, then all your choices would be exactly as they now are?
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:07 AM
@unseenstrings But from a practical sense, it is not my fault. If it was preordained it was not my fault. Just agree with me dammit.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, of course it is your fault just as much as the continental plates colliding are the earth’s fault. The San Andreas Fault isn’t a fault that I have or that you have, it is the earth’s fault. Likewise, your faults are none other than your own.
But I must ask, “Are you wanting to play the blame game?” Is it the metaphysical and ignorantly moralistic sense of the word that you mean? If so, then why not come out and state the fact clearly, concisely, and coherently? Why be vague?
There you go again trying to inject your superfluous belief in predestination. Practicality requires you to be practical. Trying to figure out the infinite regress of causes and effects for any physical system is not only impractical, it can prevent one from learning the immediate aspects of what causes the system to function. In fact, since all the causal factors that have acted on any given system are more like a network than a chain, backtracing each to the starting point would be impossible.
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:10 AM
@unseenstrings Let me ask you a question. Do you talk like this in your everyday life with your peers/coworkers? I have to admit that I am really really really confused with most of the things you are pointing out. I cannot wrap my head around it. Now your confusing me with ”fault.” And talking about lions. Do you think like this all day long?
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic I find it ironic that you want to ask me another question but you’ve failed to answer any of the questions I’ve asked
At one time I was trying to keep up with the Joneses and didn’t have time to ponder life’s experience. All my conversations with peers/coworkers were rather superficial. Now I don’t have coworkers. I’m an elder. I’ve retired. I have no peers, per se. I didn’t move into a retirement community nor am I a socializer. I can sit back and take a look at the big picture
Most of my friends are Christian, which is understandable, since personal experience determines perception. And this is a country that at one time provided primarily only experiences conducive to developing Christians. Times change. Christians have boycotted corporations in the past and in turn corporations have become less friendly toward Fundamentalism.
@unseenstrings Because im lost in the questions you asked. Ok let me ask you this. If you just met your grandaughters friend. Are you going to start talking to her about determinism right away? Say this is when she’s older. Also, you sound semi convincing when you wrote that letter. But i believe that if you were to pretend to believe in something else, you would also sound just as convincing
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, you don’t even realize you are contradicting the notion of free will when you say I sound “convincing.” Remember, free will would mean the will is free from any influence, regardless of whether that influence is natural or supernatural
If I just met my granddaughter’s friend, and she was having a problem with self-acceptance, then I may mention some of the causal factors involved. Otherwise, the belief in free will is tied to too many other concepts for me to tackle all at once
Just be aware that the open letter to my granddaughter wasn’t just to my granddaughter. It was directed toward anyone who now has children or who may one day have some.
The people who play the blame game with their children are not acting in the child’s best interest. When the child misbehaves, then the parent should wonder why–not blame the child for being as any normal child would under the circumstances. And attempts should be made to “correct” the child without playing the blame game.
I probably couldn’t “pretend” to believe in something I didn’t believe and be convincing. But no doubt some actors and actresses can. Mirror neurons in your brain can make you feel and thus react to the emotional displays of others. That is the reason drama is such an effective tool in the hands of the propagandist.
Note that nowhere have I attributed the thoughts or behavior of individuals to free will. That is because the notion of free will effectively stops one from wondering about causes
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:57 PM
@unseenstrings Also I realized if randomness comes into play, then it means that you have a free will. You did say so yourself that it might come into pay. I myself believe that randomness in its whole is the same thing as free will or partly. Determinists have yet to figure everything out and it doesn’t look like they will disprove free will anytime soon. If I believe something, you can’t prove me wrong because it’s just a belief. I can believe in unicorns and if i do it’s a true statement.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, causal determinism would mean you don’t have free will. And causal indeterminacy would mean you don’t have free will. I’ve already pointed those facts out. Sam Harris put it something like this: If you are magically in charge of your actions, somehow separated from your physical brain, but every once in awhile some form of randomness enter the equation, then that wouldn’t be free will but insanity. I gave the example of choosing to change the baby but instead killing the president
Should you happen to believe in unicorns then a true statement would be that you BELIEVE in unicorns. No statement of the truth or falsity of your belief is possible merely based on your firm conviction that it is true. The same applies to any metaphysical claim–even if it happens to be claims of a soul or of free will
When you say “determinists,” do you mean philosophers? Please define the word since you keep using it
@unseenstrings The thing is if somehow hypothetically speaking, more evidence suggested a soul or free will (Im not saying it is) But if it did and your logic was not in favor, I think you would get pissed. You do not want people to have freedom. You want them to be spectators, but not have a say in anything. Your whole joy in life is debunking free will and if you couldn’t do it, you would probably become suicidal im guessing. On other hand if determinism is true, then i don’t feel shame.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, you’re thinking is a false presumption. I believed in free will for many years, because that is what I had been taught. But when I stepped back and saw that Iran was creating Muslims, India was creating Hindus, and Tibet had for many years created Buddhists, then I started wondering. The more I looked into the issue the more I saw that free will was an illusion. Why would I get pissed if suddenly scientific evidence were produced proving free will is true? Thats silly for sure.
No doubt I would experience a very unsettling paradigm shift similar to the one I experienced when I realized free will is an illusion. And likewise the adjustment might be a bit painful to me. But I don’t see where it would make me suicidal, unless you mean it would make me start playing the blame game. And the blame game might make me experience so much resentment and rage that I may become suicidal. Is that what you mean? Is that what you feel? Would you like to kill all the “bad” people?
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:54 AM
@unseenstrings But there r many smart people who also believe every bit as much as u, but they believe free will isnt an illusion. I cant say that your more convincing then them, although your convincing. So i can’t be on your side just like that. The reason y u might get pissed if scientific evidence suggested free will, is cuz u would think you wasted your time and maybe taught your grand daughter the wrong thing in the letter, when you could have chose otherwise. That’s what im guessing.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, but I couldn’t have chosen otherwise, not based on my character and the fact I realize free will is an illusion. I was compelled to do what I felt was best for my granddaughter. It made me feel good to teach her something that could give her an edge in life.
“Most scientists today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind.” – Richard Dawkins
You may know some smart people who are ignorant about the most recent findings of science. Free will is a belief based on ignorance.
@JLeeMagnetic, the primary reason you feel, ” i can’t be on your side just like that” is because evolutionary forces have not fashioned your mind to flip-flop back and to between contradictory beliefs. I already covered that. I covered that also in my video, “What Caused TheWoodsOfJordan?” (watch?v=Vriw4vIntBQ). Bear in mind that YT User, TheWoodsOfJordan was flip-flopping back and to between different versions of Christianity (not perfectly contradictory), and he was also on psychotropic drugs.
======================= JLeeMagnetic has made a comment on Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:54 AM
@unseenstrings Here’s my next question. can the future be predictable? Why or why not? My friend says everything can be calculated, even knowing what your gonna eat at what time tomorrow, lets say its tuna. He said i could not prove the prediction wrong. The scary thing is EVEN if i TRIED, i would lost control of my body and i would be forced to eat the tuna. Now that is ANTI free will to me. Can that happen? If you could calculate the future, you can’t eat something else? HOW SCARY. explain.
—————————————
@JLeeMagnetic, the future may be predictable providing all causal factors are known. However, we are too ignorant to make an absolute prediction of the future. We can say the future will turn out like so-and-so providing such-and-such factors don’t change. And we may make some fairly accurate prediction about the future of one small segment, such as the future of space research. Otherwise, accurate prediction concerning every future state and event is impossible.
Now in order to predict what you are going to eat tomorrow, one would need to know your eating habits, what time you usually get hungry, what food is available, and whether you will be subjected to anything that could effect your appetite, such as medications or stimulating advertisements. I doubt your friend would have enough knowledge to make an accurate prediction.
The only way you could be forced to eat tuna is if you were literally forced, or if you couldn’t get anything to eat but tuna.
By the way, I cannot read but 961 characters of the personal message you sent (the portion that was sent along with notification of the personal message to my email address). You see, I can login to reply to comments. But when I try to view my YT Channel or my Inbox, I get the message that I MUST create a Google account and link it to my You Tube account. Fuck Google.
Google’s motto is to “do no evil.” But more people have been killed and tortured in the name of “good” than any other reason.
=======================
I have heard stated that the inquiries of neurology, the reverse engineering of the brain, nano technology, and new scientific discoveries will combine to give AI researchers the knowledge necessary to built an artificial brain complete with free will, like humans have. Now that is the key: the free will shall be equivalent to the free will of humans.
Those who believe in free will from a religious perspective tend to justify that belief by saying, “God gave humans free will,” end of discussion. However, should we happen to seriously entertain the possibility of such a claim, then we must ask, “Why does the feral child–such as one who has been neglected and locked in a basement–’choose’ to behave like a nonhuman animal instead of a human?” In fact, why can one more or less predict some common choices a person will make merely by knowing what part of the world the person grew up in? Is choice behavior influenced by learning? Is choice behavior influenced by language?
If choice behavior is influence by learning, the will is not free. Besides, not everyone learns the same lesson, because of the difference in factors effecting attention and cognition.
If human choice behavior is dependent on language, the will is not free. This is primarily due to the fact that language is acquired much as a songbird acquires songs outside the repertoire of those wired into the brain as a result of genes inherited from parents. And language acquisition is also dependent on mirror neurons in the brain. This is the reason the term “dealer of illegal drugs” or “communist” or “queer” has different emotional significance to different people. Besides, language must be learned. And as previously mentioned, “not everyone learns the same lesson…”
The claim that “God gave humans free will,” is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet the claim is contrary to existing evidence. We therefore must assume that free will in this instance is nothing more than a religious belief carried over from primitive superstition.
Next we have those who believe in free will from an atheistic perspective. They believe there is a module in the brain that is equivalent to a “black box” with unknown components. The problem with their belief is that they fail to provide a coherent method by which this “black box” can come into existence. And they fail to provide a coherent method by which this black box can know what decision to make without having been previously made aware of certain options and provided the emotion and/or motives necessary to make those options viable.
Are there genes that hardwire “free will” into the brain? And are there hardwired instructions as to how “free will” shall function? Or does “free will” develop as a result of genetic-environmental interaction? Can you see the logical contradictions?
A “black box” equivalent to a random number generator would make individual choices so wild and unpredictable that the individual would appear completely insane. A person trying to decide whether the baby needs changing might decide to kill the president, which would be an illogical decision resulting from randomizing choice.
Also, the atheistic believer in free will would need to provide a scientific theory as to exactly how free will could have evolved. They would need to explain at what stage in evolution was the “free will” mutation born. They would need to provide a clear and concise explanation of the selective pressures that resulted in an unnatural mechanism naturally developing in the physical brain. And their theory must be falsifiable.
Plus, they would also need to provide all those explanations of free will required by religious believers. And remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I see no reason to doubt the possibility that atheistic believers in free will have partially inherited their belief from religious believers.
Building a machine with free will that is equivalent to human free will is possible, because humans don’t have free will. Free will is an illusion.
Why is YouTube User, TheWoodsOfJordan flip-flopping back and to from one ideology to another? Maybe the key is in a statement made by Richard Dawkins. He said, “Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We are the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are; our hormones are the way they are. We’d be different–our character would be different–if our neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry were different.”
That means TheWoodsOfJordan acts and thinks the way he does because of the particular neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of his brain. However, the brain is a dynamic system that is constantly being updated and influenced by sensory input and feedback. Therefore, two questions must be asked: 1. What caused The WoodsOfJordan? That is, what has caused the particular neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of his brain to exist? 2. What sensory input and feedback has he personally been exposed to that might cause him to be flip-flopping back and to from one ideology to another?
Well, one fact can be positively stated: TheWoodsOfJordan did not consciously create his own brain. You see, in order for him to consciously create something, he must already have a brain. Therefore, the particular environmental influences acting upon gene function cause the specific neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of his brain. Thus, that is what caused TheWoodsOfJordan. Then the feedback and sensory input acting upon the dynamics of the brain influenced the way it was wired.
Is it TheWoodsOfJordan fault for flip-flopping back and to from one ideology to another?
Well, the word fault has both physical and metaphysical meanings. Take for example the faults of Earth. (The San Andreas Fault is one of the most widely known here in the United States.) But the faults are not Earth’s fault, not in the “moral” sense of the term anyway. Likewise, it is The Woods of Jordan fault for flip-flopping back and to from one ideology to another. But the faults he has are not really the result of conscious effort on his part.
The metaphysical speculations and presumptions of religion contributed to our present confusion concerning the word “fault,” in case you are interested.
Now, will realizing these facts I’ve just stated help TheWoodsOfJordan overcome prejudices toward others who may believe or act differently than himself. Well theoretically it would. But as also pointed out by Richard Dawkins, “…scientists are inconsistent.” Here I must point out that most people refer to the inconsistencies of humans as hypocrisies. So TheWoodsOfJordan may still tend to be a hypocrite, even though he may learn the fact that the behaviors and beliefs of others (that he may look upon as faults) are not truly their fault.
Will TheWoodsOfJordan continue being a hypocrite after learning the facts I’ve presented? We’ll just have to wait and see. If he does, at least we will know the prejudice he feels is a fault that he did not consciously create for himself.
If you’d rather, you can watch the above video on YouTube by clicking HERE.
By the way, if you plan to use XtraNormal.com to make a video, be aware that the service isn’t free. However, you are credited enough “points” (the XtraNormal term for money (slick move, since the impression is you are not spending money but merely using points)) to make the first movie. Personally I feel it is pretty underhanded to bury the mention of fees under a ton of BS. Fees should be listed so that the customer can take the fees into consideration when deciding whether XtraNormal services are worth the charges. And the current cost for XtraNormal points should also be listed.
The following exchange is in regard to a video titled, Free Will vs. Evil /by YouTube User TaylorX04. Evidently Sarah (unknown to me but YouTube User, kyachris) had been blocked from futher comments and so “she” communicated with me via PM.
Note: I’ve debated with individuals who shared her sentiment enough to anticipate and counter their arguments. Bear this fact in mind while reading the exchange.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Re: Free Will vs. Evil /video by YouTube User TaylorX04
kyachris: “…why do you reject your creator…”
MENCADO: Atheists do not “reject” any creator of things and beings.
Atheists lack having the belief of there being any existent creator of things and beings.
============================
kyachris: To choose not to believe is rejection.
—————————————
MENCADO: The idea that any person can or does make a CHOICE to believe or to not believe (or to believe not) is itself only a belief, and is not necessarily a correct belief.
============================
kyachris: Well if you deny God’s full manual of who he is and what he expects then you are creating your own god. and so are rejecting the one true God.
—————————————
unseenstrings: @kyachris, you “choose” not to believe in Thor–the God of Thunder–in the same sense that an atheist would “choose” not to believe in the god of some ignorant sheep and goat herders that lived/living in the Mid-East. What you perceive is what you believe. And perception is an involuntary reaction, just as MENCADO previously pointed out. You have been deceived. Belief is not a choice. But if you think so, prove it by believing the earth is flat and the center of the universe as was once believed
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Reply
Date: Oct 01, 2010
Hello there,
The owner of “free will vs evil” blocked me so I thought I would message my response…
Who has deceived me? God is not without a witness. He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
By the way, the bible said the earth was round long before the rest of the world thought so -Isaiah 40:22
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 01, 2010
To err is human. To try to achieve status with peers or within the community is human, even if it means wearing makeup, clothing, or hair color that is deceptive by design. To lie to protect one’s posterior is something even children learn to do at an early age. To exaggerate in order to build one’s self-esteem/ego is human. To mislead for the sake of one’s religion or country is human.
We are bombarded on a regular basis with the effects of human err, the deceptive measures of others trying to achieve status, lies of individuals trying to protect their own ass, the exaggerations of individuals trying to boost their own ego/self-esteem, and misleading information for the sake of someone’s religion or country.
Yes Sarah, you have been deceived and you will continue to be deceived by someone as long as you live in the company of other humans.
You know Sarah, if I was to see a column of smoke in the distance while I was traveling. And this column of smoke was not visible at night but a column of fire was. And I followed this column of smoke by day and column of fire at night and came upon a mountain trembling and shaking with smoke and fire coming out of the top. And someone went on the mountain and came down looking all white. Then in this age and because of my knowledge, I would judge the mountain as a volcano and the whiteness of the individual as the result of ash. But primitive people were really ignorant and easily fooled.
Have you been fooled Sarah? Well, you probably say no because The Bible says so. And is The Bible true? Well you probably say yes because The Bible says so. And around and around we go. (That’s called circular reasoning Sarah.)
The Bible also threatens you with all sorts of curses should you find it unbelievable. You better believe or else. Your religion has you in a state of fear and confusion. You have been deluded. And you are afraid to think about the fact or question the main source of your delusion.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 08, 2010
You have described sin quite well. We are all born into it and the wages of sin is death.
You know our bodies are made to rebuild and repair. Why do we die? Sin.
Yet, we can be forgiven in Jesus.
Their is history to back up the bible- real people, real places, real timelines, real events, real archaeological artifacts.
Then there’s prophecy, some fulfilled, some yet to come. No prophecy was ever produced by the will of men.
Seek God with all your heart, mind, and soul and he will meet you. You don’t need man to tell you.
Jesus is the shepherd of the flock.
—————————————
Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 08, 2010
I have no idea what you are talking about. You didn’t seem to read my reply to your PM.
By the way Sarah, you tell me I don’t need man to tell me about Jesus but you tell me about Jesus. By man, I assume you are talking about hu(man)s. That would include both male and female. And as previously stated, “To err is human. To try to achieve status with peers or within the community is human, even if it means wearing makeup, clothing, or hair color that is deceptive by design. To lie to protect one’s posterior is something even children learn to do at an early age. To exaggerate in order to build one’s self-esteem/ego is human. To mislead for the sake of one’s religion or country is human. To lie in order to have someone arrested and/or incarcerated for what is assumed to be criminal activity is human too.” In other words, if it comes out of the human mouth, or from writings that could have been created by the human hand, or comes to me by any way, shape, form, or fashion that could have had human originations, then I know it can’t possibly be rationally considered the Word of God. You have been deceived and you in turn are trying to deceive me.
I have told God and so “He” is well aware that I know humans are mistaken quite often, deceived quite often, and often deceptive towards others. (For instance, lawyers and used car salespeople are liars because they are human and do so for human reasons.) God knew I wouldn’t believe anything you had to say about “God,” because you are human and prone to acting like one. So “He” certainly didn’t have anything to do with your response to me.
Now “God,” supposing “He” wanted to be believed as existing by me, can only communicate “His” message to me in ways impossible for humans to do. For example, “He” can turn back time so that I can relive my life and undo past mistakes (to err is human), bearing in mind that I must remember this life in order to correct past mistakes. Or “He” could tell me all “He” wants me to know through the mouth of my Chihuahua (and the experience must be repeatable and verifiable, so that I will know for sure I’m not hallucinating). Now that shouldn’t be too hard for “God” should it?
Why won’t God heal amputees? After all, every “healing” attributed to God in the past could have been faked. A new leg growing onto an amputee at a prayer-meeting could not be faked. Why should I assume God can cure cancer, heal blindness, make lame people walk and deaf people hear (all of which can be faked), but he can’t regenerate a limb missing from a person’s body? (and which can’t be faked) The question has raised so much concern that a web site has been created and dedicated to the question http://whywontgodhealamputees.com?
Did God, 2,000 years ago, bring a corpse back to life that had been decomposing for three days? Bear in mind the brain starts decomposing into a slush when it has been without blood flow (oxygen) only a short while. Thus God would not only need to regenerate a brain with 10^14 (that’s 10 to the power of 14) synapses back, but also would need to put all the connections between those synapses exactly as they had originally been connected. If you think God did indeed revive such a corpse, then healing an amputee should be mere child’s play.
I thought my response was completely straight forward.
By saying you don’t need man to tell you about God, I was talking about how God seeks after his people. If you want God, you can know him.
And yes, God did raise Jesus from the dead. If Christ is not raised, then we are all lost. But he is raised.
Healings still happen everyday. Revivals come in cycles and I can tell you another is on the way.
You should read about Charles Finney.
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 12, 2010
Another fact you don’t seem to realize is that the “personal relationship” you feel you have with “Jesus” was psychological development resulting from you talking to what you imagined was Jesus, just as is in the case of idol worshiper’s “personal relationship” with the stone idol, and just as is in the case of the person who has a “personal relationship” with plants.
And yes, healing still happen every day. And it works regardless of the person’s religious belief or lack thereof. It is called the placebo effect. Plenty of Web Sites are dedicated to helping others become aware of that phenomena too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect
You may happen to be at a loss should the fact finally creep into your conscious awareness that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. But we would not all be lost. Those parts about being either “lost” or “saved” are sly sales gimmicks used to sell the Christian Religion to unsuspecting pawns.
Muslims don’t believe Jesus died on the “cross” and they use the Bible to prove their point:
No Sarah, I’m not going to read Finney. I’m 63 years old and I’ve read plenty of material over the years by the likes of Charles Finney. Besides, he is a human. And I’ve already explained that some humans may be eloquent and persuasive, but that still doesn’t change the fact that to err is human, to be misled is human, and to mislead in return is human.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 20, 2010
Until you let go of unforgiveness, you cannot be forgiven
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 20, 2010
Sarah, in order for me to let go of “unforgiveness” I would by definition need to be holding on to it. But you see, I look upon all human behavior as the result of causality. The human is a very complex physical system functioning in a physical universe according to physical laws.
My car didn’t crank yesterday. The battery was down. I charged the battery and the car cranked. Should I forgive the car for not cranking? I say the word “forgive” is nonsense that sidetracks the issue and adds nothing but confusion to it.
Sarah choose to act in a particular way. Her choice was the consequence of the history that has made Sarah into who she is. She didn’t choose her developmental history. But her choice was determined by the outcome of such history anyway. What does forgiveness have to do with a choice mechanism within Sarah developing in such a way to be predictable in function?
What is forgiveness other than one human animal expressing that s/he shall not seek vengeance against another? What is forgiveness other than just another way of saying, “Don’t worry, get up and knock the dust off, and get on with life?”
Richard Dawkins stated, “Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We are the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are; our hormones are the way they are. We’d be different–our character would be different–if our neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry were different.” That is basically my perspective. But Richard goes on to say that scientists are inconsistent. And here I’ll add that humans are inconsistent by nature. In most cases we call the inconsistencies, hypocrisies.
What being “inconsistent” means is that though Jesus said to forgive 70 times 7, and though most scientists today realize forgiveness is irrelevant to the issue, we humans have the tendency of biting back whosoever or whatsoever we feel has hurt us or has the potential to cause harm. In brief, humans are animals as exemplified by their behavior.
I would say I forgive you Sarah, for whatever reason you feel a need to be forgiven, but that would be equivalent to forgiving a tornado for forming and destroying a school. Therefore, don’t worry, get up and knock the dust off, and get on with your life Sarah. Forgiveness is nonsense that sidetracks the issue and adds only confusion to it.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 21, 2010
To sum up what you are telling me, people are not responsible for their actions because everything happens by chance. Very false.
Someone has to create a car, it doesn’t just appear.
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 21, 2010
1
a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck
c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence : contingency
2
: a situation favoring some purpose : opportunity
3
: a fielding opportunity in baseball
4
a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation; also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome [a small chance of success]
b plural : the more likely indications [chances are he's already gone]
5
a : risk [not taking any chances]
b : a raffle ticket
— chance adjective
— by chance
: in the haphazard course of events [they met by chance]
Examples of CHANCE
This is the chance of a lifetime!
Everyone deserves a fair chance of winning the award.
If you give me a chance, I know I can do a good job.
We didn’t have much chance to talk about it.
There’s a good chance that we’ll finish on time.
If you are free tonight, is there any chance you could join me for dinner?
Which cards you’re given is simply a matter of chance.
Origin of CHANCE
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
Now, Sarah, if your definition of “chance” means a thing that happens couldn’t have happened, then you’re obviously wrong. If it happens, then it could have happened. No way around that fact.
A coin toss is commonly used as an example of chance. But a coin toss has causes and effects that result in either a heads or tails, but which a human can’t predict. However, if a scientist knew the original state of the coin, and if s/he knew the force applied to the coin and the point where the force was applied, and s/he knew the forces acting on the coin as it spun through the air, and s/he knew the distance the coin traveled before impact, and s/he knew the density of the table or floor on which the coin landed, then the scientist could predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% accuracy.
Now if by “chance” you mean you don’t have enough awareness and cognitive abilities to predict some event or phenomena, and so you call it “chance.” Then I’ll accept that definition.
“Someone has to create a car, it doesn’t just appear.” Well Sarah, that’s true; but it has noting to do with the issue. The earth just didn’t appear by magic, as so many religions believe. Earth formed as a result of natural processes. You seem to be a really naïve person in that area. I suspect the preachers, teachers, and holy text of your religion has kept you ignorant and possibly even has you deluded.
Life originated from natural processes. Look up the word abiogenesis for more information.
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. Viruses are sometimes considered a sort of nonliving life.
Once life got started through abiogenesis, then another process came into play that has been termed evolution. Now if you got your ideas about evolution from your religion, then chances are you are very deluded on the subject. I think some Roman Catholics are pretty scientific. But Fundies are usually nut cases in the matter.
Anyway, again I ask, how would you define “chance?” And how could your ignorance of the causal factors involved, which seem to you like “chance,” prevent phenomena such as galaxies from forming, abiogenesis from taking place, or evolution from happening?
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 22, 2010
With all do respect, please do not pretend to know my background.
A definition of religion is ‘a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.’ In that sense, you have a religion yourself.
I do not believe the world we see was created by magic. I believe our creator is wise and the ultimate scientist. He set our existence in motion.
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 22, 2010
I do not pretend to know your background. I can only make “assumptions” based on the questions you’ve asked, the limited statements you’ve made, and your YouTube Profile.
By the way, the term is “with all due respect,” not “with all do respect.” Easy mistake, I know. To err is human for you too, obviously.
I don’t know where you got your definition of religion. At least I was considerate enough to provide you with the source of my definition of chance. Nevertheless, your definition still doesn’t make my perspective a religious one. You see, I don’t fit the definition you provided. The fact is, the universe did not originate for any purpose. But that is not saying we humans cannot invent our own purposes to justify our struggle for survival.
You seem to think the world was created by magic. But then you seem to like to pretend that you don’t believe such. I mean, give me a break. Either you believe a being whom you call “God” created the universe and everything in it with his own special magic; or you believe, like me, that the universe came into being as the result of natural causes and effects.
Of course, even if the universe was created by some super-alien existing outside of the universe, that still wouldn’t make any religion true. Obviously, to err is human, because we have hundreds of conflicting denominations and sects within Christianity alone. And they all use the same book to “prove” each their own version of Christianity “true” and to “prove” other versions “false.” Some will even go so far as to say that they are the only “true” Christians.
Let me guess Sarah: I’ll bet you feel your belief is the correct belief and anything contrary to what you believe is wrong. Am I anywhere near correct in that assumption?
I was a believer for 35 years. I don’t know every single causal force that acted upon my mindset to make me become aware that religions are human inventions. I know reading The Bible from cover to cover played a big part. And when I started becoming skeptical, well, I started grabbing for straws. I felt I needed something to fill the void once occupied by Christianity. I researched Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and I can’t recall how many others. I even started reading every psychology book I could get my hands on. (But do you know how many different theories of mind there are? Do you realize there is no single science called, “psychology?” My preacher used to teach that psychology is secular humanist religion. And I can now agree that it is, or at least once was, more of a religion than a science.)
Anyway, after my skepticism was stimulated into existence, I stumbled upon an anthropology book titled, Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology. But I can’t recall the edition. Still, the particular story that made me become aware of religion and how it is absorbed by different societies and “evolves” was, God’s Saviours in the Sierra Madre. That story aroused my interest in anthropology; and I have since learned a great deal from that field of science.
In closing I would like to point out that the only absolute in science is that nothing is absolute. Science has no word of God. When a theory is insufficient to explain the phenomena, then it is abandoned. Our lives are so completely saturated with the benefits of science that we are often unaware of the importance science has played in the betterment of human life. As pointed out by the late Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World, science is indeed our candle in the dark.
WhyWontGodHealAmputees Sarah? Well, because evidently no god exist to heal them. But at least science has developed artificial limbs and may someday graft used or manufactured limbs on the body.
Religion can hold your hand when you feel sad. Religion can make promises that may result in you feeling glad. Religion can manipulate whole herds of humans into unquestioning obedience. Religion can teach you how not to be reincarnated as a roach. Religion can teach you how to reach the enlightenment of the Buddha. Religion can teach you how to go to a Heaven filled with hot or horny virgins. Religion can teach you how to be saved. But science deals with the real world and with real problems.
I would gladly believe in a god provided I had sufficient reason to do so. (I’ve already explained the necessity of my Chihuahuas telling me about God.) What would it take for you to realize your beliefs are based on illusions? What would it take for you to no longer believe as you presently do? Now if you say that nothing can result in you questioning the beliefs you currently hold, then really, face up with the fact, you are the narrow-minded bigot, not me.
You are certainly an interesting character and thank you for pointing out my spelling error.
What is magic?
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 22, 2010
No doubt you could go to Merriam-Webster Online to learn what the definition of “magic” is. But if you want me to be specific as to my usage of the word, I’ll give you the definition provided by my desktop dictionary (WordWeb 6.1):
Noun: magic – Any art that invokes supernatural powers.
Adj: magic – Possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers.
For further clarification note that a stage magician performs magic TRICKS, meaning illusions of magic. Synonyms for magic are preternatural, paranormal, nonnatural, transcendental, and supernatural.
============================
From: kyachris
Date: Saturday, October 23, 2010 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
I prefer your own words.
Where did the first stars in space come from? They are beautiful
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
We are the most egocentric of all animals. We like to imagine everything we see was made especially for us. Of course, that logically resulted in us placing ourselves in the center of the universe. And we imagined the tiny shimmering lights observed in the night sky were put there for our convenience and pleasure. Heck, we even invented gods in our image and likeness.
Now we know the tiny shimmering lights in the night sky are not tiny at all. Some are planets orbiting around the sun. Some are suns in our own galaxy. Some are whole galaxies in the distances of the universe. But religion didn’t teach us these facts. We have invented something a lot more dependable for discerning reality than religion. We call our new way of contemplating reality, science.
Science is the study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation and using a method called methodological naturalism. Religion on the other hand is the study of imaginary realms of reality using confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and primitive myth. And religion has lots of creation myths in case you are interested in the origins of the stars from that perspective.
Otherwise, stars come from gas and dust that are attracted by gravity to form the prestar/proto-star, which haven’t collected enough material to undergo fusion in their cores, but which turn into full blown stars once the accumulated gravitational pressures for fusing hydrogen into helium have been reached.
Now, if you want anymore information concerning stars than that then get a book. You may be interested in Astronomy Made Simple by Kevin Marvel. And/or you may want to read The Simple Universe by Ian Brewster and Ken Shiwram.
Oh, also, a bit if trivia. The perception of beauty is usually the result of personal observation and experience or cultural forces (the herd instinct). However, should it be determined that practically every person on the face of the planet has the impression that stars are beautiful, then the feeling may have a genetic basis. At that point we would need to turn to evolutionary theory to provide us with an explanation of how such feeling could have developed.
We do like to make ourselves priority. Pride is our downfall.
Thank God we can repent and be transformed through Jesus.
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 3:30 PM
Well, to make ourselves a priority is understandable. But to presume everything was made especially for us is a form of megalomania or narcissism bordering on a mental disorder. Maybe people who believe we are the image and likeness of God are crazy.
In order to keep a balanced perspective and remain sane you must bear in mind that the virus is the image and likeness of God. And God created all life in order for the virus to have something to infect.
Does the thought of such a god hurt your sense of pride? Are you proud to be part of a race especially created by God to act as a host to the virus?
Yeah, right now I’m just bull shitting. But you do so on a regular basis.
Are you saying I should repent because you worship the image and likeness of yourself?
And who is this Jesus character? Is he Mexican-American? Surely you’re not talking about the dude who was supposedly crucified around 2,000 years ago are you? Listen, if that dude didn’t die while being “crucified,” as is suspected by some historians and by all Muslims, then he would be dead by now anyway.
Remember, you cannot tell me anything about God because you are human. And to err is human, to lie for your religion or country is human, and to deceive others with the same deceptions you have been deceived with is human too.
Repent or Captain Hook will make you walk the plank into the jaws of the Tic-Toc crocodile; and you will never get to go to Never-Never Land to be with Tinker-bell and Peter Pan.
That makes as much sense as the words you spout.
Thank the Great-Ghost of Never-Never Land; we can repent and be filled with the spirit of Tinker-bell, and be transformed through power of Peter Pan.
Wow, religion obviously is a form of crazy.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:07 PM
Why is it crazy to believe that complex, living beings are created?
Our bodies are a shell, not who we are.
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:45 PM
No darling: our body, which includes our brain, is who we are. You sound as if you want to drag the perception of the human back into the spook filled era of the dark ages. I reiterate: The human is a very complex physical system functioning in a physical universe according to physical laws.
Strokes, brain tumors, and dementia are physical ailments that effect the physical brain. No ghost in the machine is necessary to animate living beings. No ghost you can possibly imagine can animate a living being who has suffered sufficient brain damage.
Oh, and of course all complex living beings are created to act as a hosts to the virus, which is the image and likeness of God. Why don’t you get off your ego trip and face up with reality? Face up with the fact that you’re a descendant of something more primitive, sort of a cave-man. And that creature was descended from an ape-like creature. And et cetera, et cetera. And I guess that means the image and likeness of the original life form would be more like a virus than a human.
You would be as stupid as a cow provided you hadn’t been taught human language. Our complex language and the capacity we’ve evolved to use it are what separates us from nonhuman animals. In fact, language can be a curse as well as a blessing. The silliness you keep expressing is the result of language-created mental constructs that were previously placed in your brain (via the senses) and are presently residing therein.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:29 PM
The tongue is a restless evil who can tame it
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:30 AM
Necessity can tame the tongue. And fear is the most potent factor in most cases.
The Bible tells the story of “God” sending two she bears out of the woods to tear 42 children till they die. Now one cannot honestly say the event actually took place, regardless of whether one believes in a god or not. But one can say that by telling children the story, then the story may be so psychologically shocking that children who are told the story may become too afraid to tease strangers. Thus their tongue would have been tamed with fear.
No doubt that in olden days when tongues were publicly ripped out for saying anything against the king or for “blasphemy,” then fear tamed the tongue in those cases too.
You can probably put a gun to someone’s head or threaten him/her with eternal damnation and the resulting fear would likely stay the tongue. Well, let’s put it this way: the treat would have to be believed as real. And the person threatened would have to be normal. A mentally challenged person (according to the mental handicap) may not experience the necessary fear for the tongue to be stayed.
Of course, with proper training the child would likely grow-up not to use the tongue as a flamethrower. And encouragement and reward can be used instead of preying upon the fear factor.
Oh, and when you say, “The tongue is a restless evil,” does that mean your tongue is a restless evil?
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:08 PM
The bible is not only God’s word but also historical events, letters, and songs.
In the past, God let all nations go their own way, but now he commands all people to repent.
Moses, King David, Solomon all made mistakes.. which goes to show we are all human and should not idolize any man.
The law was intended to show what is right and wrong. It only brings wrath.
Jesus brings salvation.
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:40 PM
Mark Twain summed up The Bible pretty well. He said, “It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.”
Albert Einstein said, “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” (Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954)
President Thomas Jefferson used a cut-and-paste technique to recompile the Bible into a 46 page booklet without miracles and that ended with Jesus’ burial instead of resurrection. He too realize most of the Bible was and is bull shit.
One of the Founding Fathers wrote a critique of the Bible titled, Age of Reason. In it he stated, “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
My opinion of the Bible is more or less a composition of each of the above. However, I see the Bible as a book that has been used by humans to justify their struggle for survival against others. And the curses and threats in the Bible (for skepticism/doubt) result in the believer being too afraid to critically examine or question. Thus the psychological ploys within the Bible turn the believer into a meme machine.
In the past, the Great-Ghost of Never-Never Land let all nations go their own way, but now he commands all people to repent.
Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Lady and the Tramp all made mistakes.. which goes to show that they were not unlike the humans that created them. And which goes to show we should not idolize any cartoon character.
Laws were written to show Mickey Mouse and the other cartoon characters what is right and what is wrong. But Peter Pan brings salvation.
Seems like we are back to where we started.
You have no choice in what you believe. You cannot go to sleep tonight with the resolution of awaking tomorrow with the absolute knowledge that you’ve been wrong all these years. You cannot start preaching and teaching with absolute conviction that Jesus is dead and God is a phantom. Equally, I can’t believe the wild and crazy tales of your religion. We are just alike in that aspect. We do not freely choose what we believe, what we doubt, and what we totally disbelieve.
This is my last PM to you. I doubt very seriously that I had any affect on your thought about the matter. Nevertheless, someone may read our correspondence and gain some sort of insight out of the experience.
Either you are a very hateful person, or your reply to me indicates you are either very ignorant or mentally challenged, or maybe even a bit of both or all three.
Albert Einstein didn’t hate your god. I do not hate the Tooth Fairy. Nor do I hate your god. People do not hate imaginary things. I don’t understand why you deny reality unless there is something wrong with your brain.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins declared with disdain, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” But Dawkins isn’t hating your imaginary god as much as he is hating the character of your god as written in the Old Testament. Got it?
Belief is not a choice. Others have pointed out that fact to you, including myself. Why do you deny reality?
When a person is whimpering and whining down at the altar, asking “Jesus” to come into her/his heart, s/he is already a believer. S/he is not asking the Tooth Fairy to come into her/his heart. S/he is not asking Thor to come into her/his heart. S/he is asking a mental construct that had previously been made to seem real in her/his mind. Got it?
In your Channel profile, your age is listed as 24. If that is the case, only 12 years ago you were a mere 12 years old. I was a Christian for 35 years. I’m soon to be 64. I can tell you with the wisdom of my years that you are not the same person now that you were at 12 (unless there is something very wrong with you). And you will not be the same at 36 as you now are. And you will not be the same at 48 as you shall be at 36. And et cetera, et cetera.
Previously I stated, “I would gladly believe in a god provided I had sufficient reason to do so. (I’ve already explained the necessity of my Chihuahuas telling me about God.) What would it take for you to realize your beliefs are based on illusions? What would it take for you to no longer believe as you presently do?” You never did answer that question.
I sought and I did truly find that the religion I once held dear (The Judeo-Christian Religion) was and is based on illusion. Until you do the same you will be blind to reality.
If you reply with answers from your stupid religious belief–a belief system no longer infecting my mind–then be prepared to be blocked from further acts of stupidity.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:36 PM
Okay Sarah, now I see something is obviously wrong. You don’t seem to have the cognitive abilities of a normal 24 year old woman. You see Sarah, I stated that I did not hate your imaginary god in the same paragraph that I said Einstein didn’t hate your god. You were able to grasp one statement out of the paragraph but evidently your reading comprehension or cognition resulted in you failing to understand the other facts. I’ll break the paragraph down into sentences to see if you can comprehend:
Albert Einstein didn’t hate your god.
I do not hate the Tooth Fairy.
Nor do I hate your god.
People do not hate imaginary things.
Got it?
As emphasis I quoted Richard Dawkins. And I pointed out that Dawkins isn’t hating your imaginary god as much as he is hating the character of your god as written in the Old Testament.
Do you hate Peter Pan? Do you hate Captain Hook? Do you hate the Tick-Tock Crocodile? Do you hate any character that you are sure is imaginary?
What about belief? Are you free to believe any silliness presented to you even though you may consciously feel the idea is totally absurd? Can you believe right now with all your “heart, soul, and might” that Jesus is deader than a doornail and God is a figment of a vivid imagination?
Now I already know you are a liar, because you keep saying I hate your imaginary god. But if you say you can switch from one belief to a completely contrary and seemingly absurd belief by merely “choosing” to, then I know for sure you are a liar or something is wrong with you psychologically.
I have no interest in learning more about you. And I have no idea why you would want to know more about me–a complete stranger on the Internet, and a 63 year old man at that (not material for a 24 year old woman).
Of course, it would have been easier to relate to you if I had known a little about you. (In the “About Me” on your Channel page, you have nothing about you (except Sarah, 24, U.S.) but a bunch of silliness about the religion you follow.) I probably wouldn’t have been as hard on you as I was, providing I knew a little about your education level and experiences, instead of having to make assumptions about such. My feelings now is that I assumed you were smarter than you actually were.
In my case, all you needed to do was read the “About Me” box on my Channel.
Oh, and since most of my responses to you have been in anticipation of counter-arguments against things I said, allow me to add that you DO follow a religion, even if you deny such. I know the popular comeback for Christians in this age is that they don’t follow religion but have a “personal relationship with God.” However, you are all the time spouting crap out of your holy book. And brainwise (the sensations you feel as a result of previous brain development), the “personal relationship” you have with your “god” is no different than the “personal relationship” people of other denominations and religions have with their gods, even if their god happens to be an idol.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:47 AM
My intention is not to talk down to you. After all, you are my elder. I am just asking questions.
Unlike Peter Pan, God exists.
May I ask your opinion as to where Natural Law derived? How do people as random formations determine what is right and wrong.. when existence is meaningless?
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:10 PM
My Chihuahuas will bark at a plastic bag waving in the wind. I once saw a cat attack a leaf as it tumbled along in the breeze. The most ancient history of every human group known and in all places found around the world indicate humans too tend to personify natural phenomena and events. Gods have always been used to fill the gaps in our knowledge. The tendency comes naturally for us as it does for dogs and cats, or for monkeys that look behind the mirror for the reflection observed. But did the gaps in human knowledge prove or even indicate gods existed? No. Gods and/or magic have always been used to explain the incomprehensible and the unknown. And that tendency hasn’t changed.
You are asking questions without answering the questions I asked. Ignoring a person’s questions while asking questions and getting answers is as bad as talking “down” to the person.
Natural law isn’t a law per se. Natural law is a term used to describe repeatable observable phenomena. We can say humans and cattle obey the natural laws of herd animals, because evolution resulted in humans and cattle acquiring characteristics necessary for herd survival. Or we can say that planets obey the natural law of orbital paths, because of gravity.
You are quite wrong in your claim. You see, you cannot logically state positively that the particular god you imagine exist does indeed exist without offering proof to backup your claim. And remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now you can say that you believe the god that you imagine exist does exist in reality, just as a person who was raised to imagine Peter Pan is real may believe in Peter Pan’s existence. The perception would not be based on factual evidence but on belief (confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and myth).
You are really showing your ignorance of evolution by calling people “random formations.” Of course, I suspected as much. As previously stated, “Fundies are usually nut cases in the matter.”
Humans determine “right” and “wrong” just like they determine what is the “right” food to eat and what is the “wrong” food to eat–observation and experience. And we keep record of what we have been able to determine so that we can teach our children what we’ve learned. Furthermore, we didn’t just swing down from the trees yesterday you know.
So, you say existence is meaningless to you? Interesting. Maybe you need psychiatric help. Surely you’re not going to spew lies by implying or claiming existence is meaningless to those who don’t share your religious beliefs?
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:46 AM
I apologize if I overlooked your questions?
I certainly do not believe existence is meaningless. However, if you think we were not created and we do not have a purpose.. what are you saying?
You do realize the science community lists evolution as a theory and MANY scientists believe in creation. Secular media is good at leaving out information. “Adaptation” is what gave human to human varying appearance. We were and always will be human.
I do not simply have faith, God makes himself evident. Test his promises.
Historical references give credibility to the bible while prophecies show divine inspiration. You should research how many prophecies were fulfilled and the odds of that happening.
What do you do with Jesus?
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:09 PM
Sarah, evidently you’re not reading what I’ve stated or you have a poor memory. I said, “The fact is, the universe did not originate for any purpose. But that is not saying we humans cannot invent our own purposes to justify our struggle for survival.” Got it?
Nonhumans don’t have the language necessary to invent purpose. Nonhumans struggle for survival, they procreate, they cooperate with and help care for each their own, and they just get on with life and live as best they can. But we humans have language. Yet, both individually and as a species we also have lots of gaps in our knowledge. Still, those gaps in our knowledge does not stop us from getting on with life and inventing all sorts or purposes for doing so.
How many is MANY? What percent? I know Roman Catholics are as religious as Fundamentalist Protestants, but the former respect science enough to give evolutionary theory the benefit of doubt. The latter are ignorant beyond comparison. Fundamentalists don’t study evolution in order to understand it; they study anti-evolution propaganda in acts of self-delusion.
Oh, and you really don’t seem to understand the difference between Sarah’s theory and a scientific theory. Your theory is a speculation. A scientific theory isn’t. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data. It starts off as a hypothesis. But after it has withstood discrimination and the test of time, it is advanced to a theory. Darwin actually advanced a hypothesis, which has been revised and is now a theory. A scientific theory is the closest thing you can get to a scientific fact, since there are no indisputable facts in science.
And yes, I know that scientists are members of culture and as such, they are prone to the same misconceptions and beliefs of the culture from which they originate. However, and this is very important, science has no infallible word that must be believed. Scientific discoveries are peer reviewed. One scientist may make a mistake on a finding. But other scientists are going to eventually catch the mistake. Therefore, science is self-correcting.
If Darwin hadn’t come up with the theory of evolution, then some other scientist would have. In fact, another scientist did come up with the theory almost at the same time as Darwin. The discovery was made because the facts were there, not because Darwin invented the facts. And Darwin’s original interpretation of the facts have been modified and adjusted to fit the most recent findings. As stated, science has no “infallible word of god.”
Wow, you claim “many scientists” believe in “creation,” but then you turn around and pretend there exists a “secular” media that leave out that “information.” Well darling, I’ve got news for you: There are probably more religious nuts working for the “secular” media than there are working within science. An education in science tends to make one less of a Fundamentalist. And most media employees are not exposed to heavy science curriculum in school. Your claims contradict reality.
No darling, “adaption” is not inheritable in the sense you imply. Adaptation does not explain kinky hair and near-black skin, or straight hair and near-white skin–evolution does. Now my uncle was a farmer who worked out in the sun all day long. His skin was near-black till he took his hat off and you could see the color of his high forehead. And he was surprisingly “white,” compared to be darkness of his exposed skin. Adaptation is the individual’s body adjusting to existing conditions during his lifetime. Evolution is when a trait – which is acquired by mutation or genetic drift and which is selected by environmental circumstances – is passed on to future generations. The tendency of the body to adapt to circumstances is itself the handiwork of evolution.
My Chihuahuas are descendants of wolves. But human selective pressures have resulted in what started out as a wolf evolving into a Chihuahua. And if a group of Chihuahuas were separated from other Chihuahuas long enough and continually subjected to selective pressures, then that group may evolve to the point of being unable to breed with other Chihuahuas, thereby making the separated group another species.
You are so ignorant about evolution that I hate making the effort and possibly wasting my time trying to introduce you to such basic science–science you should already know, but science your system of belief has evidently alienated you from.
Historical references do not give credibility to the Bible because no such references exists. In fact, so little historical reference are related to your Jesus that his existence can be called into question. Give me exact examples instead of some vague bull shit. Same applies to the so called “prophecies.” I’ve already quit believing the BS. You are the one who needs to do some critical research on the matter. Bear in mind that I can say a hurricane will hit Florida within the next 10 years, but that isn’t prophecy; it’s common sense.
Oh, and by the way, Paul Bunyan may have existed in the late 1800s or early 1900s as a lumberjack working in North American with tall tales to tell. But so much myth now surrounds his life that it would be impossible to determine anything about the real person, or whether he even existed in reality. The same applies to your Jesus.
You may deny such but the fact is you simply have faith; and the god you presume makes himself evident to you is the result of effective indoctrination during previous stages of your psychological development, just as faith in all gods for all people are developed.
You see, no one is born with a belief in any god. Gods are mental constructs created with emotionally loaded language; and mirror neurons play a major role in the acquisition of belief. Your perception is not based on reality but on the system of belief you’ve learned. And when that fact is combined with the human naturally occurring cognitive and confirmation biases, anecdotal evidence, and myth, then you are in a trap from which you may never escape.
============================
From: kyachris
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:19 PM
Sir you can name call all you want.
I did read your messages, but they are contradictory.
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
—————————————
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:15 AM
Happy Halloween Sarah!
Dealing with someone who is so blatantly ignorant of a basic science, such as evolution, is really frustrating, especially when that person insinuates “she” has knowledge by stating, “please do not pretend to know my background.” (After I had pointed out that I suspected she may be miseducated or ignorant of evolution because of her religion.)
According to the nonsense you are spouting from your holy book, evidently you actually believe you have become wise by being foolish.
Wow, when you think about the impact of such a belief, you see it is a really slick psychological ploy, since people are controlled and manipulated through their ignorance. So if people can be made to believe they are wiser by being or becoming as fools, then they are forever trapped into being potential pawns by that belief.
Of course, the book of Ecclesiastes contradicts 1st Corinthians 3-18. According to Ecclesiastes, “wisdom excelleth folly (aka, foolishness), as far as light excelleth darkness.”
By the way gal, here is a link to a bunch of real contradictions different people have found just for individuals who have made themselves into “fools” like you:
Now if you claim I made contradictory statements, then you are under obligation to provide me with proof of what you are talking about. Otherwise, you may very well be making a misleading or false claim. (I personally suspect you are lying, because I don’t recall making contradictory statements. But I’ll apologize for calling you a liar if you can show me where I am wrong. (Apparently you’re one of those lying humans that have made me skeptical.))
Oh, and where did you get your becoming-a-fool-that-one-may-be-wise quote from? Scripturetext.com didn’t have your exact wording. Did you paraphrase the quote? Your wording seems a bit misleading. I was raised on the King James version and find it a bit easier to understand for that reason.
King James Bible: “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”
The segment of my video with Dennett & Wright can be seen in a video titled, “Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (2 of 8)” starting at 6:35. At 7:45 Dennett starts talking and says, “I want to deny flat out a premise that you started with, that you mentioned yourself just a minute ago, you said, ‘The future is inevitable if determinism is true.’ First of all I want to say, that phrase, “the future is inevitable” well just doesn’t mean anything. The future’s going to happen, whatever it is. And that’s true whether determinism is true or indeterminism is true; there’s going to be a future. Now in what sense could you talk about the future being inevitable? I don’t know. What we have to talk about is particular events being inevitable, and/or particular types of events. And in order to see what the word inevitable means you have to take it apart. Now, oddly enough, although the words slips off the tongue of everybody who writes about free will and determinism, hardly anybody has ever looked at it. But of course, what it means is unavoidable. Evitable, inevitable, avoidable, unavoidable–that’s all the word means. Now, in order to avoid something, that is what an agent does–an avoider. I mean agent in the broad sense of being an actor that has some sensory capacity and some goals and that acts in the world to accomplish its ends. Now, are there agents that can avoid things. Sure. Tons of them. And in fact, the reason you have to look at free will from an evolutionary point of view is, that’s remarkable that there are agents that avoid things; that’s a remarkable fact. And, there’s many more avoiders now than there used to be. And they’re much better at avoiding now than they used to be. And in fact, it is as good as a definition of intelligence to be an expert avoider, to be able to foresee far into the future, to see things coming down the pike and to take steps in a timely way to prevent those bad things from happening, and in order to foster things that you want to happen. We don’t have a good parallel word…what would it be? Enhancer? Probablifier? There’s no… We avoid harm. And we try to get the good. But there isn’t a single verb for what we do in regard to good things the way it is for avoiding the bad. But now, that means that the whole concept of inevitability gets its meaning from the perspective in which… a perspective, in which there are agents, in which there are agents that might want to avoid something.” (end of video)
So basically Dennett has redefined free will, which according to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) originally meant “free will (noun): the power asserted of moral beings of choosing within limitations or with respect to some matters WITHOUT RESTRAINT OF PHYSICAL OR DIVINE NECESSITY OR CAUSAL LAW” (Emphasis mine.) to mean “The choice behavior of an organism that are made in avoidance of harm.” And he basically adds, “that the degree in which an organism is expert and avoiding harm is a good measure of intelligence.”
There are problems with Dennett’s explanation inasmuch as there are a number of factors involved in choice behavior that Dennett himself AVOIDS. His definition avoids dealing with why one person would choose to have same sex relationships while another would choose to avoid them. His definition avoids dealing with why one person would choose to eat meat while another person would choose to avoid omnivorous behavior. His definition avoids dealing with the factors involved in why one person would choose to smoke cannabis while another person chooses to avoid smoking cannabis. And of course, the example in my video points out that his definition avoids dealing with the factors involved in one person choosing to eat his boogers while another person avoids eating such. Dennett’s definition and explanation are overly simplistic.
Also in the video I also point out that when a person WANTS something, or WANTS to avoid something, the sensation of WANT is not a conscious choice. We do not consciously choose nor predetermine the WANT that we are to experience. For instance, when a person WANTS same sex relations, and when another person WANTS to avoid same sex relations, the WANTS are not freely chosen by the person undergoing the WANT.
And also in the video I point out that delving into disputed philosophical discussions while trying to ascertain all the factors involved in the functions and processes of a physical system–even if that physical system happens to be the human brain–only adds unnecessary complexity and confusion to the issue. Rambling on and on and on about determinism versus indeterminism while discussing the solar system or the Milky Way Galaxy makes as much sense as doing so while discussing the human brain. I call it the BBS (befuddling bull shit) strategy. As stated, one should keep unnecessary complexity and disputed philosophical speculations out of discussions of physical systems, biological or otherwise.
Dennett’s definition and explanation sound like rhetoric one would expect to come out of the mouth of a person like Rush Limbaugh, not like logical discourse one would expect to come out of the mouth of an elite intellectual. In fact, since Dennett redefinition and promotion of free will actually helps keep the old superstitious belief in free will alive in the average person’s mind, I can’t help but wonder WTF is going on.
To: KamKam
From: Unseenstrings
Subject: Our phone conversation a few minutes ago.
Date: Sep 24, 2010
Kam, I just got off the phone with you. We discussed me being a reference for your student loan. We also talked about the necessity of cause and effect being portrayed by your movie or written into the storyline, because such is a requirement so that the viewer/reader can follow what is happening and make sense of the movie/writings. However, the cause effect relationship isn’t required to be based on reality. (Imagine the tactics of Advertising and Public Relations for instance.) But, a movie which doesn’t have a cause and effect base on reality can pervert a person’s perception. One example is the movie you directed me to titled, “Try.”
In the movie “Try” an early childhood experience is implied by the portrayal as leading the girl to do drugs. However, in reality, many people who have no such experience turn to drugs. Also, many people who DO have such early childhood experiences grow-up to be Miss America or America’s wealthiest woman or et cetera. Thus the causal relationship as portrayed is based on illusion/delusion.
Think of it this way: an early childhood experience of a human is equivalent in effect as it is for a chimpanzee. Any difference you see would not be based on the actual experience but based on how others react to the experience, and/or how the child had been trained to react to the experience.
In a recent reply to a comment on my channel I talked about causality a little. In case you are interested, below is a copy and paste of the comments.
~~~~~~~~~~~Start copy and paste~~~~~~~~~~~
@Gilmaris, you are so very right! Basically free will is commonly redefined to mean choice behavior. When I point out that my dogs can choose which trail to run down or which food out of 3 bowls to choose, they reply with, “Yeah, but dogs don’t have free will.” WTF?
Magic is usually implied with the usage. The notion of “Eve” eating an apple–giving all “her” decedents supernatural knowledge of “right” and “wrong”–has evidently been very effective at keeping the illusion of free will alive.
Literature has to be written from a causal perspective–even if the cause and effect are supernatural–or else the reader will be unable to follow the storyline. The writings will make no sense. We think in terms of cause and effect. The notion of free will contradicts the rule. Jeff Bridges’ Oscar acceptance speech reflected on the causal forces that resulted in him winning the Oscar. His speech was condemned as being simplistic. The upholders of the Status Quo don’t like such ideas advanced.
Tom Clark of Naturalism Org once notified me that causality was represented in the movie, Matrix II: Reloaded. He was excited about causality finally being given time and space by the Major Media. But after I saw the villainous character who presented the idea and the portrayal in which the idea was presented, I realize TC’s hopes had blinded him to the obvious negative effect of the portrayal. Dr JM Elliot (Playboy, 1989) interviewed someone who talked about causality: Willy Horton. (Bad publicity for causality.)
@Gilmaris, I noticed lestrangemadame suggested the possibility of deterministic inevitability or predestination. However, supposing random events are happening at the quantum level as theorized, and taking into the consideration the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory, then no physical system in the universe could be inevitably determined nor predestined. The randomness would become part of causality and thus make such inevitability and predestination null and void. Think about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~End copy and paste~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope you bear these facts in mind for future reference. ========================================
To: KamKam
From: Unseenstrings
Subject: Clarification of my PM sent yesterday
Date: Sep 25, 2010
Kam, in my PM yesterday I said, “In the movie ‘Try’ an early childhood experience is implied by the portrayal as leading the girl to do drugs.” What is should have said is “In the movie ‘Try’ an early childhood experience can be logically deduced by the portrayal as leading the girl to do drugs.” Or better yet, maybe I should have said, “The Movie ‘Try’ likely would leave the viewer (as a result of the movie’s imagery and dialogue) with the impression that a specific early childhood experience resulted in the main female character becoming a drug addict.”
Now bear in mind, popular myths can and do have a powerful effect enhancing cognitive biases. (You can read more about cognitive bias here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Bias)
Personal experience of a human is the moment-to-moment experience and sensory awareness of internal and external events. An early belief of some philosophers of Ancient Greece was that the mind was like a recording device and simply kept somehow-objective records of what the senses experienced. This was believed in the Western world into the 20th century until modern psychological experiments decisively proved that it was not true, and that many events were simply filled in by the mind, based on what “should be,” (based on presumptions resulting from previous personal learning experiences and mental development). This, among other things, explained why eyewitness accounts of events often were so widely varied.
Also bear in mind that such movies as “Try” are a personal experience that is absorbed to a degree by unconscious processes of the mind. Remember, certain elements of the movie (both consciously and subconsciously) influence the way you perceive reality and think about things. For that reason I look upon the movie, “Try” as a deceitful piece of shit that I wouldn’t recommend to anyone, unless it happens to be an intelligent person who was interested in movies that may effectively deceive viewers.
Don’t forget that Oprah claimed such experiences during childhood but she turned out to be the most enterprising and wealthy woman in the US. Some “Miss Americas” made the same claim. In fact, few women didn’t make such claims back when it was the popular thing to do.
A female serial killer in Florida (killed truck drivers) once used the abuse excuse in an attempt to escape the death penalty.
Where is the relative causal chain when comparing the cause and effect as portrayed by the movie “Try” in comparison to the the cause and effect that resulted in Oprah, Miss America, and other “abused” celebrities?
In order to determine causal relationships in reality a method called methodological naturalism is used. Another term you may be more familiar with and which means the same thing is “the scientific method.” The scientific method uses double-blind studies. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind_study) and/or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34BhEgO_es
To: unseenstrings
From: mike
Subject: Hi
Date: Sep 15, 2010
In regard to free will I didn’t have enough space to describe my full views. This is what I believe:
1. Free will only exists as a perception in the human mind, i.e. we FEEL that we make choices, however we don’t… everything IS pre-determined. Even determinists FEEL like they make choices, e.g. of what car to buy etc.
2. Most people don’t define free will this way, however there are two layers to free will – the religious view in regard to morality (which I do NOT believe), and then there’s 1. above, i.e. the FEELING that we make choices even if we know we don’t in regards to the laws of physics etc.
3. However we do make decisions when choosing A or B. This decisions making process IS the neurons firing in our brain… even though the neurons firing sequence is pre-determined a decision making process occurs… even if the result is pre-determined. So for example when I choose whether to have chocolate or banana milkshake my brain DOES go through a decision making process, however it is true that the whole process including the result is pre-determined.
4. Discussions on morality obviously are impacted by the deterministic view. e.g. if a killer is pre-determined to kill then should we forgive. I think that we should. However we have to be careful in leading ourselves down a pure ‘laws of physics’ take on the world without emotion. Our world does include emotion, as our consciousness and perception of the world for some reason includes emotions. If we use zero emotions in relation to debates on morality and societal issues, then we end up in dangerous situations. i.e. a person with zero emotions might logically conclude that it’s for the greater good to extinguish ALL criminals as they are using up resources and time even to heal them. So as you can see emotions are needed as a secondary input to arguments that relate to society. And as free will is a FEELING, we might need to have a hybrid approach between the old model of ‘people have choices’ and ‘things are pre-determined’.
Also if people are aware of punishments then that is a set of inputs in to their ‘system’. i.e. the threat of punishment will stop a certain percentage of people from offending, so maybe it IS a good deterrent.
Also another point is why do you and I bother debating with each other if we know the outcome of the debate is pre-determined… interesting until I realised that we didn’t even have a choice to have this debate lol. Ever since the big bang we were destined to have this debate.
Also what do you think of he many worlds view of quantum mechanics? Personally I think it’s a load of rubbish… however I remain open-minded.
I didn’t want to embarrass you in the publicly viewable comments so I sent you a message instead… You resorted to intellectual put downs and insults as way of argument against me, and said that according to some of my beliefs regarding ‘free will’, I needed to ‘grow up’
However ‘adults’ tend to have debates without resorting to insults… it is childish to resort to insults. I hope you can see that. I’m not offended by your insults, I think they were amusing and it made me laugh, as I used to resort to insults to… it reminds me of the old me
It might be worth thinking about. Hopefully this didn’t come across as too patronising… but how do I give you feedback without coming across as a complete tosser? It’s hard right? Anyway best wishes and look forward to your response. Of course whether you decide to insult me or not IS pre-determined, so it’s not worth me judging you
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: mike
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 15, 2010
Free will exists only as a mental construct. We wouldn’t necessarily presume that we have free will if the idea hadn’t been hammered into our heads from our most tender years.
The mental construct stemmed from the notion that the body possessed a nonphysical soul. And this soul was supposed to be capable of effecting the physical world but itself could not be affected in return. Therefore, choices and thought were presumed to be free from the world of cause and effect.
Societies that did not believe animals had souls also did not believe animals had free will.
We cannot know for sure everything is predetermined/predestined. Therefore, belief in predetermination/predestination is a religious belief. I think Calvinists are the primarily ones to espouse the idea.
Humans do make decisions. Decisions can be observed happening in the brain using MRI. Dogs make choices too. Robots with multiprocessors running complex AI programs make choices too. However, none of the choices are free from physical necessity or causal law.
The choice to eat steak and potatoes or a vegan meal are not the result of a single neuron firing in the brain. Choices are much more complicated than that. Different modules of the brain are sending signals to each other and getting feedback before a decision is reached. Then when the steak is put on the table and it is too rare for the person, he sends it back to be cooked some more, or his stomach is turned and so he orders vegan. None of the choices are free from the existing neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of the person’s brain (as a result of previous development) nor was it free from the sensory input being received.
A person who has developed a brain that makes him capable of murder is not going to murder until all the necessary criterion are met. The person who has developed a brain that makes him capable of selling drugs is not going to become a drug-dealer until all the necessary criterion are met. Forgiveness is quite irrelevant it the issue. We don’t harp on and on about whether a person who had contracted a contagious disease should be forgiven. But we don’t turn him loose to spread the disease either.
We install traffic signals at dangerous intersections because predestination is bull shit. We look both ways before we cross a busy street because predestination is religious bull shit.
Emotion can cause society to kill as quickly as apathy can. Do you really feel Germany felt no emotion toward the Jews? You need to read Mein Kampf if that is what you presume.
What is needed is a Constitution that will guarantee individual rights, regardless of the emotion or apathy felt by the majority. And emotion in the courtroom can only pervert justice, according to the prejudices of the emotion experienced.
Threats of punishment may deter a few people to a degree. But we know from the recidivism rate that it isn’t as effective as is commonly supposed. Besides, most humans had rather suffer death than social humiliation, which comes as a consequence of being arrested, charged, and/or incarcerated for a crime.
I debate because everything is not predetermined/predestined. And my input may have some positive causal effect on you, as yours may have on me.
Bear in mind though, the mind has a mechanism to protect itself from alien ideas as the body has to protect itself from foreign microorganisms.
Talking about the Big Bang when discussing choice behavior of any brain is an exaggeration fallacy or a fallacy of necessity. Can you imagine discussing the Big Bang when discussing the structure, state, and processes of a whale’s brain. It would be pure nonsense, as it is when discussing the human brain.
Quantum mechanics (the Butterfly Effect of supposed random events) may be why predestination isn’t true. However, events happening at the quantum level don’t have anything to do with free will. Nothing happening at the quantum level is guided or freely chosen by the conscious mind.
Also, many interpretations of the theory exist concerning quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular. None are perfect. We have a long way yet to go concerning our understanding of he quantum world.
I did not say you needed to grow up. I said, “The people who believe in free will also need to grow up and realize free will is an illusion,” because “the illusion contributes to the delinquency of society.” You had already stated that you knew free will was an illusion. So I wasn’t talking to you.
Belief in free will acts as blinders, like the horse pulling the carriage wears. He can only see straight in front of him. But he can’t take in the big picture, which is necessary if we want to be more than stupid draft animals.
I’m 63 years old and in poor health. I don’t suspect I’m going to last for very many more years. I have enough years experience that I can look back with a degree of understanding about the human experience. And I truly believe that one of the most pressing issues confronting humanity is facing up with the fact that free will is an illusion. I therefore have decided to dedicate my remaining “years” to debunking the free will illusion.
However, free will is religious dogma. Free Will is the mainstay of practically every religion. I know the battle will not be won in my life. But that is not going to stop me from plugging away at the illusion as long as I live.
To: unseenstrings
From: mike
Subject: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 15, 2010
I think you underestimate my intelligence lol… I do have a degree in computer science and have done a reasonable amount of artificial intelligence to know that choices will take more than one neuron firing!
You say pre-determinism is religious dogma… you say free will is religious dogma too! I think you are obsessed to make everything having a source from religion, maybe you are pissed off with religion? (I can understand why you might be… I’m an atheist but no longer angry with religion… I just think it sucks) You say that it was religion that hammered the idea of free will in to us… that is probably true… however even without religion, because we experience choices it would have been quite obvious for someone to postulate even a scientific premise regarding free will which some atheist neurologists have.
I think your cause is a grand one re debunking free will. Why do you think it matters though? I think a more pressing concern is to rid the world of religion, using intellectual debate rather than violence obviously! Maybe that’s a better cause as a lot of foolish ideas come from religion, although not all.
The thing that confuses me though is that you said the pre-determinism isn’t necessarily fact and yet free will is false. However if pre-determinism is false, that COULD mean that real free will (not just the illusion of it in the mind) actually exists according to that axiom.
Talking about the big bang was just an interesting side note in regard to how many states have been played through to get to the current state. You are a bit to anally retentive I think… relax! If you want a 100% formal / 100% pure logical debate then debate with someone who has autism! Seriously though I was being lighthearted you need to relax! Making a debate more enjoyable for the other party not only makes it more fun for you but your point of view will more likely be listened to! Just a thought!
Sorry to hear about your illness. Best wishes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: mike
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 15, 2010
I have no idea who you are or what your IQ is. I did note that your grammar seemed satisfactory. Sorry if you felt I underestimated you.
For the majority of my life I listened to preachers teach that “animals are driven purely by instinct but humans have free will.” Supposedly the free will came about two ways. For one we had a nonphysical “soul,” which I previously mentioned. And two, “Eve” ate an apple that gave her supernatural awareness of “right” and “wrong.” After all, what is free will without such awareness? Anyway, I’ve also heard preachers teach that everything that is going to happen is already written down in the “Book of Life.” And “God” knows everything that would happen before we were “created.” I previously mentioned Calvinists who espouse the idea of predestination. So yes, both free will and predestination are religious beliefs.
Here are a couple of links on the subject for you to check out:
We have Christians who believe in predestination. We have Christians who believe in free will. We have Christians like my Muslim example (link above) who believe both are true. We have many atheists who continue to believe the Dogma of Free Will even after rejecting religion. We have neurologists who are Christian. We have neurologists who are atheists. Some believe in free will and some don’t. You see, scientists are members of culture and as such, are prone to some of the same beliefs prevalent within the culture.
You think ridding the world of religion is a more pressing concern than making people aware free will is an illusion? Don’t you get it? When people become aware that free will is an illusion, religion can more likely be seen for the slick psychological ploy that it is. How can an omni-benevolent god condemn individuals to Hell when free will is an illusion? And religion without the threat effect is pretty impotent.
DasAmericanAtheist mention yesterday in a video (Vloggy, Rambly Thing) that he was thinking about starting a second channel to reach people not interested in debating. Here is a copy and paste of my comment:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take lessons from a master:
“All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.” —Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” (1926)
Also, ad hominem “arguments” are much more popular than logic. Be emotional, sassy, and sensationalistic on the new channel. Then compare results. Try!
In fact, read the writing of Robert G. Ingersoll. You can find free ebooks and free audio books online. Send me a note if you are unable to locate any.
Now the reason I recommend Ingersoll is because his father was a fundamentalist preacher. When you read Ingersoll you can feel the emotional power of the preacher in the pulpit. He learned (most likely unconsciously) from his father.
Put simply James, try fighting fire with fire for a change. Using vehemence gives preachers a subtle advantage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I suspect you’ll find what James (DasAmericanAtheist) has found. That is, you can’t reach the ignorant masses with intellectual debate.
The falsity of predestination doesn’t mean free will is true. But predestination would mean that free will is false. The falsity of predestination would only mean free will isn’t totally ruled out as a possibility, no matter how absurd.
Surely you could have found a less disgusting term to classify me under than “anally retentive.” And no I’m not interested in formal debate. I had no idea you’d reply to my answer to your concerns. And I am relaxed. I have a Chihuahua bitch laying in my lap stroking her head as I write. But I don’t really enjoy the effort and time it takes away from my other chores and duties to write personal notes to strangers. I was just trying to be courteous.
My “illness” is diabetes, pancreatitis, and I’m blind in one eye. But I’m still alive and doing what I can to debunk free will, which in effect is debunking religion.
Good luck. Thanks for the conversation. This is my last PM to you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: unseenstrings
From: mike
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 15, 2010
Right well maybe we’ve misunderstood each other again I was definitely talking about predetermination and NOT predestination. Predetermination is more of a scientific view of the world, whereas predestination is a religious view. They are very different in that respect.
I don’t like religious delusions, so I am totally with you that predestination is indeed a fallacy, however we don’t yet know if predetermination is a fallacy or not as this depends more on things like quantum theory and whether the Many Worlds Interpretation is true or not.
You said that your last message was your last so I wish you all the best
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: mike
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 19, 2010
Thanks Mike. These PMs kill my day if I’m not careful.
I hope you don’t mind but I’m going to do a copy and paste of a PM I just replied to. The only factor I forgot to add to lessons learned is a factor called “learning transference.” Learning transference is the ability to take learned knowledge and accurately apply it to a novel situation. Now I’m going to provide a unique example that I hope you can relate to: After WWII the Japanese people were justifiably pissed at the US for dropping atomic bombs on their country. A Japanese movie came out titled, Godzilla. In the movie some Japanese fishermen intruded into the territory of a monster whose name the title of the movie was derived. The monster got pissed and attacked Japan with an atomic like flame from her mouth, much like a mythological flame-throwing dragon. The Japanese Army threw everything that had at the monster but couldn’t stop her. A Japanese kid figured out the problem. It was Japan’s “fault” because they had first intruded on the territory of Godzilla. He was put on TV and radio and announced that the Japanese people needed to learn to love Godzilla and quit fighting her. Sure enough his plan worked. And many of the Japanese children at the time grew up to feel that the US was justified in her actions. And they started loving the US so much that they started dressing like Americans and listening to American music. That is learning transference. The hate and bitterness against the US pretty much died out with the older generation.
Anyway, I need to give some Chihuahuas a bath. What follows is the copy and paste:
A couple of factors have come to mind that you seem not to be aware of.
(1.) The gene cannot develop an organism independent of other necessary factors. Particular environments can result in certain genetic sequences switching off and others switching on. This is not the environment physically modifying the gene so that this event happens; instead it is a feature built into the DNA itself. Thus we can say that a specific environment caused a particular genetic sequence to happen, whereas it was a feature built into the gene and is a reaction to the specific environment instead of actually being caused by it. Therefore, when I say the individual is the product of gene-environment interaction, these factors should be understood.
Likewise, peers do not physically effect us as the term “peer pressure” indicates. Instead we have herd/pack/group instinctive mechanisms built into our genes. And the actions of peers result in instinctive reactions within ourselves, which we refer to as peer pressure or conformity instinct. The herd/pack/group instinctive mechanisms are so powerful that most individuals, especially adolescents, had rather die than be humiliated or experience public disgrace in the presence of peers.
Herd/pack/group instinctive mechanisms result in individuals having two modes of behavior: one when running with the pack, the other when alone. For instance, you don’t scratch your ass or pick your nose in front of the herd.
Oh, and just as a side note: Stress has been known to reset instincts to earlier stages of the individual’s development. Enough stress will reset previously modified instinctive mechanisms to their default.
(2.) The complex language of humans is learned. Not everyone learns the same lesson. Certain words evoke different images in the mind of one person in comparison to another. Certain words have more emotional significance for one person than another. Human language is sometimes ambiguous or incongruous. (These factors occasionally lead to confusion and/or disagreement.) Language and experience (experience includes electronic and print media) are used by the brain for programming and processing information.
You have chosen a life of celibacy. Your choice was not free from the previous programming of your brain and the way it has grown to process information. You do not change your brain, because there is no you separate from your brain. Should you happen to put a gun to your head in an attempt to change your brain, the thought processes and the finger pulling the trigger are all done by the brain.
I had an aunt get Alzheimer’s Disease. You could see the physical correlation between who she was and her brain. Before she passed away, she was again playing with dolls. There is no you separate from the cause and effect that have put your brain into its present state. Remember, the person who counts to 10 is the person whose previous learning experiences taught him such is necessary. The person who doesn’t count to 10 had either never been taught to do so, or the lesson wasn’t learned well enough to be effective. Your choice to live a life of celibacy was not free from the previous programming of your brain and the way it has grown to process information. Your choice was not free. If you feel it was, the feeling is the result of an illusion. Free will is an illusion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: unseenstrings
From: mike
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 19, 2010
I think sometimes your ideas involve very black and white thinking. Sure ‘herd’ behaviours do exist HOWEVER people can and DO override them often… some people more successfully than others. I was particularly successful in life at avoiding peer group pressure so I know this from first-hand experience, however I’m also aware of the power of this and I know I’m not immune by any means, however I am more questioning of things than most people I know. I didn’t do drugs and I never stole even though others I know sometimes did.
One issue with your arguments sometimes is that you take part of a theory and extrapolate beyond what happens in reality… so although some of the concepts you use exist they are not as extreme as you make it which totally nullifies your argument in some areas.
Also you might find that not ALL Japanese people would have seen Godzilla, and not ALL of them who saw it would be effected… so there are many shades of grey. Also when we research something, in this case you obviously read about the Godzilla film’s impact, it doesn’t mean that it’s 100% true. It might be partially true, again we all have to be careful reading something and taking it as 100% correct, although I’m sure it DID have a huge impact. There were almost certainly so many other factors involved! Just a thought!
I totally agree with the ambiguity of language and that is something which takes a lot of careful thought… indeed I learned about the ambiguity of language on my computer science degree when learning about artificial intelligence and natural language processing, so I’m there with you on that one.
I hope that didn’t come across as criticism as overall your discussions are very informative, however your points remind me to re-evaluate and question, as of course most of us extrapolate ideas, especially when they justify something important to us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: mike
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 19, 2010
I live in Florida and every hurricane season residents starts worrying. Weather forecasters working with the latest technology and theories try to predict the chance of tropical cyclone formation, the intensity of the formation, and the path it will take. And they have at times been wrong with disastrous results. However, no one claims complex weather formations have free will merely because they are sometimes extremely difficult to predict.
Magic phenomena is only claimed in one and only one complex physical system: the human brain.
I hear really preposterous claims all the time concerning the human brain. For instance, it is claimed to be the most complex thing in the universe. And people believe the bull shit without taking into consideration the immensity of the universe and our ignorance of other possibilities.
When I hear anything about the actions of Nazi Germany, the blame is put primarily on Hitler. How so? If people have free will, and since Hitler didn’t hold a gun to their head, why is he held up as the primary blame? Of course, if people truly had a will free from causality, fear of death could not drive them to go against their “will.” Nothing could. The will would be free from the “restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1975))
When you see the Muslims and their behavior in the Mid-East, do you presume it is the result of free will as so many of the ignorant masses do? I don’t. I know their behavior is nearly as predictable as the weather.
When I see some Christians living among Muslims in the Mid-East, do you presume I think the variance is the result of free will? Well I don’t. I see them as natural eddies in the raging river of Islam. I don’t see the magic of free will or any other magic happening to cause the phenomena.
When I was 13, my brother and some of his friends started stealing neat little trinkets from Murphy’s 5 & 10. I had been taught that stealing was wrong, but a deprived youngster is tempted to get what he can buy whatever means happens to seem available to him. I got me a little trinket and got caught.
I must have really put on a show for store security. It was one of the most traumatic events I can recall experiencing. I cried so much that they turned me loose without calling the cops or my parents. And I never stole anything again, and that was 50 years ago.
For a long time I felt thieves were the lowest of all criminals and were on par with cockroaches. But now that I realize free will is an illusion, I realize thieves are who they are because of natural occurrences and events that happened in their lives, not because of a choice free from the laws of cause and effect.
I don’t do drugs either. But the mirror neurons in my brain caused me to develop the same sentiments in regard to drugs and those my mother expressed. It’s partially her fault I don’t do drugs. I could throw out my chest and boost my self-esteem/ego by bragging that I didn’t do drugs as a result of my own free will. However, I know that if my mother and father had been my aunt and drunkard uncle, then I would have most likely done drugs just like my cousins grew up to do.
You pretend that every person subjected to peer pressure is going to experience precisely the same degree of internal stimulation. However, I don’t know if I’ve stated the fact to you but I’ve said it so many times that I don’t guess it won’t hurt to state the fact again. Instincts are not equivalent to a gear interlocked with another gear. Instead, instincts are dynamic and can be modified so that the organism is capable of adapting to new and varying environments.
You offered me what I assume was an attempt at some constructive criticism. Yet your criticism was so vague that it is useless, which totally nullifies your argument.
I don’t recall saying ALL Japanese watched the movie, Godzilla. I will clarify for you if that is necessary. The lesson would have been learned by a certain percentage of the Japanese youth, whom the movie was directed toward. A certain percentage of those youth would have experienced “learning transference.” A certain percentage of those who experience learning transference would have passed on the lesson learned to others.
Then again, memory isn’t a steel trap like we often imagine. I could be wrong about the particular “moral is the story” of the movie. However, I have read research on the impact of other movies on audiences and how that influence is transfered to others who never saw the movie. A movie made in Germany titled “The Eternal Jew” (1940) is not permitted to be viewed by just anyone. The film has been banned for public use, the only exception is when exhibitors have the required formal education in “media science and the history of the Holocaust;” and even then the use is confined to only college classrooms and other academic gatherings. Why in the fuck are such movies censored if humans truly have a will that is free from causal influence?
The human can hold contradictory beliefs. They usually call the beliefs, “paradoxes” and believe both are true. Many people believe the will is free sometimes and not free sometimes. But what they mean is that they can see the effect of causality sometimes but be ignorant of contributing factors in other instances. You see, the will is either free or it is not. There is no middle ground. The will has been proven to be caused in certain instances, but it has never been proven to be free. Free will is really nothing more than ignorance resulting from gaps in knowledge.
I spent much more time on this reply than I intended. That is the reason I don’t like PMs.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: unseenstrings
From: mike
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 20, 2010
Again you are generalising!!!!! You do this a lot.
I don’t know anyone who thinks Hitler alone was responsible for the atrocities of Nazi Germany. It is extremely clear when researching this that Hitler preached his ideologies during an extremely desperate time for the German people, so they were more open to some of his ideas. For example in the UK stronger immigration laws have been pushed through during the credit crunch, as when people are out of work and hard up financially, they are less tolerant to things like immigration and benefits, so context always plays a part. I don’t know anyone who would deny that there is a bigger picture beyond Hitler. So I think you have either spoken to uneducated people or you are misunderstanding people.
Just because you’ve spoken to people who get an idea wrong doesn’t mean everyone else does. I bet if you asked the question “Do you think Hitler alone caused the situation in Nazi Germany?”, most people would say “no”.
The other hugely incorrect thing you do is the project thoughts in to my mind. You say things like “You pretend that every person subjected to peer pressure is going to experience precisely the same degree of internal stimulation”… err… I never said that!!!
This is why I’m going to terminate our discussion. No offence but you get the basics of communication wrong. You have these faults to quite an extreme level:
1) You extrapolate ideas to the extreme (i.e. you distort truths in a black and white way of thinking).
2) You generalise a lot about people, i.e. you speak to a small group of people and assume that therefore most people think like that… wrong! Learn about statistics and the size of datasets!
3) You make assumptions that people are thinking something, as explained above.
In short it makes it pointless to debate with you! I’m not saying I’m perfect, but you do do these to the extreme. I wouldn’t be surprised therefore if you often anger people in discussions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: mike
From: unseenstrings
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 21, 2010
Yes, I do generalize a lot. I realize there are at times exceptions to examples I give. But I thought my generalizations were understood as such. Sorry for not clarifying.
With Hitler I was again speaking statically. Say for instance a survey was taken asking people who they thought was responsible for the atrocities of Germany, I suspect the answer will be Hitler. Of course, in surveys one must be aware of the question and the way the question was asked in order to get a good perspective of the results.
I look upon Hitler as being a product of his time just as everyone else was. And the situation that arose in Germany was a social phenomena. It probably had a lot to do with the “loss of face” suffered by Germany after WWI, and the social and economic affairs existing at the time.
I did not project thoughts into your mind. You said, “Sure ‘herd’ behaviours do exist HOWEVER people can and DO override them often… some people more successfully than others. I was particularly successful in life at avoiding peer group pressure so I know this from first-hand experience… I didn’t do drugs and I never stole even though others I know sometimes did.” That is what cause me to respond with, “You pretend that every person subjected to peer pressure is going to experience precisely the same degree of internal stimulation.” That was the impression I got from your statement. And I tried to explain the causal factors involved in your behavior versus the behavior of someone else by using myself as an example. I guess I may have gotten a bit carried away, since I was also replying to another PM in which the YouTuber was no where near as reasonable as you; and those thought processes and emotions from that response likely carried over to my conversation with you.
When one person yields to “peer pressure” and another doesn’t, the difference is the difference in previous environmental circumstances (such as personal experiences) to which each person has been exposed as an individual. (Genetic differences may contribute to a slight degree, even if we are comparing two individuals of the same species.) You’ve already agreed with me that free will exist only as an illusion. I felt you were contradicting yourself. Anyway, I apologize if I was abrasive in my response.
By the way, behaviours is the British spelling. I guess Canadians may spell the word like Brits. (behaviors, US) However, sometimes I spell the word that way myself and I don’t know why. I reckon it could be because I’ve read some of the some of the classic English literature, such as, The Golden Bough /by Sir James Frazer (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3623), which is a really informative book if you’ve never read it before. Oh, and you may want to read The System of Nature /by Paul-Henri Dietrich Holbach (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/holbach/index.html or http://facts4u.com/free/).
I still don’t get why you assume my thinking is black and white with no shades of gray. Maybe it is because I cannot imagine a will free from the laws that govern everything else in the universe. In fact, I realize that, as previously mentioned, the existence of the will is analogous to the existence of the wind. The wind nor the will can exist in and of themselves. They are the consequence of natural forces acting on physical phenomena–air in the case of wind and neurons in the case of the will. And as stated, to say the wind is free may be poetic, but it is also pure nonsense, as it is in the case saying the will is free.
I appreciate the conversation we’ve had. I too want to “terminate our discussion,” but for different reasons than you. Thanks for helping me see some of the shortcomings I have when trying to convey my ideas to others.
Best of luck. Please send me any links you may happen to find while browsing YouTube or the Internet that give logical arguments for physicalism, materialism, naturalism, or debunking free will. Also, you may want to check out Tom Clark’s site at http://www.naturalism.org/
To: unseenstrings
From: mike
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi
Date: Sep 21, 2010
Hi again,
I have learnt a lot from our discussions… I am aware that my emotions distort my views too… ironically I might have distorted my belief that you perform a lot of black and white thinking… maybe you don’t! – again this is why I prefer face to face communication as there is a faster feedback mechanism in regard to understanding the other person, as people clarify things much quicker, often within seconds.
This is why I don’t like PM’ing too much… it is an inferior form of communication for debating ideas, at least in my opinion. We misunderstood each other often, and yet I think we are reasonable communicators, and as you mentioned earlier there is indeed ambiguity in the English language. Also when speaking to someone face to face, we often know their background so we have extra information. i.e. if you knew me then you’d know that I am an atheist and hence would not believe in predestination, you may well therefore have realised that I meant predetermination from a scientific point of view. I still think I have failed to get my point of view over to you… my fault probably
Anyway it would be great if you find some interesting links related to what we’ve talked about. Good luck debating with other you tubers… it’s not always fun… but I’ve enjoyed talking to you even if I was poor at getting my point across. From your last PM I also realise that I misunderstood you! I am now understanding you communication style a bit better.
Have you ever been told that Jesus died for you? I have. Many times. And over the past few years, I’ve gradually become aware of the psychological consequences of such a belief.
First and foremost, the belief leads to a feeling of obligation. After all, wouldn’t you feel some sense of obligation–a very strong sense at that–to the person who gave his life in order to save your own? I mean, I know in some societies the individual feels he owes his life to anyone who has saved his life, though the rescuer didn’t die in the process. Still, how much stronger is the sense of obligation when rescuer dies?
Most individuals will at least try to see that the children of the deceased rescuer are well taken care of, should he happened to have had any. Even the savior’s widow (providing he was married) or mother is given elevated status as a result of the self-sacrifice.
Also, the same sense of obligation is usually felt towards a group that has or had a self-sacrificing member. Therefore, every nation has stories of dead heroes and statues dedicated to dead heroes (who died to save others) in order to booster the sense of obligation. Naturally, the sense of obligation in this case is termed “patriotism.”
The sense of obligation, in regard to the individual who was self-sacrificing and groups that had a member who was self-sacrificing, is so universal for humans that it may even be instinctive.
The story of a self-sacrificing individual doesn’t need to true to evoke a sense of obligation, but the story does need to be believed as true–which leads us to the second psychological ploy used to coerce individuals into a sense of obligation.
Threats and Intimidation for Disbelief
Children living in the communist world are told that all sorts of hell will result from disbelieving the Communist Creed. Children living under capitalism are told that all sorts of hell will result from disbelieving in the Capitalist Creed. Children living in the Muslim world are told that they shall fry when they die for disbelieving the Muslim Creed. Children living in the Christian world are told that they shall fry for eternity in a literal Hell for disbelieving the Christian Creed. However, these belief systems contradict each other. Therefore, some or all of them cannot possibly be true. Accordingly, anytime threats and intimidation are used for disbelief, the individual should become highly skeptical of the belief system being promoted.
Furthermore, threats and intimidation can have another effect. They can scare the individual into questioning logical thoughts about the matter. This is sort of like coercing children into staying in the house by telling them that a boogeyman will grab them under the cover of darkness outside. Once the children have been scared witless with a boogeyman story, practically no amount of logical persuasion will convince them otherwise. Accordingly, anytime the individual feels uncomfortable about questioning the reality of a story, then that story should be treated skeptically.
The third psychological ploy used to conceal the reality of the situation is to tell the individual that he is free to believe or not believe. But before you readily agree with this common perversion of reality, allow me to point out that this is the logical equivalent of saying you are free to believe in the story of Paul Bunyan or not, which isn’t true. You can read and hear the tall tales of Paul Bunyan, and you can pretend to believe the stories are true, you can even profess that the stores are true to nearly everyone you meet; but if the stories are contrary to your sense of reality, then you would disbelieve, no matter what. You cannot believe something that is totally absurd or unacceptable to your mind. Of course, language can be used to confound the issue, such as saying things like “you are mad at Paul Bunyan and therefore you deny the stories of his life and his existence.” But the people who are in the true state of denial would be the ones failing to accept that you do not believe simply because you have determined some or all of the tales are just absurd or too unbelievable.
The Ontogeny of Belief
To understand another primary causative factor involved in belief one must realize that the emotions rule mental processes. When a person doesn’t feel any strong emotion about a subject–say for instance, whether or not it is proper to eat collards and cornbread on Friday–then the subject can be discussed without emotional influence. Therefore, to understand strong belief, one must understand how emotions are developed.
The human being is born with an instinct to FEEL the emotions others display. For example, nearly thirty years ago my wife was holding our infant daughter in her lap. She said, “Hey honey, watch this,” and proceeded to hold her face close to the child and make a clownish grin. The baby went to kicking and giggling with delight. My wife switch her expression to a face that looked sad enough to have made even Buster Keaton envious. The baby became tense, her tiny hands closed into fists, she wrinkled her face and let out a wail that could have awaken the dead. My wife switched her expression to the clownish grin again and tears quit flowing and giggles and coos were again being emitted by the babe. My wife switch our daughter between these two states until I stopped her out of fear that damage would be done to the child.
The behavior of infants in such instances has been termed “mirroring” behavior. And I think the term is very misleading. Obviously the image in a mirror doesn’t feel any emotion as you stand before it. But my child’s tears were real. That is, my child was FEELING the emotions that her mother was displaying. This was at a time before my child had acquired language.
During the acquisition of language, the child is taught to feel and relate certain utterances to emotional states. Utterances and emotions are so intimately intertwined that they become as one–the utterance causes the emotion to be evoked, the emotion causes the utterance to be thought or spoken.
Would it be possible to teach a child language, as we all know it, if the instructor was to wear a mask so that facial gestures couldn’t be related to the utterance being spoken? What if the instructor also spoke through or used a speech synthesizer, so that all emotional tonal variances would be erased from utterances?
The human being is the most emotional animal in existence; and emotion is intimately tied to human language. Furthermore, Christians have been taught lots and lots of emotional associations in regard to the story of Jesus. Logical discourse doesn’t stand a chance against the emotions that the average Christian feels. That is, humans are severely handicapped when it comes to using logic in regard anything they feel strongly about; and Christians are only human.
Here are the facts presented so far:
1. The possibility exists that the story of Jesus “dying to save others” is a story told merely to prey upon the individual’s sense of responsibility–to make him (or her) feel obligated. Undoubtedly, the story would generally have that effect anyway. So, since a story of Jesus dying for me could have been invented to trick me into feeling obligated to him or to the group that claims to be his representative, then I should be highly skeptical of the story, which I am.
2. The possibility exists that the story of Eternal Damnation was invented to scare the individual into a believing in the story of Jesus, and thus into a feeling of obligation. So, since the story of Eternal Damnation could have been invented to coerce me into unquestioning belief (regarding the story of Jesus), then the threat of eternal damnation should be doubly questioned, which I do; and the threat makes me even more skeptical about the story of Jesus.
3. If I am told that Jesus died for me but I must believe the story in order to be “saved,” then at this point the story becomes purely a psychological ploy. Suppose, for instance, me, you, and my brother were in a boat out on a lake doing some fishing. Suppose you slipped and were knocked unconscious and fell overboard. Suppose one of us saved you. Does your knowledge or belief affect the fact that you were saved? Would you become “unsaved” merely because you questioned if I saved you, if my brother saved you, or if you really fell overboard? No, such skepticism couldn’t “unsave” you. So, either Jesus died to save humanity or he did not. And if we are told we must believe the story in order to be saved, then the threat causes the story (of the supposed sacrificial death) to take on the character of little more than a subtle manipulative psychological ploy. Present belief is irrelevant to whether a previous act had any sort of deterministic impact (natural/supernatural) on reality.
4. Since I am not free to believe just any story presented to me, due to the fact that I cannot believe something that I strongly feel (on the basis of emotion) is untrue, nor can I believe something that is too absurd for my mind to accept, then I should question the truthfulness and motives, or the logic, of a story-teller who insists that I am free to believe his story or not.
5. Language is intimately tied to emotion. Every logical discussion stands a chance of being contaminated by emotions, even if the emotions are not displayed. No human can logically discuss a matter he feels strongly about, since the human justifies his feelings with “logic” (rhetoric) and not vice versa.
In Brief
Yes, I have been told a thousand times over and a thousand different ways that Jesus died for me. And for the majority of my life I believed it. But, as we live life, we each encounter different and sometimes unusual circumstances; and such things have an effect on us and the we think. Thus, things happened in my life that resulted in my perspective changing. I now see that the story of Jesus is an illusion. The story is filled with emotionally loaded improbable narrations. The story has psychological ploys that are designed to evoke a feeling of obligation. The story uses threat and intimidation in order to coerce the individual into belief. The story also has boogeyman-like threats that are designed to scare individuals witless. I’ve regained my wits. I’m not scared anymore. I feel no emotional attachment to the superhero of a tall tale titled, The Story of Jesus. I no longer feel obliged. I can now discuss the story and Jesus by considering any logical possibility.
More people die from suicide than from homicide in the United States. Males are at least four times more likely to die from suicide as are females. However, females have 2-3 times more attempts than males do. And females are much more prone to seek medical and/or psychiatric treatment than males.
Suicides are more likely to occur during periods of socioeconomic, family, and/or individual crisis. Suicides also have a much greater frequency during holidays, when friends and family get together; those uninvited to such gatherings often feel despised and/or abandoned.
Now, the major cause of suicide is primarily due to the fact that the human is instinctively a pack/herd animal. And most suicides depend on herd/pack instinctive mechanisms. For instance, most suicides arise out a feeling or fear of being abandoned by the herd/pack, and/or fear of an attack resulting from herd/pack outrage, and/or fear of loosing ones place in the pecking order (social status), and/or the feelings of self-loathing and/or disgust resulting from the treatment (or fear of such treatment) coming from the pack/herd concerning a particular experience one has. In fact, under certain conditions, a person will literally self-destruct as the result of a particular experience.
For instance, it once happened that a New Zealand chief of high rank and great sanctity had left the remains of his dinner by the wayside. A slave, a stout, hungry fellow, coming up after the chief had gone, saw the unfinished dinner, and ate it up without asking questions. Hardly had he finished when he was informed by a horror-stricken spectator that the food of which he had eaten was the chief’s. “I knew the unfortunate delinquent well. He was remarkable for courage, and had signalised himself in the wars of the tribe,” but “no sooner did he hear the fatal news than he was seized by the most extraordinary convulsions and cramp in the stomach, which never ceased till he died, about sundown the same day. He was a strong man, in the prime of life, and if any pakeha [European] freethinker should have said he was not killed by the tapu [or tabu] of the chief, which had been communicated to the food by contact, he would have been listened to with feelings of contempt for his ignorance and inability to understand plain and direct evidence.” This is not a solitary case. A Maori woman having eaten of some fruit, and being afterwards told that the fruit had been taken from a tabooed place, exclaimed that the spirit of the chief, whose sanctity had been thus profaned, would kill her. This was in the afternoon, and next day by twelve o’clock she was dead. A Maori chief’s tinder-box was once the means of killing several persons; for, having been lost by him, and found by some men who used it to light their pipes, they died of fright on learning to whom it had belonged. So, too, the garments of a high New Zealand chief will kill any one else who wears them. A chief was observed by a missionary to throw down a precipice a blanket which he found too heavy to carry. Being asked by the missionary why he did not leave it on a tree for the use of a future traveler, the chief replied that “it was the fear of its being taken by another which caused him to throw it where he did, for if it were worn, his tapu” (that is, his spiritual power communicated by contact to the blanket and through the blanket to the man) “would kill the person.” For a similar reason a Maori chief would not blow a fire with his mouth; for his sacred breath would communicate its sanctity to the fire, which would pass it on to the pot on the fire, which would pass it on to the meat in the pot, which would pass it on to the man who ate the meat, which was in the pot, which stood on the fire, which was breathed on by the chief; so that the eater, infected by the chief’s breath conveyed through these intermediaries, would surely die. – From The Golden Bough /by Sir James Frazer
In regard to our above example we must ask, “What mental mechanisms within the human would cause him (or her) to self-destruct? And what type of indoctrination and/or treatment would be required in order to modify/or develop a mechanism/tendency capable of such function? And how can the human be made to overlook the obvious and falsely rationalize the effect of an experience?”
Three facts stand out in our example. 1. The spectator who observes the experience is stricken with horror. 2. The person who has the experience–once he (or she) had been advised the object was previously touched by the chief–falls into such an absolute state of depression and despair that death follows as a result. 3. The Maori would experience feelings of contempt toward anyone who stated that it was not the actual experience of touching the object previously touched by the chief that caused the death, but the irrational belief in such happening.
We know that the reaction of an individual to an experience has a lot to do with how others within the herd/pack (peers) react. Now this next example is directly related to our first example. For instance, you eat some food in a restaurant and the cook charges in from the kitchen and says it was discovered that a box of rat poison had fallen into the food. However, the cook was mistaken, not realizing your food had been served before the box of poison had fallen into the pot. Nevertheless, the emotion displayed by the cook and spectators, combined with the horrifying “news,” could cause you to suffer so much anguish and despair that you might stand a chance of having a heart attack. At that point, it could be stated that you died of an illusion. Yet, the death would have occurred as a result of the firm conviction that rat poison is poisonous to humans and the assumption such had been ingested. Still, the Maori perception that a touch of the Chief will “surely” cause death seems to be a stronger conviction than the belief that rat poison will “surely” cause death. Thus understanding is important as to how and why conviction can be establish without the necessary proof to support the conviction (bearing in mind the reaction of others isn’t proof).
Here is another example of the individual’s reaction to an experience based on instinctive acquisition of emotions expressed by the pack/herd (peers): Say you saw a youngster running along and some bigger boys ran up and grabbed him. They slammed the boy into the ground, knocking the breath out of him, and busted his lip in the process. All the while spectators gasped in horror. Do you think this experience would be traumatic for the youngster? OK, now, what if a coach slapped the boy on the back and said, “good job son,” and a bunch of cheerleaders were jumping up down, screaming words of encouragement, and the spectators were clapping and hollering, “Way to go kid!” How do you think that experience would effect the cognitive processes of the youngster? Now be careful not to overlook the obvious and falsely rationalize the effect of the experience? The obvious was the reaction of the group/pack (peers) and the instinctive acquisition of the emotions they expressed. (Cheerleaders and crowds do have a causal effect on the attitude and functionality of a team.)
The behavioral school of psychology says the positive reinforcement during and immediately following an experience results in the individual seeking to repeat the experience. The cognitive school of psychology says the rationalizations of the individual to an experience determine whether the individual repeat the experience on not.
Cognitive models have two obvious problems. 1. The behavioral model hold true even when the individual does not have the language necessary to “rationalize.” 2. The findings of “split brain” experiments suggest that one side of the brain will “rationalize” behaviors originating from the other side, but which it is wholly ignorant of. In other words, apparently the cognitive rationalizing is done after the fact and has more to do with rationalizing a tendency that has already been acquired than it does with actually establishing a tendency.
In my last example of an individual reacting to an event according to the way others react is as follows: Suppose a man an his wife were driving along in their car with their young son and daughter in the back seat. A tractor-trailer driver runs a traffic signal and crosses in front of the man. The man cannot stop in time and his car rams under the trailer, shearing off the top of the car, and decapitating both parents in the process. One head lands in each child’s lap. And the child witnesses the twitches of life fade from the face of the parent.
Now note that chimpanzees have been known to grieve themselves to death at the loss of a loved one. And witnessing the gruesome death of another chimp has traumatic psychological consequences on others. In fact, it can be stated that in its initial stage, the psychological effect of an experience on a chimp is equivalent to the psychological effect the experience will have on a human, and vice versa. And any difference we see is the difference in how each had previously been conditioned to respond, and/or the difference in the way the pack/group (peers) respond to the experience. However, we humans have greater awareness than the chimp. We are aware that the way we react will affect the child’s feeling in regard to the experience. So we control our emotional reactions because the child will instinctive start feeling what we are expressing.
If the child had a religious background we could react by telling the child that mommy and daddy are now in Heaven with God. We give the child sympathy. But not so much so that the child withdraws into a shell of self-pity. I guess you could say we give the child “tough” sympathy in the sense of “tough” love. We give the child encouragement. We try to build the child’s sense of compassion for himself (or herself) and others. (Note I said compassion and not self-esteem, because too much self-esteem can result in overvaluing oneself in comparison to others, and that could be bad.) We don’t start ranting and raving within the child’s hearing about what a terrible thing happened to the child. We don’t start telling others within the child’s hearing that the child’s life is ruined. We don’t start ranting on and on within the child’s hearing about how death would be too good for the truck driver. Why? Well, for one it very possibly could cause the individual to develop such a state of depression that suicide would be inevitable. And secondly, we would be severely traumatizing the child. Sure we can pretend the truck driver caused the trauma; but in truth it would be our reaction to the event and our attitude that would determine whether the child is able to adjust or not; and it would determine the attitude and opinions of the child in regard to the event. Thirdly, the child could develop so much animosity for the truck driver (from the animosity we display) that he (or she) may grow up to be a serial killer of truck drivers.
What have we learned?
1. Should you happen to attempt suicide–or should you happen to contemplate the sensation of the quick flick of the cold steel across your wrist–it is pretty good indication that you have the mentality of a stupid herd animal. (But beware, the stupid herd will blame you or some scapegoat (such as the truck driver in our example) instead of accepting responsibility for their detrimental causal influence, should you happen to go for it.)
2. Your feelings about an experience are not based on something inherent to the experience, but instead on how you have been trained to respond and/or how others responded or respond to the experience.
3. Humans have previously been trained to such a degree so as to pretty much fall dead when a particular event was experienced. That capacity is still within each of us.
4. Humans have previously falsely rationalized the cause-effect relationship of an experience. That capacity is still within each of us. (Bear in mind, in its initial stage, the psychological effect of an experience on a chimp is equivalent to the psychological effect the experience will have on a human, and vice versa. But in the second stage, human language and peer-reaction may enhance or diminish the effect of an experience on the mind.)
