Is the atheistic view/belief/reality that there is free-will? - Thx.

RegularJoe · Jan 17, 2018

i am endeavoring to understand that if i were to become an atheist (not an agnostic) what would my view of free-will (aka, self-will) be ....
that it exists all the time, some of the time, or never;
or, :- ) something i may well be missing all together due, perhaps, to how i have composed and am presenting this question ... :huh:

i am trying to ask the question in a 100% objective manner.
- Many thanks.

bullethead · Jan 17, 2018

RegularJoe said:
i am endeavoring to understand that if i were to become an atheist (not an agnostic) what would my view of free-will (aka, self-will) be ....
that it exists all the time, some of the time, or never;
or, :- ) something i may well be missing all together due, perhaps, to how i have composed and am presenting this question ...
i am trying to ask the question in a 100% objective manner.
- Many thanks.

If you were an atheist there would be nowhere for free will to come from.

atlashunter · Jan 17, 2018

Good question! My answer is, I don’t know. I think it depends largely on what we mean by free will. Sam Harris has a pretty good speech on this topic and says research into the brain is showing that free will is an illusion. It’s interesting to consider.

On a side note if you consider yourself an agnostic then odds are you’re already an atheist sitting on the fence. There aren’t many theists honest enough to admit they don’t know if their beliefs are true.

atlashunter · Jan 17, 2018

bullethead said:
If you were an atheist there would be nowhere for free will to come from.

Ok bullethead... which god do you believe in? ::ke:

You’re in a safe place. It’s ok to come out of the closet. :bounce:

bullethead · Jan 18, 2018

atlashunter said:
Ok bullethead... which god do you believe in? You’re in a safe place. It’s ok to come out of the closet.

Lololol
Like I've stated many times in here, if some diety wants me to know of it's existence then it would know how to do it in a way that would be convincing to me.

I believe "free will" is a made up excuse for all of the things many believers say should happen but do not.

drippin' rock · Jan 18, 2018

The question of free will seems purely academic to me. Does it matter?

atlashunter · Jan 18, 2018

bullethead said:
Lololol
Like I've stated many times in here, if some diety wants me to know of it's existence then it would know how to do it in a way that would be convincing to me.

I believe "free will" is a made up excuse for all of the things many believers say should happen but do not.

Sorry, I misread your post. Thought you said, if I were an atheist. :cheers:

atlashunter · Jan 18, 2018

drippin' rock said:
The question of free will seems purely academic to me. Does it matter?

Reminds me of Hitchens. "Yes I have free will. I have no choice but to have it." :bounce:

ambush80 · Jan 18, 2018

RegularJoe said:
i am endeavoring to understand that if i were to become an atheist (not an agnostic) what would my view of free-will (aka, self-will) be ....
that it exists all the time, some of the time, or never;
or, :- ) something i may well be missing all together due, perhaps, to how i have composed and am presenting this question ...
i am trying to ask the question in a 100% objective manner.
- Many thanks.

Your view of freewill won't be determined by your atheism. The arguments for and against freewill are the same if you're deist or not. I can tell you why I find the notion of freewill suspect as an atheist and I can tell you why I would be compelled to disregard freewill if I were a Christian or even a deist.

ambush80 · Jan 18, 2018

drippin' rock said:
The question of free will seems purely academic to me. Does it matter?

It doesn't seem to matter. It may affect how you view justice as it relates to crime and punishment, though.

RegularJoe · Jan 18, 2018

drippin' rock said:
The question of free will seems purely academic to me. Does it matter?

In my view ... your question is one so very, very worthy that it should be asked about everything our senses tell us that we are perceiving.

RegularJoe · Jan 18, 2018

bullethead said:
If you were an atheist there would be nowhere for free will to come from.

Thanks.

RegularJoe · Jan 18, 2018

ambush80 said:
... I find the notion of freewill suspect as an atheist...

Thanks.

RegularJoe · Jan 18, 2018

atlashunter said:
... I think it depends largely on what we mean by free will ....

Yup ... 'what are the assumptions' always does help a bit

.
Merriam Webster ses:
"Definition of 'free will' -
1 : voluntary choice or decision.
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."
at ....
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will

ambush80 · Jan 18, 2018

RegularJoe said:
Yup ... 'what are the assumptions' always does help a bit.
Merriam Webster ses:
"Definition of 'free will' -
1 : voluntary choice or decision.
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."
at ....
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will

If you really want to dig into the subject, try to find an example of a choice you can make that isn't determined by prior causes.

Israel · Jan 19, 2018

ambush80 said:
If you really want to dig into the subject, try to find an example of a choice you can make that isn't determined by prior causes.

Yes.

Israel · Jan 19, 2018

It has always puzzled me a bit with what ease Webster is resorted to.
I suppose for some it is useful. If it is to be the established standard of meaning, agreed upon by all conversing, then also I suppose there is some utility to keeping everyone drawing closely within some lines. But then, there would have to also be an a priori that drawing within lines is of itself some exquisite or supernal demand.

But what has manifestly happened here?
Ambush (I believe) has pointed out the reference to the square circle in the explanation, the thing that by seeking to explain what "the thing means" has had to manufacture the non existent in support. The lesson of both poverty of language, and its underlying craftiness to support itself as useful and thereby further endorse its ultimate utility over all is exposed.

If I say "spirit is sole communicator" I still have resorted to language. Regardless of whether this is seen as simply another manufacture becomes moot in the extreme for the man to whom it is already revealed that language as we most commonly know it, commonly accept it, is also useless in the extreme...except as method of concealment.

Like the example of choice. Discover all that is not being chosen, and you will discover the only thing remaining that must be. Discover the all that is not being said (or can be) and see what alone must remain.

ambush80 · Jan 19, 2018

Israel said:
It has always puzzled me a bit with what ease Webster is resorted to.
I suppose for some it is useful. If it is to be the established standard of meaning, agreed upon by all conversing, then also I suppose there is some utility to keeping everyone drawing closely within some lines. But then, there would have to also be an a priori that drawing within lines is of itself some exquisite or supernal demand.

But what has manifestly happened here?
Ambush (I believe) has pointed out the reference to the square circle in the explanation, the thing that by seeking to explain what "the thing means" has had to manufacture the non existent in support. The lesson of both poverty of language, and its underlying craftiness to support itself as useful and thereby further endorse its ultimate utility over all is exposed.

If I say "spirit is sole communicator" I still have resorted to language. Regardless of whether this is seen as simply another manufacture becomes moot in the extreme for the man to whom it is already revealed that language as we most commonly know it, commonly accept it, is also useless in the extreme...except as method of concealment.

Like the example of choice. Discover all that is not being chosen, and you will discover the only thing remaining that must be. Discover the all that is not being said (or can be) and see what alone must remain.

You don't know what that thing is anymore than anyone else. You think you do but it's in your head. Better to be an honest man and say "There's this thought in my head. I'm gonna call it Jesus but I can't be sure that's what it really is".

Be an honest man.

JB0704 · Jan 19, 2018

If there is no God, than people are just the survival engines they evolved to be, and everything we do (free will) is a reflection of that evolution. So, something as simple as loving your children is not a choice, but an evolutionary characteristic which enables the survival of the species.

What does that say about folks who do not love their kids? And, what does it say about folks who try to help those kids who are not loved?

bullethead · Jan 19, 2018

JB0704 said:
If there is no God, than people are just the survival engines they evolved to be, and everything we do (free will) is a reflection of that evolution. So, something as simple as loving your children is not a choice, but an evolutionary characteristic which enables the survival of the species.

What does that say about folks who do not love their kids? And, what does it say about folks who try to help those kids who are not loved?

You mean like the animals that abandon their young and other animals who will nurse and raise the young of others that were killed or died?

Maybe the texas couple who adopted 13 kids and had them chained up for years is an example of a god?

Is the atheistic view/belief/reality that there is free-will? - Thx.

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

BANNED

BANNED

Senior Member

I Gots Goats

Of the hard cast variety

Similar threads

Share this page