Research on tweeting shows Christians happier, less analytical

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 30, 2013

Atheism, Religion, Society}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A sample of research that merely ignores demographics:

une 26, 2013 — A computer analysis of nearly 2 million text messages (tweets) on the online social network Twitter found that Christians use more positive words, fewer negative words and engage in less analytical thinking than atheists. Christians also were more likely than atheists to tweet about their social relationships, the researchers found.

…

Overall, tweets by Christians had more positive and less negative content than tweets by atheists, the researchers report. A less analytical thinking style among Christians and more frequent use of social words were correlated with the use of words indicating positive emotions, the researchers also said.

Okay, but so what? There are many more serious Christians in the world than serious atheists. One outcome is that it is not especially difficult for most Christians to spend their social time mainly with people they like and get along with.* These types of situations don’t invite much analysis or many negative emotions.

Also because the net is wide, serious Christians will include many people, probably the majority, who are not especially intellectual. My impression is that most atheists are intellectuals.

In any event, people who belong to small minorities often face more limited social opportunities. The fact that two men are both atheists by no means implies that they will get along. It may increase the chances that they don’t.

I don’t doubt that there are spiritual issues as well. If you believe you live in a universe that doesn’t care whether you love or hate, it may be easier to hate than otherwise. But I leave that part to wiser heads. The main thing is, for any type of validity, this sort of research should be more firmly grounded in demographics.

* In Christian groups, this is often viewed as problem because it hinders evangelism.

Hat tip: Brains on Purpose

Comments

@Axel I'm not dismissing QM, but you Christians dismiss other more important evidence, namely, that there's a observable correlation between people's choices and their backgrounds. Please respond the same question I asked BA77:
If an observable correlation between people’s backgrounds/circumstances and their choices is observed, can you prove free will to be true without proving that such correlation is unexistent or a coicidence?
Proton_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

@BA77: Let's get straight on what free will means: Free will is the abaility to choose between options WITHOUT external forces constraining such choice in any way. Agreed? Free will does NOT mean simply "to choose", because such reasoning is fallacious ("free will implies choosing, people choose, therefore people have free will"). That "choosing implies free will" is religiously motivated. It's the assumption that there are no constraining forces affecting our choices. Well, empirical evidence implies the exact opposite. So, you say quantom mechanics needs free will (although if your concept of free will is "to choose", then it's irrelevant). Now let please answer this: If an observable correlation between people’s backgrounds/circumstances and their choices exists, can you prove free will to be true without proving that such correlation is unexistent or a coicidence? If you can't prove that such correlation is unexistent or a coincidence, then it's irrational to believe free will is true. Please answer that simple question directly and you'll put my argument to rest, because it's the most important part of my argument.Proton_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Proton, your posts really are incoherent, and seem to be based on erroneous assumptions, assumed to be shared by all, but which are in fact highly eccentric. This is further leavened by your own arbitrary dismissal of the conventional assumptions of others, so that the net overall effect is that you seem to inhabit a kind of intellectual world of your own, with its own, unassailable because arbitrary reference-frame. Rather like my own one, in some respects, although mine are justified, albeit seldom in current scientific terms. QM seemingly seems to be a paradigm which, while extraordinarily successful in actual practice, is eschewed by the atheist Consensus, as mumbo-jumbo, in 'actual theory(!'). So, while you would appear to be an egregious outlier in your discursive, if eccentric musings, you are scarcely alone in ignoring or marginalizing QM theory, as adverted to by Philip in its treatment of free will. You could be a poster boy for the atheist, 'QM theory is mumbo-jumbo' Consensus.Axel_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Proton, to give you a clue as to the monumental hurdle you are facing in quantum mechanics, free will is actually 'built into' quantum mechanics as one of the starting assumptions. i.e. You will literally have to overturn all of quantum mechanics in order to deny free will any objective place in our perception of, and interaction with, reality: An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: Being correct 50% of the time when calling heads or tails on a coin toss won’t impress anyone. So when quantum theory predicts that an entangled particle will reach one of two detectors with just a 50% probability, many physicists have naturally sought better predictions. The predictive power of quantum theory is, in this case, equal to a random guess. Building on nearly a century of investigative work on this topic, a team of physicists has recently performed an experiment whose results show that, despite its imperfections, quantum theory still seems to be the optimal way to predict measurement outcomes., However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html i.e. it is found that there is a required assumption of ‘free will’ in quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was shown in the paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will as a starting assumption in Quantum Mechanics! Of related note as to how solid quantum mechanics is as a description of reality: Philosophy and Physics in the Kadison-Singer Conjecture - 21 June 2013 Excerpt: Kadison-Singer Conjecture. Let A be a discrete maximal abelian subalgebra of B(H), the algebra of bounded linear operators on a separable Hilbert space. Let p : A -> {C} be a pure state on that subalgebra. Then there exists a pure extension p' : B(H) -> {C} of p to all of B(H), and that extension is unique. Proof of this statement provides a very nice assurance, that our experiments really are enough to describe quantum systems as we understand them. http://www.soulphysics.org/2013/06/philosophy-and-physics-in-the-kadison-singer-conjecture/ Moreover, as if the preceding was not devastating enough for the 'no free will' position, denying free will undermines our ability to reason itself thus the 'no free will' position undermines itself as to being logically coherent: Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.htmlbornagain77_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Proton, once again, if you want to deny free will altogether please deal honestly with the evidence from quantum mechanics since that is the empirical evidence that directly contradicts your cherry picked evidence. Declaring your no free will perception of reality to be true without honestly dealing with all the evidence is certainly not indicative of you being forthright in the matter (but then as a automaton with no free will how could you help yourself?)! "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video http://vimeo.com/38508798 Here’s a recent variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights the ability of the conscious observer to effect 'spooky action into the past', thus further solidifying consciousness's centrality in reality. Furthermore in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states: Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,, I consider the preceding experimental evidence to be an improvement over the traditional 'uncertainty' argument for free will, from quantum mechanics, that had been used to undermine the deterministic belief of materialists: Why Quantum Physics (Uncertainty) Ends the Free Will Debate - Michio Kaku - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw footnote: Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas G. Robertson - 1999 Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information. “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.” http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdfbornagain77_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

@Barb, your response didn't add anything already discussed, it was basically you quoting the Bible and saying what you think, which is not bad but irrelevant. I personally see no reason to continue. Besides, I'm going to keep my argument alive here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-split-brain-cases-disprove-the-existence-of-an-immaterial-soul-part-two Join there if you want.Proton_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

How can ‘love’ and ‘compassion’ have a material source, Proton, when matter itself cannot?
Only Christians separate matter from things that emerge from matter (like feelings), but that's only their religious bias, not something that it's inferred from observation. And observation clearly indicates that our behaviour is a function of our background/circumstances (the material), and because our feelings dictate our behaviour then it's rational to believe that feelings have a material source, not an inmaterial soul behind them (even if the ultimate origin was the Creator when it designed the human brain).
http://science-spirituality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/medical-evidence-for-ndes-reply-to.html
NDEs don't prove that free will is real. They only prove (if they're real) that an inmaterial soul exists, but they DON'T prove that such inmaterial soul interacts with us when we're clinically alive. I'm not arguing against an inmaterial soul (I believe in it), but against the idea that such soul interacts with our material body and dictates our choices. Such thing goes against empirical evidence (an existing correlation between people's choices and backgrounds/circumnstances).Proton_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

@Barb, stop it, I’m just keeping this up because maybe I think that eventually something might go through into your head, but apparently Crhstianity has blinded you to an extent I find shoking.
Yes, I view most things through the lens of Christianity. That’s why I don’t hold contradictory points of view on subjects and why I don’t fall for logically invalid arguments. Has Christianity blinded me? Probably not. Consider what the Bible states: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”—Colossians 2:3, 6-8.
You must be kidding. I EXPLAINED THAT already, and clearly, here: I want criminals punished and locked up for two reasons: 1-The world is obviously better without them out there. 2-To show people what happens when they break the law and prevent them for doing so. In any case, I want criminals punished not because they deserve it, but because societies are simply better than way.
Criminals should be punished because they do deserve it, though. Trying to explain to a criminal that what he did wasn’t really his fault (even though it was) but you’re going to lock him up anyway for the safety of other is logically incoherent.
I clearly believe, therefore, that laws should exist to fulfill points 1 and 2. Not because I believe no one deserves punishment I believe that criminals should be free. I have empathy for criminals, but they’re all still bad for society, and the well being of society is more important than the well being of a criminal.
But you haven’t resolved the primary problem: if people aren’t responsible for their behavior (no free will, your argument), then why have laws and prisons? Why should a civilized society decide arbitrarily that some behaviors are wrong if, according to you, nobody is morally responsible for his or her behavior?
You might find it hard to feel empathy and forgiveness for someone you want locked up in prision at the same time, but that’s a limitaton/contradiction imposed by your religion. I don’t put limits to my forgiveness or empathy.
Surprisingly, the Bible does. There are sins for which there is no forgiveness. Jesus said that there is a type of sin that “will not be forgiven.”—Matthew 12:31. Jesus’ warning referred to willful and deliberate “blasphemy against the spirit.” There is no acquittal for this type of sin. “No, not in this system of things nor in that to come,” he added. (Matthew 12:31, 32) Those guilty of such sin will not be resurrected. What is blasphemy against the spirit? It emanates from the heart, revealing a malicious attitude and intent. The purposeful intent to oppose God’s holy spirit intensifies the seriousness of this sin. To illustrate: In some parts of the world, the law distinguishes between murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree on the basis of intent and the way the murder was committed, and it limits capital punishment (death) to intentional or premeditated murder. I know that God forgives in a large way. But his sense of justice impels him to punish those who refuse to obey his moral laws. For this reason, I do put limits on my forgiveness and empathy, realizing that people can choose their behavior accordingly.
What’s the difference between “love” and any other sensation in our brain, like pain, hunger or joy?
Hunger compels you to eat. Pain compels you to yell or cry. Love, on the other hand, compels you to do good to others. Especially does the Bible recommend love. “Besides all these things,” it says, “clothe yourselves with love.” As the greatest proponent of love, Jesus told his disciples: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you.” In his Sermon on the Mount he even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Colossians 3:12-15; John 13:34; Matthew 5:44) Many may scoff at this, calling it weakness, but they pay a price. Science has learned that lack of love is a major factor in many mental ills and other problems. The British medical journal Lancet once noted: “By far the most significant discovery of mental science is the power of love to protect and to restore the mind.” Similarly, a noted stress specialist, Dr. Hans Selye, said: “It is not the hated person or the frustrating boss who will get ulcers, hypertensions, and heart disease. It is the one who hates or the one who permits himself to be frustrated. ‘Love thy neighbor’ is one of the sagest bits of medical advice ever given.” Hunger and pain may always be with you, but people can (and do) choose to withhold love from other people for selfish reasons.
Love might feel mystical and confusing, but that doesn’t mean it’s inmaterial, it just means that our brain is far more complex and intrincated than you think, and love happens to be one very complex feeling. Human brains have far more synapses than there are stars in our galaxy, so you can imagine what happens when they fire to produce a feeling or memory or a desire. The posibilities are endless.
If the possibilities are endless, then why restrict explanations to materialism?
If our Designer created our lungs to breath, our legs to walk and our eyes to see, why is it so hard to believe that the Creator also made our brains complex enough to feel things love and compassion? Just because those things have a material source in our brain, their true origin is still divine.
I absolutely agree with you on this. But if we are capable of feeling love and compassion and acting on those feelings, then how is it that we have no free will? Acting on feelings is free will.Barb_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

'Just because those things have a material source in our brain, their true origin is still divine.' - Proton How can 'love' and 'compassion' have a material source, Proton, when matter itself cannot? It's not exactly helpful to say, 'the possibilities of what God can do are endless' is it? You're beginning to trespass on the manor of the MacGonagle multiversers. Neuroscientists don't have the foggiest idea of the nature and provenance of mind, although there have been empirical indications that there is, in fact, a mind/body dualism: http://science-spirituality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/medical-evidence-for-ndes-reply-to.htmlAxel_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

'Just because those things have a material source in our brain, their true origin is still divine.' How can 'love' and 'compassion' have a material source, when matter itself cannot? It's not exactly helpful to say, 'the possibilities of what God can do are endless' is it? You're beginning to trespass on the manor of the MacGonagle multiversers. Neuroscientists don't have the foggiest idea of the nature and provenance of mind, although there have been empirical indications that there is, in fact, a mind/body dualism: http://science-spirituality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/medical-evidence-for-ndes-reply-to.htmlAxel_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Axel, I just can’t reconcile findings like this: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions. ” — Craig Venter, Trinity College Dublin, July 12, 2012 With the atheist’s claim that they are the rational ones for believing it was not designed. It is not even in the ballpark of ‘analytical’ thinking! :) There seems to be very little difference between the penumbral intellectual development of disaffected, adolescent, secondary-school atheists and their adult, atheist, activist idols, both seeing themselves as ultra cerebral, despite sharing equal susceptibility for belief in mythical creatures, such as the multiverse, which would have defied the imagination of the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen - or indeed, quite possibly, Forrest Gump. A belief in unicorns and pink pixies, which the adolescents laughably ascribe to Christians, would be kind of 'top-of-the range' for the adult atheist intelligentsia, as it would for those Harry Enfield Kevins. Disaffection vis-a-vis God is not a good counsellor. Just as the endless, paradigm-crippling surprises suffered so cheerfully by the evolutionists, are scarcely indicative of a grounded science. But then evolution has always been held by its adherents to transcend the normal definitions relating to science, as though it were metaphysical - which of course it is, under its more honest name of 'atheism'. 'The metaphysics of dirt-worship.'Axel_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

'1-The world is obviously better without them out there.' Better for whom? Certainly not the criminals. Or is it that a 'majority' makes 'good'(god - my initial typo?), a minority, 'bad'. With your use of the word, obviously', you appear to be grounding yourself on a nebulous and indeed, gratuitous, psephology. 'In any case, I want criminals punished not because they deserve it, but because societies are simply better than way.' There you go again. Better? Not in their eyes. What makes you think you are better than a criminal, because you have the kind of worldly intelligence which affords you the knowledge of what levers to pull and what buttons to press, in order to use 'the system' to you own optimal advantage, while, like so many of our confreres (who should know better), not being in favour of modifying the structures that make our Western societies so lethal to the less worldly? Your use of the terms, 'bad for society', and 'well-being of society', in the final analysis, raises the question of respectively defining both, in a manner that would be agreeable to everyone. Criminals are part of society. It's just a dog-eat-dog, nihilistic society we live in however confidently its leaders might pose as 'respectable' citizens; indeed, the rationale for this blog is precisely to counter that internecine canine propensity, as it affects honest scientists, who wish to see science make timely advances, instead of awaiting the passage of a long succession of funerals, (to borrow Max Planck's metaphor), but see their careers ruined by the Consensus malefactors, for their pains.Axel_{July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

@Barb, stop it, I'm just keeping this up because maybe I think that eventually something might go through into your head, but apparently Crhstianity has blinded you to an extent I find shoking.
If no behavior is actually bad but rather predetermined, then why have prisons and laws to begin with?
You must be kidding. I EXPLAINED THAT already, and clearly, here:
I want criminals punished and locked up for two reasons: 1-The world is obviously better without them out there. 2-To show people what happens when they break the law and prevent them for doing so. In any case, I want criminals punished not because they deserve it, but because societies are simply better than way.
I clearly believe, therefore, that laws should exist to fulfill points 1 and 2. Not because I believe no one deserves punishment I believe that criminals should be free. I have empathy for criminals, but they're all still bad for society, and the well being of society is more important than the well being of a criminal. You might find it hard to feel empathy and forgiveness for someone you want locked up in prision at the same time, but that's a limitaton/contradiction imposed by your religion. I don't put limits to my forgiveness or empathy.
How do you use the material (the physical brain) to explain the origin of the immaterial (love)? What’s the best explanation you’ve come across for the physical brain to understand and comprehend abstract concepts like love and compassion?
What's the difference between "love" and any other sensation in our brain, like pain, hunger or joy? Love might feel mystical and confusing, but that doesn't mean it's inmaterial, it just means that our brain is far more complex and intrincated than you think, and love happens to be one very complex feeling. Human brains have far more synapses than there are stars in our galaxy, so you can imagine what happens when they fire to produce a feeling or memory or a desire. The posibilities are endless. If our Designer created our lungs to breath, our legs to walk and our eyes to see, why is it so hard to believe that the Creator also made our brains complex enough to feel things love and compassion? Just because those things have a material source in our brain, their true origin is still divine. I imagine our Creator made an effort to design a physical brain for humans to experience things as close as possible to the love and compassion we might feel once we leave our material bodies, but because such feelings have a source on our brain, they're limited, and we will never feel, during this life, the type of inifite love or glory that we might feel when we finally meet our Creator.Proton_{July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Proton continues,
No, but circumstances DO lead someone to become a theif, and they don’t have a choice even if at the mind level it looks like it.
Everyone has a choice. Everyone. You, me, and everyone else. You can choose to rob a 7-11 or you can choose not to. Simple as that.
The fact that a correlation/pattern exists among thiefs’ backgrounds proves that even if it seems that the thiefs had a choice, such perception is an illusion, because the correlation makes obvious that such choices were constrained from the beginning by higher forces out of their control, and therefore the “choice” was actually determined.
No, it’s not. Thieves choose to steal. There’s no illusion here. There’s no determinism here. People freely choose how to behave every single day, regardless of their circumstances.
I used such an informal phrase because is not really important. By “really bad” I mean criminals that have no way of ever becoming good people for society ever again. Many criminals, after doing time, are ready to return to society and never do bad things again. Others will always be killers, rapers, thiefs, etc. Such criminals are what I meant by “really bad”.
Okay, but the “really bad” criminals—by your definition—would include the serial killers you mentioned previously that you felt deserved empathy. You are completely contradicting yourself here. If no behavior is actually bad but rather predetermined, then why have prisons and laws to begin with?
I agree, however, “justice” is a just a pretty word for “vengeance”. If someone hurt my loved ones, I’d probably want that person to be hurt too, meaning, I’d want justice.
Not all justice is vengeance. The death penalty might be construed this way. Sending someone to prison for molesting a child is justice. Having that person molested in prison is vengeance. There is a difference.
And it’s easy to fall prey of the desire for vengeance, no effort is required to feel it. However I understand that such feelings of hatred and desire for vengeance would betray my empathy for human beings, and it’s harder to forgive, but it’s a better way of living I think.
I agree. I recently read a book on marriage and the family, and the authors made some good points about forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn’t deny the reality of the crime that was committed against us, nor does it condone such behavior. The book stated, “We forgive because it is what God requires of us and what we need, not because our offenders have apologized.” I like the way they phrased the last sentence, indicating that forgiveness is something that we all need. We can’t live our lives consumed with hatred over what someone else did to us (or to someone we love). We obviously feel pain, but we choose not to be continually paralyzed or defined by it.
When did you enter the equation?
You described him as my son. That’s when I entered the equation.
I was talking about that hipothetical son of yours. If God wouldn’t abandon him, then what would He do then? If your son is violent and wants to hurt others, what does God do then? (in your view)
I don’t believe that God would act directly in my hypothetical son’s behalf. That is why parents exist. There are laws in place (the Bake Act, for example) that make provision for the mentally ill to live safely and peacefully in society. My sense of justice (beneficence, nonmaleficence, etc) would require me to keep my son away from others, lest he harm them.
Relying on exceptions.
Ever heard the expression, “the exception proves the rule”? If you claim that our biology determines our behavior, then you have to account for those that don’t fall into that category. Some people deliberately choose to harm others.
That’s YOUR idea of God, an idea that correlates to your religion, nothing else. No one knows the intentions or desires of the creator, and smart people should observe the creation to try to figure it out, not ignore it.
I agree that smart people should try to observe the creation to figure it out (Romans 1:20). But the Bible indicates that God is knowable, even if His ways are higher than ours. It’s not that God is completely unknowable. The general concept of God, regardless of religion, includes the belief that such a person is omniscient, benevolent, and timeless. Most people associate God with goodness and holiness.
If there’s a path to knowing the Creator, then it should be by watching it’s Creation (meaning, observing empirical evidence). That’s as close as we can get to the truth. A religious book shouldn’t be trusted if it contradicts the observations from the creation don’t you think?
You should try reading the Bible. When it touches on science, it is scientific.
My argument from a damaged brain is to prove that our behaviour has a physical origin in the brain, not that all bad behaviour is produced by a damaged brain.
Then where does bad behavior come from? I don’t see why you dislike neurons so much… Neurons are fine. Couldn’t live without them.
Now, talking seriously, there’s no reason to believe that things like love, compassion, etc can’t have a material origin in the brain.
They might. But where’s the evidence for this?
The value of those things does not depend on whether they are material or inmaterial. Those things can be completely material, meaning, that all that we feel and dream is the product of our past and present circumstances and just neurons in our brain, and yet be completely divine, because no matter how material the world we live in is, it’s still the Design of our Creator, and so it’s divine by definition. Our feelings don’t have to be inmaterial to be important, we know they are important because the Creator made us to feel them.
How do you use the material (the physical brain) to explain the origin of the immaterial (love)? What’s the best explanation you’ve come across for the physical brain to understand and comprehend abstract concepts like love and compassion?Barb_{July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

@Barb
Bad circumstances do not excuse bad behavior.

Nobody is born a thief
No, but circumstances DO lead someone to become a theif, and they don't have a choice even if at the mind level it looks like it. The fact that a correlation/pattern exists among thiefs' backgrounds proves that even if it seems that the thiefs had a choice, such perception is an illusion, because the correlation makes obvious that such choices were constrained from the beginning by higher forces out of their control, and therefore the "choice" was actually determined.
How would you determine the “really bad” criminals if no behavior is really bad, as I am understanding your thinking?
I used such an informal phrase because is not really important. By "really bad" I mean criminals that have no way of ever becoming good people for society ever again. Many criminals, after doing time, are ready to return to society and never do bad things again. Others will always be killers, rapers, thiefs, etc. Such criminals are what I meant by "really bad".
I think that civilization needs some sense of justice
I agree, however, "justice" is a just a pretty word for "vengeance". If someone hurt my loved ones, I'd probably want that person to be hurt too, meaning, I'd want justice. And it's easy to fall prey of the desire for vengeance, no effort is required to feel it. However I understand that such feelings of hatred and desire for vengeance would betray my empathy for human beings, and it's harder to forgive, but it's a better way of living I think.
I don’t believe God would abandon him, but I do believe that God would expect me to prevent harm from coming to other people
When did you enter the equation? I was talking about that hipothetical son of yours. If God wouldn't abandon him, then what would He do then? If your son is violent and wants to hurt others, what does God do then? (in your view)
Criminals got a really bad hand of cards.
Not all of them did, see above.
Relying on exceptions.
Because God expects people to do good, to be just, and to practice loving each other. He does not expect, nor does he want to see people murder, steal, and lie to each other.
That's YOUR idea of God, an idea that correlates to your religion, nothing else. No one knows the intentions or desires of the creator, and smart people should observe the creation to try to figure it out, not ignore it. If there's a path to knowing the Creator, then it should be by watching it's Creation (meaning, observing empirical evidence). That's as close as we can get to the truth. A religious book shouldn't be trusted if it contradicts the observations from the creation don't you think?
Were any of these companies being run by brain damaged people? No? Then how do you explain their behavior?
My argument from a damaged brain is to prove that our behaviour has a physical origin in the brain, not that all bad behaviour is produced by a damaged brain.
Because we are much more than simple neurochemistry. We have the ability to love, to show compassion, to be self-sacrificing, and to be honest. Neurons have little to do with any of those concepts.
I don't see why you dislike neurons so much... Now, talking seriously, there's no reason to believe that things like love, compassion, etc can't have a material origin in the brain. The value of those things does not depend on whether they are material or inmaterial. Those things can be completely material, meaning, that all that we feel and dream is the product of our past and present circumstances and just neurons in our brain, and yet be completely divine, because no matter how material the world we live in is, it's still the Design of our Creator, and so it's divine by definition. Our feelings don't have to be inmaterial to be important, we know they are important because the Creator made us to feel them. Material as we are while we're on this world, we're still divine, we're still important, and we still have a purpose, because we were Designed.Proton_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Proton,
First off, I don’t believe in evolution (I’m an ID). Secondly, I don’t believe it’s okay to take a human life, I just don’t believe that the perpetrator is ultimately guilty for such action because he was just given an “unfortunate hand of cards to play the game of life” so to speak (a combination of bad genes and/or brain disorders and/or bad circumsnatnces, all things that the perpetrator had never control over from the start).
Okay, but what about soldiers who take human lives as a matter of their chosen profession? What about self-defense? Bad circumstances do not excuse bad behavior.
Not at all! The fact that I can forgive criminals (because they’re not ultimately guilty for their behaviour) doesn’t mean that I want criminals free. I want them all locked up. In fact, I’d have no problem if a law was enforced to simply exterminate all (really bad) criminals instead of filling space in prisions. The world would be better.
Well, I do believe criminals have a choice in the matter. Nobody is born a thief; their desire to take something that they can’t have (money, jewelry, whatever) makes them a thief when they steal. Again, one’s circumstances do not excuse such behavior. And how, exactly, would you determine the “really bad” criminals if no behavior is really bad, as I am understanding your thinking?
You and me both want criminals in prisions, the difference is in the reasons. You want criminals to be punished and locked up because you believe they deserveit. I want criminals punished and locked up for two reasons: 1-The world is obviously better without them out there. 2-To show people what happens when they break the law and prevent them for doing so. In any case, I want criminals punished not because they deserve it, but because societies are simply better than way.
I think that civilization needs some sense of justice, which by necessity includes punishment for wrong behavior. I do believe that some criminals do deserve to be in prison, because they know that stealing is wrong, yet they steal anyway. They know that murder is wrong, yet they kill anyway. Bear in mind that not all criminals come from what you describe as “bad circumstances”—what about these people?
I didn’t generalize. I was specific. This was my argument: 1-The brain is physical/material. 2-Brain damage can affect personality/behaviour. 3-Therefore personality/behaviour exist physically in the brain. 4-Therefore personality/behaviour are determined by physical laws. It’s just a raw argument but you get the point.
Your first premise is sound, but the second premise may or may not be true. Brain damage can affect one’s behavior (remember the case of Phineas Gage?) but it doesn’t always affect one’s behavior. Brain damage can cause a person to be completely helpless, as in the case of Terri Schiavo. And the third and fourth premises don’t take into account that our personality and behavior can and are affected by abstract concepts outside of physical laws such as love (from family and friends), anger (again, from family, friends, or bad circumstances), or compassion (from teachers). Reducing everything to physical laws leaves a lot out, and doesn’t accurately reflect how humans think.
Christians’ lack of empathy also bewilders me. I believe it’s a bit of immoral and shows a lack of empathy and a lack of desire to connect with other people when they wish other people to be punished.
Here is the reason why I don’t have empathy for serial killers: they choose to behave the way they do. Interviewed before his death, Ted Bundy admitted that he grew up in a close-knit, happy family. How, then, did he become a serial killer? He blamed pornography. I blame his desires. Ted Bundy did not have brain damage; his I Q was above average. His personality was not only shaped by physical laws, it was shaped by what he chose to put inside his head (pornography, for one thing). He did what he did because he wanted to. Not because of bad wiring. Not because of bad circumstances. Also consider that the Bible does not excuse bad behavior. The wicked, after all, are to be punished so that the meek can inherit the earth (Psalms 37:22, 29; Proverbs 2:21,22). God also has a sense of justice, and he expects people to adhere to right behavior.
People are not categorized into “good” or “bad”. Everyone of us was given a hand of cards and we do our best with it.
The Bible indicates that all people are inherently bad, or imperfect. They have a choice of whether or not to do good. They might have had difficult circumstances growing up or in adulthood, but this does not give them an excuse to steal, murder, or otherwise engage in felonious behavior. They do not get a “get out of jail free” card because they grew up in a ghetto. They do not get empathy when they deliberately cause bodily harm to other people because they want to.
Some people get really bad hands. They shouldn’t have to pay for it, they should be pitied.
I do pity some of them, but I do expect them to adhere to the conduct that normal civilized society states is acceptable. That means no stealing, even if you’re poor. That also means no murdering, even if you’re angry at the other person.
You and me were given a good hand of cards. Serial killers got a really bad hand. I feel sorry for them, for they’ll never enjoy life like you and me do. You should pity them, not wish them to be punished. Their entire life is terrible already for they’ll never know love or compassion. What can be more terrible than that?
Explain Ted Bundy. John Wayne Gacy. Jeffrey Dahmer. Ed Kemper. Pick up a book by a FBI profiler sometime. They delve into these cases and you would be surprised at how many serial killers are perfectly normal people from perfectly functional, happy families. Their mere existence blows your argument right out of the water. Brain damage isn’t a factor in any of their cases, so then how is their behavior to be pitied or justified or empathized with?
If you had a son and he had got a really bad hand of cards (like that woman in my previous comment whose son had frontal lobe damage and became sadistic/violent), would you want God to abandon him even if it’s not his fault to have a damaged brain that causes him to be violent?
No, but I would make certain that he was in a position (preferably a home or mental institution) where he could not harm anyone else. I don’t believe God would abandon him, but I do believe that God would expect me to prevent harm from coming to other people (the ethical principle of beneficence).
Criminals got a really bad hand of cards.
Not all of them did, see above.
Societies must make them pay for their mistakes to teach others not to follow the same path. But why would God punish them for having a bad hand? Why would God punish someone violent who was unlucky enough to have brain damage?
Because God expects people to do good, to be just, and to practice loving each other. He does not expect, nor does he want to see people murder, steal, and lie to each other. Yet people choose to do those things every single day. And the people who do murder, steal, and lie aren’t always poor, brain damaged people. Look at big business: Enron. WorldCom. Tyco. Were any of these companies being run by brain damaged people? No? Then how do you explain their behavior? Should they be pitied because they wanted and chose to steal from others?
Why should God punish any human at all?
Because we are much more than simple neurochemistry. We have the ability to love, to show compassion, to be self-sacrificing, and to be honest. Neurons have little to do with any of those concepts. We choose to behave the way we do. And God expects us to make the right choice.Barb_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Keith's comments on the absence of influence of an inmaterial soul in the brain (the argument from "two minds in one skull") in this thread, give great support to the case that free will is just an illusion. For the record, I believe Keiths argument against an inmaterial soul holds ONLY under a religious definition of an inmaterial soul, as he describes in his comment #230 on that thread. The "two minds in one skull" argument doesn't disprove the existence of an inmaterial soul that acts beyond the material world or after a person's death, it just disproves the idea that such inmaterial soul, if it exists, influences our memory, knowledge and actions on the material world.Proton_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

@Barb, very interesting stuff, I see that you've completely misunderstood me all along (it was my fault maybe for not clarifying what I thought was obvious, no blame on you):
You are claiming that to plan to take a human life is perfectly okay because…evolution and genes and stuff?
First off, I don't believe in evolution (I'm an ID). Secondly, I don't believe it's okay to take a human life, I just don't believe that the perpetrator is ultimately guilty for such action because he was just given an "unfortunate hand of cards to play the game of life" so to speak (a combination of bad genes and/or brain disorders and/or bad circumsnatnces, all things that the perpetrator had never control over from the start).
Should we empty the prisons and allow the inmates to live within a 5-mile radius of your house? Would you feel safer? After all, any and all behavior isn’t the responsibility of the inmates
Not at all! The fact that I can forgive criminals (because they're not ultimately guilty for their behaviour) doesn't mean that I want criminals free. I want them all locked up. In fact, I'd have no problem if a law was enforced to simply exterminate all (really bad) criminals instead of filling space in prisions. The world would be better. You and me both want criminals in prisions, the difference is in the reasons. You want criminals to be punished and locked up because you believe they deserve it. I want criminals punished and locked up for two reasons: 1-The world is obviously better without them out there. 2-To show people what happens when they break the law and prevent them for doing so. In any case, I want criminals punished not because they deserve it, but because societies are simply better than way.
And if our behaviour, personality and decisions have a material origin, then they are affected by physical laws, in which case we are ultimately not responsible for our behaviour and decisions because they are predetermined by external causes.
How would physical laws affect one’s personality? For example, how does gravity affect one’s compassion? How does Newtonian physics affect one’s personality?
I didn't generalize. I was specific. This was my argument: 1-The brain is physical/material. 2-Brain damage can affect personality/behaviour. 3-Therefore personality/behaviour exist physically in the brain. 4-Therefore personality/behaviour are determined by physical laws. It's just a raw argument but you get the point.
The fact that you are actually defending the behavior of some of the most reprehensible people on the planet makes me shake my head in wonder.
Christians' lack of empathy also bewilders me. I believe it's a bit of immoral and shows a lack of empathy and a lack of desire to connect with other people when they wish other people to be punished. People are not categorized into "good" or "bad". Everyone of us was given a hand of cards and we do our best with it. Some people get really bad hands. They shouldn't have to pay for it, they should be pitied. You and me were given a good hand of cards. Serial killers got a really bad hand. I feel sorry for them, for they'll never enjoy life like you and me do. You should pity them, not wish them to be punished. Their entire life is terrible already for they'll never know love or compassion. What can be more terrible than that? If you had a son and he had got a really bad hand of cards (like that woman in my previous comment whose son had frontal lobe damage and became sadistic/violent), would you want God to abandon him even if it's not his fault to have a damaged brain that causes him to be violent? Criminals got a really bad hand of cards. Societies must make them pay for their mistakes to teach others not to follow the same path. But why would God punish them for having a bad hand? Why would God punish someone violent who was unlucky enough to have brain damage? Why should God punish any human at all?Proton_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Proton writes:
That’s your little bias over there. The evidence, in any case, would imply that serial killers are created, NOT “self” created. Two VERY different things. However you put the word “self” there conveniently to put the blame on the serial killer.
Are you actually defending the behavior of serial killers? Really? You are claiming that to plan to take a human life is perfectly okay because...evolution and genes and stuff?
The evidence speaks for itself.
Not in the way that you want it to. Jeffrey Dahmer, a cannibal serial killer, blamed the teaching of evolution for his deranged behavior. Ted Bundy blamed a habit of reading violent pornography. Both were raised in middle class households without abuse, to my knowledge.
Most serial killers share common patterns in their past and brain conditions (even in other secondary traits like having higher than average intelligence and being healthy and fit), and therefore the choice of killing others can’t be attributed to free will. If they were predetermined to be violent people then they didn’t have a choice from the start.
Everyone has a choice. The choice of whether or not to kill another human being is an example of free will: freedom of choice. Their genes aren't making them do this; their desires are. The fact that you are actually defending the behavior of some of the most reprehensible people on the planet makes me shake my head in wonder.
And if our behaviour, personality and decisions have a material origin, then they are affected by physical laws, in which case we are ultimately not responsible for our behaviour and decisions because they are predetermined by external causes.
How would physical laws affect one's personality? For example, how does gravity affect one's compassion? How does Newtonian physics affect one's personality? We have to obey physical laws. We can choose to break them, though, but that would be detrimental to our health and well being. But again, we have a choice: to obey or disobey. The same applies with moral laws and behavior. You don't get to say that any behavior is okay because of material laws. It's a non sequitur. Should we empty the prisons and allow the inmates to live within a 5-mile radius of your house? Would you feel safer? After all, any and all behavior isn't the responsibility of the inmates.Barb_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Another way to look the last comment, is this way: If a material cause that produces a material damaging effect on the brain (like getting hit in the head, a tumor, a virus, an infection, etc) can cause a change in our behaviour, personality and decision-making capabilities (vast amounts of empirical evidence support this), then that means that our behaviour, personality and decisions have a material ORIGIN (material causes can't affect non-material things). And if our behaviour, personality and decisions have a material origin, then they are affected by physical laws, in which case we are ultimately not responsible for our behaviour and decisions because they are predetermined by external causes.Proton_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Front Lobe damage affects personality and behaviour: http://www.braininjuryinstitute.org/Brain-Injury-Types/Frontal-Lobe-Damage.html
"The frontal lobe controls motor skills like hand/eye coordination, conscious thought, emotions, and even your personality. As a result of a brain injury, frontal lobe damage may impair your attention span, motivation, judgment, and organizational capacity."

Your frontal lobe, which consists of a right and left lobe or hemisphere, is the hub of "who you are"; your emotions and personality. Both lobes deal with social, emotional, motor, and sexual behavior, as well as problem solving, decision making, and memory.
If our front lobe has such an effect on our decisions, behaviour and emotions, and the front lobe is a physical thing determined by physical laws, then our emotions are decisions are also predetermined by physical laws, NOT free will.Proton_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Obsessive–Compulsive Behaviour: A Disorder of Decision-Making http://anp.sagepub.com/content/39/9/757.abstract
The dorsolateral, orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortices are engaged in multiregion neural subsystems that interact with each other to retain information online, manipulate options, make choices and maintain goals. These interact with the limbic regions, especially the amygdala, in relation to history of reward and emotional valence relating to a choice, and the basal ganglia for behavioural execution. Abnormalities in these regions also characterize OCD and related disorders, therefore leading to problems in making some decisions that are affect-laden by nature or association.
If mental disorders can impair normal judgment and affect decision-making, can people with OCD be held accountable for their choices?Proton_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

So, it’s not that serial killers are born. They’re self-created.
That's your little bias over there. The evidence, in any case, would imply that serial killers are created, NOT "self" created. Two VERY different things. However you put the word "self" there conveniently to put the blame on the serial killer. The evidence speaks for itself. Most serial killers share common patterns in their past and brain conditions (even in other secondary traits like having higher than average intelligence and being healthy and fit), and therefore the choice of killing others can't be attributed to free will. If they were predetermined to be violent people then they didn't have a choice from the start.Proton_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Proton now contradicts himself:
In short, there’s no doubt that there’s a correlation between brain damage and/or bad nurturing in the creation of a serial killer. If free will was real such patterns in their backgrounds shouldn’t exist.
In the final piece of your quote: "there is also strong evidence that nurture plays just as strong a role. People who support this theory believe that behaviors are learned and that violent behavior is learned in childhood. The evidence of severe physical and mental abuse is abundant." So, it's not that serial killers are born. They're self-created. And making a choice to kill another human being is an example of free will. Why do you not understand this simple point?Barb_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Serial killers, who could be considered to have made unforgivable sins, are predestined to become so: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1698
A startling amount of criminals on death row have been clinically diagnosed with brain disorders. A recent study has demonstrated that 20 out of 31 confessed killers are diagnosed as mentally ill. Out of that 20, 64% have frontal lobe abnormalities. (1) A thorough study of the profiles of many serial killers shows that many of them had suffered sever head injuries (to the frontal lobe) when they were children. (...) An example of a serial killer that had suffered sever injury to his frontal lobe is Albert Fish, better known as the Brooklyn Vampire. At the age of seven he had a severe fall off a cherry tree which caused a head injury from which he would have permanent problems with, such as headaches and dizzy spells. (2) After his fall he began to display many violent tendencies, including an interest in sadomasochistic activities. (...) As the study of the profiles of serial killers progresses many similarities in their pasts, and in their recurring actions become eerily apparent. As children many suffered through traumatic childhoods, usually being physically or mentally abused. From this fact, it emerges that all reported cases of abuse committed against serial killers was done by their mothers.
O mother of a child with frontal lobe damage writes:
I have a child with a frontal lobe brain injury. The authenticity of these behaviors being caused by this specific injury is genuine. He has the best of care and the best of everything available to children with a frontal lobe brain injury however that does not change his natural instincts to see blood and gore. If someone falls he will always come to ask if there is any blood or injury he can see. When he was four years old he asked if we could open the cat so he could see the inside. We have other children, one of them is a boy. They were all reared exactly the same and none of them are abused. My son's neuropsychologist agrees that the aggressive behavior and the disturbing behavior are brought about by the injury itself to the frontal lobe. This is common sense. My son also shows many signs of impulse control problems... you do the math...
----------- Serial Killers are the product of brain disorders and bad backgrounds: http://voices.yahoo.com/serial-killers-born-made-2972483.html
The frontal lobe is considered responsible for much of the behavior that makes possible stable and adequate social relations. Self-control, planning, judgment, the balance of individual versus social needs, and many other essential functions underlying effective social intercourse are mediated by the frontal structures of the brain." (Rutigliano) Some scientists believe this area of our brain is our moral compass or conscience. A study done at four universities found that individuals with damage to the frontal lobe had abnormal social emotions in real life. The study showed they lacked empathy and compassion. (Brain Damage) (...) While there is reason to believe that nature may play a role in the creation of a serial killer, there is also strong evidence that nurture plays just as strong a role. People who support this theory believe that behaviors are learned and that violent behavior is learned in childhood. The evidence of severe physical and mental abuse is abundant. One extreme example is Henry Lee Lucas who was beaten by his prostitute mother for years. His mother would dress him as a girl to go to school and force him to watch her have sex with men. Many of these men were violent.
In short, there's no doubt that there's a correlation between brain damage and/or bad nurturing in the creation of a serial killer. If free will was real such patterns in their backgrounds shouldn't exist. Should God punish serial killers, one of the worst types of human beings, if it's not their fault to be that way?Proton_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Morty Lefkoe, with his sucessful beliefs elimination program, shows why free will is false: www.mortylefkoe.com If free will was real, then such programs, based on eliminating negative conditioning beliefs developed early in life, would never work. However they do, and Morty's success shows this clearly. There's no surprise of course, Morty's program WORKS because he's basing it on a simple premise: "All that we think and choose to do now depends on beliefs we developed earlier in life". In other words: Free will is false.Proton_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

@Barb,
Proton, this is my last comment.
That means I get the last word and just one last comment? I'll make it count then. You being someone that seems to be afraid of giving a close look to your own beliefs when they're challenged, I doubt you'll read all of this, but I'll write this as a record of the delusional reasoning behind Christians for future reference. Although you can at least take a look at what's in bold.
If you believe in God, then how is it that you deny free will? Free will is a component of all the major theistic religions.
Why would I trust some book which origins can't be confirmed instead of empirical observations of the world? There's NO reason to get involved in religions at all, even as a theist. I prefer to observe instead of being told what to believe and what to think, which is what religion does. And why do people trust so easily in what's written in some book is a mistery to me. Althought the answer might be simple: Because they were taught so.
You are most certainly not open to Christianity, based on your posts. Try a little intellectual honesty for a change.
Actually, I was open to Christianty when this thread of comments started, but after seeing how delusional Christians can get, I see that there's no truth to be found in it. So yeah, I pass.
You have repeatedly stated that you believe Christians are deluded. Are you now denying this?
I never said that such idea was the base of my arguments. "Christians are deluded" is one of the conclusions, not a premise.
If you’ve never read any religious texts, I’d suggest you start. It might help to coalesce your worldview a little better.
Seeing how damaging religion can be to someone's observation abilities (you're my recent proof), I'll pass. I'm afraid that once someone accepts certain religion, they can never stop filtering their observations to fit it. You're evidence of this, and I'll save this comments for future reference.
I don’t believe I’m committing any logical fallacy. My definition of free will is acting as a free moral agent with freedom of choice. You don’t have to like it. You do have to deal with it if you’re going to debate me.
LOL yeah, that's exactly what's wrong with you. You impose your belief as the conclusion (seen in your "better" representation of the syllogism), that's the whole idea behind the delusion of the Christians. They assume as right what they believe and don't even dare to consider it's falsehood. There's no argument because Christians are not even open to any challege to their views at all in the first place. You're so afraid of even considering that your premise is an assumption and not a fact that instead of doing that you prefer to commit yourself to a fallacy of presumption. It maches perfectly what religion is: "Believe in it and don't ask questions". That's why religion is the worst place to start in search for truth. You can't find the truth if you don't ask questions.
My argumentation is fine. Yours, however, could use some work. I pointed this out several posts before, but you seem to have conveniently ignored it.
You sound like a Darwinist debating an ID, Darwinists love to claim that the other person is the one who doesn't understand their fallacious and question-begging arguments.
Wow, capslock of rage there. You getting upset or something?
I sense the one running out of patience or arguments is not me.
As I pointed out, free will is freedom of choice (assumption). If people choose to delude themselves and dull their senses with alcohol or drugs, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. Free will exists (assumming the conclusion). My point is made (yet again) (by fallacious reasoning!).
Easy to win an argument with circular reasoning right?
Christians believe in the concept of free will.
I suppose that should make the concept of free will automatically true right? LOL Such non-answers from your just keep helping my case.
We can discern between right and wrong at all times, but sometimes we don’t. (...) You are making no sense at all.
LOL! I guess "at all times" = "sometimes". Yeah...I'm the one not making sense.
The Bible clearly states that our consciences can become “seared” and fail to work properly. Our consciences can accuse us (make us feel guilt) or excuse us (rationalize our behavior).
"Why bother to observe the world around me and think for myself? The Bible has all the answers!"
There are alternatives, which you are clearly not even bothering to consider.
I gave you an alternative to free will: people's backgrounds. Did you consider that possibility? Of course not. You just cover your ears and scream "Free will is choice and therefore choice is free will! Proton you're wrong!" But non-fallacious arguments to support that is too much to ask right?
I am not even going to get into the rest of your argumentation.
Of course not, why would you dare to consider a REAL challenge to your core beliefs? Why would you want to consider the possibility that your beliefs are wrong? It's much easier to remain deluded and not ask any questions right?
Claiming that free will CAN BE IMPAIRED AT ALL TIMES, though, is illogical. You have absolutely no proof that this is true.

Free will can be impaired. To suggest (as you do) that it is always impaired is not even close to being provable empirically.
Don't need to get all defensive. Yes, I HAVE proof. The proof is the correlation between brackgrounds and choices I've been talking about all along (which you don't like discussing apparently, because it's just too strong of an argument). Luckily, such correlation does not need to be believed in, it can be TESTED in real life and be proved empirically. So you can act like a child all you want and scream that I'm wrong and that my logic is off etc etc, but it's useless because the correlation I'm discussing can be tested and clear all doubts once and for all. All that is needed to prove this correlation is to make a simple experiment consisting in this: 1) Make a list of common life-changing choices among a large group of people. 2) Then proceed to investigate each of those people's backgrounds in detail to find patterns and matching background elements. If such investigation returns a high correlation between certain patterns and elements in all similar life changing choices, then this would be a huge and very reliable indication that such decisions were affected by such background elements. Incidentally, the larger the sample size for this investigation and the more details are retrieved from every person's background, the more reliable and powerful the correlation would be. For example, find a person, let's say a young man, write down a number of his most important choices, especially choices involving clear life changing paths, and then investigate that persons' background, including personality, parents, brothers and sisters and their personalities, where did he lived and grew up, cultural habits, familiy values, whether he fought with his siblings a lot or they were close, the school he went to, his teachers, the education he received, the religion he was taught (or lack there of), his last job, previous jobs, former friends, the personalities of such friends and activities they did together, also health conditions, past and present ones, the religion of his girlfriend or wife and how much time he was with her (to see possible influences), political influences, etc etc. The list can go on and on. Then make the same experiment with other person with similar background or similar present situation. And then repeat the experiment with as much people as possible. The bigger the sample size, the better. The reason this experiment would be a success in proving free wil is an illusion is the same reason why detectives trying to find a criminal's motive look at the background of the criminal: Because there are PATTERNS in criminal behaviour corresponding to determined characteristics in criminals' backgrounds. This is OBVIOUS to any rational person and proves free will doesn't exist. Free will, as "the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances" is a complete delusion and can be easily proven false by proving, with the experiment I mentioned, that choices ARE in fact constrained by external circumnstances. Keep deluding yourself all you want though! I'm gonna save a copy of this thread of comments as proof of fallacious Christian reasoning, just in case a debate arises in the future. Thanks for your time, I started this discussion with a simple question: "Is it possible that the fact that so many IDs in UD are Christians implies some rationality or truth behind Christianity that I'm failing to see?". The answer was a resounding "no", such rationality is unexistent, and the conclusion is Christians are Christians because they prefer to ignore the obvious empirical evidence of external constraint to fit their worldview. As far as I can tell, I'm done here (however, I might add some more examples to this thread of comments, not to get a response, but to enrich it a bit more, to make it a sort of resource I can come back to later).Proton_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Proton, this is my last comment. You clearly do not want to listen to anything that contravenes your worldview, and I have no desire to waste my time arguing on the Internet.
Of course this is false because I’m a THEIST.
If you believe in God, then how is it that you deny free will? Free will is a component of all the major theistic religions.
I never said I base (and I certainly don’t base) my argument on “Christianity is false” or “Christians are deluded”, you imagined that by yourself. I’ve always been open to Christianity, and therefore I don’t have a filter against it (unlike you, who have a filter pro-Christianity).
You are most certainly not open to Christianity, based on your posts. Try a little intellectual honesty for a change. You have repeatedly stated that you believe Christians are deluded. Are you now denying this?
I don’t have a filter other than observation and I’ve made that clear. Or to put it in other words, I have the filter of someone who is a theist who has never read any religious text. So my filter would be “theism”. But nothing else.
If you’ve never read any religious texts, I’d suggest you start. It might help to coalesce your worldview a little better.
This is a fallacy of presumption, you’re doing this: 1-Choosing implies free will. (ASSUMMING THE CONCLUSION) 2-People choose. 3-Therefore people excercise free will. But making a choice involves free will ONLY IN YOUR VIEW, and it’s the view that’s under discussion here, so you can’t use it as an argument.
I don’t believe I’m committing any logical fallacy. My definition of free will is acting as a free moral agent with freedom of choice. You don’t have to like it. You do have to deal with it if you’re going to debate me. The syllogism is better represented thusly: 1. Free will is freedom of choice. 2. People have freedom of choice. 3. Therefore, people have free will.
Just to clarify, most of your your previous arguments, if not all of them, were made assuming the premise “choosing is excercising free will” is a fact, so I invite to look back to some of your responses to my previous arguments and see if they still hold they way you thought they did.
My argumentation is fine. Yours, however, could use some work. I pointed this out several posts before, but you seem to have conveniently ignored it.
So what if he has an impaired sight? And I’m not talking about the eyes only, I’m talking about his mind. What if he can’t “see” clearly enough to discern the right path? What if he’s too drunk, or too high, or too ignorant, or too naive, or he’s threatened? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT, WHERE DOES FREE WILL GO THEN?
Wow, capslock of rage there. You getting upset or something? As I pointed out, free will is freedom of choice. If people choose to delude themselves and dull their senses with alcohol or drugs, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. Free will exists. My point is made (yet again).
So this is the truth about the Christians, they WANT TO and MUST believe that everyone has the ability to discern between right or wrong at ALL times, no exception. This is true right?
Christians believe in the concept of free will. You might want to get started reading some of those religious texts. You’re arguing against someone with a position that you don’t begin to understand.
Christian logic I assume, because that makes no sense whatsoever. If we CAN be affected by the decisions of others, but we ARE NOT affected, then it means for all practical purposes that we actually CAN’T be affected. However you said we CAN. This type of argument from you just shows the internal contradiction Christians have to go through to sustain their belief in free will.
We can discern between right and wrong at all times. Sometimes we don’t. The Bible clearly states that our consciences can become “seared” and fail to work properly. Our consciences can accuse us (make us feel guilt) or excuse us (rationalize our behavior). You are making no sense at all. A person can be affected by another’s choice, but they don’t have to be. Case in point: you choose to eat chicken for lunch. That doesn’t affect me at all. You are again using faulty logic. You are getting into either/or reasoning, which doesn’t work here. There are alternatives, which you are clearly not even bothering to consider.
Our feelings can affect our choices, but they don’t always affect our choices. This means you admit that sometimes our feelings impair our free will. You’re admitting again that free will CAN be impaired sometimes. Why do you have so much trouble realizing that free will can be impaired at all times by everything we feel, have felt, or have ever lived through?
I already stated that free will can be impaired through human imperfection, another facet of Christian belief. Claiming that free will CAN BE IMPAIRED AT ALL TIMES, though, is illogical. You have absolutely no proof that this is true.
The idea that free will can be impaired only on some situations (and not all) is purely ad hoc to the case of free will and can’t be inferred from observation, meaning, only assuming a priori that free will exists can someone claim that rational choices are almost never impaired. This is a clear case of a fallacy of presumption.
You are again falling victim to “either/or” reasoning. Free will can be impaired. To suggest (as you do) that it is always impaired is not even close to being provable empirically. Your logic is way off base, and I find it almost amusing that you refuse to see this.
“Overcoming” something does not imply free will, why do you use it as an argument? Did I ever say that people don’t have the ability to overcome situations? No. I just said that such overcomings were determined to happen because of the combination of elements from one’s background (doesn’t rule out divine intervention).
Why would overcoming a difficult background not imply free will? Surely Chris had the free will to choose to better himself and make a good life for his son? How is this not freedom of choice? I am not even going to get into the rest of your argumentation. You have little concept of what I believe or why I believe it, and you do not seem to care. Read up on Christianity and then get back to me.Barb_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

@Barb, I'm waiting your opinion on my last comment (unless you don't want to provide one, in which case we can consider this discussion ended)Proton_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

I made that last comment without reading your previous one (#32, which you posted while I was writing my last comment) so now I'll respond to that one and your last one (#34) as well:
Proton, you are a sad little atheist.
I remember saying I was a theist.
You are seeing everything through the lens of non-theism.
Of course this is false because I'm a THEIST.
you are filtering everything through a lens that states that Christians are deluded

your preconceived notions (Christians are deluded)

you observe everything through the filter that states “Christians are deluded”.
I never said I base (and I certainly don't base) my argument on "Christianity is false" or "Christians are deluded", you imagined that by yourself. I've always been open to Christianity, and therefore I don't have a filter against it (unlike you, who have a filter pro-Christianity). I don't have a filter other than observation and I've made that clear. Or to put it in other words, I have the filter of someone who is a theist who has never read any religious text. So my filter would be "theism". But nothing else. ------- Ok so above I was just trying to clarify some misconceptions you had about me and my arguments. Let's move on to your arguments now: I've finally found the culprit:
FREE WILL IS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE. Really, what part of this statement do you NOT understand?

Free will is freedom of choice. If you cannot or will not see that simple point for the truth that it is...
This is a fallacy of presumption, you're doing this: 1-Choosing implies free will. (ASSUMMING THE CONCLUSION) 2-People choose. 3-Therefore people excercise free will. But making a choice involves free will ONLY IN YOUR VIEW, and it's the view that's under discussion here, so you can't use it as an argument. Of course NONE of my arguments were ever gonna be considered if you were assuming all along that "choosing = free will" is true. "Choosing = Free will" is what's under discussion! Now that that's cleared, I hope this gives end to all your arguments the type of "If you can choose, you can excercise free will". Such arguments are fallacious and comprise what I'm trying to refute. Just to clarify, most of your your previous arguments, if not all of them, were made assuming the premise "choosing is excercising free will" is a fact, so I invite to look back to some of your responses to my previous arguments and see if they still hold they way you thought they did. So, let's move on.
He lives in a drug-infested neighborhood. He sees police cars there all the time. He sees the wealth of the dealers, but he also sees the ruined lives of the junkies. He chooses not to become a junkie. That is free will.
So what if he has an impaired sight? And I'm not talking about the eyes only, I'm talking about his mind. What if he can't "see" clearly enough to discern the right path? What if he's too drunk, or too high, or too ignorant, or too naive, or he's threatened? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT, WHERE DOES FREE WILL GO THEN? So this is the truth about the Christians, they WANT TO and MUST believe that everyone has the ability to discern between right or wrong at ALL times, no exception. This is true right? Do you think that EVERY human in world knows at ALL TIMES how to correctly discern between good and evil? Even if they're drugged, or drunk, or high, or too ignorant, or easily manipulated, etc etc? You must believe that's true because otherwise free will is false for THOSE who don't know how to discern good from evil either because they were badly taught or their current state of mind is impairing their abilities to think properly. AGAIN, WHAT HAPPENS TO FREE WILL THEN? Answer that please. I think that Christians will say "in those cases God understands the mind was not reasoning well and so He forgives them". But if alcohol and drugs can impair free will, can also anger or depression blind rational thought? Or pain? Or happyness? Can being in love impair judgement? Can previous experiences impair judgment? If I suffer from severe social anxiety, wouldn't my decision of going out or stay in home be completely DIFFERENT if I was an extrovert? Respond honestly to the last question. What's the answer? ... You see? Christians have a delusion in which people's choices are not ultimately the result of their feelings, conditions or experiences. But you have to twist your thinking a lot to believe that the answer to the question above is "no"! I can give you hundreds of examples of the same type of situation as the question discussed, and each and all of them would convince any rational person that free will is FALSE. Another problem in your argument:
Morals can be learned regardless of one’s background.
Please give me an example of learning of morals that can be applied to EVERY human that has ever lived, especially those with mentors that taught them evil. This is important, because you MUST believe that morals can be learned regardless of the backgroung because judgement based on free will can't exist for an individual that can't discern between right or wrong. Also, the fact you say "Morals can be learned regardless of one’s background" means that you believe that until some point in their lives, humans don't know morals, and therefore they can't be judged for choosing evil. Is that so?
We CAN be affected by the decisions of others but it doesn’t mean that we ARE affected.
Christian logic I assume, because that makes no sense whatsoever. If we CAN be affected by the decisions of others, but we ARE NOT affected, then it means for all practical purposes that we actually CAN'T be affected. However you said we CAN. This type of argument from you just shows the internal contradiction Christians have to go through to sustain their belief in free will.
Our feelings can affect our choices, but they don’t always affect our choices.
This means you admit that sometimes our feelings impair our free will. You're admitting again that free will CAN be impaired sometimes. Why do you have so much trouble realizing that free will can be impaired at all times by everything we feel, have felt, or have ever lived through? The idea that free will can be impaired only on some situations (and not all) is purely ad hoc to the case of free will and can't be inferred from observation, meaning, only assuming a priori that free will exists can someone claim that rational choices are almost never impaired. This is a clear case of a fallacy of presumption. You must concede that once you start treating the premise "choosing implies free will" as an ASSUMPTION (as you should, because is what's being questioned), many things that made sense to you before might not make so much sense now.
Let’s take a real world example. I am laid off from my job. It’s my supervisor’s decision. Does it affect me? Yes, in that I no longer have a job. Does that mean that I will never again have another job, or that I will soon spiral into depression? No, it does not. Because I can control how I react to this decision based on free will.
You wrote this when you were taking "choosing implies free will" as a universal fact. Now that such premise is taken as the assumption it is, don't you think that it's possible that: "I can control how I react to this decision based on free will" .. Can really be: "I can control how I react to this decision based on how my parents raised me to face tough decisions and my previous experience facing tough decisions" (or any other similar example)? Does that make sense?
Here’s a real world example: Chris Gardner, the real life character from the Will Smith movie “The Pursuit of Happyness.” He was homeless. However, he overcame that background to be successful on Wall Street.
"Overcoming" something does not imply free will, why do you use it as an argument? Did I ever say that people don't have the ability to overcome situations? No. I just said that such overcomings were determined to happen because of the combination of elements from one's background (doesn't rule out divine intervention).
Did his past affect his feelings? To some degree, yes. Did he overcome his past to improve his present? Undeniably, yes.
Text in bold is assumption. Text in italics does not imply nor suggest free will at all. ------------------ So, a bit of a summary: "Choosing means excersing free will" is an ASSUMPTION. Why do I think that assumption is wrong? Because of the correlation I started this argument with (similar backgrounds, similar choices). Correlation does not imply causation? Maybe, but it SUGGESTS causation, and when the correlation is high and the sample size is huge (every human on earth) then that suggestion should be taken seriously. Also, "correlation does not imply causation" is used when there could be a Z factor affecting BOTH variables (background being X and choices being Y) and generating a false correlation. However, this is in a mathematical sense. WHAT would Z be in the case of human experiencie? I invite you to give me the answer to that question. Why do you think that assumption is right? Because: 1-You claim that there are some exceptions to that correlation. This is not a fact, is an assumption based on either ignorance or deliberate minimization of all the elements of someone's life that can affect choices, or plain refusal to accept the existence of such elements. There's no reason to believe that only few elements of the background affect choices, when a correlation is high suggesting that most or all elements of someone's background affect choices. 2-Because you claim that some "assumed" exceptions to the correlation prove the correlation wrong, which is nonsense. If 1 out of 10 people escape bad backgrounds, then implying that people escaping bad backgrounds are the rule is deliberately ignoring the observable evidence. Observable evidence of human experience suggest a strong correlation between background and choices, in this case "9 out of 10 people with bad backgrounds end up with a bad future" (and this is just a raw example). Implying the opposite is deliberately ignoring the observable evidence for the sake of supporting your worldview. So what supports your assumption that "choosing implies free will" is true? The Bible plus a purpuseful bending of observation. What supports my assumption that "choosing implies free will" is false? A very suggestive correlation between people's backgrounds and their choices (and I'm being conservative by saying "suggestive", because if we could see ALL of everybody's backgrounds, I have no doubt that the correlation would be total. I think an experiment could even be developed to test this correlation in real life with real people). The argument is as clear as it can get now. Whose arguments involve fallacies? Who's assuming the most? Which party depends more heavily in belief and which one depends more heavily on evidence?Proton_{July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply