some questions regarding FREE WILL?

Musta,

Do you like being called a calvinist? Neither do I like be calling a calvinist.

Yes indeed, reasonable people believe the truth based on new evidence. What new evidence are you presenting regarding the bible ? None None None, might I say it again so you get the point: YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO NEW EVIDENCE REGARDING THE BIBLE It's just the same old worn out arguments that have been around for centuries. By the way, the number is two billion Christians, not a billion.

Some things in the bible are spiritually discerned. How can you expect to discern them when you have no spirit?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Absolutely, the word of God is a two edge sword.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Good luck arguing with God. You have a soul but you don't have a spirit -- let us say you are "spiritually challenged" to put it in the modern vernacular, in which the english language itself is becoming a euphemism for everyone's shortcomings, excuses, and diluted truths. And regardless of how much you might feel good about yourself, you enter the argument without all the information. Neither do I have all the information, but I have more than you.

regarding the bible, and having it taken away you said:

And now you see christianity through the eyes of the devil, and that is not a good thing. He smiles when you say that, he hears the dinner bell ringing, and it makes him so hungry. "How much longer must I wait for the lost little baby chick to walk into my jaws," he says. God says, "please don't do it, I don't want to watch you die" and you say "I will, I will, I will, because I know what's best for me."

If you beleive the bible isn't true that really doesn't change your fate.

And how am I supposed to pronounce this new name I have been given, is "xian" pronounced like "Zion" which sounds jewish? So we continue to make a euphemism out of the english language, until it no longer describes anything.

regarding an answer you said:

You can't say God didn't try:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Yes, I did, and that was kind of you. Again, Jesus is the God I worship.


About your parents:

I apologize if I "smothered you with the bible."

Your personal statistics say you were born in 1986. Could you please make the correction? Well I see that you already have, thank you. If it was already 1976, please forgive me, I have a slight case of dyslexia. This also hurts my spelling.

dyslexia web page

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It does not bother me in the least.( I was just trying to make it clear, I'm an atheist.

of course not,for the time being, but what will the future hold.

I dont feel any loss, I'm much better for it, ( where are those special parts of the bible, can you elaborate.)

unless he's drunk, druged, or in the local lunatic asylum/church

but the word of god should be love, so now you understand, why I refer to you god as evil.

no I have no soul either.

I got more than you'ooo (na na, na na na.) do you, do you really.

as you should know by now, or unless your a complete moron, I am an atheist, I have no believe in god/gods, the devil/demons. so this statement is just stupid childish crap.
and it's also childish to print giant letters, it does not get your point across any better, it just make you look like a fool.

it does for me as I believe in a different fate to you.

pronounced christian, exactly as you would say xmas, instead of christmas, it's just easier.

who that evil bastard.

"I'm british, I have studied the bible, qu'ran, torah, and I'm currantly checking out the vega's

though it was nice being refered to as nineteen again, I wondered why and checked my own profile, and it was wrong, so I corrected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Musta,

I'll give you a hint, they were saying the same thing 2000 years ago:

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

You can't feel loss for something you never had.

We don't drink or do drugs, our typical worship service has 8,000 people, and we are well behaved.

So here is the delimma: should God be loving and go soft on wrongdoing by standing by and letting one person do in another, or should he protect us from wrongdoing by punishing those that inflict wrongdoing on us? You can't have it both ways, yet you will say God doesn't love when either choice is made. Hence you expect the impossible.

Yes I do, can you tell me how it feels to lose a parent? I've been there and you haven't. Plastic understanding doesn't work.

about xian:

If you come up with a new word, shouldn't it make phonetic sense?

Don't expect any visitors in hell.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and theres more non-religious now, good aint it.

exactly, thats a chalk writes both ends arguement.

exactly, your learning well done.

you dont have to drink or take drugs, but one out of three is fine by me, lunatic are also behaved once there given there fix.

I dont want it anyway thank you, I told you it was evil.

yes, my mother is my stepmother I've known her for eleven years, my real mother died when I was fifteen, I have to younger halfbrothers.
please think before you speak/write.

my old brothers name sa'id, sad for short, my slightly younger brother is called mustafha, must for short, xmas is not a new word it just a shortening with same phonetic tones, I dont understand why that bothers you so much.

I wont, as I wont be there, you have to believe in it first, I dont.

 

Musta,

Well I won't complain about 2 billion christians either. The world population 2000 years ago was only 175 million total people. You look at the cup half empty and I look at it half full.

Oh I see now. You agree with Carl Marx when he says "religion is the opiate of the masses." Hence Russia became a marxist-atheistic government. It failed in one major way -- communism and the absense of hope doesn't motivate people, it causes them to be dehumanized and withdraw from society. No wonder alchoholism is such a problem in Russia. I know a missionary working there. Carl Marx didn't understand human nature, and apparantly you don't either.

Thanks for enlightening me. Now I know that having a choice is evil. Shame on God letting people chose to murder one another -- he should just destroy them -- right? No maybe he should just ignore it and let them kill each other, right? Maybe he should put everyone in a straight jacket so they can't hurt themselves or anyone else, right? I'll have to remember this one it is a good example of how unreasonable and obtuse atheism is -- a perfect picture of damned if you do, damned if you don't, and damned if you don't do anything -- nice choices you have given God. Let's see how you live up to them when you stand before him, and he has no choices for you. Do you not know that whatever judgement you use on others (like you are doing with God), he will also use the same on you? So you judge yourself with you own beliefs.

I am sorry your mom died. Did any of your friends know how it felt? Maybe not, but at least they tried to help you (I hope).

Here in the USA "X-mas" was an attempt by the jewish population to de-christianize christmas. There is always an undertone in changing a name, it's like saying the original name is not good. If it bothers you to say "christ" and you feel better with an "x", ok then. It just sounds odd.

 

lets look at this 2 billion, and then devide it by the 34000 different sect of xianity,Ie catholic, mormon, protestant, etc etc.
that works out 59000 per head, not so hot now is it.(34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations.)

stalin was a catholic, I have never been pro-communism, if you think being an atheist/humanist equates to communism, thats up to you but thats not the normal point of view.
however that is an excellent quote by marx and so true.

you seem to have missed the point, I 'm having a hard time getting this through, I have no belief in a god, therefore have no fear of a god, so threating me with gods wrath go'es straight over my head,

of course they knew and they did help, everybody has someone they lost in there family, it does'nt only happen to me and you.

not that I trying to cause an agruement, but I'm sorry I cant believe that, jews dont celebrate xmas.

dont bother me,I dont give it a second thought, it just five letters less.

 

musta,

Actually, musta, you need to divide 2 billion by 2 billion because no two people on this planet have exactly the same opinion about everything in this world. Or haven't you noticed that yet? The christians do agree on the big point (and the only one the matters) --> Do you believe Jesus is the "Son of God"? Christians say "yes", everyone else says "no".

Exactly the point my dear Musta, Jews were offended by stores with a "Merry Christmas" sign in front of them. They have a shopping season that relates to Honaka. Merchants recognized their sensitivities and took "Christ" out of "Christmas" to improve business. Christ IS an offensive subject to jews.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

How much money does it take for you to sell your soul? You don't think you even have a soul, so I guess you just give your soul away. But you do have a soul, might I give the dictionary definitions of the word "SOUL":

1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b
3 : a person's total self
4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : LEADER
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : FERVOR
6 : PERSON
7 : EXEMPLIFICATION, PERSONIFICATION <she is the soul of integrity>
8 a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers b : NEGRITUDE c : SOUL MUSIC d : SOUL FOOD e : SOUL BROTHER

You believe your "soul" dies when you die, to be more exact.

Might I demonstrate a little "soul" for you in a Negro originated spiritual music style called "blues." Check out the following song from my music web site:

Will's Blues

Tell me musta, where does the enjoyment of music come from? Is it some animal instinct? I don't think so. Music is proof that we do have a soul. Do you have a better explanation? Music has a complete theory behind it concerning how to evoke emotion with sound. People differ in their music preferences because of things going on in their souls and lives at a given time. If a loved one just died, for example, the attached song would not be appropriate.


I have influenza, and I'm not up to much discussion. I hope it has helped you. Maybe someday it will. Take care,

Woody

 

mustafhakofi,

I still maintain that any punishments or rewards given, do not negate a persons freewill.

I would appreciate your opinion on that?


If you agree with this statement, then it is irrelevant whether god punishes or sends to hell or heaven. Freewill still exists.

If you disagree with this statement, it means that, none of us have freewill whether christain, atheist or deist alike. As society constantly imposes punishments and rewards on us for every decision we make, none of us can ever be free.

Which is it??

 

I should know better than to step into this "mustafhakofi / woody" cross fire, but...

Both sides have indicated that they are choosing their belief and both hold there own version so strongly that it is clear neither will convert the other. In view of this, I want to slightly alter the exchange, which BTW has impressed me with the (unfortunately unusual) civil tone. (Congratualtions to you both.)

I would like to know both your views about "choice." Both of you seem intelligent enough to recognize that there is a problem in making "choice" consistent with the laws of nature/God. That is, there could be not real choices made if the future is determined, as LaPlace believed. Likewise, Quantum Mechanics, QM, does not give any possibility for real choices - It only permits the illusion that we make choices, which are actually made by QM when the mixed state of the wavefunction is forced into the pure state of one of its components, deep within the molecular processes of the synaptic interchange between neurons in my brain.

I anticipate that Woody will state that God briely modifies His laws, opening up the option for the "soul" to make a choice, even though without this miracle (or change in God's laws) no real choice is possible, but I do not want to put words into Woody's mouth. (This guess of mine for his view is the best I could do, if I held his beliefs.) I think the miracle that occurs in the grocery store, when I chose Hunt's (rather than Hind's) beans is a little hard to belive in, but perhaps this is only because, as an agnostic, I may be closer to mustafhakofi's views.

If mustafhakofi has every worried about how he could logically have genuine free will, GFW, instead of the illusion of it that QM permits, as I did for many years, I direct him to my solution to the GFW problem, presented in the attachment. Musta may not like my solution as it requires him to be a non-material body, but not in anyway to be a "soul" or other violation of physics etc.

Again I step into the middle of this cross fire because, IMHO, it will go on, essentially with out change, until one of you grows tired. My request for your views about choice (or GFW) at least may cause a new exposure of our logical positions, and I would genuinely like to know what two intelligent representatives of their very different positions think about how and why we make choices. (I am assuning that both do think they make real choices, as most every tends to think this, but certainly a logical reply for Musta is that: "No we don't make any choices. - QM makes them, not me.")

PS (via edit): While I was typing the above, Light Travelling was also brave (or foolish?) enough to step into the M/W cross fire. Fortunately, He is also asking (more compactly) for the same thing as I am: Both of your views on free will, choices (and let me now add: "moral responsibility.")

 

Billy T,

I appreciate the civil response you have provided. It is refreshing, and I have found there are much better things in life than trading barbs, music being one of those good things. By the way, what is a QM?

I think agnosticism is a much more logical belief system than atheism. At least you are willing to admit that you don't have all the information needed to write off the supernatural. As they say in hypothesis testing: You have to proove the non-existence of something in order to believe that it does not exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist to proove the non-existence of God.

I will try to answer your question about free will. Love by definition is a choice. You choose to love someone or not to love someone. God chose to love man. God gave man a free will to either love God or deny Him. When I decided to love God I chose to. In my christian belief system (salvation by grace) my free will is now gone, but that is the way I want it. I do not want to be like Adam and Eve, rather I want to be like Jesus. That is the choice I made. Musta has decided she wants to be like Eve, to be her own god, as it were, to trust knowledge as her ultimate reality. I do not want to speak for musta, but that is the view I have of her opinion.

Might I quote a proverb:

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death

When a man trusts in his own knowledge this eventually leads to death. God holds man to a higher standard than man conceives, even though man tries hard on his own.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God's way for man to escape death is a free gift that he gave. But man does not want it. If God is for real, and Jesus really did die on a cross to save mankind, isn't it understandable that he would be angry with those that reject Him? He did all the work, and now look at man -- is there an excuse? NO.

 

Quoting summary from your post of 1/25:

How is "Will" eternal? I my view, as expressed in the attachment to my recent post below, Not only does "Will" terminate permanently with death, but it ceases to exist every night when my body is in deep, dreamless sleep.

Your post asking W&M to comment on free will, choice, moral responsibility, cause me to read back further in this long thread and I found your post of 1/25 so I now have the above question for you.

 

Woody,

I have to agree with billy T. There is no point in quoting scripture at someone who doesn't believe in the bible - they wont believe it! You need to address arguments in a more rational manner.

You say you dont have freewill because you are a christian, but you obviously do because you chose to be a christian - or did someone force you. And at anytime you can rechoose to become a non christian, although you probably wont.

Also, when you say "if god is for real" please do not limit this to a christian version of god.

 

Well I gues it comes down to belief systems again. I believe that we have a soul, which lives after physical body dies. I believe that will originates in the soul and is therefore eternal.

Your belief system is different so you will not agree with this. ref. your above post.

 

QM = Quantum Mechanics, the current best understand of what you surely would call "God's Laws" (for the universe). Personally, I have no understanding as to why they are as they are, except for the "Anthorpromophic Principle", AP,(excuse my poor spelling).

Because of your question and fact in my post I have already equated QM to Quantum Mechanics, there is a strong posibiliy that you do not know much about physics, especially about QM & AP. Thus I will briefly state the essence of the AP: In a physicist's explanation of the origins of life,our solar system, etc. (Which I do subscribe to, and do not think necessarly precludes a God, only that the seven day creation of Genesis is the best the writers could do given their level of understanding of physics.) could only exist if it is essentially as it is. (Vey small changes in the "physical constant" of God's Laws would not have allowed solar systems to form, life to evolve on planets etc. = AP. (BTW, do you think/belive it has on zillions of planets as many, including me, do, or is Earth some unique choice of God's?) If you are ignorate about QM, It is too much for me to try to teach - Search and read about it.

I recognize that your text here is just lead in to the text i have not reproduced, so perhaps it is not fair for me to isolate it and the critic it. but....
It struck me as ironic that you would select (dare I say "chose") "love" for your example of a choice. This because I belive that I do make choices, but I am not sure "love" is one of them!To illustrate this, many people "fall in love" against their "will" - Not the right time in their lives, need to finish school, can't even pay their current expenses, etc.

I think our bodies work very much like those of other primates (except in minor details like man has lost the ability to produce his own vitamine C as all other primates and most of the "higher animals" can etc.) Thus I think "love" is more a choice of the body, not me. (read my attachment to understand that, like you, I do not think I am a body, but like Musta, I do not think I am a "soul" either.) the mechanism I suspect my body uses to decide who I will "fall in love" with has a lot to do, IMHO, with special chemicals called phermones. Consider the following experimantal facts:

If a litter of mice are surgically taken from thier mother's womb, and raised to sexual maturity separate from their siblings, but in the company of other mice so they have normal psychological experiences, and then all are reunited in a large cage with many other mice of the of both sexes, they will not mate with their siblings.
That is, in ways we do not fully understand, but certainly have to do with their unique pheremones, they "fall in love" with mice that are not siblings. If they were to mate with siblings, their genes would be less likely to pass down into the next generation.
I don't think a good Christian like you need be upset or try to deny these facts. What will probably up set you is my believe that the explanation for this is in their evolutionary history: Darwin's ideas about how it worked (which I do accept, again not necessarily any refutation of God, only showing how clever His laws of evolution are {if they are his, and not some consequence of the AP above mentioned.}. The mating with sibling, even those that you have never seen, is discouraged (as it is in all human societies I know of) by these "clever laws", the origin of which this agnostic is uncertain. Please excuse my style with parends inside parends etc.

 

Thanks for the answer. We can agree to disagree. I would however ask that you cogitate a little about my attachment, as it is a "paradigm shift" that has a lot of "Explanitory Power" and I dare say the idea is new to you, so you have not thought much about it. In contrast to your more common view, (In our society anyway.) which I have thought considerably about. (I was an "alter boy" in my church as a youth, before I began to think for myself.)

 

well done woody, your slowly coming round

so with that arguement the other 67% of world who dont, are right, given that your statement which condemned my small atheist comunity earlier said "Yes indeed, reasonable people believe the truth based on new evidence. What new evidence are you presenting regarding the jesus ? None None None, might I say it again so you get the point: YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO NEW EVIDENCE REGARDING THE JESUS It's just the same old worn out arguments that have been around for centuries.( changed bible to read jesus, but it is your statement)"

ok, as I 'm not hot on american history, I'll let that go.( but at a later date, I would like to see the facts and figures if you would supply them, thanks.

How can I give away what I dont have, woody please lets be clear on this, I'll proberly repeat myself later anyway, I have no belief in souls spirirts the supernatural god/gods, devil and demons, unicorns elfs orcs, ogres, goblins, or santa claus, I do not believe in anything fanciful.

and I'll give the origin of the word soul, if I might be so bold.http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

not to bad, I like blues, thank you for sharing.

muslims believe in a soul, however I quote "Whether it is through natural/physiological means or instruments, or tunes, depending on the kind or the different ways, music may be forbidden or disliked or even allowed according to some Islamic religious edicts. However, it is also known that Islam avoids absolutely accepting or remaining indifferent to the issue of music, or encouraging it without reservation.
so I would say the heart, and place music outside of religion, and just make it a general thing that we all like. http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/05/4/mustafa_sabri_en.html

no and it wont, but get well soon.

I disagree with you statement, how do you come to that conclusion.?
all people if they believe in a god, only have the illusion of free will, if we dont believe in a god then we have more free will, less baggage.( but really it's still only an illusion)


Billy Tas we all know we have about 90% of our own life controled by ourselves, so we believe, we have a will, which we do to a small extent, but that will is govened by it's surroundings, therefore you can only make the conclusion that it's controlled by outside sources QM and that we have the illusion of free will

no, you have no choice in love you dont chose who you love, (you walk into a club you meet a young woman, you dont know whether you will fall in love with her or not choice does not come into it.)

chosing to love your god, is fine, but love as you say by definition is definitly not a choice.

 

Replying mainly to the part of your long post directed me (below it).

Not sure I agree with your "90% statement." (And it is not the particular value, 90%, that I may be taking exception to; but if I were to guess, the number would be much lower.)
Whether I disagree or not, depends upon what you mean by "ourselves," which I have made bold in your post above. When you then say "...small extent, but that will is govened by it's surroundings..." etc. you also seem to think "90%" is much too high, so I am sure I do not fully understand you.
Please define what you mean by "ourselves." I don't want any percise effort as that is an impossible task. Basically you can just tell if your are referring to your physical brain/body system or to something else, as I am when I use that term. If some thing else, please give a few details.
(To avoid confusion, I do not mean a "soul" or anythiing else that violates physics when I use "ourselves," "me" "I" etc. and when I want to be especially clear that I am referring to the "myself" that is part of the real-time simulation, not a body, I discussed in my attachment a few posts back, I will use quotes as I just did to make it clear.

We agree on this, and in my last post I gave evidence related to mice and pheremons, but that was probably while you were typing this long post of yours. Please comment later if you like.

 

musta,

Sorry to repeat myself, but I believe my earlier post (copied) below, is an answer to your original question (above), and I would like to hear your views on the subject.


>I still maintain that any punishments or rewards given, do not negate a persons freewill.

I would appreciate your opinion on that?


If you agree with this statement, then it is irrelevant whether god punishes or sends to hell or heaven. Freewill still exists.

If you disagree with this statement, it means that, none of us have freewill whether christain, atheist or deist alike. As society constantly imposes punishments and rewards on us for every decision we make, none of us can ever be free.

Which is it??

Also, I cant find the bit in the bible where it says god is omniscient? Nor can I find the bit where it says he created hell (genesis says he created heaven and earth)?. Are you getting this from bible or just copying fundamentalist christian misinterpretations of the bible?

 

I mean ourselves as us the general populas, however I have to agree, that perhaps 90% is to high.
but I must say apart from QM effecting our lives,I do believe we carry a lot of excess baggage, the more we carry, the more our "aledged free will" is effected.
but mention they have no free will to a religious person, they get on they highs horse, because it makes a mocky of their religion.

 

Musta can (AND I HOPE WILL) speak for him/her self,but it seems to me that Musta was talking about a well know inconsistancy in Christian doctrine, not about free will. I.e. Musta said:
"Why would a loving god make men and send them to hell for being exactly what he created them to be? He is perfect, so he certainly doesn't do it by accident. A god can not be loving, omniscient, omnipotent and send people to Hell. They are mutually exclusive." - Nothing about free will be negated here in Musta's statement, so at least this part of your twice posted reply is off the mark, IMHO.