Why I am not a Christian

Surrendering freedom is one of the greatest manifestations of choice.

 

Perhaps they may end their current form....but they still exist.

 

As I recall, you, Josh and I had a similar conversation about this in another thread (remember the platypus?) and we came to different conclusions.

I believe both God and Man possess and exercise free will...

 

I agree, and interestingly enough that freedom was at the center of the Franciscan poverty controversy that roiled the Catholic Church in the 1320s.

The question before the opposing parties was this: Could Jesus, the Apostles and the Franciscans renounce the right to property, even in the food they consumed?

The Dominican Inquisitor John of Belna and Pope John XXII argued that they could not and the idea was heretical, while Marsilius of Padua, William of Ockham and the Franciscans under Michael of Cesena argued that they could and Jesus and the Apostles did. William of Ockham wound up winning the debate basing much of his arguments on Scripture and canon law, and out of the arguments he presented in his Opus nonaginta dierum and Dialogus emerged what some scholars consider the first doctrine of natural rights.

 

What do people mean when they use the term "free will"? Evidently, I mean something different by that phrase than others on this forum. I am not talking about

whether or not individuals make choices, of course they do. What I am talking about is there really any freedom in any decision we make or any thought that we have?

I believe that the answer is no and that we are biological machines. That seems to be consistent with science, however this question cannot be answered entirely by

science. My view is basically a reductionist model of the brain and that the mind is 100% dependent upon the brain. Even if there are layers of complexity of the brain,

and there certainly are, each with separate laws in how they operate, sometimes yielding unpredictable results, that would not provide us with free will - unless there

is a top-down process at work where the mind can somehow influence the brain. This is relevant to my rejection of Christianity on the basis that no one should be held

accountable for rejecting the faith, or rewarded for accepting the faith. Even if a top-down process exists where the mind can influence the brain, that still doesn't necessarily

imply any freedom of will. Whatever is perceived by the mind would still be a function of past events. That is what I mean by humans lacking free will, the present state of

the mind is a function of past events plus the present environment - things that are always controlling us. The perception of having free will is just that, a perception, not

reality. We are unaware of much of what is happening in our minds when we make choices and science supports the idea that we are only aware of a decision that we make

after the brain has already made the decision. This way of thinking also supports my observation that individuals on forums seem to be motivated by political or religious

leanings and not by a search for the truth. They are unaware that they are being controlled by processes going on in the unconscious mind.

P.S. I believe that humans should be held accountable for their actions. This
does make a big difference in how people behave. We should be treated as
if we have free will, except in cases of mental illness.

 

Yes...a perception...that's more like it.

 

We can make choices....but depending on circumstances...the outcome is not guaranteed.
"We can plan the plans...not the outcome."

 

That's just another illusion really....
Surrendering implies "doing" something. You don't have to "do" anything.

 

I believe that people should only be held accountable for their actions, not their thoughts or choices regarding philosophical or religious beliefs.

A lack of belief in free will can make a person more compassionate towards others, so there is a positive side to this way of thinking.

 

Why? Almost all actions are proceeded (and caused) by thoughts and choices.

 

Once the duality has started, it has to end.

 

by saying God knows everything that will happen before it happens, would mean there is no free will

if God knows what we will do before he created us, then is their free will?

so does God know everything, or is there free will

circular logic of Christians, Muslims and Jews has and always will have to exist

 

That is true for anything requiring much deliberation and maybe for most actions.

I am trying to differentiate actions that affect other people from those thoughts that only affect oneself. One could say that a person's religious beliefs
affect other people or one's lack of a religious belief affects other people and that could be true. So, my argument is not without weakness. I am just
trying to make a case for not punishing people for holding certain thoughts. Thinking should not be a crime.

 

some historical account, yes..... but imagine the Trump supporters that would retell his story, then imagine the God supporters telling that story

there may be some truth in there, but a lot of added in fiction

 

But if duality itself is just an illusion....there is no "doing" required to end it...
only realization that it was never real in the first place.

 

Ok, so there's 2 things that answer this.

1) There isn't linear time but the past, present, and future are operating concurrently, at the same time. Affecting each other. The future affects the past just as much as the past affects the future. Things are changing together.

2) If you could know the position and momentum of every particle you could know every action and reaction to occur in that particular universe, not counting the bleeding into our universe other universes (multiverse theory).

So, there could be a God planning the events of the baseline universe with free will taking place for each of us. But don't consider that a reason to believe in God. I posted a thread in the science section of this forum, not too long ago, that the universe is a learning algorithm teaching itself physics, that it tried every variation of physical laws before settling on the ones that run our universe.

 

true, but if God created us, then he knew what he was creating before he created it, thus knew what he was creating would do

I think your refering to this type of God

http://thefreedictionary.com/deist

"de·ism (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."

 

What process brought you to this conclusion?

 

This is the sort of word trap that religious discussion always falls into. It becomes clear that our thought process and linguistic limitations are projected onto the image of 'God' that we have, whether or not one professes belief in 'God'. In other words, what binds our limited intellect would bind the infinite. What would make that true? If 'God' is 'God', what human limitation of any kind, especially intellectual, could apply?
As an analogy, it is like the discussion in physics about the beginning of the universe. It is so difficult for us to conceive of a "before big bang" because it would mean asking what existed before anything existed. It is a thought we can have, a question we can ask because words work as they do, but that doesn't constrain reality. Just because we can't imagine how something could be doesn't mean it can't.
This is not an argument for the existence of 'God', merely putting in perspective the deficiency of this logic.

 

as long as you're admitting the words of the bible are not Gods, that works for me - it's when one claims the bible is the word of God, that the conflicts happen and people can point those out

 

Oh, well I'm an atheist. Someone just jumped to a conclusion about me that was wrong.

 

I am too, but I can still think you were referring to "referring to this type of God"

you said "So, there could be a God planning the events of the baseline universe with free will taking place for each of us."

never said you believed in that type of God

your theory could fit a deistic got, not an Abrahamic God

 

....but it is not "the existence of God" that is in question....
is there really a "deficiency of this logic" as you claim....or is there a "deficiency" of words and terms to describe God.
Religions haven't gotten it right in my opinion.
Religions have created God in their own image. That is one of the reasons they can not agree with each other.


'

 

Most likely the same process from which we all draw conclusions....
the fact that we haven't come to the same one, does not prove either of us wrong

 

An atheist meaning you do not believe in a deity...
however you do seem to point at something beyond yourself...beyond human or beyond human comprehension....

You're simply expressing your own idea of something "other than ourselves".
You don't have to have a specific God...to believe in something "greater than yourself".