Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

If you must insist on trying to say that we're "dumb" please at least try to characterise or at least summate our position correctly otherwise you make yourself guilty of making a strawman argument.

It is evident that you have paid little attention to my response that you have mischaracterised above.

First off I do not "expect" any god.
Secondly what I stated was effectively the incompatibility of an omnimax god with evident evil in the world. You simply cannot have an omnimax god that allows evil. Evidence of profound evil is evidence that an omnimax creator does not exist.

By acknowledging such evil yourself are you therefore saying that you think your "god" is less than omnimax?...Merely "multi-max?"

Now I'd like you to think carefully here before you attempt an answer because as a deist you could answer "yes" but if this is the case then please stop calling yourself a fucking christian.

If you want to go the christian way and try and accept an omnimax creator "god" that also allows profound evil in the world then you're welcome to try but your position is logically incoherent and you have no leg left to stand on.

I submit you must choose Andy: Deist multi-max god or christian omnimax god.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you're a deist and not a christian or you're a christian.

At least JJ is here to learn. You're just portraying yourself as a tiresome, confused dolt.

Before I respond, please define what you mean by "Omni-max" God?

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

Seriously?...You're equating sensory input with complex emotions?

That you tried to even make this point shows a significant level of ignorance.

The second half of my comparison is more appropriate, why did you not recognize that? A person feeling loved is evidence to the possibility that some source is administering love.

[The Judge]

JerryJohn wrote

Can an atheist comment on their view of free will?

It seems an issue atheists have is with all the evil in the world, and why God allows it to happen or does/did allow it.


H0wever when it comes to such issues as pedophilia for example, do atheist hold a pedophile accountable personally for the pain, harm including physical, spiritual, and mental, he (most of the time/sometimes she) inflicted on their victims?

Is it God's fault in your view that he "allowed this to happen" or did this person have free will to do this? This could apply to rapists, murderers, thiefs etc.

PS This is not to start a debate on are there more pedophiles in Christian circles than not Christian Circles; but I am speaking of non Christian criminals as noted above.

JJ

You've picked a truly interesting topic JJ and one that does not have a non-controversial answer.

First off there is not a unified "atheist view" on this and that is largely because broadly speaking when it comes to a discussion on free will there are compatibilists and non-compatibilists. (Also unlike you, we do not have any central tenets).

It can get complicated after this and unless one is a neuroscientist and/or philosopher the discussion may prove interesting but not particularly useful with regard to how you frame your question.

I can only really speak for me personally when I say that I find it difficult to escape my hardwired need to blame a perpetrator and see justice be done but a more reflective approach actually sometimes results in a modicum of sympathy (not empathy; these are importantly different) upon understanding the myriad of external influences that have shaped an individual's personality and life choices.

It does not excuse them, though it may explain them. It does not remove the need for some sort of punishment and/or removal from society but it does then question the utility of a simple prison/justice system that does not focus on some form of therapy and a genuine understanding of a problem with a view to trying to solve it.

For me the question of the nature of free will is an intriguing and exciting one when one looks into the leaps and bounds made in philosophy and crucially in neuroscience which is starting to understand more about this quintessentially human problem that is linked with the nature of consciousness.

Your view of it may be somewhat skewed however if you assume a priori that "god" exists since a certain school of thought may conflict with the accepted tenets of the faith that describes the nature of your god whereas another one may seem to support them.
For this reason, it is not a good "stand-alone" argument for or against any gods.

I see the idea of an omnimax creator god that cares about each and every one of the 7 billion or so humans currently on this planet incompatible with much in logic, ethics, philosophy and science and so I discount it a priori when contemplating such things as free will.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question?

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

The second half of my comparison is more appropriate, why did you not recognize that? A person feeling loved is evidence to the possibility that some source is administering love.

That's cute but it doesn't wash when it comes to e.g narcissism/histrionic personality disorder.

A feeling of great importance is not necessarily evidence of one's inherent worth.

A feeling of utter worthlessness is not necessarily evidence for one being worthless.

Of course when we see a mother displaying love to her child and the child responding we can say with confidence that there is evidence of love but with no visible, measurable, testable or quantifiable "source" of the love of which you talk one cannot make such bold conclusions.

Indeed one can be convinced of almost anything given certain conditions yet this is arguably merely evidence of the malleability/gullibility of the human mind and not much more.

[The Judge]

The Judge wrote

If you must insist on trying to say that we're "dumb" please at least try to characterise or at least summate our position correctly otherwise you make yourself guilty of making a strawman argument.

It is evident that you have paid little attention to my response that you have mischaracterised above.

First off I do not "expect" any god.
Secondly what I stated was effectively the incompatibility of an omnimax god with evident evil in the world. You simply cannot have an omnimax god that allows evil. Evidence of profound evil is evidence that an omnimax creator does not exist.

By acknowledging such evil yourself are you therefore saying that you think your "god" is less than omnimax?...Merely "multi-max?"

Now I'd like you to think carefully here before you attempt an answer because as a deist you could answer "yes" but if this is the case then please stop calling yourself a fucking christian.

If you want to go the christian way and try and accept an omnimax creator "god" that also allows profound evil in the world then you're welcome to try but your position is logically incoherent and you have no leg left to stand on.

I submit you must choose Andy: Deist multi-max god or christian omnimax god.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you're a deist and not a christian or you're a christian.

At least JJ is here to learn. You're just portraying yourself as a tiresome, confused dolt.

Andrew66 wrote

Before I respond, please define what you mean by "Omni-max" God?

A supernatural entity that is:

Omnipotent (all-powerful)
Omniscient (all-knowing)
Omnibenevolent (all-loving/all-good)
Omnipresent (existing everywhere)
Perfect

For clarity, "multi-max"* is essentially anything that is less than "omni-max."






*Could probably do with a better word but I use it for the sake of argument here.

[Sinfidel]

JerryJohn wrote

K,

So why is there evil in the world according to your view, K?

Because it has people like you in it!

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Point 2, Are you sure "feelings" cannot be evidence? I feel heat (evidence for something hot nearby), I feel loved (evidence that someone is exhibiting affection towards me).

Two things are apparent here - How stupid the religiotards are, and how much contempt they have for others!
This twit thinks when you stand close to a hot stove, the warmth you feel is emotional "feelings"! The idea of infrared radiation and thermal convection is too "sciency" for the fundamentalist brain to handle.

[JerryJohn]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I dunno, I dunno and I dunno.

I admire this answer, K.

They always say if you don't know, say so instead of trying lines of Bullshit.

Regards,

JJ

[JerryJohn]

The Judge wrote

You've picked a truly interesting topic JJ and one that does not have a non-controversial answer.

First off there is not a unified "atheist view" on this and that is largely because broadly speaking when it comes to a discussion on free will there are compatibilists and non-compatibilists. (Also unlike you, we do not have any central tenets).

It can get complicated after this and unless one is a neuroscientist and/or philosopher the discussion may prove interesting but not particularly useful with regard to how you frame your question.

I can only really speak for me personally when I say that I find it difficult to escape my hardwired need to blame a perpetrator and see justice be done but a more reflective approach actually sometimes results in a modicum of sympathy (not empathy; these are importantly different) upon understanding the myriad of external influences that have shaped an individual's personality and life choices.

It does not excuse them, though it may explain them. It does not remove the need for some sort of punishment and/or removal from society but it does then question the utility of a simple prison/justice system that does not focus on some form of therapy and a genuine understanding of a problem with a view to trying to solve it.

For me the question of the nature of free will is an intriguing and exciting one when one looks into the leaps and bounds made in philosophy and crucially in neuroscience which is starting to understand more about this quintessentially human problem that is linked with the nature of consciousness.

Your view of it may be somewhat skewed however if you assume a priori that "god" exists since a certain school of thought may conflict with the accepted tenets of the faith that describes the nature of your god whereas another one may seem to support them.
For this reason, it is not a good "stand-alone" argument for or against any gods.

I see the idea of an omnimax creator god that cares about each and every one of the 7 billion or so humans currently on this planet incompatible with much in logic, ethics, philosophy and science and so I discount it a priori when contemplating such things as free will.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question?

Yes it did. My daughter is a first year medical student at Northwestern and her undergraduate degree was Neuorscience at Vanderbilt.

An interesting topic indeed.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate hearing your point of view.


JJ

[JerryJohn]

Sinfidel wrote

Because it has people like you in it!

You couldn't resist, could ya Sinny...

JJ

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

Secondly what I stated was effectively the incompatibility of an omnimax god with evident evil in the world. You simply cannot have an omnimax god that allows evil. Evidence of profound evil is evidence that an omnimax creator does not exist.

By acknowledging such evil yourself are you therefore saying that you think your "god" is less than omnimax?...Merely "multi-max?"

Now I'd like you to think carefully here before you attempt an answer because as a deist you could answer "yes" but if this is the case then please stop calling yourself a fucking christian.

If you want to go the christian way and try and accept an omnimax creator "god" that also allows profound evil in the world then you're welcome to try but your position is logically incoherent and you have no leg left to stand on.

I submit you must choose Andy: Deist multi-max god or christian omnimax god.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you're a deist and not a christian or you're a christian.

.

Well

Looking at scripture - it is not so completely clear as you make it that what is described is an Omnimax God.

For example, there is scripture which says God "Knows all things" but it doesn't elaborate that God explicitly knows the future for each and every human. It could be that God knows all things at present state only, and since he knows all the players and the physics in our environment maximally well he can predict the future with near flawless certainty. This tackles your conundrum about how there can be an omnimax God and at the same time, definably unpredictable free will. So I don't think its a conflict to be a Christian believing in scripture, and accepting that God could be surprised by a rare unexpected free will choice of one of his children.

With regards to there being evil in the world, you suggest that is incompatible with a perfectly loving God. Very short sited!

You see (please pay attention here ) - it is not as clear as you think what a perfectly "loving" and "benevolent" God may do. Maybe it is the most perfect love for God to give his children freedom (over tyranny!) - even at a price of introducing evil.!! Hence one could say God is "maximized" in his love - allowing for free will.

There all fixed.

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Hey, hillbilly boy, nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". In fact you should probably try it sometime instead of inserting your particular god into all the gaps in your knowledge like some half-arsed retarded caveman. Now piss off.

KA, I totally respect when a person is willing to say "I dunno".

I said it was honest. Some things cannot be known, hence it is the correct answer.

But you rarely give thoughtful replies - where you attempt to delve - speculate, theorize, conjecture - into topics. And when you do, you get it wrong I'm sorry to say.

Just want to clear that up.

[Andrew66]

JerryJohn wrote

Can an atheist comment on their view of free will?

It seems an issue atheists have is with all the evil in the world, and why God allows it to happen or does/did allow it.


H0wever when it comes to such issues as pedophilia for example, do atheist hold a pedophile accountable personally for the pain, harm including physical, spiritual, and mental, he (most of the time/sometimes she) inflicted on their victims?

Is it God's fault in your view that he "allowed this to happen" or did this person have free will to do this? This could apply to rapists, murderers, thiefs etc.

PS This is not to start a debate on are there more pedophiles in Christian circles than not Christian Circles; but I am speaking of non Christian criminals as noted above.

JJ

Hi JJ, I'm not an atheist, but I can put on my "atheist" hat for a moment to try a scientificy response.

Firstly, in science, the basis at the most fundamental level of all reactions (which lead to observable actions) starts with quantum physics - where there is inherent uncertainty. In other words, the world (including human's actions) does not move forward in a definably predictable Newtonian manner - there is uncertainty of what will happen from moment to moment. So by nature's design it is impossible to completely predict the future - both with regards to human's actions, or even how nature will respond.

So the concept of free will (in that our destinies are not apriori pre-destined) can be hypothesized. Judge, are you listening??

So rationally speaking, it appears that God set up the world - and is rolling the dice!

But when a criminal chooses a criminal behavior - to what degree is he/she to actually blame??

I submit that not al blame lies with the criminal. The criminal behaviour was influenced by 1) The criminals environment which shaped his character, and 2) The criminal's genetic pre-dispositions - neither of which the criminal had any control. I like to think therefore that only 1/3 of the blame lies with the criminal for any action - which is associated with his "free will".

One might say that because the criminal itself is helpless against the laws of quantum and thereafter Newtonian physics which ultimately cause him to act - so the criminal is blameless - the universe / nature is the only culprit. So maybe the criminal is just a pawn, 100% innocent.

However, if you believe in soul (spirit, beyond physics) and thereby true free will then I would say still 1/3 of the blame stays with the criminal.

This line of reasoning influences the courts and criminal justice system. It underscores the need for sympathy, empathy, and the importance of rehabilitation.

Just as Jesus loved the criminal who hung up on the cross beside him.

Amen.

[Andrew66]

JerryJohn wrote

Yes it did. My daughter is a first year medical student at Northwestern and her undergraduate degree was Neuorscience at Vanderbilt.

An interesting topic indeed.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate hearing your point of view.


JJ

That's wonderful JJ, you must be really proud!

Just so everyone knows, hate to brag, but beyond my clinical practice I'm also a Neuro and Cardiovascular research scientist - I've published several dozen papers. My field is more related to novel methods for treating blood flow disturbances - ischemia - than neural activity however.

Yes, we Christians are a smart bunch!!! Not sitting behind a screen at Hertz Van rental Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Praise the Lord!!

[JerryJohn]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi JJ, I'm not an atheist, but I can put on my "atheist" hat for a moment to try a scientificy response.

Firstly, in science, the basis at the most fundamental level of all reactions (which lead to observable actions) starts with quantum physics - where there is inherent uncertainty. In other words, the world (including human's actions) does not move forward in a definably predictable Newtonian manner - there is uncertainty of what will happen from moment to moment. So by nature's design it is impossible to completely predict the future - both with regards to human's actions, or even how nature will respond.

So the concept of free will (in that our destinies are not apriori pre-destined) can be hypothesized. Judge, are you listening??

So rationally speaking, it appears that God set up the world - and is rolling the dice!

But when a criminal chooses a criminal behavior - to what degree is he/she to actually blame??

I submit that not al blame lies with the criminal. The criminal behaviour was influenced by 1) The criminals environment which shaped his character, and 2) The criminal's genetic pre-dispositions - neither of which the criminal had any control. I like to think therefore that only 1/3 of the blame lies with the criminal for any action - which is associated with his "free will".

One might say that because the criminal itself is helpless against the laws of quantum and thereafter Newtonian physics which ultimately cause him to act - so the criminal is blameless - the universe / nature is the only culprit. So maybe the criminal is just a pawn, 100% innocent.

However, if you believe in soul (spirit, beyond physics) and thereby true free will then I would say still 1/3 of the blame stays with the criminal.

This line of reasoning influences the courts and criminal justice system. It underscores the need for sympathy, empathy, and the importance of rehabilitation.

Just as Jesus loved the criminal who hung up on the cross beside him.

Amen.

Andrew,

I like the "atheist hat" answer. Very clever. Just as God loves atheists who reject him, and perhaps out of ignorance given the law is written in their hearts they too will meet God someday.

I'm not God so I can't say.

Hope this finds you and yours well.

JJ