100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Jeanniebean
|
|
|
I feel like I came in half way through a movie, haha. Don't know anything about creationists, so I leave that bit be. This, however, I feel should be seen differently: it is the belief or claim that we have no will of our own and are not responsible for our actions. We are all just victims of our genes, influences, programming, environment etc. We ARE the produce / result of all that. Which does NOT make us victims. That view (victims) in itself is not the right approach to this. A victim is someone who's suffering because of something that happened to him, or feels sorry for himself. Basically victim calls for emotion. If you simply take the fact that we ARE the produce / outcome of our past, genes, influences, programming and so on, why does there have to be any emotion involved? The thing is, we have free will and choice, so we can choose how we are going to deal with these facts and influences. If you want to make conscious decisions, you first have to become aware of these facts and influences and what they do to you. Otherwise it's not a conscious decision but instinctive reactions. So we can TAKE responsibility for our past, actions, influences, genes and so on. And anyone who is aware of these things, should and likely will take responsibility or stick their head in the sand and pretend it's not there. Which is also a choice! In spite of all that, free choice is open to debate. Do we really have 100% free choice? Or are things destined to be and simply unavoidable? If that is the case, we could have limited free choice, for instance in how we get to that destiny. CrystalFairy I don't mean to make the claim that we have 100% "free choice." I do mean to claim that everything has the potential for using their own will. What is the will? It is THE POWER OF SELF DIRECTION. To claim that no one has the power of self direction is to claim that we are like robots or zombies. It is absurd. Just because we have that power, does that mean we always use it? No. Sometimes we don't. We can be and are always influenced, even programmed. How much we utilize our will depends on our consciousness. Our consciousness depends on our minds and how we process our perceptions by our awareness. Consciousness comes from the mind and is not the same thing as awareness, although I believe they are closely related and connected. We are not the product of our genes, but our genes are part of the building blocks. Instinct is biological programming that automatically directs us but even that can be self directed by the will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translation Interpretation Services
LXM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Is That?
 HOP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genetic Identification Laboratory
 JWM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bartender
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canned Fish Sticks
jop |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/30/13 06:30 PM
|
|
I think the reason atheist scientific types are going down this wrong road is because they have closed their minds to an alternative to the "God" theory or a different way to look at what kind of "creative design" is going on and has been going on since the beginning.
They make bad analogies like this which are absurd: "Saying that having no free will would make us irresponsible is similar to creationists saying believing in evolution will make us cruel and inhuman. Now please don't say you are creationist too." How in your wildest imagination would anyone actually believe that "believing in evolution will make us cruel and inhuman?" (I don't actually know anyone who believes that, nor have I heard any creationist say that.) If anything makes us "cruel and inhuman" it is the belief or claim that we have no will of our own and are not responsible for our actions. We are all just victims of our genes, influences, programming, environment etc. That thinking is going in the opposite direction of truth. It's okay with me though. If scientists really learn the truth, they will use it to destroy life or this society, like they usually do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magnetic Tape Recording
APQ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/30/13 06:12 PM
|
|
You so misrepresented Sam Harris and his interpretation of neuroscience. You so shamelessly concluded he believes in luck by twisting his sentence. Sam Harris never claimed determinism of human behavior but surely attacked free will. I think anyone having scientific temper does not believe in free will. Not having free will does not necessarily mean determinism. Psychopaths are of course not responsible for their behaviour. That does not mean they should not be locked. Actually psychopaths are the least responsible for their behaviour having inability to feel emotions which is an effective mechanism in us to prevent us from committing horrible acts. Though we are not free to choose and are not fully responsible for our behaviour, we still are conscious, sentient beings who understand what is right and what is wrong. We understand how other people might feel and may not want to harm other people out of empathy. Out of free will or determinism, we do possess abilities to work for betterment of human condition and understanding that human behaviour is regulated by many biological factors is the first step towards it. Saying that having no free will would make us irresponsible is similar to creationists saying believing in evolution will make us cruel and inhuman. Now please don't say you are creationist too. No, I didn't "so misrepresent Sam Harris." He obviously does believe in "luck" as he said: (or in this case, bad luck) "One has to be very unlucky to have the mind and the brain of a psychopath." News flash: Everyone is especially responsible for their conscious behavior, and even for their unconscious behavior on a deeper level. Now, unless you want to claim that no one is conscious and that we are all simply robots following programming. If that were the case, then yes, no one is responsible for their behavior. You can't have it both ways. We are either responsible for our behavior or we are all victims or programmed robot zombies. The idea that we don't have a will of our own to use as conscious beings is ludicrous. It absolves EVERYONE of their behavior. Though we are not free to choose and are not fully responsible for our behaviour, we still are conscious, sentient beings who understand what is right and what is wrong. How? How do you think you understand right from wrong? A computer or a robot can be programmed to appear to know, in most cases, of what is considered "right" and "wrong." Even a psychopath who has no emotions eventually 'learns" (from others) what is right (acceptable) or wrong in society. BUT he does not KNOW it from the heart, he knows it from the mind because he has learned it like a trained animal learns to obey and do tricks for rewards, and gets punished for misbehavior. Essentially a psychopath has no morals, he just follows the rules so he won't get caught, or he doesn't follow the rules thinking he won't get caught, in either case he does not know how to feel compassion and does not know right from wrong. He is just a trained and very intelligent animal. Saying that having no free will would make us irresponsible is similar to creationists saying believing in evolution will make us cruel and inhuman. Now please don't say you are creationist too. I didn't think I said "having no free will would make us "irresponsible." I said that it would absolve us of all responsibility. -- and I believe we are TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE. I said that Sam Harris, with his ridiculous claim, absolves people of any responsibility at any time, and makes them into victims with his claim that they had no choice, and "no free will." Its absurd. Not to mention he is totally going down the wrong path. And he calls himself a scientist. pppsppsffft! Bull chit. If the scientific community embraces this kind of thinking they are taking three steps backwards and de-evolving. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take Your Pick
bau |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curb Your Enthusiasm
hhw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
666
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/30/13 09:34 AM
|
|
Prophecy is a prediction of future events which are probabilities. Much of the illusion of prophecy comes from self full-filled prophecies or the imagination of people who chose to believe in them.
If you truly believe in some prophecy you will perceive or create it in your own mind. The mind is an amazing thing. It will put you on alert for anything that you expect and bring it to your attention, thus bringing it into your experience. ** So one should be careful what they believe..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount Furniture Store
LLT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Is That?
GPT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every Known Lead
rpp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proof only means six to twelve people convince each other of your guilt or innocence again, property shouldn't be worth anyones life,,thats just my opinion and neither should 'threats' , unless they are deadly ones,,, maharmony, its not about "property." It is about invasion of your home and your safety. One can justifiably assume that if a person comes to your house in the middle of the night, and breaks down your door after you closed the door on them, that they are a threat. and If you really think that "property" is not worth anyone's life then why do soldiers in a war die in defense of a hill? It is basic animal instinct to protect your living area and your family. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windows Address Book
JJY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the State of Colorado, if a person breaks into your home we have what we call the "make my day law" and you can indeed shoot them. Armed or not. I couldn't find information on what state this occurred in. The point is, a person should not have to be forced into hand to hand conflict with an intruder IN THEIR OWN HOME just because he does not have a gun. Anyway, at two o'clock in the morning there is no way to tell if an intruder has a gun. So, msharmony you are mistaken and wrong to suggest that "if a person is not armed" you can't shoot him. YES YOU CAN. problem is, victim was not found in his home,, he was shot dead on the porch,,, and, as I said, though it depends upon the state I agree with t hose states that find if you are not in MORTAL DANGER , and someone is unarmed, you cannot shoot them dead,,, In Colorado if they land on the porch you drag them inside. LOL Yes there could be something suspicious going on and if it was self defense lets hope they jury finds them non guilty. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
