(Oct 6, 2017 02:12 AM)Syne Wrote: Only because you think people are only religious to comfort themselves.
But even if you view the evolutionary development of religion as a by-product, it's a by-product that reinforces the cooperation that led us to modern times. IOW, it has a purpose beyond comfort. And I've yet to see evidence claiming to show religion is primarily espoused for comfort.
Well, Syne, God is similar to the elf on the shelf concept, right?
No.
Quote:Someone is always watching and you are responsible for the outcome. If you are good, you will reap the benefits, if you are bad, bad things will happen to you. Is that how the world really works? Is it, Syne? When something bad happens to them, something that they have no control over, and what then?
It's not karma. You are responsible for the outcome...of your own actions.
With your supposedly vaunted memory, you should recall how I've told you before that cause and effect are necessary for free will. And this fact alone accounts for the problem of evil.
Quote:Take this incident for example. Should the victims blame themselves to minimize the harsh reality of the meaningless nature of this incident? Did they do something wrong? Could they have avoided it? What role did their choice play in this outcome? Those are some of the questions that the public (the real watchers and judges) are wondering, right? Before we show mercy or wrath, that’s exactly what we try to determine. Are they worthy of our empathy? Am I right?
There is no question of whether victims should be empathized with. Of course they should. It is just the vile nature of the left that sways between either not showing empathy for those they perceive as political rivals (and if you haven't seen examples of this, I can easily provide them) or painting their rivals as devoid of empathy (which in the light of the other end of their pendulum is obviously projection).
Quote:Freewill or determinism? That is the question. We approach this question through constraints and those constraints are never black and white. The level of constraints range from minor to severe. What was his motive? Was he abused as a child? Was it a side effect from a prescribed medication? Was he of sound mind? In other words, how much free choice is required for a person to be held responsible for his or her actions?
Yeah, if you believe in determinism, everyone, including the shooter, is ultimately a victim. Then it's just arbitrary human emotions that assign guilt.
But if you allow for free will, the shooter is responsible for the action of harming others. If people are not simply a sum of their experiences, as nothing more than a stimulus/response machine, then they can be held responsible.
So yeah, if intellectually honest, hard determinists should have empathy for what everyone else deems complete evil...except that evolution didn't develop empathy to work that way.
And since studies have shown that belief in determinism has detrimental effects on moral choices, it does seem somewhat fitting that determinists should empathize with what most call evil.
Quote:God may stem from our imagination, but I don’t think that our cooperation is a by-product of the conception of god. Cooperation may be a by-product of empathy. Empathy stems from our imagination, as well, our moral imagination. We imagine stepping into another person’s shoes. Our communities, our states, our nations are all by-products of our imagination stemming from empathy, not god. We not only live in imagined communities, but with the increase in technology, we live in virtual communities, as well.
Then why don't atheist groups rival the cooperation of religious ones? If empathy alone were sufficient, there should be no significant difference. Right? The most successful countries were formed on religious ideals.
Empathy supports in-group favoritism. It takes something more for empathy to make the leap to the out-group. Failures of Empathy: The Intergroup Empathy Gap
Religion helps bridge the intergroup empathy gap.
Quote:I’m not attacking you, I’m simply curious as to why you keep making fun of MR from being gay, and as to why you felt the need to insert your opinion on this horrific event. Are you empathizing with the victims? If so, did you know any of the victims personally? If not, why would these strangers elicit empathy from you, but not strangers on the internet that you interact with almost daily? Empathy can be hijacked for political and ideological purposes, you know. What if it was an LGBT event?
Where did I make fun of MR being gay? Go read whatever you imagined again, deary.
Where have I inserted my opinion of this tragedy? I've given verified facts on medication and firearms.
I can tell you exactly my reaction to an LGBT event, because we already had the Pulse nightclub tragedy. And I told every LGBT I know, including strangers on the internet, that they should get a concealed carry permit. If you'll remember, I even gave you that same advice when you related not feeling safe in public.
Empathizing with the personal safety of strangers is quite different from empathizing with their feelings.
Quote:With your supposedly vaunted memory, you should recall how I've told you before that cause and effect are necessary for free will. And this fact alone accounts for the problem of evil.
Freewill doesn't solve the problem of evil. In fact it makes it worse. Why would anyone freely choose to do evil? There must me something in them determining their actions beyond their choice---mental illness, trauma, a malformed brain, an ideology, a brain tumor, brain damage. Determinism accounts for why people do evil things. And if a person is evil, it is not due to freewill. It is due to who they are. They could be a sadist or a psychopath. But it is not a choice they freely made from some neutral and unbiased standpoint.
Quote:With your supposedly vaunted memory, you should recall how I've told you before that cause and effect are necessary for free will. And this fact alone accounts for the problem of evil.
Freewill doesn't solve the problem of evil. In fact it makes it worse. Why would anyone freely choose to do evil? There must me something in them determining their actions beyond their choice---mental illness, trauma, a malformed brain, an ideology, a brain tumor, brain damage. Determinism accounts for why people do evil things. And if a person is evil, it is not due to freewill. It is due to who they are. They could be a sadist or a psychopath. But it is not a choice they freely made from some neutral and unbiased standpoint.
People rarely believe they are acting evil. Their capacity to justify their own behavior seems limitless. They don't chose to do evil so much as they just convince themselves of such things as the means justifying the ends, it's justified revenge, somehow deserved, etc.. There is no such thing as a "neutral and unbiased standpoint" within any subjective human experience.
"In reality, most people involved in evil behavior don’t see that behavior as evil.
Determinism asserts that it's just dumb luck that you may not be just as evil yourself.
"Due to who they are"? But you just said evil is due to "mental illness, trauma, a malformed brain, an ideology, a brain tumor, brain damage". Are you whatever diagnosis you're prescribed anti-anxiety meds for? There's no evidence that sadists and psychopaths are born that way. It's their reaction to their experience and the choices they make that do that. Who you are is simply the story you tell yourself about yourself. The kind of story you feel you need to tell yourself to justify your mistakes, traumas, freely chosen actions, etc..
Quote:People rarely believe they are acting evil. Their capacity to justify their own behavior seems limitless. They don't chose to do evil so much as they just convince themselves of such things as the means justifying the ends, it's justified revenge, somehow deserved, etc.. There is no such thing as a "neutral and unbiased standpoint" within any subjective human experience.
Meaning they aren't exercising freewill then because they are deluded in their thinking or blinded by rage or jealousy. They are making a mistake of judgment due to overwhelming emotions, which doesn't equate to freely choosing that action.
Quote:Determinism asserts that it's just dumb luck that you may not be just as evil yourself.
Right. Just like so many other mental illnesses, psychopathy is just the luck of the draw. Not everyone get's dealt a good hand in life.
Quote:There's no evidence that sadists and psychopaths are born that way.
Who said they were born that way?
Quote:Due to who they are"? But you just said evil is due to "mental illness, trauma, a malformed brain, an ideology, a brain tumor, brain damage".
Right. That's all a part of who you are, damage and all. You must learn to accept your own sociopathy Syne. It's just reality, and noone said life is fair.
Quote:People rarely believe they are acting evil. Their capacity to justify their own behavior seems limitless. They don't chose to do evil so much as they just convince themselves of such things as the means justifying the ends, it's justified revenge, somehow deserved, etc.. There is no such thing as a "neutral and unbiased standpoint" within any subjective human experience.
Meaning they aren't exercising freewill then because they are deluded in their thinking or blinded by rage or jealousy. They are making a mistake of judgment due to overwhelming emotions, which doesn't equate to freely choosing that action.
No, people just have such freedom that they can even choose how they view things. You can wake up in a bad mood and have a bad day. It's not that the circumstances of the day are necessarily bad, but your unwillingness to simply change your mood colors your experience.
People being inherently subjective says nothing about their freedom.
Quote:
Quote:Determinism asserts that it's just dumb luck that you may not be just as evil yourself.
Right. Just like so many other mental illnesses, psychopathy is just the luck of the draw. Not everyone get's dealt a good hand in life.
Sure, if that's the story you feel you need to tell yourself.
Quote:
Quote:Due to who they are"? But you just said evil is due to "mental illness, trauma, a malformed brain, an ideology, a brain tumor, brain damage".
Right. That's all a part of who you are, damage and all. You must learn to accept your own sociopathy Syne. It's just reality, and noone said life is fair.
So you ARE "whatever diagnosis you're prescribed anti-anxiety meds for". At least, that's the story you tell yourself...and us. Your belief in determinism actually does limit the choices you make, include about yourself.
Have you ever done those exercises where you act as if your happy and you actually become happy? Maybe you should look into that.
Quote:No, people just have such freedom that they can even choose how they view things. You can wake up in a bad mood and have a bad day. It's not that the circumstances of the day are necessarily bad, but your unwillingness to simply change your mood colors your experience.
Rarely are people able to change a delusion fed by strong emotion. And moods aren't changed by choice either. There is no freewill to change these things.
Quote:So you ARE "whatever diagnosis you're prescribed anti-anxiety meds for". At least, that's the story you tell yourself...and us. Your belief in determinism actually does limit the choices you make, include about yourself.
No it isn't whatever story I choose to tell myself. A bipolar person is not telling themselves a story about their condition. A schizophrenic is not telling themselves a story about their condition. A stroke victim is not telling themselves a story about their condition. An autistic kid is not telling themselves a story about their condition. You can tell yourself endless stories about who you are, but it's not going to change your fundamental condition. Besides, stories come from the predispositions and biases already planted in your nature. The story is always an expression of your psychology, not the determinant of it.
Quote:No, people just have such freedom that they can even choose how they view things. You can wake up in a bad mood and have a bad day. It's not that the circumstances of the day are necessarily bad, but your unwillingness to simply change your mood colors your experience.
Rarely are people able to change a delusion fed by strong emotion. And moods aren't changed by choice either. There is no freewill to change these things.
Says either the determinist or guy who never tried.
"Severe mental illness alone is not generally enough to cause violent behavior
Although studies have pointed to a slight increase in the risk of violent behaviors among those afflicted with major psychiatric ailments, a closer examination of the research suggests that these disorders are not strong predictors of aggressive behavior. In reality, severely mentally ill people account for only 3 to 5 percent of violent crimes in the general population. The data indicate that other behaviors are likely to be better harbingers of physical aggression—an insight that may help us prevent outbursts of rage in the future." - https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...dangerous/
The delusional are more prone to sudden outbursts, if at all. Not well-planning attacks.
Quote:
Quote:So you ARE "whatever diagnosis you're prescribed anti-anxiety meds for". At least, that's the story you tell yourself...and us. Your belief in determinism actually does limit the choices you make, include about yourself.
No it isn't whatever story I choose to tell myself. A bipolar person is not telling themselves a story about their condition. A schizophrenic is not telling themselves a story about their condition. A stroke victim is not telling themselves a story about their condition. An autistic kid is not telling themselves a story about their condition. You can tell yourself endless stories about who you are, but it's not going to change your fundamental condition. Besides, stories come from the predispositions and biases already planted in your nature. The story is always an expression of your psychology, not the determinant of it.
Quote:"Severe mental illness alone is not generally enough to cause violent behavior
Who said anything about mental illness needing to cause violence? All it takes is a bad day at work, a driver that cuts you off, and then there's your road rage incident on the evening news. More proof that there is no freewill operating in these situations. Nor in the husband who kills his wife's lover in a jealous rage.
After finding himself in a nonfiction writing course shortly after his bipolar diagnosis, one young man discovers the cathartic power of personal narrative.
LOL! You can personal narrative the shit out of your schizophrenia or bipolarism, but it's not gonna make those disorders go away. Study up on the brain causes of these conditions.
Yes it is. You even linked the "Princess Alice" experiment. What's the difference between Princess Alice and the elf on the shelf?
Syne Wrote:It's not karma. You are responsible for the outcome...of your own actions.
But that’s not what the bible teaches. Trust in the Lord and fear no evil. How many scriptures do think there are indicating that if you have faith everything will be okay?
Syne Wrote:With your supposedly vaunted memory, you should recall how I've told you before that cause and effect are necessary for free will. And this fact alone accounts for the problem of evil.
Fact or the myth of Adam and Eve? You know, the metaphor that Jesus had to die for.
Syne Wrote:There is no question of whether victims should be empathized with. Of course they should. It is just the vile nature of the left that sways between either not showing empathy for those they perceive as political rivals (and if you haven't seen examples of this, I can easily provide them) or painting their rivals as devoid of empathy (which in the light of the other end of their pendulum is obviously projection).
Yep, I already said that it can be hijacked for political or ideological purposes, e.g. slavery, holocaust, bigotry, etc.
Syne Wrote:Then why don't atheist groups rival the cooperation of religious ones? If empathy alone were sufficient, there should be no significant difference. Right? The most successful countries were formed on religious ideals.
It's not a belief system. You know the old joke. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. I don't like to cook. I can't really picture myself showing up to a class or a meeting for people who don't like to cook.
Syne Wrote:Empathy supports in-group favoritism. It takes something more for empathy to make the leap to the out-group.
No, that's not true at all. All it takes is some type of awareness, a book, a picture, or anything that can promote empathy. Like the trials over the Zong massacre or the anti-slavery book "Uncle Tom’s Cabin."
Syne Wrote:Where did I make fun of MR being gay? Go read whatever you imagined again, deary.
(Oct 5, 2017 05:27 AM)Syne Wrote: Aren't you violent when you kill a fly or spider? Or do you have your boyfriend do that?
That's how I took it. I thought you were making fun of him.
As far as the anti-anxiety medication is concerned, this of course, is just a hunch, but his girlfriend said that he would lie in bed moaning and screaming "Oh, my god."
She could have been witnessing nocturnal seizures. If I had to guess, I’d think along the lines of focal onset, partial, or complex partial seizures. They’re easily overlooked and difficult to recognize. They can mimic several other disorders ranging from behavioral problems, drug use, daydreaming, night terrors, anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, etc. They can cause cognitive and memory disorders, social disorders, frustration, anger, comprehension difficulty, impulsive behavior, and a reckless disregard for consequences, etc.
Behavioral problems are quite common in people who suffer from epilepsy. Small electrical discharges between seizures or even underlying brain damage from the seizures can affect the brain and contribute to behavioral issues. These small effects can accumulate over time and cause severe psychiatric problems.
The problem with Valium and epilepsy is the risk that the seizures will become more frequent or more severe when taken on a regular basis if the medication is reduced or when they develop a tolerance to it.
Quote:"Severe mental illness alone is not generally enough to cause violent behavior
Who said anything about mental illness needing to cause violence?
(Oct 6, 2017 09:24 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Why would anyone freely choose to do evil? There must me something in them determining their actions beyond their choice---mental illness...
Quote:All it takes is a bad day at work, a driver that cuts you off, and then there's your road rage incident on the evening news. More proof that there is no freewill operating in these situations. Nor in the husband who kills his wife's lover in a jealous rage.
Really? You're so deprived that you already know that the right circumstances would make you a murder?
I can actually recognize my anger and change my mood. I suppose this has something to do with your inability in that regard: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-4138.html
Your belief in determinism has something to do with that. And you argument here is obviously nothing but an argument from incredulity.
After finding himself in a nonfiction writing course shortly after his bipolar diagnosis, one young man discovers the cathartic power of personal narrative.
LOL! You can personal narrative the shit out of your schizophrenia or bipolarism, but it's not gonna make those disorders go away.
Who said narrative identity was in any way palliative? Clinically, it is a diagnosis and status checking tool...not treatment.
Quote:Study up on the brain causes of these conditions.
Synaptic pruning isn't a new theory (1982), nor does it account for all cases of schizophrenia, which would be necessary if it was the actual cause. As usual, you read some pop-sci and conflate correlation with causation.
And until they can predict the onset of bipolar by brain differences, they're only demonstrating neural plasticity.
(Oct 7, 2017 04:06 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Oct 6, 2017 08:28 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 6, 2017 06:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Well, Syne, God is similar to the elf on the shelf concept, right?
No.
Yes it is. You even linked the "Princess Alice" experiment. What's the difference between Princess Alice and the elf on the shelf?
Where did I link to that? Show me. Or are you just lying again?
From what I read, "the inhibitory effects of being told about Princess Alice were equivalent to having a real adult present". Are you saying belief in god is equivalent to simply having someone else present? That seems like a very silly notion.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:It's not karma. You are responsible for the outcome...of your own actions.
But that’s not what the bible teaches. Trust in the Lord and fear no evil. How many scriptures do think there are indicating that if you have faith everything will be okay?
Job.
Now cite me these verses you imagine say you need faith but no responsibility or that counseling bravery means everything will be okay. Having faith often takes responsibility for doing what you know is right, and there's no need to counsel bravery if everything is fine. A few seconds of unbiased thought (assuming you're capable of that) should make that abundantly clear.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:With your supposedly vaunted memory, you should recall how I've told you before that cause and effect are necessary for free will. And this fact alone accounts for the problem of evil.
Fact or the myth of Adam and Eve? You know, the metaphor that Jesus had to die for.
Non sequitur.
The concept of original sin varies between our fallible nature to total excoriation.
"We despised him and rejected him;
he endured suffering and pain.
No one would even look at him—
we ignored him as if he were nothing.
But he endured the suffering that should have been ours,
the pain that we should have borne.
All the while we thought that his suffering
was punishment sent by God.
But because of our sins he was wounded,
beaten because of the evil we did.
We are healed by the punishment he suffered,
made whole by the blows he received."
- Isaiah 53:3-5
Does that sound like a metaphor or something that happened in the beginning?
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Then why don't atheist groups rival the cooperation of religious ones? If empathy alone were sufficient, there should be no significant difference. Right? The most successful countries were formed on religious ideals.
It's not a belief system. You know the old joke. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. I don't like to cook. I can't really picture myself showing up to a class or a meeting for people who don't like to cook.
Where did I say atheism was a belief system? O_o
Seems you've erected that straw man to avoid addressing ANYTHING I actually said.
Or are you saying that belief systems do, indeed, promote more cooperation? O_o
Wouldn't that belie your previous, "I don’t think that our cooperation is a by-product of the conception of god"? O_o
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Empathy supports in-group favoritism. It takes something more for empathy to make the leap to the out-group.
No, that's not true at all. All it takes is some type of awareness, a book, a picture, or anything that can promote empathy. Like the trials over the Zong massacre or the anti-slavery book "Uncle Tom’s Cabin."
"The campaigns of William Wilberforce and other Quakers (including Thomas Clarkson) in 1997-1807, were extremely significant in the abolition of slavery. He was a Quaker MP who led 12 other devout Christians in his campaigns. He did this because he believed slavery led against Christian teachings and was an un-holy sin." - https://www.makewav.es/post/169371/title...yabolished
And the guy who spread news of the Zong massacre:
"Granville Sharp was the son of Thomas Sharp (1693–1759), Archdeacon of Northumberland, prolific theological writer and biographer of his father, John Sharp, Archbishop of York. Sharp was born in Durham in 1735. ...
He was apprenticed to a London linen-draper at the age of fifteen. Sharp loved to argue and debate, and his keen intellect found little outlet in the mundane work in which he was involved. However, one of his fellow-apprentices was Socinian (a Unitarian sect that denied the divinity of Christ), and in order better to argue, Sharp taught himself Greek. Another fellow apprentice was Jewish, and so Sharp learned Hebrew in order to be able to discuss theological matters with his colleague." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Sharp#Life
Not to mention to ubiquitous nature of religion, in public life, in the 1800s.
And every notable US abolitionist was religious, and often cited their religion as the reason to end slavery.
"But the funny part about all of this awareness-raising is that it doesn’t accomplish all that much. The underlying assumption of so many attempts to influence people’s behavior — that they make bad choices because they lack the information to empower them to do otherwise — is, except in a few cases, false. And what’s worse, awareness-raising done in the wrong way can actually backfire, encouraging the negative activities in question. One of the favorite pastimes of a certain brand of concerned progressive, then, may be much more effective at making them feel good about themselves than actually improving the world in any substantive way." - http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/07/awa...rated.html
You were saying?
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Where did I make fun of MR being gay? Go read whatever you imagined again, deary.
(Oct 5, 2017 05:27 AM)Syne Wrote: Aren't you violent when you kill a fly or spider? Or do you have your boyfriend do that?
That's how I took it. I thought you were making fun of him.
I did imply he was a wuss, but I'm not sure how mentioning his boyfriend (knowing he's gay) is any different from mentioning another guy's girlfriend in the exact same quip.
Just another case of a leftist assuming bigotry for simply mentioning a minority...demonstrating overcompensation for their own latent bigotry.
What, too much cognitive dissonance in the determinism/free will discussion?
Oct 6, 2017 08:28 PM
