FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by Jean Allen
Entered on:

   I disagree with your theory that belief in conspiracy theories is inconsistent with a

belief in free will.  My hero is William Wallace.  He was a victim of central planning

just as I am today.  But he chose to fight and ended up being tortured to death.  He

had no internet...no TV and no radio....but he got his information where he could and

reacted.....resisting tyranny.   If I choose to be a truther and a birther, that doesn't diminish my free will one iota.  If I believe that SPLC and the FBI had something to do with OKC, that doesn't take away my free will at all (just one example). And if

 I am paranoid, that's good.  Alan Stang said, "If you're not paranoid these days, you're crazy!"

 

 Jean Allen......Tuscaloosa

 


Comment by Mike Renzulli
Entered on:

Thanks for your response, Jean.

In order for one to have free will one has to have the power of unrestrained choice. When it comes to determinism in the form of conspiracy theories any semblance of individual choice is negated since, ultimately, it is the planners in hiding who decide for you about the things you will do, what you will consume and what kind of fate you will have.  

Not to talk down to you or insult your point but if, as you say, people like William Wallace died as a result of central planning then what's the point of them or anyone else living at all? If famous people, like William Wallace or Martin Luther King, will ultimately die by assassination or execution then I guess people should not do anything to speak out when a wrong is committed and get by in life since people's destiny and fate are not theirs to decide but the result of someone else's decision.

 


Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

 "If famous people, like William Wallace or Martin Luther King, will ultimately die by assassination or execution then I guess people should not do anything to speak out when a wrong is committed and get by in life since people's destiny and fate are not theirs to decide but the result of someone else's decision."

My favorite cinematic allusion to determinism is in "Lawrence of Arabia".  During the desert crossing, someone is left behind.  The locals tell Lawrence, "It is written - let it be."  He goes back for the guy anyway.  He rescues him successfully.  Not long after he gets back to camp with his lost sheep, a fight breaks out.  It appears this fight will cause the entire group to lose its cohesion.  Lawrence vows to kill the instigator.  Yep.  It was the guy he rescued.  Again, the locals tell Lawrence, "It was written."  Lawrence had no reply.  Neither do I.  He shot him.

I think determinism goes deeper than "powers behind the throne."  I think it goes to the bowels of creation.

In science, the attempt is made to reduce everything to "phenomenon".  Like astronomical events - point your telescope this direction at this time on this date and you will see an eclipse.

The celestial bodies apparently have no "say" in what will happen.

With human individuals, it MAY (or may not) be different.

I am not sure.

I *think* that I am free.

If I am free in no other area, I am free to view myself as such, or to view myself as not free.

Either way, I am free - the difference is whether I know it.

It may be that the deaths of William Wallace and Martin Luther King were ordained in the moment of creation.  It may be not.  I know not.

Either way, they had the choice of how to live their lives.

They were free.

Both of these guys knew it.

 

 


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

I totally "agree" with the author that "conspiracy theories are strand of faith largely grounded in determinism and are not compatible with liberty or free will…" not because it is true but because it is so INCONSISTENT the dead could rise from the grave in protest.

This counter-conspiracy theory of the writer is grounded on the doctrine or belief that any act of human being is always caused by something else, therefore there is "no real free will".

This view self-strangles itself. In a free society where we live, it is free idea --precisely the exercise of one’s free will -- that’s the number one cause of any man-made event that takes place. Our exercise of free will is not the effect but the cause of the effect.

The author also holds on to this weird idea that you are NOT a Libertarian if you have no free will. Absolutely wrong! Libertarians are philosophical soldiers of freedom … of free will.

Libertarians, of which I am one of them [not that emotional Libertarian but a Libertarian of Reason], are Determinists – stubborn if you may – to adhere to their freedom to disagree with the norm that freedom or enslavement is either the effect of what we do or NOT DO, but rather the cause of everything that’s happening around us. It is therefore contradictory for the author to say that "determinism" as a doctrine, is "not compatible with liberty or free will…" As advocates of the doctrine of "determinism" [anything has a cause], we are actually the sentinel – the guardian – of liberty, of the right to be free … of the individual’s free will to be free, against any authoritarian oppression or control of the mind and domination of the realm.

Sorry to say but unlike the author, I am not an atheist or agnostic Libertarian who is inconsistent in the belief that everything has a cause but belief in God is not a cause. No need to elaborate, except just to say that I am a Christian Libertarian. That explains everything.

 

Comment by Mike Renzulli
Entered on:

Bakadude and Dennis are on the right track but, ultimately, still contradict themselves. What this really comes down to is the Law of Identity: A=A. This defines the nature of existence. In terms of Baka and Dennis both need to conclude if one exists for their own sake or not.

If not, then no one has any identity except what the Illuminati, God, Freemasons, Skull & Bones, etc. decides for them. If they do exist for their own sake then they have free will. Yet their attempts to use the mystical or unexplanable in order to define people's ability to exist or have free will is contradictory.

If someone other than them assigns them their identity or duty in life then they have no identity, therefore they do not exist except as to what someone else (including society) assigns to them.

Consequently one must ask which one is it?


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Renzulli is anti-God, a better ID of himself than when he is named an atheist or an agnostic doubter. As an art of reasoning, the latter gives him and his likes, a slippery exit from their own contradiction in which almost all anti-God disciples in the philosophical realm are trapped in their belief that there is no God. The advance study of Atheism in graduate school as a form of philosophy in religion [Theodicy in Defense of Religious Faith] that I have undergone in years had established the fact that being oxymorons that non-believers are, they unconsciously contradict themselves.

By the way, "oxymoron" is not similar to the "f.." word. It is an expression of contradiction … i.e., ‘wise fool’ or ‘legal murder’ [Encarta].

Being anti-God is not "hate-God" either. It is just that God does not exist, and in Renzulli’s mind, belief in god is just "irrational" … it is just a "superstition".

Being anti-God is not "" either. It is just that God does not exist, and in Renzulli’s mind, belief in god is just "" … it is just a "".

God-believers reason out that God or the Ultimate Being is the Prime Mover of all things, the Ultimate Cause. I am referring to those "wise men" [I mean men of vast ecclesiastical wisdom much, much wiser than Renzulli] who embedded their reasoning in the books of knowledge of both ancient and modern civilizations, published their world-renowned treatises of logical rationalization why God exists [i.e. one of them is The Theory of the Prime Mover that is easy to read and understand]. For Renzulli and his kind to say that those "wise men" are "irrational", is inconsistent – an oxymoron.

Renzulli and his kind are also self-contradictory … very irrational in their accusation that belief in God is just a "superstition". It borders on hypocrisy. Non-believers like Renzulli and his kind are the most superstitious pretenders that ever walked the earth. Their greatest superstition is their own superstitious belief that God does not exist !! [Digest that …]

I have learned, and had expressed my empathy in public as a journalist, many years back while still in the academe, that it is very difficult for agnostics and atheists to be anti-God, and at the same time mount an aggression intended to wound the sentiments of those who believe in God or those who believe that the Ultimate Being exists, with a mind that is in a state of confusion or with such kind of thinking that operates without any elevated sophistication higher than just that of a layman’s unschooled argument or elementary reasoning.

 


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Renzulli is anti-God, a better ID of himself than when he is named an atheist or an agnostic doubter. As an art of reasoning, the latter gives him and his likes, a slippery exit from their own contradiction in which almost all anti-God disciples in the philosophical realm are trapped in their belief that there is no God. The advance study of Atheism in graduate school as a form of philosophy in religion [Theodicy in Defense of Religious Faith] that I have undergone in years had established the fact that being oxymorons that non-believers are, they unconsciously contradict themselves.

By the way, "oxymoron" is not similar to the "f.." word. It is an expression of contradiction … i.e., ‘wise fool’ or ‘legal murder’ [Encarta].

Being anti-God is not "hate-God" either. It is just that God does not exist, and in Renzulli’s mind, belief in god is just "irrational" … it is just a "superstition".

Being anti-God is not "" either. It is just that God does not exist, and in Renzulli’s mind, belief in god is just "" … it is just a "".

God-believers reason out that God or the Ultimate Being is the Prime Mover of all things, the Ultimate Cause. I am referring to those "wise men" [I mean men of vast ecclesiastical wisdom much, much wiser than Renzulli] who embedded their reasoning in the books of knowledge of both ancient and modern civilizations, published their world-renowned treatises of logical rationalization why God exists [i.e. one of them is The Theory of the Prime Mover that is easy to read and understand]. For Renzulli and his kind to say that those "wise men" are "irrational", is inconsistent – an oxymoron.

Renzulli and his kind are also self-contradictory … very irrational in their accusation that belief in God is just a "superstition". It borders on hypocrisy. Non-believers like Renzulli and his kind are the most superstitious pretenders that ever walked the earth. Their greatest superstition is their own superstitious belief that God does not exist !! [Digest that …]

I have learned, and had expressed my empathy in public as a journalist, many years back while still in the academe, that it is very difficult for agnostics and atheists to be anti-God, and at the same time mount an aggression intended to wound the sentiments of those who believe in God or those who believe that the Ultimate Being exists, with a mind that is in a state of confusion or with such kind of thinking that operates without any elevated sophistication or higher than just that of a layman’s unschooled argument or elementary reasoning.

Being anti-God is not "" either. It is just that God does not exist, and in Renzulli’s mind, belief in god is just "" … it is just a "".

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

By the way, in his comment, Renzulli came up to me of all people, with this elementary question and wants to know if one exists "for their own sake or not." His false conclusion based on a wrong premise is that if you exist not for your sake, you have no free will. Inversely, if you exist only for yourself, then you have a free will.

The reason for anyone existing on this planet does not define the presence or absence of free will. These abstract entities are not interdependent of each other.

I will illustrate: One may exist not for his/her own sake but for the sake of others, and yet have a free will, using that free will to decide to exist or live for the sake of others. As if Renzulli is not aware or has not heard of a very loving and protective father or mother or parents whose dependent young children to provide for and care about are their only reason to exist and/or live for… i.e., in poverty to go on through the difficult challenges in life. A caring person would catch a bullet for another – and in life this reality cannot be doubted – proof that human beings are choosing this path for their own independent exercise of free will.

The other choice for one’s use of free will is just to exist for his/her own sake, never for the sake of others. And yet there can be no free will to speak of – it is taken away by selfishness and/or self-centeredness that most atheists are, although hardly aware of it. Thus even if you live only for your own sake because you are selfish or have no care or concerns for others, you are deprived of free will because your indifference or selfishness takes that free will away from you. That's one foolish way of saying that anyone who has any kind of DESIRE at all has no free will because that takes the free will away from you. You are dictated or enslaved by it.

Thus it is totally bullcrap for an agnostic non-believer to say that if you only exist for your own self, you have a free will. That conclusion is unreal -- neither sincerely true nor honestly genuine because it is as false as the atheist's denture or porcelain teeth.

Inversely, it is also unwise to bullyrag the intelligence of the public [I don’t know about yours but it does insult mine] by saying that if you are unselfish and exist only for the sake of others or for your country, i.e. those brave soldiers who with their freedom and liberty to choose what to do with their life, chose to serve and die for the Motherland in times of war – Renzulli would call them idiotic morons who have no free will of their own because they should have existed or lived only for own sake and nothing else. See how stupid that is?

 
Make a Comment