My goodness, disco_stu has just offered one of the best defenses of Christianity that I've ever seen. All the time I'm hearing, "How can God be omniscient and we still have free will?" I never would have expected to get that kind of help from an atheist/agnostic, but I'll take it.

On behalf of all the other monsters on Earth who use religion to hold back the species, I thank you.

5/27/2010 3:52:42 PM

Except your Bible says that you have Free Will. What I describe is subjective Free Will, but it's pretty obvious that the Bible's description is that it's objective (i.e., not controlled by God).

It's pretty difficult to reconcile an all-powerful god and free will.

5/27/2010 4:10:59 PM

Perhaps I am confused. I was under the impression that one either had free will or one didn't. Now you're bringing up two different kinds of free will.

Well, whatever, fuck it, leave it for another thread. I'll go back to your previous post and say, "The illusion of X is, by definition, not X, so we don't have free will." Got it.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 4:23:54 PM

Quote :

"Except your Bible says that you have Free Will."

There's actually pretty heated debate amongst various Christian denominations regarding Predestination and Free Will (due to the all-knowing nature of God, and what, precisely, constitutes "all-knowing" in the context of predicting future actions). From what I understand, it's actually one of the primary dividing factors between certain denominations.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:46 PM. Reason : for the record, so there's no confusion: I'm not christian]

Quote :

"I was under the impression that one either had free will or one didn't."

His position was pretty easy to understand, I thought: From the perspective of a hypothetical all-knowing outside observer, we do not have free will. From our own perspective, regarding practical application and the way in which we live our lives, we seem to have choice/free will.

With regards to your desire for an objective answer: No, no free will.
...But if I'm interpreting his point correctly, he's saying we ought to behave in our daily mortal lives as though we do have free will, because we are not outside observers with access to infinite and detailed knowledge.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 4:45:35 PM

Ought to? You have no choice in the matter really.

5/27/2010 5:01:11 PM

^iswydt

5/27/2010 5:04:54 PM

Quote :

"By Xeno, you see an actual modern-style argument. "

that's supposed to be spelled "Zeno" i'm pretty sure.

and epicurus, who predates Zeno, IIRC, made a stab at modern style argument.

Quote :

"I "get" that nobody fucking did it before Aristotle. There is no written record of it. There is written record of arguments -- this starts between Thales and Anaximander. People are making arguments, but there's no notion of what a "right argument" is, or what "inferences that preserve truth" are. This is an Aristotelian concept through and through, and his main intellectual achievement. "

Is this true? Weren't the asians and the arabs and persians doing this around the same time too?

Quote :

"We are essentially finite state machines, but the number of conditions is sufficiently large to create the illusion of free will. "

This is certainly a plausible situation, but I think it's far from a foregone conclusion, that science increasingly diminishes.

Quantum physics increasingly (and has for decades) strongly supports the idea of randomness on a molecular level. The "illusion of free will" may simply be a byproduct of this random nature of our molecules.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 7:48 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 7:30:31 PM

Quote :

"It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise. But many studies have indicated that these same people aren't happy with viewing themselves as anti-science, which can create a state of cognitive dissonance. That has left psychologists pondering the methods that these people use to rationalize the conflict."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/when-science-clashes-with-belief-make-science-impotent.ars

5/27/2010 8:42:06 PM

Quote :

"It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs:"

Yep. We call them pro-AGWers, lol.

5/27/2010 9:10:45 PM

Quote :

"Ideology isn't a condition, it's a trait, a characteristic."

Well, considering your regard for ideologies, I suppose you would make that distinction.

Quote :

"It just won't work very well unless you change the other things, or the popular perception of them."

That's almost certainly true in most cases. But it doesn't follow that ideology doesn't factor into the equation. Indeed, ideology can even be the catalyst for societal change.

Quote :

"Obviously every group is going to have dissenters, and when those people influence the fundamental issues shaping a society then they can willfully bring about change. And that's me being generous. Taking my religious beliefs out of the equation, then I pretty quickly become convinced that we don't really choose anything, and if you knew the exact position, speed, etc. of every electron in the universe at this very moment then you could predict our future down to the smallest detail."

That was certainly a painful 180 to behold. Your first sentence basically nailed it. Then you had to discard it in favor of some deterministic mumbo jumbo. I think disco_stu addressed this issue competently, but if your looking for an opponent with a bit more stature, I suggest reading Mill's Of Liberty and Necessity (book VI, chapter II, § 2 of A System of Logic). Not trying to be pedantic, I just think it addresses exactly the point you bring up.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=247&chapter=40047&layout=html&Itemid=27

Quote :

"Now we have lazarus apparently claiming that Koran is identical to the governing document of the Ku Klux Klan (which is called the "Kloran," incidentally) and that Islam is an exact equivalent to the secular socialism of the Tamil Tigers."

This was your formulation. I don't actually agree with it, at least not with the enthusiasm that you do. I was simply granting it - that Islam might be swapped with some similar ideology, such as Christianity, with little noticeable effect on the society - for the sake of argument, and to show that, even if it were true, it wouldn't be a sufficient rebuttal to my argument, due to the existence of non-similar ideologies.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 9:56 AM. Reason : often/can even be]

5/28/2010 9:44:46 AM

Quote :

"that's supposed to be spelled "Zeno" i'm pretty sure. and epicurus, who predates Zeno, IIRC, made a stab at modern style argument."

It depends on the translation, I think. Seen it both ways. Not sure which Russell uses, but that's probably what stuck with me. Not sure. Epicurus was ~a century or so X/Zeno's junior.

Quote :

"Is this true? Weren't the asians and the arabs and persians doing this around the same time too?"

No, making arguments is different than developing formal logic.

5/28/2010 10:58:33 AM

Quote :

"That was certainly a painful 180 to behold. Your first sentence basically nailed it."

In what sense? I've not suggested any sort of uniformity to any group.

Quote :

"From our own perspective, regarding practical application and the way in which we live our lives, we seem to have choice/free will."

Yeah, yeah, I get what he's saying, I just find it inane and a waste of time, even by wolfweb standards, to talk in an enormous circle to just say, "We don't have free will."

5/31/2010 3:30:06 AM

It's meaningful because it's the logical conclusion of a naturalistic viewpoint. "Free will" has spiritual connotations. Some people like to think that because they perceive to have free will, they must have some sort of extra-physical existence from which it is derived, which is not justifiably believable.

5/31/2010 8:33:33 AM

^ you are ignoring chaos, which is a legitimate scientific principle.

Some processes can have the same starting conditions, but different outcomes.

5/31/2010 11:46:28 AM

Science has not accepted as fact that the universe is completely deterministic. It is merely a theory, on no greater footing than the idea that there is an element of randomness to quantum mechanics.

6/1/2010 5:42:55 AM

omf emergent complexity

6/1/2010 8:36:14 AM

sigh another failure of imagination. They just building it to dare us to sacrifice our values so they can reveal our hypocracy. I think that 4th plane that crashed on the ground on 9/11 was meant for the Pentagon. The message would have been an unequivocal "Wallstreet and pentagon collaborate and it sucks" to hit the capital building would have been a statement against democracy, which is un-islamic. to hit the white house would have been a statement against the Bush administration which they know was only gonna be there temporarily. 2 planes PWN Pentagon+2 planes PWN Trade Center= clear message.

6/6/2010 4:40:45 AM

you dug up a 5-day old thread to post that?

6/6/2010 10:54:44 AM

the land of the free

8/3/2010 11:17:59 AM

this is like building a Buddhist or Shinto monument right next to Pearl Harbor. How can everyone not see this as a slap in the face. Build one, that I don't care about. Why, though, must it be so close to Ground Zero. I swear it is like some of you people don't remember.

8/3/2010 11:33:31 AM

LOL, are you being serious?

8/3/2010 11:38:43 AM

Shinto Shrines in Oahu:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=oahu%20shinto%20shrine&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Buddhist Shrines in Oahu:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=oahu%20shinto%20shrine&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

8/3/2010 11:39:29 AM

I'm gonna build a Mooninite shrine right next to Cape Canaveral.

8/3/2010 11:41:42 AM

^^^^Two blocks in NYC is not "so close." The "why" is because the nearest Mosque can't accommodate all its members.

^^12/7 NEVER FORGET

[Edited on August 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ]

8/3/2010 11:42:25 AM

^thats the only place they can build one?

8/3/2010 11:50:01 AM

...

Should Muslims in lower Manhattan have to take the train to Brooklyn to go to services? Perhaps Albany would be less offensive to you? Buffalo?

8/3/2010 11:56:19 AM

^^ They can build one wherever the fuck they want. This is America.

8/3/2010 11:58:36 AM

I guess some forgot we do have his little thing we call religious freedom in the US. Let us also not forget the terrorists killed quite a few Muslims too in the 9/11 attacks.

8/3/2010 12:05:55 PM

Churches near Wounded Knee:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=pine%20ridge%2C%20sd%20church&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

8/3/2010 12:07:30 PM

Christian churches in Hiroshima.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=christian+church+hiroshima

8/3/2010 12:17:25 PM

It's like having a Starcraft tournament at Virginia Tech

8/3/2010 12:18:04 PM

/thread

8/3/2010 12:23:33 PM

You know what would really grind my gears? If someone opened an al Qaeda training camp next to ground zero.

Complaining about anything less than that makes you the asshole.

8/3/2010 12:24:38 PM

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/street-level-view-of-ground-zero-mosque.html

Quote :

"A Street-Level View of the "Ground Zero Mosque" by Nate Silver @ 2:05 AM I'd written earlier today about some of the misleading conceptions surrounding the "Ground Zero Mosque" -- which is not really at Ground Zero and is not really a mosque as most people would think of one. By sheer coincidence, I happened to be near Ground Zero for dinner tonight and did a little bit of walking around afterward. There was construction work being done on the site even at 11 PM on a muggy Saturday evening, and it definitely still gives one the chills. Here is a not-very-good photo I took from the corner of Cortland and Church on the east-southeast perimeter of the World Trade Center site, facing due north toward where Cordoba House would be. There's pretty much no way that you're going to be able to see a 12-story building located two blocks behind a 16-story building that occupies the entire block, with another ~14-story building wedged in between. I also walked the entire northern permiter of the WTC site -- there's nowhere that you'd get even a passing glimpse of the mosque. And I walked the stretch of Park Place where Cordoba House would be located -- it's a fairly incoherent and downtrodden block that you'd have no particular reason to visit, unless you were going there specifically to see Cordoba House, nor is it one that you'd happen upon unintentionally. Could you see Cordoba House from a high floor on the north face of the Freedom Tower once it's built? I think that you could catch a glimpse of it -- along with most of the rest of Lower Manhattan -- if you strained yourself, although I'm not even certain about this. It certainly would not be very prominent and would look pretty much like an ordinary office building. I know that people may think I'm being overly semantic and literal-minded, but it seems to me that these details matter. There's not going to be some huge, ostentatious mosque with some minaret or some giant crescent located "at" Ground Zero, nor within clear sight of it, nor even on the way (in terms of virtually all natural paths a commuter or tourist might take) to Ground Zero. Rather, there's going to be a mixed-use retail building that contains some kind of reformist mosque, located somewhere in its general vicinity -- as there already is now. It would not impose upon or offend anyone unless they were going out of their way to be imposed upon or offended. Personally, after having bypassed the media filter and actually done some basic research on the topic, I've gone from probably being a 2 or 3 on the five-point scale I highlighted in the previous post -- meaning that I wasn't thrilled about the mosque, but thought they had a First Amendment right to build it -- to actually being closer to a 1. I think it would be a good thing for my city if this structure were built, and as someone who knows next to nothing about Islam, I'd be curious to see how an explicitly peace-loving, reformist, and Westernized version of the religion and culture chose to present itself to New Yorkers. About the only side effect might be a good falafel stand or two. If you disagree with me, I can totally respect that. But please get off your butt and actually scout out the area around Ground Zero first, or failing that download Google Earth and apply some common sense about urban geography."

Nate Silver, as he almost always does, hits the nail on the head

8/3/2010 12:32:26 PM

Here's another good editorial from the other side...

Quote :

"WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns Pope John Paul offers a model of tolerance for a heated controversy. By WILLIAM MCGURN With every passing day, the dispute over the planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero grows more acrimonious. These feelings will probably only get worse today, when the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission is expected to remove another hurdle by ruling against landmark status for the undistinguished old building the center will replace. So maybe it's time to look beyond the lawyers and landmark preservation commissions and regulatory agencies. When we do, it will be hard to find a better example than the grace and wisdom Pope John Paul II exhibited during a similar clash involving another hallowed site on whose grounds innocents were also murdered: Auschwitz. In the 1980s, Carmelite nuns moved into an abandoned building on the edge of the former Nazi death camp to pray for the souls taken there. As with the dispute over the mosque near Ground Zero, the convent's presence escalated into a clash not only between different faiths but between competing historical narratives. As with today's clash too, it seemed intractable until the Polish pope stepped in. For Jews, Auschwitz is a symbol of the Shoah, and the presence of a convent looked like an effort to Christianize a place of Jewish suffering. Suspicions were further aroused by a fundraising brochure from an outside Catholic group, which referred to the convent as a "guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers." The protests mounted over the course of several years and various interfaith agreements, and pointed to the real strains that remained between Poles and Jews over a shared history with very different perspectives. Many Catholics, not just in Poland, could not understand how nuns begging God's forgiveness and praying for the souls of the departed could possibly offend anyone. There was also a nationalist element. Many members of the Polish resistance had also been murdered at Auschwitz. And again like our present controversy at Ground Zero, intemperate reactions and statements from both sides only inflamed passions. So what did Pope John Paul II do? He waited, and he counseled. And when he saw that the nuns were not budging—and that their presence was doing more harm than good—he asked the Carmelites to move. He acknowledged that his letter would probably be a trial to each of the sisters, but asked them to accept it while continuing to pursue their mission in that same city at another convent that had been built for them. Let's remember what this means. By their own lights, the nuns believed they were doing only good. They may have had a legal title to be where they were. And it is likely that they never would have been forced to move by local authorities had they insisted on staying. There's a lesson here. Even those who favor this new Islamic Center surely can appreciate why some American feelings are rubbed raw by the idea of a mosque at a place where Islamic terrorists killed more than 2,700 innocent people. If feelings in Auschwitz were raw after nearly half a century, it's not hard to see why they would remain raw at Ground Zero after less than a decade. On the other hand, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is right about the law: Our freedom of religion means nothing if it doesn't mean freedom of religion for all. Indeed, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—a sort of ACLU for freedom of religion—has spent decades defending churches, synagogues, mosques and even a Zoroastrian temple against public officials who have tried to invoke zoning laws or arcane regulations to keep them off a property. Yet not all big questions can—or should—be reduced to legal right. Living together as neighbors in a free and inescapably diverse society requires more skills than just knowing how to hire sharp lawyers. Sometimes it requires leaders willing to sound a grace note, even yielding to the feelings of others who may not see our plans the same way we do. For their part, the two people at the heart of this center—Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan—defend the center as an antidote to 9/11. "Our religion has been hijacked by the extremists," Ms. Khan told National Public Radio, "and this center is going to create that counter-momentum which will amplify the voices of the moderate Muslims." Perhaps. But it's hard to argue with the Anti-Defamation League's assessment that the controversy created by building the center at this location "is counterproductive to the healing process." Without doubt Pope John Paul II did not share the more malevolent interpretations attached to the presence of the Carmelites at Auschwitz. By asking the nuns to withdraw, he didn't concede them either. What he did was recognize that having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html

8/3/2010 12:38:50 PM

They should put a mosque INSIDE the world trade center. If terrorists decide to mimic the attack, then they'd be killing their own people and we'd have more support from muslim leaders.

[Edited on August 3, 2010 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2010 12:43:28 PM

Sure, because islamists have never attacked a mosque or deliberately massacred other muslims before.

and they'd be able to excuse your idea even easier by calling the muslim deaths collateral damage and assigning all those muslims martyr status.

GeniuSxBoy

8/3/2010 12:47:40 PM

More of them die and less of us die, what the fuck are you rolling your eyes for.

8/3/2010 12:50:41 PM

Quote :

"More of them die and less of us die, what the fuck are you rolling your eyes for."

lawl. And people wonder what my problem with religion is.

Though I'm guessing this is a troll comment.

8/3/2010 1:11:35 PM

I'm rolling my eyes because your anticipation of Islamist sympathy towards fellow muslims is hopelessly naive.

8/3/2010 1:15:20 PM

Quote :

"About the only side effect might be a good falafel stand or two."

Or this:

8/3/2010 1:24:52 PM

Don't worry about that one. There's a hellfire with his name on it.

8/3/2010 1:25:50 PM

Sorry but fuck bigots and fuck their feelings.

8/3/2010 2:54:18 PM

"Fuck how you feel about it"
____/

8/3/2010 3:08:25 PM

Quote :

"Sorry but fuck bigots and fuck their feelings."

I think the mosque should be allowed to be built.

however, if you are incapable of understanding the other side of this argument, you are an obtuse dumbass, completely devoid of any rational thought.

8/3/2010 3:37:42 PM

I understand that people are ignorant bigots. What about it?

Are you saying because I don't find their mode of thinking acceptable that I'm obtuse? Hmmm how about nope.

8/3/2010 3:40:05 PM

No he is saying because you cant realize there are two sides youre a fucking idiot.

8/3/2010 3:55:52 PM

There are two sides to any issue.

"Should I take the trash out after 15 weeks of fermentation or not? LET'S HEAR BOTH SIDES."

8/3/2010 3:57:09 PM

just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is the correct thing to do.

you seem to be of the opinion that because these people have the right to do this, there is no reason to feel offended that they are doing it.

I have the right to troll the fuck out of you and other people on this board, but I choose not to do so because it would cause offense and people would get mad at me.

8/3/2010 4:05:45 PM

What am I supposed to be offended by here? What is offensive about a religious based community center, similar to the YMCA, being built near the WTC site? Just because some people that aren't related to this project, but happen to have been of the same religion, were terrorists?

8/3/2010 4:10:09 PM