Why argue with someone that is saying the only thing they can say

[Rostos]

If i get presented the arguments and evidences for evolution, and i reject it, did i have a choice to accept or reject it based on the rationaility of the argumnts? Or did i reject it simply because of the way the chemicals in my brain reacted to the external stimuli (the evidences)? That is, under determinism, i am merely a passenger.

Both.  As I said, you've erected a false dichotomy and you continue to argue as if semantic epiphenominalism were entailed by materialism.   Choosing to accept or reject it rationally is just looking at the behavior of the chemicals in your brain from another perspective.   Rationally evaluating things is changing the chemicals in your brain, and vice versa.  There is no conflict because they are the same thing.

How can it be both?

If i throw you off a cliff, you will be subject to the law of gravity, you will fall...No matter how much you scream, kick, wave your arms around, you have no control at all as to what is happening.

You are merely a passenger in this example, subject to the laws of physics that were determined all the way back from the big bang.

Do you agree?

Now, how is this any different in any other aspect? All the chemicals in our brains are merely reacting to the external stimuli.

If i read the evidences for evolution, it is merely the chemicals in my brain which is reacting to the external stimuli (evidences) and i come to the conclusion i come to simply due to the the way the brain reacts to the external stimuli....

I/me am merely a passenger in the process just like you falling down the cliff...i am just like you arent in any position but to obey the laws of physics we are subject to....

I would reject evolution not because of the rationality of the arguments, but merely because of the way my brain has reacted to the external stimuli (evidence)

[Identity Crisis]

If i get presented the arguments and evidences for evolution, and i reject it, did i have a choice to accept or reject it based on the rationaility of the argumnts? Or did i reject it simply because of the way the chemicals in my brain reacted to the external stimuli (the evidences)? That is, under determinism, i am merely a passenger.

Both.  As I said, you've erected a false dichotomy and you continue to argue as if semantic epiphenominalism were entailed by materialism.   Choosing to accept or reject it rationally is just looking at the behavior of the chemicals in your brain from another perspective.   Rationally evaluating things is changing the chemicals in your brain, and vice versa.  There is no conflict because they are the same thing.

How can it be both?

If i throw you off a cliff, you will be subject to the law of gravity, you will fall...No matter how much you scream, kick, wave your arms around, you have no control at all as to what is happening.

You are merely a passenger in this example, subject to the laws of physics that were determined all the way back from the big bang.

Do you agree?

Now, how is this any different in any other aspect? All the chemicals in our brains are merely reacting to the external stimuli.

If i read the evidences for evolution, it is merely the chemicals in my brain which is reacting to the external stimuli (evidences) and i come to the conclusion i come to simply due to the the way the brain reacts to the external stimuli....

I/me am merely a passenger in the process just like you falling down the cliff...i am just like you arent in any position but to obey the laws of physics we are subject to....

I would reject evolution not because of the rationality of the arguments, but merely because of the way my brain has reacted to the external stimuli (evidence)

The rationality of the argument is the external stimuli. The argument seems convincing to you or it doesn't. I asked you in the other thread how you choose whether or not an argument is rational. What do you make this choice based on?

[TheBigOhMan]

Does a flower want to turn to the sun?
A yes answer is clearly misusing the term "want".

No, but flowers don't have mental states.

on materailism there is no "person" having desires and such independent of the chip, being overruled by the chip.
there's just the chip.

Even if we assumed dualism, where for sure there is a person my point still stands. Just because tour body is determined in this scenario, wouldn't mean your soul cannot want things. Determinism doesn't entail lack of desires.

[Rostos]

If i get presented the arguments and evidences for evolution, and i reject it, did i have a choice to accept or reject it based on the rationaility of the argumnts? Or did i reject it simply because of the way the chemicals in my brain reacted to the external stimuli (the evidences)? That is, under determinism, i am merely a passenger.

Both.  As I said, you've erected a false dichotomy and you continue to argue as if semantic epiphenominalism were entailed by materialism.   Choosing to accept or reject it rationally is just looking at the behavior of the chemicals in your brain from another perspective.   Rationally evaluating things is changing the chemicals in your brain, and vice versa.  There is no conflict because they are the same thing.

How can it be both?

If i throw you off a cliff, you will be subject to the law of gravity, you will fall...No matter how much you scream, kick, wave your arms around, you have no control at all as to what is happening.

You are merely a passenger in this example, subject to the laws of physics that were determined all the way back from the big bang.

Do you agree?

Now, how is this any different in any other aspect? All the chemicals in our brains are merely reacting to the external stimuli.

If i read the evidences for evolution, it is merely the chemicals in my brain which is reacting to the external stimuli (evidences) and i come to the conclusion i come to simply due to the the way the brain reacts to the external stimuli....

I/me am merely a passenger in the process just like you falling down the cliff...i am just like you arent in any position but to obey the laws of physics we are subject to....

I would reject evolution not because of the rationality of the arguments, but merely because of the way my brain has reacted to the external stimuli (evidence)

The rationality of the argument is the external stimuli. The argument seems convincing to you or it doesn't. I asked you in the other thread how you choose whether or not an argument is rational. What do you make this choice based on?

I come to the conclusion that something is rational because i have the ability to freely weigh up the evidences and choose freely based on this.

Under determinism, i canot rationally affirm the evidences because i am merely a passenger to the reaction between the chemicals in my brain and the external evidences.

No matter how hard i try, i cannot "overwrite" the auto pilot that has been set that way. Therefore, if i cannot over write the auto pilot, i havent come to the conclusion of evolution based on rational reasons, rather, because the laws of physics have deemed it to be that way.

[apophenia]

If i get presented the arguments and evidences for evolution, and i reject it, did i have a choice to accept or reject it based on the rationaility of the argumnts? Or did i reject it simply because of the way the chemicals in my brain reacted to the external stimuli (the evidences)? That is, under determinism, i am merely a passenger.

Both.  As I said, you've erected a false dichotomy and you continue to argue as if semantic epiphenominalism were entailed by materialism.   Choosing to accept or reject it rationally is just looking at the behavior of the chemicals in your brain from another perspective.   Rationally evaluating things is changing the chemicals in your brain, and vice versa.  There is no conflict because they are the same thing.

How can it be both?

If i throw you off a cliff, you will be subject to the law of gravity, you will fall...No matter how much you scream, kick, wave your arms around, you have no control at all as to what is happening.

You are merely a passenger in this example, subject to the laws of physics that were determined all the way back from the big bang.

Do you agree?

Now, how is this any different in any other aspect? All the chemicals in our brains are merely reacting to the external stimuli.

If i read the evidences for evolution, it is merely the chemicals in my brain which is reacting to the external stimuli (evidences) and i come to the conclusion i come to simply due to the the way the brain reacts to the external stimuli....

I/me am merely a passenger in the process just like you falling down the cliff...i am just like you arent in any position but to obey the laws of physics we are subject to....

I would reject evolution not because of the rationality of the arguments, but merely because of the way my brain has reacted to the external stimuli (evidence)

The rationality of the argument is the external stimuli. The argument seems convincing to you or it doesn't. I asked you in the other thread how you choose whether or not an argument is rational. What do you make this choice based on?

I come to the conclusion that something is rational because i have the ability to freely weigh up the evidences and choose freely based on this.

Under determinism, i canot rationally affirm the evidences because i am merely a passenger to the reaction between the chemicals in my brain and the external evidences.

No matter how hard i try, i cannot "overwrite" the auto pilot that has been set that way. Therefore, if i cannot over write the auto pilot, i havent come to the conclusion of evolution based on rational reasons, rather, because the laws of physics have deemed it to be that way.

You are the auto-pilot, an auto-pilot that responds to external evidences.  You are not merely a passenger. 

[Identity Crisis]

I come to the conclusion that something is rational because i have the ability to freely weigh up the evidences and choose freely based on this.

Under determinism, i canot rationally affirm the evidences because i am merely a passenger to the reaction between the chemicals in my brain and the external evidences.

No matter how hard i try, i cannot "overwrite" the auto pilot that has been set that way. Therefore, if i cannot over write the auto pilot, i havent come to the conclusion of evolution based on rational reasons, rather, because the laws of physics have deemed it to be that way.

Ok, when you weigh evidence, do you choose what the weights are for each side, or does each side just appear to have some weight to it? As in, does my position seem to have little weight to it, or do you just choose for it to have very little weight?

[john doe]

And how can you go on entertaining these bizarre ideas in the face of all the evidence against?

Evidence against what? Theism?

Very typical response, "materialism is true because theism is false" kind of thing. The problem is that's faulty logic.
I don't see atheists actually ever embracing the truth of materialism.

No, no.  Evidence against the thread's title: "Why argue with someone that is saying the only thing they can say".  These kinds of statements of logical impossibility of holding certain positions don't help anyone.

I have no case against theism.  I just hate sloppy thinking on either side.

[Rostos]

Identity crisis and apophenia....

I dont think you understand my argument. I am not here to prove either way.

Rather, as the passage from WLC suggests, you will never be able to say that determinism is true based on rational affirmation.

[Identity Crisis]

Identity crisis and apophenia....

I dont think you understand my argument. I am not here to prove either way.

Rather, as the passage from WLC suggests, you will never be able to say that determinism is true based on rational affirmation.

I feel like I understand what you're arguing. Would you mind answering my question from post #65? I do have a point I would like to make there.

[RichardChad]

Given determinism, the determinist argues with the non-determinist because he was determined to. You seem to be wanting to say that it's inconsistent for the determinist to do so because arguing assumes that the person being argued with could come to believe otherwise. But that's not inconsistent with determinism. This very argument could bring about you believing that determinism and arguing are compatible.

1. That doesn't address the issue of treating a person as if they could have done otherwise to begin with

2. There is no "could bring about" as if the person has the ability to freely choose, one would either be determined to or not and the result was established as what was going to happen when the initial conditions of the universe were established.

1. Well yea, the determinist doesn't think they could've done otherwise without a determining factor. So if a determinist does treat a person as if they could've done otherwise to begin with, without a determining factor, then I guess they're mistaken. We all make mistakes, so I don't see what the big deal is. Or there's also the possibility that you're mistaken in thinking that the determinist believes they could've done otherwise without a determining factor.

2. You've just misunderstood what I meant by could bring about. I don't mean the determining factor might or might not bring it about, I mean that that particular argument could be that very determining factor that does. This leads me to think you might actually be misunderstanding the determinist.

what do you mean by "determining factor"

[RichardChad]

The atheist treats the theist as if they could do otherwise - present tense - not that they could have done otherwise.

1. That's not consistent with materialism, on materialism both your actions and my actions were cast in stone at the origins of the universe. We can not "do otherwise".

I think you've hitched your wagon to an empty slogan here.  That ultimately things are going to turn out the way they are going to turn out doesn't mean that in a situation of epistemic uncertainty that I am being inconsistent in acknowledging that uncertainty.

again, this is just a fancy way of saying what Dawkins says, right? We're better off just living as if the illusion is true, right?

2. Atheists don't treat theists as if they could not have done otherwise. I've yet to hear an atheist say "I'm so sorry your determined to believe that way", instead, we hear a great deal of "why would you think that!!"

I see no conflict between the two.  If you do, would you be so kind as to point it out.  Proximal causes are called proximal because *ding* *ding* they are near to the effect in the causal chain.  Ceteris paribus, if I know your proximal causes for believing something I stand a better chance of intervening to alter your beliefs than if I talk about ultimate causation. 

not sure where you are confused, I've yet to hear an atheist say "I'm so sorry your determined to believe that way", instead, we hear a great deal of "why would you think that!!"

why would a materialist ask the question "why would you think that"

It also ignores the fact that on materialism you don't freely choose to do anything, so it's irrational  (on materialism) to say something like " I'm here on this forum because I ... ", on materialism you could have done nothing other.

That the ultimate cause of my behavior does not mean that the proximal causes of my behavior are not also properly viewed as causes.  Ultimate causes, no, but causes nonetheless.  I fail to see the conflict in framing the explanation of my behavior in terms of proximal causes; it's what I have access to inspect.  I fail to see why you think framing things in those terms is a denial of determinism.  You'll have to explain that one, as you're making no sense to me.

ah yes, "I would prefer to operate under the illusion that I have free will and am significant than face the hard facts of what my worldview implies."

No, I do not see the conflict between my behavior and my worldview which you seem to claim exists.

you behave as if you and others could have done otherwise, you don't see a problem with thinking something that is in direct opposition to your professed world view?

[Identity Crisis]

Given determinism, the determinist argues with the non-determinist because he was determined to. You seem to be wanting to say that it's inconsistent for the determinist to do so because arguing assumes that the person being argued with could come to believe otherwise. But that's not inconsistent with determinism. This very argument could bring about you believing that determinism and arguing are compatible.

1. That doesn't address the issue of treating a person as if they could have done otherwise to begin with

2. There is no "could bring about" as if the person has the ability to freely choose, one would either be determined to or not and the result was established as what was going to happen when the initial conditions of the universe were established.

1. Well yea, the determinist doesn't think they could've done otherwise without a determining factor. So if a determinist does treat a person as if they could've done otherwise to begin with, without a determining factor, then I guess they're mistaken. We all make mistakes, so I don't see what the big deal is. Or there's also the possibility that you're mistaken in thinking that the determinist believes they could've done otherwise without a determining factor.

2. You've just misunderstood what I meant by could bring about. I don't mean the determining factor might or might not bring it about, I mean that that particular argument could be that very determining factor that does. This leads me to think you might actually be misunderstanding the determinist.

what do you mean by "determining factor"

The particular thing that would cause my belief to change. As in I could be presented with an argument that convinces me, such that I become aware that I am wrong about something. My belief was determined to change. You will probably say that since my beliefs are determined, they could be determined to be wrong. But I would say so what? You could freely choose your beliefs, whatever that might mean, and still be wrong. That our beliefs may be false is a problem for both sides.

[RichardChad]

Given determinism, the determinist argues with the non-determinist because he was determined to. You seem to be wanting to say that it's inconsistent for the determinist to do so because arguing assumes that the person being argued with could come to believe otherwise. But that's not inconsistent with determinism. This very argument could bring about you believing that determinism and arguing are compatible.

1. That doesn't address the issue of treating a person as if they could have done otherwise to begin with

2. There is no "could bring about" as if the person has the ability to freely choose, one would either be determined to or not and the result was established as what was going to happen when the initial conditions of the universe were established.

1. Well yea, the determinist doesn't think they could've done otherwise without a determining factor. So if a determinist does treat a person as if they could've done otherwise to begin with, without a determining factor, then I guess they're mistaken. We all make mistakes, so I don't see what the big deal is. Or there's also the possibility that you're mistaken in thinking that the determinist believes they could've done otherwise without a determining factor.

2. You've just misunderstood what I meant by could bring about. I don't mean the determining factor might or might not bring it about, I mean that that particular argument could be that very determining factor that does. This leads me to think you might actually be misunderstanding the determinist.

what do you mean by "determining factor"

The particular thing that would cause my belief to change. As in I could be presented with an argument that convinces me, such that I become aware that I am wrong about something. My belief was determined to change. You will probably say that since my beliefs are determined, they could be determined to be wrong. But I would say so what? You could freely choose your beliefs, whatever that might mean, and still be wrong. That our beliefs may be false is a problem for both sides.

The problem with determinism is that it does not correspond to our experience of reality. We experience the ability to freely choose. I've yet to encounter any atheist claiming to be a materialist that denies that we have the ability to freely choose. I've yet to encounter any atheist who accepts the materialist reality that their thoughts and actions were set in stone at the origins of the universe, just as the planets orbits were.

[Identity Crisis]

Given determinism, the determinist argues with the non-determinist because he was determined to. You seem to be wanting to say that it's inconsistent for the determinist to do so because arguing assumes that the person being argued with could come to believe otherwise. But that's not inconsistent with determinism. This very argument could bring about you believing that determinism and arguing are compatible.

1. That doesn't address the issue of treating a person as if they could have done otherwise to begin with

2. There is no "could bring about" as if the person has the ability to freely choose, one would either be determined to or not and the result was established as what was going to happen when the initial conditions of the universe were established.

1. Well yea, the determinist doesn't think they could've done otherwise without a determining factor. So if a determinist does treat a person as if they could've done otherwise to begin with, without a determining factor, then I guess they're mistaken. We all make mistakes, so I don't see what the big deal is. Or there's also the possibility that you're mistaken in thinking that the determinist believes they could've done otherwise without a determining factor.

2. You've just misunderstood what I meant by could bring about. I don't mean the determining factor might or might not bring it about, I mean that that particular argument could be that very determining factor that does. This leads me to think you might actually be misunderstanding the determinist.

what do you mean by "determining factor"

The particular thing that would cause my belief to change. As in I could be presented with an argument that convinces me, such that I become aware that I am wrong about something. My belief was determined to change. You will probably say that since my beliefs are determined, they could be determined to be wrong. But I would say so what? You could freely choose your beliefs, whatever that might mean, and still be wrong. That our beliefs may be false is a problem for both sides.

The problem with determinism is that it does not correspond to our experience of reality. We experience the ability to freely choose. I've yet to encounter any atheist claiming to be a materialist that denies that we have the ability to freely choose. I've yet to encounter any atheist who accepts the materialist reality that their thoughts and actions were set in stone at the origins of the universe, just as the planets orbits were.

I'm at IHOP right now. I haven't ordered. I may get pancakes, or maybe a waffle. You mean that I can't believe that while also believing determinism is true, right? I would just say that our epistemic limitations make this a normal way of talking. I'll sit down and deliberate and come to a decision between the two, and that could all be determined. But I don't know right now what I'll choose. It's perfectly normal to say the coin may turn up heads or tails even though this would be the product of determinism. Our language just doesn't normally carry the baggage you're trying to put on the determinist.

[RichardChad]

I'm at IHOP right now. I haven't ordered. I may get pancakes, or maybe a waffle. You mean that I can't believe that while also believing determinism is true, right? I would just say that our epistemic limitations make this a normal way of talking. I'll sit down and deliberate and come to a decision between the two, and that could all be determined. But I don't know right now what I'll choose. It's perfectly normal to say the coin may turn up heads or tails even though this would be the product of determinism. Our language just doesn't normally carry the baggage you're trying to put on the determinist.

1. As a determinist you believe that every thought and every action you will ever have or take was fixed at the origins of the universe.That "deliberation" is merely an illusion, like a computer deliberating, the outcome is fixed and cannot be changed. On determinism you aren't freely choosing anything.

2. Our language doesn't carry the baggage of determinism because our language assumes the reality of LFW.

3. Get the Grand Slam! LFW exists!