Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[BigMike]

I am sorry I could not explain determinism to you as I see it, as a road to personal freedom.

If you see determinism as Mike does...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...then it, determinism, cannot be a road to any freedom.

It seems this might be beyond your current level of understanding:

Let me clarify how agency fits within my deterministic framework and why it doesn’t conflict with human experience or the broader implications of causality.

Agency is often understood as the capacity to act or intervene in the present to produce a specific effect. My view modifies this understanding in a crucial way: agency isn’t about free, independent action in the present—it’s about how learning and memory open the door to action or intervention that produces a particular effect in the future. In other words, agency isn’t negated by determinism; it is enhanced by it. The brain, shaped by experience and input, learns, adapts, and stores information through physical changes at the neural level. These changes enable future actions that are informed by past experiences.

Let’s consider an example: Suppose someone chooses to learn a musical instrument. The effort they invest—repeating scales, understanding rhythm, practicing coordination—leads to physical changes in the brain. Synaptic connections are strengthened, motor skills improve, and memory consolidates these experiences. These deterministic processes set the stage for future choices and actions: improvising a melody, playing in an orchestra, or teaching others. The "agency" you attribute to something transcendent is better understood as the deterministic interplay of past learning, present conditions, and future potential.

This doesn’t diminish human agency—it grounds it in a reality that is observable, measurable, and consistent with the laws of nature. Far from reducing human experience to mechanistic inevitability, it highlights the extraordinary adaptability and complexity of deterministic systems. Our choices, as you call them, are not less meaningful because they arise from these processes. They are more meaningful because they are the cumulative result of everything we’ve learned, remembered, and experienced.

[henry quirk]

I asked you to return me to your penalty box.

Why are you readin' my posts?

Oh, that's right...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...so you have no say-so.

[BigMike]

I asked you to return me to your penalty box.

Why are you readin' my posts?

Oh, that's right...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...so you have no say-so.

I only check your comments when you're quoting me, knowing full well that you always distort what I'm saying. It's a predictable cycle: you take a snippet, twist it into something unrecognizable, and then act as though you've countered my argument. If you're going to quote me, at least engage with what I actually said, not whatever version you've decided suits your narrative. You still are and will remain boxed.

[henry quirk]

You still are and will remain boxed.

See, I'd point out to a fellow free will that it's damn silly to box me but still read and respond to my posts.

With you, though...well, you're just a meat machine...you have no more self-control than a toaster does. I press your button: you make toast. I wonder what else I can make you do?

This is gonna be fun.

[BigMike]

The question posed by this thread's heading, "Can the Religious Be Trusted?" has been definitively answered—not by me, but by the religious participants themselves. And the answer is a resounding NO. Time and again, their responses veer into deflections, distortions, and outright intellectual dishonesty. When faced with clear arguments or uncomfortable truths, they resort to mocking, dodging, or twisting words, proving they can’t engage in good faith.

So, no—if trust requires a commitment to honesty and intellectual rigor, the religious, at least as represented here, have disqualified themselves. They’ve made it abundantly clear that protecting their dogmas takes precedence over engaging meaningfully or truthfully.

[henry quirk]

If I was talkin' to a real person I'd say what I did up-thread: Depends on the faith and the faith-holder. I'd say a faith position is no guarantee of diddly, cuz free wills are gonna do as they choose, not as they're bidden.

As I'm just talkin' about a meat machine...meh. Really, who gives a sparrow's fart what an appliance thinks?

[Belinda]

I asked you to return me to your penalty box.

Why are you readin' my posts?

Oh, that's right...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...so you have no say-so.

So what , Henry, do you think is the thing that has the say-so? Where is this thing? How big is this thing? How does this thing connect with your brain?

[Impenitent]

If I was talkin' to a real person I'd say what I did up-thread: Depends on the faith and the faith-holder. I'd say a faith position is no guarantee of diddly, cuz free wills are gonna do as they choose, not as they're bidden.

As I'm just talkin' about a meat machine...meh. Really, who gives a sparrow's fart what an appliance thinks?

artificial "thinking" done by an appliance which "reads" the thermostat insures cooking the meat to the perfect temperature

to be or not to be half baked- that is the question

-Imp

[henry quirk]

So what , Henry, do you think is the thing that has the say-so? Where is this thing? How big is this thing? How does this thing connect with your brain?

Not relevant to my point, B.

[Belinda]

So what , Henry, do you think is the thing that has the say-so? Where is this thing? How big is this thing? How does this thing connect with your brain?

Not relevant to my point, B.

How free are you, Henry? Would endorsing a religious belief make you more free , or less free. If you are not free to use your reason and speak your truth because your religion forbids free thought and free speech then you are not as free as a non-religious who can tell the truth as she sees it. This is why freedom is relevant.

[Age]

Since 'free will' is a religious concept then it's bullshit by default. Glad that's cleared up. Next topic...

Since WHEN has 'free will' been a, so-claimed, 'religious concept'?

Unique among all of God’s creation is man, given the ability to freely choose how he will behave and thus endowed with the greatest responsibility. Gen. 1:26-31. We can choose how we will respond to God, whether we will serve Him or not. He does not force us to serve Him


The doctrine of Free Will is essential to all forms of theism, as the doctrine of Free Will enables God to punish with justice.The doctrine is as old as the oldest theistic religion which probably is Judaism.

Thank you. It is very refreshing when my clarifying questions are actually answered.

What you have provided, here, explains further why those with beliefs, like "bigmike", "immanuel can", and "henry quirk", end up just continually fighting and arguing with each other, here.

They never stop TO LISTEN, and instead just keep on 'trying'.

[Age]

Have you ever been tea-bagged?

Your response is beyond inappropriate and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It’s shocking that you would stoop to such a juvenile and offensive remark, particularly in the context of what was, up until that point, an intellectual exchange. This isn’t just unproductive; it’s downright sickening.

If I had to guess, deterministically speaking, remarks like that may stem from deep-seated issues or formative experiences, perhaps shaped by upbringing in environments where open discussions about sexuality were stigmatized or repressed. Psychological studies have shown correlations between strict, sex-negative environments and higher incidences of unhealthy attitudes toward sex, ranging from shame and guilt to inappropriate or even perverse expressions of it later in life. This isn’t an accusation—it’s an observation grounded in data.

Such environments often set the stage for dysfunction. When sexuality is suppressed, curiosity doesn’t disappear; it often manifests in unhealthy or secretive ways. And while not every individual raised in such circumstances reacts this way, the trend is well-documented. It’s a powerful reminder of how deeply deterministic forces—upbringing, social norms, and cultural narratives—shape even the most personal aspects of human behavior.

If your goal is to engage in serious discussion, then rise to that level. If not, perhaps it’s time to reflect on what compels you to derail conversations with this kind of behavior. This space deserves better, and frankly, so do you.

I can't believe you are so upset with me when since the Big Bang to now I had no choice in the matter. You can't punish me like this BigMike, it truly hurts (ok, that's a lie).

Why you bring sex into the discussion is beyond me.

The fact remains that I don't know whether I have ever been tea-bagged (as a result of The Big Bang). Apparently it usually happens to the victim when one is asleep. Nobody's ever admitted to me that they had tea-bagged me. You are very upset about this, to the extent that perhaps, just maybe you had a bastard of a friend actually admit to doing it to you. If you want to talk about it, we are all here for you Mike. Thank GOD that the Big Bang made me such a considerate, yet extremely immature gentleman.

And VERY PRESUMPTIVE.

But, then again, the thing that caused and created the big bang, which made 'you' the way 'you' are, was what REALLY made 'you' 'the way' that 'you' really are, right?

Or, do you really BELIEVE that the big bang was the beginning, and cause, of absolutely EVERY thing?

[henry quirk]

Again: not relevant to my point, B.

[Age]

Your response is beyond inappropriate and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It’s shocking that you would stoop to such a juvenile and offensive remark, particularly in the context of what was, up until that point, an intellectual exchange. This isn’t just unproductive; it’s downright sickening.

If I had to guess, deterministically speaking, remarks like that may stem from deep-seated issues or formative experiences, perhaps shaped by upbringing in environments where open discussions about sexuality were stigmatized or repressed. Psychological studies have shown correlations between strict, sex-negative environments and higher incidences of unhealthy attitudes toward sex, ranging from shame and guilt to inappropriate or even perverse expressions of it later in life. This isn’t an accusation—it’s an observation grounded in data.

Such environments often set the stage for dysfunction. When sexuality is suppressed, curiosity doesn’t disappear; it often manifests in unhealthy or secretive ways. And while not every individual raised in such circumstances reacts this way, the trend is well-documented. It’s a powerful reminder of how deeply deterministic forces—upbringing, social norms, and cultural narratives—shape even the most personal aspects of human behavior.

If your goal is to engage in serious discussion, then rise to that level. If not, perhaps it’s time to reflect on what compels you to derail conversations with this kind of behavior. This space deserves better, and frankly, so do you.

I can't believe you are so upset with me when since the Big Bang to now I had no choice in the matter. You can't punish me like this BigMike, it truly hurts (ok, that's a lie).

Why you bring sex into the discussion is beyond me.

The fact remains that I don't know whether I have ever been tea-bagged (as a result of The Big Bang). Apparently it usually happens to the victim when one is asleep. Nobody's ever admitted to me that they had tea-bagged me. You are very upset about this, to the extent that perhaps, just maybe you had a bastard of a friend actually admit to doing it to you. If you want to talk about it, we are all here for you Mike. Thank GOD that the Big Bang made me such a considerate, yet extremely immature gentleman.

Your response is a complete deflection, and frankly, it's exhausting to see you persist in avoiding accountability for your own words by resorting to childish humor.

Although "attofishpi's" continual avoiding of responsibility, here, is not exhausting at all, to me, anyway you are absolutely Correct in "attofishpi's" response being a complete (attempt) at DEFLECTION. But this is just what "attofishpi" continually 'tries to do', along with its attempts at humor, again for DEFLECTION, DISTRACTION, and DECEPTION. But, and "attofishpi" Rightly POINTED OUT, to you, it has absolutely NO other choice. Well according to your logic, BELIEF, and CLAIM, here, anyway, correct?

Let me clarify something: this isn’t about being “upset.” It’s about pointing out behavior that derails meaningful discourse and reduces complex discussions to cheap attempts at humor that do nothing but waste time.

I never 'saw' you as being upset. I just saw a well written response by you. However, what you seem to keep MISSING is that whatever happens and whatever response you get, and write "yourself", absolutely none of you had absolutely ANY choice NOR control over, correct?

You claim that determinism absolves you of responsibility because, "since the Big Bang," you had no choice in the matter. Let’s address that, too. Determinism explains why people behave as they do based on prior causes—upbringing, environment, experiences—but it doesn’t remove the possibility of introspection, growth, or self-awareness.

This, here, is, EXACTLY, where your views and claims keep FALLING APART and FAILING, ABSOLUTELY, "bigmike".

you can NOT logically keep claiming absolutely EVERY thing is because of 'determinism' BUT people have a choice over whether they CHOOSE to introspect, grow, or become self-aware.

you are FIGHTING and ARGUING AGAINST "yourself", here, sometimes.

But, then again, you have absolutely NO choice in misbehaving 'this way', right?

Even within a deterministic framework, people have the capacity to reflect on their actions and recognize when they’re crossing boundaries.

But ONLY WHEN the pre-existing conditions have allowed them to. And, OBVIOUSLY, NO two people have had the exact same pre-existing conditions.

What’s especially troubling is your repeated insistence on introducing perverse or irrelevant commentary into what was intended to be an intellectual discussion.

LOL "bigmike" it was NEVER going to any other way, OBVIOUSLY.

The fact that this response comes so naturally to you raises serious questions about the forces that shaped your behavior.

And, what about your OWN misgivings and Wrong doings?

Are you raising serious questions about the forces that shaped your Wrong behaviors' here?

Or, are you MISSING and/or 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY FROM those 'past forces' BECAUSE those 'past forces' actually TAUGHT you to be DEFLECTIVE, DISMISSIVE, and/or DECEPTIVE of 'those forces' that have made you do Wrong and MISBEHAVE?

Are you trying to deflect attention from your inability to engage seriously,

LOL "bigmike", have you, "yourself", REALLY, been engaging 'seriously', here?

For example, you define the 'free will' words in a way that they could not exist, and so then conclude 'free will' does not exist. Which is about a silly and stupid as defining any other word/s in 'a way' that they could not exist, and then spending the rest of your time claiming that 'it' does not exist, and LOL FIGHTING and ARGUING FOR 'your claim'.

Do you want to focus on your INABILITY to engage seriously, here? Or, are you, also, trying to deflect attention from your inability to engage seriously, as well?

or are these responses simply what your mind defaults to under pressure?

Once again for the slow of learning, you human beings do BOT have your own minds

Either way, it’s a clear sign that something in your past—your environment, your social interactions, or your upbringing—has wired you to seek attention through provocation rather than meaningful contribution.

The EXACT SAME can be said and SHOWN about you, here, "bigmike".

you are not REALLY providing meaningful contribution, here. Instead you are just 'trying to' get others to accept and agree with your OWN belief/s, here.

If you truly want to continue this conversation, then drop the immaturity, stop deflecting, and engage in a way that respects the intellectual effort being put into this exchange.

LOL you want to TELL others that the 'very way' that they are is because of 'determinism', and that they have absolutely NO 'free will' to CHOOSE to CHANGE 'the way' they are, AT ALL, BUT, ALSO, CRITICIZE them for continuing to b 'the very way' that they are, and for NOT being DIFFERENT.

Could you get MORE CONTRADICTORY and/or be MORE HYPOCRITICAL, here, "bigmike"?

Otherwise, you’re just proving my earlier point: when someone can’t rise to the level of the discussion, they try to bring everyone else down to theirs. Don’t let that be the legacy of your contributions here.

'This' is EXACTLY what you, "bigmike", are DOING, here, "yourself".

[BigMike]

I can't believe you are so upset with me when since the Big Bang to now I had no choice in the matter. You can't punish me like this BigMike, it truly hurts (ok, that's a lie).

Why you bring sex into the discussion is beyond me.

The fact remains that I don't know whether I have ever been tea-bagged (as a result of The Big Bang). Apparently it usually happens to the victim when one is asleep. Nobody's ever admitted to me that they had tea-bagged me. You are very upset about this, to the extent that perhaps, just maybe you had a bastard of a friend actually admit to doing it to you. If you want to talk about it, we are all here for you Mike. Thank GOD that the Big Bang made me such a considerate, yet extremely immature gentleman.

Your response is a complete deflection, and frankly, it's exhausting to see you persist in avoiding accountability for your own words by resorting to childish humor.

Although "attofishpi's" continual avoiding of responsibility, here, is not exhausting at all, to me, anyway you are absolutely Correct in "attofishpi's" response being a complete (attempt) at DEFLECTION. But this is just what "attofishpi" continually 'tries to do', along with its attempts at humor, again for DEFLECTION, DISTRACTION, and DECEPTION. But, and "attofishpi" Rightly POINTED OUT, to you, it has absolutely NO other choice. Well according to your logic, BELIEF, and CLAIM, here, anyway, correct?

Let me clarify something: this isn’t about being “upset.” It’s about pointing out behavior that derails meaningful discourse and reduces complex discussions to cheap attempts at humor that do nothing but waste time.

I never 'saw' you as being upset. I just saw a well written response by you. However, what you seem to keep MISSING is that whatever happens and whatever response you get, and write "yourself", absolutely none of you had absolutely ANY choice NOR control over, correct?

You claim that determinism absolves you of responsibility because, "since the Big Bang," you had no choice in the matter. Let’s address that, too. Determinism explains why people behave as they do based on prior causes—upbringing, environment, experiences—but it doesn’t remove the possibility of introspection, growth, or self-awareness.

This, here, is, EXACTLY, where your views and claims keep FALLING APART and FAILING, ABSOLUTELY, "bigmike".

you can NOT logically keep claiming absolutely EVERY thing is because of 'determinism' BUT people have a choice over whether they CHOOSE to introspect, grow, or become self-aware.

you are FIGHTING and ARGUING AGAINST "yourself", here, sometimes.

But, then again, you have absolutely NO choice in misbehaving 'this way', right?

Even within a deterministic framework, people have the capacity to reflect on their actions and recognize when they’re crossing boundaries.

But ONLY WHEN the pre-existing conditions have allowed them to. And, OBVIOUSLY, NO two people have had the exact same pre-existing conditions.

What’s especially troubling is your repeated insistence on introducing perverse or irrelevant commentary into what was intended to be an intellectual discussion.

LOL "bigmike" it was NEVER going to any other way, OBVIOUSLY.

The fact that this response comes so naturally to you raises serious questions about the forces that shaped your behavior.

And, what about your OWN misgivings and Wrong doings?

Are you raising serious questions about the forces that shaped your Wrong behaviors' here?

Or, are you MISSING and/or 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY FROM those 'past forces' BECAUSE those 'past forces' actually TAUGHT you to be DEFLECTIVE, DISMISSIVE, and/or DECEPTIVE of 'those forces' that have made you do Wrong and MISBEHAVE?

Are you trying to deflect attention from your inability to engage seriously,

LOL "bigmike", have you, "yourself", REALLY, been engaging 'seriously', here?

For example, you define the 'free will' words in a way that they could not exist, and so then conclude 'free will' does not exist. Which is about a silly and stupid as defining any other word/s in 'a way' that they could not exist, and then spending the rest of your time claiming that 'it' does not exist, and LOL FIGHTING and ARGUING FOR 'your claim'.

Do you want to focus on your INABILITY to engage seriously, here? Or, are you, also, trying to deflect attention from your inability to engage seriously, as well?

or are these responses simply what your mind defaults to under pressure?

Once again for the slow of learning, you human beings do BOT have your own minds

Either way, it’s a clear sign that something in your past—your environment, your social interactions, or your upbringing—has wired you to seek attention through provocation rather than meaningful contribution.

The EXACT SAME can be said and SHOWN about you, here, "bigmike".

you are not REALLY providing meaningful contribution, here. Instead you are just 'trying to' get others to accept and agree with your OWN belief/s, here.

If you truly want to continue this conversation, then drop the immaturity, stop deflecting, and engage in a way that respects the intellectual effort being put into this exchange.

LOL you want to TELL others that the 'very way' that they are is because of 'determinism', and that they have absolutely NO 'free will' to CHOOSE to CHANGE 'the way' they are, AT ALL, BUT, ALSO, CRITICIZE them for continuing to b 'the very way' that they are, and for NOT being DIFFERENT.

Could you get MORE CONTRADICTORY and/or be MORE HYPOCRITICAL, here, "bigmike"?

Otherwise, you’re just proving my earlier point: when someone can’t rise to the level of the discussion, they try to bring everyone else down to theirs. Don’t let that be the legacy of your contributions here.

'This' is EXACTLY what you, "bigmike", are DOING, here, "yourself".

Your argument seems to hinge on a fundamental misunderstanding of determinism. Let me spell this out clearly, once and for all. When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

Take a simple example: I ask you for your email address. That request becomes a "previous cause." It might nudge you to consider whether to send it or not. Your decision—whether to share the email or decline—is shaped by a cascade of prior causes: your past interactions with me, your comfort with sharing personal information, your current mood, and so on. The act of deciding didn’t materialize from nowhere; it was caused.

When I suggest "self-awareness" or "growth," those words can trigger a similar process. If someone is receptive to that input, it becomes part of the chain of causes shaping their future actions. It’s not some mystical loophole in determinism; it’s how causation works. Inputs—whether they’re words, experiences, or events—cause reactions, which cause further reactions, and so on.

Your criticism that I somehow contradict determinism misunderstands its very nature. Determinism doesn’t mean people don’t change or grow; it means that change and growth are caused. The deterministic framework fully accounts for this—it’s not complicated.