Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[MagsJ]

.
Aren’t you Ben J S, over at ILP?

Me? No, I'm not on any other forums at all.

..sure you aren’t, buddy!

[MagsJ]

MagsJ please remind me to tell the FBI and CIA never to use you as a speech analyst. How on earth do you draw any similarity whatsoever between Ben and F.D. Pants?

There were two other posters you once mentioned you thought were other poster names, and i was like wtf i don't see that at all. Like if i had to guess one of these posters was another one, who you guessed would have been my last guess.

Crazy man. You ILP guys got another sock puppet theory over there involving two posters who couldn't be more diametrically opposed to one another. Like neither one if these posters could even pretend to be the other, they are so different.

The only ones runnin long term sock puppets is Biggs and his crew i think. One, he gave the names of his existential nihilist forum board operatives that try to make everyone meaningless (they got Maia if Maia isn't one of them already). Two, he, too, is constantly suggesting other people are running sock puppets... and this is to throw everybody off and make him look like a victim like us.

What!?






.
What you think, has no bearing on what I think I know..

.
Ain’t you got some ILP drama or other to be dealing with, involving some infatuated chick and her sockpuppet-account doppelgänger?

[FlashDangerpants]

.
Aren’t you Ben J S, over at ILP?

Me? No, I'm not on any other forums at all.

..sure you aren’t, buddy!

I have no presence at ILP under any name at all, I am not this person who you speak of. I have told you the truth, so fuck off.

[MagsJ]

Me? No, I'm not on any other forums at all.

..sure you aren’t, buddy!

I have no presence at ILP under any name at all, I am not this person who you speak of. I have told you the truth, so fuck off.

Busted!

..same aggressive, little shit, m.o.

..so fuck off.

Please do..

[FlashDangerpants]

..sure you aren’t, buddy!

I have no presence at ILP under any name at all, I am not this person who you speak of. I have told you the truth, so fuck off.

Busted!

..same aggressive, little shit, m.o.

..so fuck off.

Please do..

I don't have any account at ILP. I have never posted there. I have no idea who Ben J S might be, and I barely know who you are either. That said, if Ben JS has drawn the conclusion that you are a grunting halfwit, you may pass along my regards, as he has clearly got at least one thing right.

If he is also smart enough to see that a sentence like "I dare say, that secularists don’t have much of a conscience.. if at all." could only be written by somebody with a deficiency of their own, very much in line with that they claim to see in others, then you may pass him a second congratualation.

Now, please go back to ILP you are annoying.

[henry quirk]

Define "proper, true, or good Morality."

One recognizing & respecting the life, liberty, and property of the individual, any & every.

One recognizing & respecting self-defense and defense of the other as the only legit reasons to take up arms against one's fellows.

One grounded in the universal measure of all things and which cannot be negated, diminished, or made obsolete by way of legislation.

In other words, Mike, proper, true, good morality falls outside your world of meat machines. Proper, true, good morality is for free wills, persons.

[BigMike]

Define "proper, true, or good Morality."

One recognizing & respecting the life, liberty, and property of the individual, any & every.

One recognizing & respecting self-defense and defense of the other as the only legit reasons to take up arms against one's fellows.

One grounded in the universal measure of all things and which cannot be negated, diminished, or made obsolete by way of legislation.

In other words, Mike, proper, true, good morality falls outside your world of meat machines. Proper, true, good morality is for free wills, persons.

Henry, my friend, I appreciate your thoughtful take on morality, but let’s step back for a moment and examine the foundations of your argument through the deterministic lens I hold dear. You propose that “proper, true, good morality” is something exclusive to free wills, to persons who, presumably, have the autonomous ability to choose between right and wrong. But what if that fundamental premise—this notion of “free will”—isn’t just flawed but entirely illusory?

See, the deterministic perspective isn’t about dismissing morality or ethics. Far from it. It’s about recognizing that our moral codes—respect for life, liberty, property, self-defense—don’t spring forth from some magical reservoir of freedom. Instead, they emerge from cause-and-effect relationships deeply embedded in our biology, psychology, and social environments.

The life you value? The liberty you cherish? The respect for property and defense? All of these are shaped by deterministic forces—our evolutionary need for cooperation, the consequences of living in complex societies, the pressures and reinforcements that guide our behavior. Morality, in this view, isn’t a divine gift or the byproduct of unfettered choice. It’s the result of countless interactions governed by physical laws, conservation principles, and the inexorable chain of causality.

And this idea of a “universal measure of all things”—I couldn’t agree more that we need standards that aren’t subject to the whims of legislation or capricious human biases. But those standards don’t require free will to be valid. They require us to understand and align with the fundamental truths of existence—truths rooted in the physical and natural laws that govern everything, including us “meat machines.”

So, proper morality isn’t diminished by determinism. It’s clarified by it. It helps us see that what we value—life, fairness, justice—doesn’t require free will to be meaningful. It requires only that we recognize the deterministic nature of our existence and build ethical systems grounded in understanding, compassion, and reason.

The illusion of free will doesn’t elevate morality; it clouds it. And when we let go of that illusion, we can finally see morality for what it is: a product of cause and effect, a guide for navigating the complex, interconnected web of existence we’re all a part of.

[henry quirk]

Henry, my friend

We're not friends, Mike.

I appreciate your thoughtful take on morality

No, you don't. You think I'm wrong; I think you're wrong. That's the sum of it.

[Alexiev]

Henry, my friend, I appreciate your thoughtful take on morality, but let’s step back for a moment and examine the foundations of your argument through the deterministic lens I hold dear. You propose that “proper, true, good morality” is something exclusive to free wills, to persons who, presumably, have the autonomous ability to choose between right and wrong. But what if that fundamental premise—this notion of “free will”—isn’t just flawed but entirely illusory?

See, the deterministic perspective isn’t about dismissing morality or ethics. Far from it. It’s about recognizing that our moral codes—respect for life, liberty, property, self-defense—don’t spring forth from some magical reservoir of freedom. Instead, they emerge from cause-and-effect relationships deeply embedded in our biology, psychology, and social environments.

The life you value? The liberty you cherish? The respect for property and defense? All of these are shaped by deterministic forces—our evolutionary need for cooperation, the consequences of living in complex societies, the pressures and reinforcements that guide our behavior. Morality, in this view, isn’t a divine gift or the byproduct of unfettered choice. It’s the result of countless interactions governed by physical laws, conservation principles, and the inexorable chain of causality.

And this idea of a “universal measure of all things”—I couldn’t agree more that we need standards that aren’t subject to the whims of legislation or capricious human biases. But those standards don’t require free will to be valid. They require us to understand and align with the fundamental truths of existence—truths rooted in the physical and natural laws that govern everything, including us “meat machines.”

So, proper morality isn’t diminished by determinism. It’s clarified by it. It helps us see that what we value—life, fairness, justice—doesn’t require free will to be meaningful. It requires only that we recognize the deterministic nature of our existence and build ethical systems grounded in understanding, compassion, and reason.

The illusion of free will doesn’t elevate morality; it clouds it. And when we let go of that illusion, we can finally see morality for what it is: a product of cause and effect, a guide for navigating the complex, interconnected web of existence we’re all a part of.

What clouds things is your insistence on the relevance of determinism. Perhaps you didn't see the post I'm quoting now -- but my position is that whether all our acts and thoughts are predetermined is irrelevant.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 7:14 am


That said, I completely agree with your closing thought: whether gravity “is” warped spacetime or something else entirely doesn’t alter the utility of Einstein’s field equations. The beauty of physics lies in its ability to map, predict, and manipulate, regardless of whether our “stories” about the mechanisms align with ultimate truth. As Newton and Einstein both understood, science thrives on what works.

Alexiev wrote:
Unfortunately, your determinist worldview can map, predict, and manipulate nothing when it comes to human behavior and choices. That's been my point all along. Instead, it is strictly metaphysical and unscientific.

As I've stated many times, just as the predetermined order of the cards is irrelevant to the gambler, the predetermined order of the universe is irrelevant to human choices. If science thrives on what works -- and if determinism doesn't help us predict the future choices humans will make -- how is determinism scientific?

[MagsJ]

I have no presence at ILP under any name at all, I am not this person who you speak of. I have told you the truth, so fuck off.

Temper, temper..

I don't have any account at ILP. I have never posted there. I have no idea who Ben J S might be, and I barely know who you are either. That said, if Ben JS has drawn the conclusion that you are a grunting halfwit, you may pass along my regards, as he has clearly got at least one thing right.

If he is also smart enough to see that a sentence like "I dare say, that secularists don’t have much of a conscience.. if at all." could only be written by somebody with a deficiency of their own, very much in line with that they claim to see in others, then you may pass him a second congratualation.

Now, please go back to ILP

I do as I please..

you are annoying.

Noted.

[BigMike]

The illusion of free will doesn’t elevate morality; it clouds it. And when we let go of that illusion, we can finally see morality for what it is: a product of cause and effect, a guide for navigating the complex, interconnected web of existence we’re all a part of.

What clouds things is your insistence on the relevance of determinism. Perhaps you didn't see the post I'm quoting now -- but my position is that whether all our acts and thoughts are predetermined is irrelevant.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 7:14 am

That said, I completely agree with your closing thought: whether gravity “is” warped spacetime or something else entirely doesn’t alter the utility of Einstein’s field equations. The beauty of physics lies in its ability to map, predict, and manipulate, regardless of whether our “stories” about the mechanisms align with ultimate truth. As Newton and Einstein both understood, science thrives on what works.

Alexiev wrote:
Unfortunately, your determinist worldview can map, predict, and manipulate nothing when it comes to human behavior and choices. That's been my point all along. Instead, it is strictly metaphysical and unscientific.

As I've stated many times, just as the predetermined order of the cards is irrelevant to the gambler, the predetermined order of the universe is irrelevant to human choices. If science thrives on what works -- and if determinism doesn't help us predict the future choices humans will make -- how is determinism scientific?

Alright, Alexiev, let’s unpack this step by step, because your objection rests on some misunderstandings that we really need to clear up. Determinism isn’t a metaphysical claim hanging in the air, disconnected from reality. It’s an observation grounded in the very fabric of physics—an acknowledgment that everything, including human behavior, is part of the unbroken chain of cause and effect governed by the laws of nature.

First, your analogy about the gambler and the predetermined order of cards misses the mark. The gambler doesn’t know the order of the cards, but that doesn’t make the order irrelevant. It defines the outcome of every hand, regardless of the gambler's awareness. Similarly, human choices are shaped by factors we might not fully perceive—genetics, upbringing, societal norms, and countless prior interactions. That’s where determinism matters: not as a tool to predict individual decisions moment-to-moment, but as a framework for understanding the forces that shape behavior at every level.

Second, the claim that determinism doesn’t help us map, predict, or manipulate human behavior is just flat-out wrong. Entire fields—neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics—operate on deterministic principles. For instance, when researchers identify patterns of cognitive bias, they’re mapping deterministic processes. When policymakers use data to design interventions that reduce crime or improve education, they’re manipulating deterministic systems to achieve better outcomes. None of this requires free will. It requires understanding the inputs and constraints that drive human action.

You say determinism is irrelevant to human choices. But isn’t it profoundly relevant to understand why people act as they do? To grasp that their choices aren’t arbitrary, aren’t products of some mystical freedom, but are instead deeply rooted in physical and social realities? This isn’t just academic; it changes how we approach everything from criminal justice to education to conflict resolution. Determinism lets us focus on causes, not blame—on solutions, not punishment.

Finally, let’s talk about science. You say determinism isn’t scientific because it doesn’t predict individual choices. But science isn’t just about predicting lottery numbers or next week’s weather. It’s about uncovering the principles that govern systems, whether it’s fluid dynamics, planetary motion, or human decision-making. Determinism does exactly that. It doesn’t make morality meaningless; it makes it meaningful, because it ties ethics to the realities of our existence.

So no, determinism isn’t irrelevant. It’s the lens that lets us see clearly, stripping away the illusion of free will so we can focus on what really matters: understanding the web of causes that shape our lives and using that knowledge to build a better, fairer world. That’s the scientific approach, and it’s anything but metaphysical.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't have any account at ILP. I have never posted there. I have no idea who Ben J S might be, and I barely know who you are either. That said, if Ben JS has drawn the conclusion that you are a grunting halfwit, you may pass along my regards, as he has clearly got at least one thing right.

If he is also smart enough to see that a sentence like "I dare say, that secularists don’t have much of a conscience.. if at all." could only be written by somebody with a deficiency of their own, very much in line with that they claim to see in others, then you may pass him a second congratualation.

Now, please go back to ILP

I do as I please..

Evidently quite unmolested by anything so gauche as a conscience, or any other impulse that might impel honesty.

Please stop pretending that I am this other person. You have not uncovered a sock puppet and you are pissing me off.

[Alexiev]

The illusion of free will doesn’t elevate morality; it clouds it. And when we let go of that illusion, we can finally see morality for what it is: a product of cause and effect, a guide for navigating the complex, interconnected web of existence we’re all a part of.

What clouds things is your insistence on the relevance of determinism. Perhaps you didn't see the post I'm quoting now -- but my position is that whether all our acts and thoughts are predetermined is irrelevant.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 7:14 am

That said, I completely agree with your closing thought: whether gravity “is” warped spacetime or something else entirely doesn’t alter the utility of Einstein’s field equations. The beauty of physics lies in its ability to map, predict, and manipulate, regardless of whether our “stories” about the mechanisms align with ultimate truth. As Newton and Einstein both understood, science thrives on what works.

Alexiev wrote:
Unfortunately, your determinist worldview can map, predict, and manipulate nothing when it comes to human behavior and choices. That's been my point all along. Instead, it is strictly metaphysical and unscientific.

As I've stated many times, just as the predetermined order of the cards is irrelevant to the gambler, the predetermined order of the universe is irrelevant to human choices. If science thrives on what works -- and if determinism doesn't help us predict the future choices humans will make -- how is determinism scientific?

Alright, Alexiev, let’s unpack this step by step, because your objection rests on some misunderstandings that we really need to clear up. Determinism isn’t a metaphysical claim hanging in the air, disconnected from reality. It’s an observation grounded in the very fabric of physics—an acknowledgment that everything, including human behavior, is part of the unbroken chain of cause and effect governed by the laws of nature.

First, your analogy about the gambler and the predetermined order of cards misses the mark. The gambler doesn’t know the order of the cards, but that doesn’t make the order irrelevant. It defines the outcome of every hand, regardless of the gambler's awareness. Similarly, human choices are shaped by factors we might not fully perceive—genetics, upbringing, societal norms, and countless prior interactions. That’s where determinism matters: not as a tool to predict individual decisions moment-to-moment, but as a framework for understanding the forces that shape behavior at every level.

Second, the claim that determinism doesn’t help us map, predict, or manipulate human behavior is just flat-out wrong. Entire fields—neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics—operate on deterministic principles. For instance, when researchers identify patterns of cognitive bias, they’re mapping deterministic processes. When policymakers use data to design interventions that reduce crime or improve education, they’re manipulating deterministic systems to achieve better outcomes. None of this requires free will. It requires understanding the inputs and constraints that drive human action.

You say determinism is irrelevant to human choices. But isn’t it profoundly relevant to understand why people act as they do? To grasp that their choices aren’t arbitrary, aren’t products of some mystical freedom, but are instead deeply rooted in physical and social realities? This isn’t just academic; it changes how we approach everything from criminal justice to education to conflict resolution. Determinism lets us focus on causes, not blame—on solutions, not punishment.

Finally, let’s talk about science. You say determinism isn’t scientific because it doesn’t predict individual choices. But science isn’t just about predicting lottery numbers or next week’s weather. It’s about uncovering the principles that govern systems, whether it’s fluid dynamics, planetary motion, or human decision-making. Determinism does exactly that. It doesn’t make morality meaningless; it makes it meaningful, because it ties ethics to the realities of our existence.

So no, determinism isn’t irrelevant. It’s the lens that lets us see clearly, stripping away the illusion of free will so we can focus on what really matters: understanding the web of causes that shape our lives and using that knowledge to build a better, fairer world. That’s the scientific approach, and it’s anything but metaphysical.

In as much as neuroscience helps us understand or predict human behavior -- great! But does it really help us much in that regard?

As you stated in the post I quoted above "science thrives on what works". In what respect does determinism "work" to help us improve human society? I have no idea whether the universe is deterministic or not. Nor do I care. Your claims about not blaming people for their predetermined actions does not seem to me to improve human society at all. Instead, it is likely to make things worse (since behavior is "determined" by culture, social pressures, etc. as well as biology).

Every reasonable person would like to "understand the web of causes that shape our lives and use that knowledge to build a better, fairer world." Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of sociologists, politicians, psychiatrists and philosophers, that web remains dimly lit. So if science thrives on what works, determinism is not "working" to help us improve society.

My analogy of the gambler is apt because just as the gambler cannot see the other side of the cards and must make his best calculation of odds given that ignorance, so must we (whether we accept determinism or not) make our best attempts at predicting or understanding human behavior. Traditionally, economists use a model of "rationality" to make economic predictions. IN other words, they assume people will make decisions based on their economic interests. This could be the case with or without determinism. Modern economists, however, are questioning this paradigm. People often make emotional and irrational economic decisions. WE can try to understand the web of causes that promotes this irrationality. But determinism is absolutely irrelevant to our attempts to do so -- just as the determined order of the cards is irrelevant to the honest gambler.

Of course a web of causes affects human decisions and choices. But the "causes" are diverse and infinite. Merely saying that all our choices and actions are "caused" or "determined" is meaningless unless we can enumerate the causes -- as you seemed to say when you agreed that science thrives on what works. If that is true, and if determinism is "scientific", in what way does it "work"?

[attofishpi]

If you go to New Guinea and you chop someone's arm off, they are not going to mistakenly think you did something nice to them. They're going to have the same reaction as anyone else around the globe and probably retaliate.

Bullshit Gary.

Most of the rest of the world aren't going to put someone's arm into a pot with some onions and maybe some chicken stock.

OK. Fair enough. Point noted. I have no idea why God created cannibals.

What I find interesting about GOD is that IT clearly sets people up for me to have a larf. Seriously, that U picked New Guinea & an arm chop etc..lmao

I said it to Sculptor many times when I "owned" him..

U people have no idea of the power of this GOD entity with ultimate control of your synapses..

*atto ponders where this might head*

[BigMike]

In as much as neuroscience helps us understand or predict human behavior -- great! But does it really help us much in that regard?

As you stated in the post I quoted above "science thrives on what works". In what respect does determinism "work" to help us improve human society? I have no idea whether the universe is deterministic or not. Nor do I care. Your claims about not blaming people for their predetermined actions does not seem to me to improve human society at all. Instead, it is likely to make things worse (since behavior is "determined" by culture, social pressures, etc. as well as biology).

Every reasonable person would like to "understand the web of causes that shape our lives and use that knowledge to build a better, fairer world." Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of sociologists, politicians, psychiatrists and philosophers, that web remains dimly lit. So if science thrives on what works, determinism is not "working" to help us improve society.

My analogy of the gambler is apt because just as the gambler cannot see the other side of the cards and must make his best calculation of odds given that ignorance, so must we (whether we accept determinism or not) make our best attempts at predicting or understanding human behavior. Traditionally, economists use a model of "rationality" to make economic predictions. IN other words, they assume people will make decisions based on their economic interests. This could be the case with or without determinism. Modern economists, however, are questioning this paradigm. People often make emotional and irrational economic decisions. WE can try to understand the web of causes that promotes this irrationality. But determinism is absolutely irrelevant to our attempts to do so -- just as the determined order of the cards is irrelevant to the honest gambler.

Of course a web of causes affects human decisions and choices. But the "causes" are diverse and infinite. Merely saying that all our choices and actions are "caused" or "determined" is meaningless unless we can enumerate the causes -- as you seemed to say when you agreed that science thrives on what works. If that is true, and if determinism is "scientific", in what way does it "work"?

Alexiev, your response raises an important question: what does it mean for a concept to "work," and how does determinism fit into that standard? Let's tackle this head-on, because your concerns about its relevance to human behavior and society deserve a clear, thoughtful answer.

First, let’s clarify something fundamental. Determinism isn’t a tool for predicting every micro-decision a person will make, like which shirt they’ll wear tomorrow. That would be absurd—just as it would be absurd to criticize evolutionary theory for not predicting the exact patterns of spots on a leopard. What determinism does offer is a framework for understanding the forces shaping human behavior. And while you claim that determinism is irrelevant to enumerating these causes, it’s actually central to identifying them. Here’s why.

When we acknowledge that every action is caused, we shift the focus from blame to causation. This is not just a philosophical sleight of hand; it’s a paradigm shift that changes how we address societal problems. Take criminal justice. If we cling to the illusion of free will, we justify punishment as retribution—a moral payback for a freely chosen act. But if we accept that behavior is determined by biology, environment, and circumstance, we begin to ask different questions: What factors caused this behavior? How can we address those factors to reduce harm in the future? This is why, for example, rehabilitation programs grounded in neuroscience—like cognitive behavioral therapy for offenders—often outperform punitive measures in reducing recidivism. That’s determinism at work.

You argue that the web of causes is too complex, too "dimly lit," to be useful. But isn’t that an argument for doing the hard work of illuminating it further, not dismissing its importance? Scientists, sociologists, and policymakers are already using deterministic principles—whether they call them that or not—to identify patterns and intervene effectively. Behavioral economists study how predictable biases like loss aversion shape decision-making. Public health experts design interventions based on the social determinants of health. Even the move away from zero-tolerance policies in schools toward restorative practices reflects a deterministic understanding of behavior. These efforts are yielding measurable results, and they all rest on the premise that behavior is caused, not chosen freely in some vacuum.

Your analogy of the gambler and the cards overlooks a critical distinction: gamblers operate under uncertainty, but the deterministic framework aims to reduce uncertainty by uncovering patterns in the causes of behavior. You’re right that economists once assumed people were rational actors, but when behavioral economists showed that decisions are predictably irrational, they didn’t abandon determinism—they embraced it. They dug into the causal factors behind that irrationality, from cognitive biases to social influences. That’s determinism advancing our understanding, not standing in its way.

Finally, let’s address your claim that determinism is "meaningless" unless it enumerates causes. That’s like saying gravity is meaningless unless it can account for the trajectory of every falling leaf. Determinism isn’t about listing every cause in an infinite chain; it’s about recognizing that such a chain exists and using that recognition to focus on actionable causes. It’s the difference between saying, “People commit crimes because they’re bad” and saying, “What circumstances—poverty, trauma, lack of education—lead to criminal behavior, and how can we change them?”

So, how does determinism "work"? It works by reframing problems in a way that leads to solutions. It dismantles the futile cycle of blame and replaces it with a focus on understanding and intervention. It works in the courtroom, in the classroom, and in the lab. It works because it aligns with reality—and that’s what science is supposed to do. If you want a more just, effective society, determinism isn’t irrelevant; it’s indispensable.