I'm starting this debate based on a private conversation I had with Skittles, in which we argued briefly over whether or not the following should be added to the creed:



We claim that man would be better off if he had no free will, and was akin to the animals, because all that free will has ever done is allowed us to kill each other and ruin our lives.



I personally argue against this ammendment, and I'll briefly explain why.



Humans are the only creature that God/Buddha/The Great Pumpkin/Whoever has granted the right to free will, and consequently, we have abused the hell out of it. I believe that original sin explains why, but regardless, the planet, and all plant and animal life in general would be much better off if we did not exist, or at least if we had no advanced thought. But the argument Skittles makes is that it would have been better for us, humans, to never have obtained free will, and that I dissent.

First, Skittles, I challenge you to define "better" in any meaningful way. What is better for us? Better than what? The way we are, some of us live boring, generic lives, some of us live exciting but hollow lives, some of us are content to give our lives for some stupid cause, but most of us seem to make out fairly decently for ourselves. Life sucks, we all know, but it does have it's perks at times, and most people would tell you that they would rather have endured everything they did, gleaned the good parts and learned from the rest, and lived the lives they were given, than have never been born.

Not having free will is tantamount to never having been born. You have no thought, no conscience of any kind; you are a brain-dead, dumb animal.

My point is that being thoughtless animals doesn't strike me as better for us than being what we are. Better for other people, usually. Better for the world, certainly.

But we are selfish bastards, us humans, and we mostly care about ourselves.

Ourselves would not be any happier to lack free will.

They would rather live through all the shit we live through now.



I hope to hear some interesting responses to this one; it's a good topic, and one way or the other, it will be made into creed when the debate is settled.

I, however, disagree on the statement I'd quote from our previous discussion:

"I don't care about humanity"

Honestly, I couldn't give a flying shit about the human race if I wanted to. You see, that which is better for the world may not be better for all, but as the theory goes; "the strong survive" and the weak will perish.

To this day, there is little one might say to change my mind on the topic, however, you are free to do as you please in any petty attempt at prooving to me that humanity has done any viable 'good' for the world that wasn't directly influenced by selfish greed...



It's a clearly-seen fact that humans will do whatever is necessary to get what they want. Slaughter animals, level cities, steal, cheat, lie, murder, they all fall into the same category of "human suck, kill 'em all".

It's already been adopted into the creed that humans are naturally evil... I fail to see why the lack of free will is so daunting a prospect when we've already dubbed them as nothing more than the most efficient means of self-destruction on this planet...

However it can also be said that, while humans are extremely effective at destroying themselves; there needs to be some way for the world to start over. For a mass extinction to take place, as it were. Therefore, instead of relying on cosmic coincidences and meteors, humans great advances in weaponry will end the world instead. Science is a means to destroy oneself.

Now you speak ill of science. We use science to explain that which requires methematics and conversionary thought to comprehend. However, without it, humans would be little better than animals. And however much I support that aspect of the arguement, I must digress that science holds raw power, and that it is humanity's natural evil that causes that power to be used for destruction...


Humans have free will because Nature decided to try something new...

Nature fucked up, and now humanity is the new cockroach. You can't kill all of them, and they're everywhere! I have an unprooven belief that the black plague was nature's way of trying to kill all life and start over again. While I have yet to find some means of prooving this, I fail to see any other theory with ample proof to superceed my own...

Black plague is not nearly as effective as what science has created. Science, in the hands of humans, is more dangerous than any blade. For with science, man has created many diseases. Science has also created the nuclear bomb. Science is raw power, and humans, in their evil, have misused it.

And on that I agree with you...

However, this isn't about how much humanity sucks, but about whether or not they'd suck less without free will...

Personally, I think so, since humans have very few physically daunting capabilities by comparision to animals. And that would make us prime prey for most, such as man-eating lions, sharks, ect...

Without free will and intelligence, we would die off. Another cause I support whole-heartedly...

however, all animals have adaptations to help them survive. Humans have their intelligence. The problem is that they cannot control their instincts. If we could the world would most likely be at peace; but then humans would also die out quickly, because among our instincts is the one to reproduce. Of course you can say that if humans were completely logical, then they would realize they would have to reproduce. So it's really a circle argument, without either side gaining ground.

There you deny the absoloute. There is always a right and a wrong answer, whether it be highly-detailed or not. We can run in circles all day long, but I honestly believe that humanity is simply nature's fuck-up... We where the test dummies for free will, and the test failed. We're equipped with the failsafe of greed, and with that failsafe, nature will use us to inadvertantly wipe the planet clean of life as we know it.

It's only a matter of time...

Well, the first thing I'll say in response to all this is that my point hasn't even been touched at all. It seems that we all agree completely that on a global scale, free will sucks. The pomposity of the individual was my point, however. We may desire to rid everyone else of free will, but we would flinch at the thought of having it taken away from ourselves, therefore, the argument is difficult to complete.

In response to (You people annoy me), whom I will from now on address as YouPeople, just to save space, I might note that humans are indeed capable of suppressing their instincts.

Take for instance two simple human creations; birth control and pornography. Unrelated to both each other and the subject, right? Not right. With these inventions, we have effectively bypassed the instinct to reproduce. There are those who theorize that we will eventually die out because we would rather not bother to have children, and assume that someone else will carry that responsibility. If only we could take paintball guns and video games and suppress our instinct for war, we would be well enough off... and then we would fade out.

It is to Skittles' comments that I take the most task. Skittles, unless you want to change your Religion form to "Scientific Atheist", I expect you to agree with me when I state that science is not God. I don't care what you, being an atheistic agnostic, believe is God, but science is not anything near it. When you claim that science should be protected by some veil of infallibility, you show signs of hypocrisy in your belief system.

Science is an invention of man. Like the rest of them, it is useless, and it kills people, plain and simple. I will prove that.

First, we define science. Science is a methodical means of understanding the world around us. That's a simplification, yes, but it's functional and accurate. Science does not contain any power of it's own. It is only a system we humans use to understand the power that exists.

More importantly, it is completely wrong, as are the mathematics which underly it. If you don't believe me, search Youtube for "Proof that 1=2". You can bend math to say anything you desire it to say. Or try this example of futility.

Get a cylindrical object. Measure it's radius. Now do the math and tell me it's circumference. You don't need to actually try the experiment to see that you will now have a number with an infinite series of decimals attached (because it has been divided by pi.)

Now wrap a string around the circumference of the object. Unwrap it, and measure the string. the resulting number is perfect and precise. With the proper technology, we could measure that string to the molecule. There would be no doubt as to the exact number of it's length.

Do you see what I'm driving at, Skittles? Science is only our little window into a vague understanding of the world, and at that, it's founding concepts are often completely wrong! Did Nature, God or the universe decide that all should exist in sets of ten numbers? No. Many of us have been fooled into assuming that the laws of science all exists already, just waiting for us to discover them all and thereby know everything. But that's simply not even remotely true. The world exists however it damn well wants to, and when we find something in it which we cannot explain, science invents a new law to cover it.

The world does not conform to science. Science conforms to the world. Therefore it is not raw power, it is just a sum of human knowledge, and human knowledge is worthless because it is possessed by humans. We could potentially use this knowledge to travel across the universe and spread peace and harmony and some bullshit, and if we were doing that, I'd be inclined to agree with you on the raw power thing.

The key point is that we're not using science in a beneficial way, and we never will because we are what we are. End of story.

One the final note, stating the existance of circular logic does not deny absolution in any way. you two are debating when in fact you laregly agree.

My advise; YouPeople, keep religion to it's own topic (which you may in fact start, please do) and skittles, keep your cynicism universal, instead of switching it on and off by subject.

My apologies, Sat, but I'm taking a 'skeptecism and logic' class in school, and it keeps teaching me how not to be cynical... I told the teacher a million times that I run my life on the fundamental belief of universal pessemism, however, he insists that I try and grasp a positive outlook on life.

Obviously failing miserably.

In a slightly tenser note: I understand what you see when you think of people shuddering at the loss of their own free will, but honestly, I wouldn't so much as flinch at the prospect. I could be offered to strip humanity, in it's entirety, of free will, with the cost of my own, and I'd take it in a heartbeat...

Maybe less... my heart might just be like 'thu- DO IT! - mp'

I should apologize myself, Skittles, for usurping you so. I seem to become bitching whenever I think I have caught someone fluctuating on a stance.

It's a Conservative thing.

My gripe is better defined as the nessecary bridge between free will and intelligent thought. Of course they are'nt mutually exclusive, but if you take away the intelligent thought, free will amounts to showing a cat two mice and letting it choose which one to kill.
Humans have intelligent free will
and if you remove that, there is not thought in existance on earth.

In my mind, that's the point where the concept crumbles, because once nothing on earth can think at all, we're left trying to determine whether there has been an improvement. Who do you ask?

However, one must look back and see how the world has been over the past trillions of years. Until Humanity came to be and screwed everything up, the world was balanced perfectly, with every law of nature being followed to the nonexistant letter...

It's only because of our interferance that the world is in turmoil. And it won't end until either something wipes humans clean off the face of the planet, or if humans wipe out themselves...

I do agree with that statement.
I also agreed with it the last four times you said it.

Perhaps this debate is finalised, then.

We all dislike free will to varying extents.
We just can't agree thoroughly enough to make any statement on this into creed.

Any questions before I close this one?

While I do realize that we hold similar views on the matter, I must say that this is in no way contrary to the previous statements in the creed, and in my opinion, it should be added...

Just as religions work, there are levels of commitment... Believers in name only, steadfast believers, practitioners, and radicals... While I may not be radical, nor even a practitioner, I do believe that this is an underlying concept that should be implicated upon the doctrine as some form of ammendment... be it large or small in scale...


PS: Yes, I do realize how often I use elipses... lay off! >_<

Quote:

We claim that man would be better off if he had no free will, and was akin to the animals, because all that free will has ever done is allowed us to kill each other and ruin our lives.

This should not be added to the creed.

Feel free to provide a phrase you think should.