Love it.

It applies to religion, prejudice, or any ideology, for that matter...

My favourite musical.

@Fernapple Mine too!!

Exactly! Still holds true today! The original movie was released over 60 years ago. I love it! The play "South Pacific" went on for 13 years here on Kauai to packed audience weekly here on Kauai, where the movie was filmed. I'm so lucky to live/work right in those beach scenes of "Bali Hai" and to have danced in the play many years ago with my daughter when we lived in Everett, WA. I will have to dig up that VHS and find a way to watch it sometime, maybe when my grandsons are visiting. That's a good song for them to hear as it relates to the story.

I am the first Zen Taoist in my family, though those of my age and older didn't live long, but I find my young nephew has chosen this independently of me. Since it's an outlier idea it takes some work to come to it.

I would also add that most people end up having kids without ever really putting much thought into the decision. They simply become parents because it's what everyone else does and what they are expected to do. Conformity is so American, despite the myth of rugged individualism here.

@TomMcGiverin So true, and not just in America.

@TomMcGiverin Yes, kids and even marriage without much thought, just did it since it was expected, not necessarily right at the time. That was the case with me, and part of the reason I always asked my wedding couples what it is that they like about each other -- since that's something my ex-husband and I could never answer.

People should question their religious values from time to time and really think about whether they believe them or not. There is less stigma lately about veering away from the religions and political leanings of our families. People are more free now to be an individual with thoughtful values.

@Julie808 I hope that is true and that more people are actually examining what they are told to think and how to live. Life should be a process in which we make conscious, well-thought out choices, at least concerning what we do with our lives, like having kids, going to college, where to live, what political views to have, what groups to join, what causes to support, who to partner with, etc., rather than just falling into our choices, like most Americans seem to do, either out of pressure to conform from peers, parents, or society. Most people seem to be very lazy intellectually and morally, they just go with whatever the majority of people around them are doing, because fitting in matters more to them than anything else. The people on this site are, or appear to be in my experience, way more non-conformist than most Americans, and along with that, they seem to be more intellectual, more politically left wing, and also more independent. And I think all of those are good and positive qualities. Too bad we are such a minority in our country.

What your brain finds plausible or believable is 100% outside of your conscious control. It is, in fact, wholly dependent on the physical and chemical composition of your brain, which you cannot choose, and the entirety of your life's experiences, which you didn't choose. The latter, however, is far more a result of what your parents exposed you to, though they didn't "choose" that either.

While it is true that while what is provided to you will not necessarily result in your ultimate belief of that information (like the religious beliefs of most people on this site), just like a car for most 16 year olds with no income, savings, or credit, you're likely going to drive the beliefs that are "given" to you, at least for several years. To think that's not true, in the face of the fact that over 90% of adolescents report they share some or all of the religious beliefs of their parents, is to be extremely ignorant of the nature of reality.

"About half (48%) of adolescents ages 13 to 17 report that they and their parent share all the same religious beliefs. Nearly as many (43%) say they share some beliefs with their parent, while 8% say their parent has quite different religious beliefs."

[pewresearch.org].

@ChestRockfield sounds like the negating of free will by Sam Harris. I can agree, there are many factors In lufe out of a person's control.

However, I went thru situation of leaving christianity. I left after experiences with meme God organism or mind virus meme organism.

All my life I have been a very ... what's the right terminology, a thinker and very self conscious of my thinking, questioning thoughts and decisions that pass thru my cognative awareness. There are many times I had to ask myself, where'd the hell that thought come from. On some occasions I experienced psychic e.s.p and precognative dreams comming to furition.

So, I am not convinced that my cognition is totally in a matrix and I am only relegated to being like observer only with no cognative ability to make some sort of choice. I can understand, my choices could be, or offer are limited.

Somethings like wanting to stop smoking has its difficulty because of coping with the withdrawal forces. That has its chemical related aspects. I don't see all of my choices to be forced or influenced with such a type of force that goes against what I I cognitively want or don't want.

@Word Nobody feels like their choices are forced. I know that free will doesn't exist and yet I still feel like I have free will.
You're not even taking into account the fact that you didn't choose to have the mind of a questioning person. Or the fact that I can't choose to be blissfully unquestioning. Nor can you account for why your feelings about a given topic are such that when you question something you come to the conclusion you do. These are all parts of guessing why or the rationalization of the "choice" you made. You can't possibly know all of the bits of information that your brain processed to come to the decision it made. Sometimes you can't even come up with a rationalization at all. "Sir, door number 1 or 2?" "2 please" "Why did you pick 2?" "I don't know, I just did."
Basically, however, if you can consciously choose sometimes, why wouldn't you just consciously choose to always choose consciously? Why wouldn't I choose to like working out? Why wouldn't I choose to dislike chips and cheeseburgers, or smoking as you suggested? You say that those are not as easy because of the chemical component, but what you're not taking into account is all brain states have a chemical component to them.
Another problem is there's no room in a physical explanation of the world for free will.

True but then many never even consider, attempt to understand or evaluate alternatives.

@ChestRockfield on one hand, I did not ask to exist in this pathetic crap called existence that no one asked for. It was not my free will choice to exist. I do not recall sitting in non-existance with the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God and say, "pick me, pick me, I want to exist ".

On the other hand, we seem to be predestined to the enebitaial fate of death.

So, from point A to point death there are a lot of forks in the road. I think of an eye exorcise. Sitting thinking about choosing to blink my eyes. Blink only one, blink both alternate. Think for a while which, think about choosing one and then choosing to change my mind on which to blink. In just the scope of thinking and blinking, because I have the ability,, I think I can choose and be causation for blinking or not.

Video guy says nature-god is determinalistic. In a pantheism view, nature-god is always in control?

Nature of evolution would be determinalistic. Chemical reactions are going to happen because chemical reactions happen when atoms or molecules are exposed to the right conditions for a chemical reaction to happen. The chemical reactions cannot choose to react if chemical reaction conditions are present. So to not mutate, or to mutate by violation of chemical reaction is not possible. As some say, nature-God is in total control. A few billion years from now, the fate of the Earth seems to be that science says it would get really hot from the Sun exploding or expanding into a red giant star.

@Word It seems as though everything you just said, save for the blinking part, supports the notion that we do not have free will.
You can, if you're interested, find studies done under functional MRI scans that prove movements like those, no matter how much you concentrate on them or 'change your mind' still originate in the subconscious mind. There is just no room in a scientific explanation of the world for humans to be 'prime movers' of casual chains. If you can come up with any evidence for it other than "I feel like I'm doing it" I, and the scientific community at large, would LOVE to hear it.

@ChestRockfield You stated, "Another problem is there's no room in a physical explanation of the world for free will." I think this is incorrect. Most people will say that they have free will as they feel they are in control of their decisions. In some contexts, this is not correct. Physics tells us we live in a deterministic world. Yes, for Physics the world is determined, all those little atoms and molecules can have their different aspects measured and we can determine where they are and what they are doing. Telling me that what I am going to do today has been determined by my society and by my bodily needs can be correct. I get up, I get dressed, I eat breakfast, and the rest of the day proceeds in a somewhat determined manner. However, at any time I can make a decision that flies in the face of any of this. I seemingly have a number of things I have to do today, something happens and my plans are restructured. It could be considered that this event that has come up could have been determined had the proper information. However, just because something happens does not mean my reaction to it is determined. I have the choice of dealing with the event or not, but how I work through the problem is not determined, nor are the consequences of my actions. I can at any time change what I am doing, think about it from a different perspective I can change my mode of thinking, and be within the situation,
Having free will is hard, it means that you have to be able to think outside the box and think about the results of your actions or not. We are not a decision matrix, we are more because at any time we can change what we are, what we think, and what we do. To be free one has to be able to think about what they are doing, and have an educated take on the topics at hand. Freedom is not for the weak and thoughtless, freedom is not for the political or religious people who do not have the ability to think for themselves.

@dalefvictor Everything you said amounts to 'I have free will because I think/feel like I have free will.' No part of your explanation offers support for humans having the power to begin casual chains. "Making a decision that flies in the face of that" is not possible. If you rebelled against your normal routine or followed it exactly as normal is all determined by factors outside your control. The thought to rebel arises from your subconscious without your control. Whether or not you ultimately follow through with that plan? Also outside of your control. What you do instead is also a result of options given to you by your subconscious. You are not free to choose that which does not occur to you. If you research the science behind it, and understand the implications of what you're reading, you should come to this conclusion.
But I'll ask you to do the same thing as @Word. Provide an explanation of how humans are the prime movers of casual chains that doesn't boil down to, "But I really feel like I'm doing it!" There's millions of people that can't provide that evidence that desperately want it.

@ChestRockfield Good argument, but I still think you are wrong. I have to think a little longer about how to phrase this.

@dalefvictor Even when we debate choices our decisions tend to be what we feel are the best one, or a similar decision seemed good for someone we know, or some omen pointed toward it. These are all examples of the mind being deterministic. Especially so if we are writing our own story line.

@ChestRockfield the implications are my choice to blink my eye freely with free will choice is no different that my choice to grow my hair or grow my fingernails. Not referring to a free choice to cut them. But still, I grew my hair, I grew my fingernails.

I can understand the preprogrammed genetic aspect of hair and nail growth. I grow my hair without my conscious choice. But, the implication are that the hair/nail growth is of an agency that is external to what is me. Having a meme mind virus organism parasite could explain causation for the subconscious choice causation for decision to cut hair/nails or blink.

How do you seperate me growing my own hair/nails because it is preprogrammed but nonetheless less, it is my preprogrammed genetics. Hair/nail growth is dependent on a living mind to provide the body continues to live so the preprogrammed genetic would continue hair/nail growth.

Is the subconscious brain activity antecedent to my cognitive awareness that takes place during the duration of eye excercises of making choices, not my subconscious?

I grow my own hair. I grow my nails. I cut my hair/nails. I blink. Are these statements not true?

Something that is not me, grows my hair/nails? Something that is not me chooses to cut hair/nails and to blink?

@dalefvictor Trust me, I can only go based on what makes scientific sense. If I add feelings into the mix, I'd go right back to incorrectly thinking there's free will. Of course, then I'd be like most religious folks who believe in god with no evidence, only feelings.

@Word There was a lot of imprecise language (parasite virus??) in there, but I think your main question is if there's a difference between what we describe as voluntary and involuntary actions. The answer to the last two questions is essentially both yes. One cannot take credit for the involuntary growth of their hair and nails in the same way that they cannot take credit for cutting or not cutting them as those decisions are made in the subconscious as a result of a combination of the physical and chemical composition of their brains and the entirety of their experiences and are only witnessed by their conscious mind. Again, if you have any evidence that you can be a prime mover of a causal chain that doesn't boil down to, "I feel like I did it," I'm all ears.

@ChestRockfield if you are considering causal chain as before we had cognitive awareness , you are saying the causal chain link bypasses the newly inserted cognative awareness is tied to the chain by has no physical effects on the chain.

May have to think of an analogy to better explain what I am questioning.

@ChestRockfield I understand I have been given information choice and cognitively in my thinking gone with logical choice. Where as, you seem to indicate that illogical atheist have no free will to choose to be logical in view of the fact they exist. It would seem to validate while illogical atheist continuum to be illogical. And, the meme mind virus organism in their brain is make the decision for them to remain illogical atheist even when confronted with the fact they exist.

@ChestRockfield it does come across as verfication of biblical text for Jesus character. Jesus being the "logos" meme organism that mutated to mimic homo sapien form States, "son can only do as he sees father doing". So, Jesus character is saying in writing that he has no free will and can only do what the "father" logos cognition meme shows him what to do.

@Word I no longer have any clue what you're trying to say. To me, this sounds like gibberish. I mean, it's not even close to proper English. Honestly, I'd be shocked if anyone here could decode this.

@ChestRockfield it must be the decision making brain activity antecedent to your cognative awareness that prevents you from deciding to understand evolution.

@ChestRockfield I understand the decision for you to deflect to illogicalness is not your free will choice, it is caused by the brain activity antecedent to your cognative awareness.

You have no free will choice to choose logical answers, actions and decisions . They are all caused by brain activity antecedent to your cognative awareness and it is blatantly obvious, the brain activity antecedent to your cognative awareness is making illogical decisions for you.

@ChestRockfield with brain activity antecedent to your cognative awareness, atheist cannot truly think freely. There is no free will capabilities to think freely.

@Word Can anyone decipher this word salad? Do you sundown or something? Seriously, during the daytime, your comments were perfectly coherent, now, I feel like I'm at the end of a game of telephone with 16 schizophrenics.
@Fernapple, you're a smart as they come, you got a clue what he's saying or why the comments went from perfectly normal to whatever this is?

@ChestRockfield Free will - Wikipedia
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Freethought (sometimes spelled free thought) is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma, and that beliefs should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation.

Free thought requires free will to choose.

@ChestRockfield I don't think I can unpick the salad, but lets try to get to the meat instead.

I think that what is meant is that, in the true meaning of the term, free will, we do not have it, because our brains are controlled by the physics of atoms and electrons etc. which are deterministic.

But the emergent property of our brains, which we call consciousness or the conscious mind , within which we live, certainly has the illusion, that it has free will, and since we, as personalities live entirely within our conscious brain, we are therefore part of that illusion, and must follow it's logic and rules. And since the illusion is our entire world and the world within which we live, we therefore have no alternative but to behave as if we have free will, even though we may feel, we know is not literally true, and logic and science confirm that. Unlike in, for example, the matrix film, there is no pill that we can take to escape the illusion that we have free will, even though we know that we don't. There is simply no where else to go, not only are we in the matrix, but we are the machine which creates the matrix too.

Where it gets interesting is when we come to issues like crime and punishment, since we could ask. If we don't have free will, then how can someone be guilty ? To which I think that you have to divide the word guilt into two, and realize that it actually means two different things. One being the literal sense, of, did this person actually smash the window and pick the jewels up, and the religious idea of guilt as a sin or stain on some imagined part of the emergent part of the person we sometimes call soul, for want of a better word. We all understand this really, because we all know that we mean different things by, was he guilty, and, I feel guilty.

And if as atheists/agnostics, we reject the idea of soul, and free will, then the idea of spiritual guilt, has to go with it too. But, that does not abolish the other idea of guilt in the literal mechanical sense of. "Was it Tom who smashed the jewellers with a hammer, or was it Paul." Since without the spiritual form of guilt, crime and punishment are not now a search for, a spiritual abstraction called justice, but merely a mechanical act of society, enforcing rules to protect itself. And that works, because just as guilt can not exist in Tom's case of having a stain on his soul, then neither can society be guilty of injustice in the spiritual sense, if it opts to enforce its rules and punish Tom. What works for one also applies to the other.

Yet wonderfully that does not affect the actual workings of justice, as a social mechanism. Since if a society or the nation, are not seen to be making a maximal effort to make sure that it does punish all the Toms and not by mistake the Pauls, or makes the punishment disproportionate, then the punishments will not work, to serve their purpose of making people respect the rules. But the big bonus is that, the idea of criminals as a sub-human species apart from all others and not entitled to respect however slight, the moral crusade, and the witch hunt, also have to go out too, which I think tunes in with the values of most liberal thinkers.

Sorry bit long.

@Fernapple
sin = crime
Soul = personality
. Equivocation of using 2 different words but they mean the same thing.

For one word you say your principles apply but your principles do not apply to the other word.

So, let's discuss you principles again without separating sin/crime and soul/personality.

@Fernapple free will versus free thought.

Free will to choose a choice.

Free thought to choose a choice.

What is the difference? Nothing.

The terms are both synonymous in that they are looking at the same ball of wax with different perspectives in their definitions, but it is from looking at the same ball of wax.

Will, generally, is a faculty of the mind - within philosophy, will is important as one of the parts of the mind, along with reason and understanding. It is considered central to the field of ethics because of its role in enabling deliberate action.
[en.m.wikipedia.org] › wiki
Will (philosophy) - Wikipedia

thought1
/THôt/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.
   "Maggie had a sudden thought"
   Similar:
   idea
   notion
   line of thinking
   belief
   concept
   conception
   conviction
   opinion
   view
   impression
   image
   perception
   mental picture
   assumption
   presumption
   hypothesis
   theory
   supposition
   postulation
   abstraction
   apprehension
   understanding
   conceptualization
   feeling
   funny feeling
   suspicion
   sneaking suspicion
   hunch

2. the action or process of thinking.
   "Sophie sat deep in thought"
   Similar:
   thinking
   reasoning

@Fernapple there is more than one way to skin a cat.

skin the cat, not the gato. Gato is just cat in Spanish.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4

A crime is a behavior that the law makes punishable as a public offense. The elements of a crime typically come from statutes, but may also be supplied by the common law in states where the criminal common law still carries force.
[law.cornell.edu] › wex
crime | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

@Word No wisdom is nearly always in the greater nuance, and I do see a difference between both pairs of words.

@Fernapple yes, the difference is aspects of perspective but looking at the same ball of wax.

Or, the blind men trying to define an elephant. One blind man at trunk, one blind man at tail. They are giving definition from the same principle but different connotations and nuance .

@Fernapple I completely agree that because of the reasons you listed, most of the time I behave as though I have free will. But just as I've thrown out the concept of punishing the criminal as opposed to protecting the society, I too have banished the idea that I can simply choose what to believe or how to feel. In a generic sense I feel I can go do whatever I want. I think about what I want to eat. Discuss what we want to do or what movie to watch. And I could get caught up in the particulars of the fact that even thoughts and discussions are not under my control to have or not have, but that's not really helpful or of concern; I see no appreciable impact from that distinction. But the lack of choice of beliefs and feelings does have that impact, at least to me. There was a woman I used to work with that kept telling me I needed to stop being sad or angry about these two things and just forgive the people. I could and should choose to forgive and let it go because forgiveness is for the individual giving it as they're the one being harmed without it. I thought it was a rude thing to say. It dismissed my feelings (that I can't control) and made me the bad guy for still feeling that way. I tried to explain to her that you can't choose how you feel, but she still maintains that you absolutely can. A few months after that, her husband left her and she was devastated. Not sure why my brain's ultimate decision was to refrain from telling her she should just choose to be happy he left her instead of sad, but it was probably for the best.

That's it.