ReligiousIdeology

I announced myself as a non-troll because your fellow Objectivists gave me reason to believe that I might be perceived as one. Since we're posting pictures (happily, my ban there was temporary): Note how, like here, the burden of proof was placed on me to prove that I wasn't trolling, which is impossible because they can simply move the goalposts. What they, like you, should have done is point out why my post qualified as trolling -- which neither they nor you can do, because it doesn't. Note also how the excuse for deletion is that my post was "unclear," which strains credulity when you see that it is written in plain and simple English. Anyway, that's all there is to it, folks. It wasn't a guilty conscience that compelled me to write that line, it was my conditioning by other Objectivists. So you can dispense with the amateur psychology and "gotcha" high-fives. I never expected this degree of insularity, however. By Zeus, you people are paranoid. The most striking aspect of all this, to me, is that my post has yet to be discussed (with the exception of General Semanticist, who offered at least some partial feedback and seems to have an open attitude). Instead, a flurry of suspicion immediately commenced, almost as though it were intended as a smokescreen to avoid the topic of discussion. Sure, why? Tyler Wat, Please help me out. Provide some links to your online presence. Thanks. Michael I thought you were asking if I frequent other forums, which I do. But no, I don't have my own web site. Why does that matter? I'm genuinely curious why you feel the need to investigate my identity and online activities. I've never experienced this at any other forum. I'd rather not provide links to the other forums I frequent, because, quite frankly, I'm a bit rattled by my reception here. I have family photos online and I don't want them in the hands of people who have irrationally accused me of being a criminal without the slightest reason. I guess paranoia is contagious. I have been assured by a third party that you are too literate to be Victor Pross and that I've become paranoid about him. I have to agree. If you are who you say you are, I apologize for what I've said. --Brant I'm glad to know that at least someone among you is capable of analytical thought.

It's not a video, it's a radio interview. Seriously, the least you could do is click the link. You might even decide -- of your own free will of course -- to click "Play"... I always find it interesting to discuss free will with an otherwise intelligent person who affirms it. I can always tell whether they understand the implications of the matter by their response. Those who affirm free will "just because" (i.e., they haven't given it much thought), tend to be skeptical of contrarian arguments but willing to discuss it in reasonable tones. But those who have given it much thought indeed, ah, now those are the ones to watch out for. The response is almost visceral. Their seething rage almost palpable. They know perfectly well what the implications are, and they don't like them one little bit. If free will falls, their entire worldview falls with it, and most people don't take too kindly to that! It's understandable. As for myself, I enjoy having my beliefs shaken. It keeps things interesting. Otherwise, I'd be hanging out on some echo-chamber of a forum, feverishly clicking refresh, hoping for another "intruder" to slay.

It doesn't, actually. But this is clearly beyond you. (Perhaps the motive to prove me wrong will outweigh your motive to be confrontational, and you'll actually go listen to the interview.)

Ha! The one marriage he didn't consummate was the one to his most attractive wife! No, I'm not Henry VIII. :whistle:

No, I am not. Who is Victor Pross, and why do you think I am him? More importantly, how is your bizarre behavior related to my post? If you're not Victor Pross, I suggest you send Michael some proof of you real identity to dispel that notion, as we've had some bad experiences with VP in the past which may explain some of the reactions you've had on this forum. Surely you're joking. You want me to, what, scan my driver's license and send it to a stranger over the Internet? Rather than me disproving God, why doesn't my friend here submit his evidence? Seriously, what is it that makes me appear to be this person (and who is he, and what did he do to elicit such paranoia)? I'm intrigued, quite frankly. But not enough to attempt to prove a negative. Next thing you know I'll be asked to prove I didn't shoot J.R. (That does it, I'm googling "Victor Pross." See, now you've got me doing it. This coffee-clutch intrigue is contagious. Either that or I'm insanely bored....)

The point is that we may never know what "set of forces" causes us to utter certain statements, which doesn't imply that this "set of forces" doesn't exist, however. The brain and its interaction with the environment is far too complex to determine the exact form of these forces. Correct. What we call "free will" is simply the carrying out of the weightier of a set of competing motives. It's not the "will" that's controversial, it's the "free" part that's an illusion. At no point did Homo sapiens step outside the causal chain. The very idea is preposterous, almost science-fiction-like. Here's Susan Blackmore's take on it.

Thanks, I've got my answer.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What should I google? Do you mean I'm not ON google? I apologize for not being a celebrity, but even if I were I'd have to compete with a 14th century Englishman of not-insignificant renown. Seriously, do you do background checks here? Is harassment a serious problem for Objectivists? Like I said before, I don't know much about it, but I thought it was rather popular. I must say I find this a bit scary, but intriguing. I'd intended only to post my comment and see where it went, but now I want to figure what all this drama is about. Most of all, I just want to find out what part of my behavior has led you to suspect me of being this person who apparently abuses women in some way. Because, let's review for a moment: all I did was post a question about ideology vs science.

Even science has to be worn as a loose garment , just not as loose. I agree. Though, the scientific method is the best one we have for examining the universe, so it is reasonable to not allow ideaology to lure us too far from that path, lest we get lost in the wilderness of confusion. Science is ever-changing. That is its strength.

No, I am not. Who is Victor Pross, and why do you think I am him? More importantly, how is your bizarre behavior related to my post?

Do you really want to have a friendly discussion about it, or are you going to call me by various names in mockery?

No, I am not. What is going on here? I've experienced hostility to my views online, but not paranoia. My name is Tyler Wat. Yes, my father actually thought it was a good idea. But why does that matter? Are there background checks before one may be welcomed here?

Forgive me, but this is simply bizarre. I'm not concealing anything. I told you how and why I found my way here. What's with all the suspicion? Do you get a lot of trolls? Why not just step back a moment, read my post again, and see that it's utterly non-threatening. Then, if you still don't care to begin a friendly discussion, why not just ignore it and leave it for someone else who might?

Great video, thanks for sharing. I really admire her transition from believing pseudo-science to denying it. That shows an open, analytical mind. I especially admire her outspokenness on being a free-will denier. It's difficult enough to rid your own mind of that greatest of human delusions; quite another to discuss it with others, let alone convince them.

Sure, why? It's the name, isn't it? I know, haha, funny, right? No, not so much, actually. Not after the gazillionth time. :frantics: Anyway, I'm not some troll returned to torment you, if that's what "here we go again" means. My post is genuine; I'm just looking for an Objectivist response to my thoughts on ideology vs science.