65 Total Votes


35 votes


22 votes

Well, if you look at it this way...

8 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:19:01.9331468-06:00
What about choices when there is an anomaly in the brain, it's chemistry, amygdala, and or hippocampus? There are people who are driven by emotions or impulsivity that is not exactly a 'choice'.
Jingram994 says2013-12-15T22:22:05.1730960-06:00
No, but they have a choice to stop, think and do something other than what they immediately want to do. This is what most people do; if someone is incapable of this, they have a legitimate disorder and require treatment. And if someone has an actual physical brain anomaly, then of course they have a disorder. There exist numerous mental problems that can't be attributed to purely physical brain causes, and can't be effectively treated with just medication. Most 'C cluster' personality disorders, such as avoidant personality disorder, for example.
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:34:24.0141682-06:00
Really, That's interesting. I am a psychologist [that is why I posed the question in that manner] and I specialize in personality disorders. [PhD from Stanford] so include in cluster C: Dependent Personality Disorder,Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. Cluster C is called the anxious, fearful cluster. Anxiety disorders are usually comorbid with another underlying issue. In anti social behaviors I would look for Schizoid personality disorder, Schizotypal personality disorder or perhaps cluster B: Antisocial (formerly called sociopathic) personality disorder, Borderline personality disorder, Histrionic personality disorder, or Narcissistic personality disorder. Personality disorders are a group of mental health conditions in which a person has a long-term pattern of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that is very different from his or her culture's expectations. And I don't believe any disorder can be managed just with medication, therapy is ALWAYS an integral part of treatment that is if the patient wants a manageable life.
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:35:06.4231917-06:00
Personality disorders are a group of mental health conditions in which a person has a long-term pattern of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that is very different from his or her culture's expectations.
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:35:58.3081265-06:00
I posed the question that way because I am a psychologist from Stanford that specializes in personality disorders
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:37:16.6927820-06:00
Anti social behaviors stem more from cluster A or B than C. Cluster C disorders tend to deal with phobias and anxieties.
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:40:33.3014009-06:00
Paranoid personality disorder,Schizoid personality disorder,Schizotypal personality disorder: Cluster A Borderline personality disorder,Antisocial personality disorder,Narcissistic personality disorder,Histrionic personality disorder: Cluster B. Most patients have comorbid diagnosis. Therefore medication alone is never recommended. They should always include therapy.
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:43:31.2171199-06:00
Subutai: So, you are deterministic?
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:44:51.7662162-06:00
Determinism is not just causality. Determinism goes far beyond causality, and certainly much farther than psychological science requires.
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:45:28.7074898-06:00
To a determinist, there are no counterfactuals. Nothing that didn't happen could possibly have happened. Everything that did happen was the only possible thing that could have happened at that point in time and space, given the causes. That is why determinism and free will strike most people as incompatible beliefs (even though in recent decades a growing group of philosophers have embraced some form of ‘compatibilism' that preserves a watered-down notion of free will while also embracing determinism). The essence of free will is that the person really could do more than one possible response to a given situation. To a determinist, that is wrong. Causes, including unconscious causes, are operating to bring the person inevitably to what he or she will eventually do. The appearance of multiple options is an illusion, to a determinist.
Macgreggor says2013-12-15T22:45:56.9282516-06:00
Hence accepting the reality of choice amid genuinely multiple possibilities seems a more prudent and useful basis for psychological theorizing than deterministic inevitability.
Jingram994 says2013-12-15T22:53:30.1246415-06:00
Avoidant; not antisocial personality disorder. They're different. I don't think you included it there. 1) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Avoidant_personality_disorder We are still using the DSM 5, yes? They are still classed as legitimate psychological disorders, though not to the point of requiring in-patient therapy. Don't cluster C disorders essentially exclusively rely on therapy? Just to add on to your statements, free will, and lack of determinism, is also required for any system of morality/ethics; If someone 'ought' to do something, this implies that they *can* do it. If it is entirely impossible for me to do anything but an immoral action, this means that there was never a possibility of me being able to choose otherwise, and thus it is immoral to hold me responsible, or punish me, seeing as I could not have possibly, or even conceptually, have done any differently. When we punish actions, we punish the choice to commit that action, not just the mechanistic act in itself.
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-15T23:45:46.3626694-06:00
You guys, look at it this way----Do you have the power and the ability to control what you believe and your opinion on certain issues? Or, is it God determining how you feel about issues and situations?? I believe that you are controlling why you feel the way you do. I am not a scientist, and I do not see things from a Scientific perspective. I am in fact, a Historian. If we look at the past and why people were the way they were, we never really can quite understand them; not even knowing the psychology or science behind it. We look at all the people in the past and the way they were---Did they choose the way they were, did they make their very own choices or did God make all these bad decisions for them?? Because, throughout History there were people who made both good and bad decisions. There were people who did evil things to other people. Is this something that God wanted?? Was this the way God wanted for some people to treat other people?? No, I do not believe so. God gave everyone the "Power of Free Will." God might not be able to stop people from doing bad things, because he might not have the power to do it. We can all sit here and debate about this topic, but fact of the matter is that I can control where I am going to go in my life, with the help of God, but not God fully telling me where I am going to go. I am sure that may of you may disagree with me, but I'm trying to help you see this topic from a different angle. I RESPECT the way each one of you feels. It seems that Macgreggor is looking at this from a Psychological perspective and that Jingram994 is looking at this from a Philosophical and Scientific perspective. The subjects we study in school and our passions are what help us to deliver our beliefs and morals. I know that I look at this from a Historical perspective, because that is my passion. I hope that this helps, without offending any of you. Sincerely, HistoryLover555
yay842 says2013-12-15T23:46:06.0501218-06:00
Omg, not again
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-15T23:49:09.4304728-06:00
yay842 says2013-12-15T23:51:58.6614424-06:00
Well, not really, but when you get: Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, 2-D, sonofgod, bornofgod, and yay842 = biggest argument + yay842 watching in awe
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-15T23:52:54.3385562-06:00
Sorry, but I don't quite get your meaning yay842??
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-15T23:54:16.3176072-06:00
You know that I have the right to express what I want, so I'm sorry if you disapprove of my opinion.
Jingram994 says2013-12-15T23:54:47.5747044-06:00
Wrong poll, yay. He's talking about something me and the other mentioned people have been discussing for a while now.
yay842 says2013-12-15T23:55:12.6910264-06:00
Oh, ok
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-15T23:56:27.3592872-06:00
LOL!! Let's just be RESPECTFUL to each other PLEASE!! Good Luck with all of that.
yay842 says2013-12-15T23:57:12.1729582-06:00
Says the disrespectful guy
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-16T00:00:20.0596314-06:00
Ok. I'm not sure how to take that. But we need to stay on topic of controlling our destiny if we are going to post anything else on here. :)
yay842 says2013-12-16T00:01:46.3209764-06:00
Ok, we cant determine our own destiny. Why? Because we cant
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T00:06:15.4730084-06:00
Why? We don't get to pick and choose our own personalities, likes/dislikes, and the external circumstances of our lives, but this doesn't mean we have no choices. Choices exist in the frame of those other, non-optional and non-changeable things.
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-16T00:12:16.1720841-06:00
I can see where you are coming from Jingram994. I do not completely agree with you, but I do agree with you that we have choices. I'm going to leave it at that. There are some things in life that no two people are going to agree on. And this is one of those topics.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T00:23:02.1130027-06:00
Right; you believe that we subconsciously have a great degree of control over various aspects of our personalities/psychologies/mentalities, or something to that effect, right?
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T00:23:27.0188518-06:00
I haven't read through all of the comments so I don't know the arguments right till now. But what I do know is that the deterministic position debate has been dealt with through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, if you've heard of Schrodinger's Cat, you'll realize that there are always more than one option and when the time comes, nature collapses to one reality. So, in a sense, we cannot determine our own destiny because there are always multiple options and nature collapses to one reality. However, in the same sense, we can determine our destiny due to the factors which lead to those options coming into place. Our prior choices lead to us being left with those options and depending on other factors, nature will collapse to one of those options. This would explain why there are bad things and good things in life, simply because nature doesn't care about whether we're happy or not. It doesn't care about us and therefore, we have to make up our purpose of living and have to make the right choices as often as we can in order to shape a better destiny and to be left with options which will, in one way or another, lead to us living wonderfully good lives. This is my argument and please do not use ad hominem arguments, though I understand that sometimes, people are just forced to because the opposition is just not listening to your arguments or looking at your evidence.
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-16T00:27:38.6038579-06:00
Well thought out AbhijeetWatts. I RESPECT your thoughts and is a very interesting view point. I'll read this another time and think about it. It's worth giving it some time to think about. :)
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:04:56.8065250-06:00
“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … [I] am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason." David Hume
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:10:25.8927440-06:00
No anxiety disorders are treated with a variety of meds. Anti depressants such a SSRI and benzodiazepines are both found to be a symptom reliever so that the patient can glean the most from therapy. In cases such as phobias, desensitization or exposure is used in conjunction with anti anxiety meds. PTSD sometimes uses 'in vivo' therapy. Whereas OCD may just use person centered.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:11:25.7663116-06:00
The categorical imperative [Immanuel Kant] suggests we are our on moral agents. This of course provided we all behave by his three axioms.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T02:13:04.0294604-06:00
I was of the understanding that such complex disorders, specifically personality disorders such as avoidant personality disorder, tended to eschew the use of medication and focus almost exclusively on the therapy. Antidepressants and the like wouldn't be much use with a complex disorder focused exclusively on various social fears/issues, like AvPD is, I would have thought.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:13:16.3380182-06:00
So your input on moral actions, choice and punishment[?] all has to do with how the act is approached. There is a three prong approach to ethics and morality is not only subjective to the zeitgeist but cultural.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:16:04.1632432-06:00
Schrodinger's Cat is a key aspect of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics - it's not just that the scientist doesn't know which state it's in, but it's rather that the physical reality is not determined until the act of measurement takes place. In some unknown way, the very act of observation is what solidifies the situation into one state or another ... Until that observation takes place, the physical reality is split between all possibilities. That is not exactly determinism as discussed philosophically.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:18:54.1408134-06:00
Interesting theory history lover555, but there is no god so your whole interpretation was lost on me second sentence. However, if you believe in god and that theory that is your right. I respect that as well, but I don't adhere to your beliefs.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T02:20:51.9131698-06:00
Yes, Mr Macgreggor. I understand that that is not determinism as discussed philosophically. The point here is that even Einstein had a deterministic view of the world and yet believed that a criminal should be put in jail if he/she commits a crime. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle helped to solve the problem of a deterministic world. I use Science as a basis of my arguments mainly because it can provide official evidence of a certain phenomenon. In Science, a deterministic world is not a possibly, especially in Quantum Mechanics, where common sense and logic and reason go completely out of the window. However, philosophically speaking, the case might be different. As I have mentioned, Mr Macgreggor, I have not read through the entire list of arguments so I don't exactly know how you reached the problem of mental disorders.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T02:26:03.7143672-06:00
Mr Macgreggor, I am an atheist but I do not approve of your statement 'there is no god'. That is a clear assumption on your part. Please back it up with evidence in your statement or your arguments. The same goes for Ms historylover555. Before making an argument, you should strive to prove that a God exists by laying out your reasons as to why God exists before getting to the question of whether we determine our destiny or not. Simply assuming that God does exist is subjecting yourself to a fallacy. You cannot simply presume that a premise is true and then make a conclusion based upon a premise which you haven't exactly proven yet. Please provide arguments for God and then provide arguments for why we can/cannot choose our destinies.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:34:20.4900303-06:00
I know the difference in avoidant personality and anti social personality as I clearly stated they were in a different cluster and therefore required less treatment than personality disorders from A or B. I feel fairly confident that in my years of practice, research, and studies I can diagnose and formulate a treatment plan that is dead on. I brought up the fact that, say emotional pain, might drive a person to some relief be it self medication, self injury, compulsive spending, overeating, promiscuity or on and on and not particularly be 'choosing' those activities with a sound mind, they are driven by impulse. This goes for coping skills and the like. Most people in prison are mentally ill. Society, culture, and environment heavily influence anti social behaviors, they may not be determined. Just as a person might be pre dispositioned for BPD, unless the catalyst is in place the person may never show symptoms. The DSM-V is like the Physician's Desk Reference, a guide. Simply reading it won't give you the answer. The Brain and behavior Research foundation is currently doing studies on BPD. I have used Marsha Linehan's therapy on a BPD patient for 4 years and the patient is going into remission.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:38:41.0846893-06:00
AbhijeetWatts: I'm not playing the prove there is no god game. I stated my beliefs, I acknowledged hers and to ld her I respect it. It is up to her to decide to be offended not YOU. I list logical fallacies all day long to. And I never said you cannot choose your own destiny, I am saying destiny IS NOT predetermined. Perhaps you had better read before jumping in a fire with both feet.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:41:09.7039839-06:00
Newtonian Determinism says that the universe is a clock, a gigantic clock that’s wound up in the beginning of time and has been ticking ever since according to Newton’s laws of motion. So what you’re going to eat 10 years from now on January 1st has already been fixed. It’s already known using Newton’s laws of motion. Einstein believed in that. Einstein was a determinist
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T02:42:55.2054313-06:00
Funny, you didn't mention it at all, even after I specifically brought it up, until just now. Was that just an accident? I don't think extensive therapy, with less/no medication, is necessarily 'less treatment'; it's just a different way of treating it. And I don't think that your statement "Most people in prison are mentally ill. Society, culture, and environment heavily influence anti social behaviors, they may not be determined." is a very 'good' one. People are only imprisoned because they broke society's laws; these laws are not necessarily 'good' laws, and people breaking them have not necessarily actually done anything 'wrong'. Correct definitions of medical health do not change from society to society, whereas laws and regulations do.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:47:12.5085325-06:00
Every time you look at an electron it moves, there is uncertainty in regards to the position of the electron. What does that mean for free will? No one can determine your future events given your past history.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T02:49:02.5339219-06:00
And the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle did prove that Einstein was wrong. There is no scientific determinism, especially in Quantum Mechanics. Physicists and Physics students, like myself, are focusing on the problems of Quantum Mechanics as Newtonian Mechanics has been completely solve, more or less. Just as we cannot determine where an electron will appear next, we cannot determine what a person will eat. And it would seem that you did not read my previous argument. I said that our destiny is predetermined to a certain extent and that it is not predetermined to a certain extent. Mr Macgreggor, please read and review my argument. And yes, I can be offended. You stated that there is no god, instead of stating that she hasn't proven that there is a god. Whether you are an atheist or not, you have committed a fallacy in that argument which you shouldn't tell me to overlook and not be offended by, Mr Macgreggor.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:49:21.2270838-06:00
Suppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will--namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it... Then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as--will to power. The world viewed from inside... It would be "will to power" and nothing else according to Nietzsche.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:50:53.8384949-06:00
Anything which is a living and not a dying body... Will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... Belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life. That is my view on 'will', determinism, physics, diagnosing Personality Disorders, treatment plans, and one rude AbhijeetWatts.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T02:52:57.9817033-06:00
So it all comes together in the end, huh? Perhaps if you formatted your posts and addressed specific issues/people, rather than rambling over dozens of separate posts, this would be a bit clearer.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:55:24.7897448-06:00
Why are you repeating what I say? I just said Einstein was wrong on pre determination as clear as water. I don't really care if you are offended, there is no god, I predetermined that long before you stuck your nose in my business. I also said it was for History Lover 555 to decide the offense, not you. You , sir, do not read everything and make wild assumptions. I suggests you take your failed logic and repetitive post on to someone who cares. Good day to you.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T02:55:33.2933121-06:00
Mr Macgreggor, it's quite funny that you can say that no one can determine our future based on our past history. We can determine the future using the past. Scientists do that in the name of technology itself. We have predicted that the next transistor and computer chip will be so small that it will be as cheap as a sheet of paper. In the same way, we can predict the multiple possibilities which will arise from previous circumstances. But we cannot pinpoint on which one of those possibilities will surely take place unless we have a great amount of information. That is the point behind Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as it was taught to me by my mentor. Please state how I have been rude in any way, Mr Macgreggor. I have addressed you as politely as I could. You have not considered my arguments at all, much less been able to accept the evidence which I have put forth.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:56:05.7096965-06:00
Perhaps if you jumped up my a**, you would feel at home.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T02:58:04.0209862-06:00
I addressed all your phony concerns and then some. You got in a girlie tiff because I made a stand about god. Now you have a choice, believe me, in god, or whatever. Your mentor should have taught you not to be a d*uche bag
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T02:58:37.3430134-06:00
Mr Macgreggor, your unruly comments are truly undignified for someone who claims that I have failed logic. And that being said, Einstein was not completely wrong on pre-determinism. I must ask you whether you have taken a class in Quantum Mechanics before. And I have the right to be offended. You have no right to tell me what I should be offended at or not. That is up to me
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:00:33.4646637-06:00
Abhiij: At Cornell University they have an incredible piece of scientific equipment known as the Tunneling Electron Microscope. Now, this microscope is so powerful that by firing electrons you can actually see images of the atom, the infinitesimally minute building blocks of our universe. If I were using that microscope right now, I still wouldn't be able to locate my interest in your problem.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:01:00.6395153-06:00
Also, I did not tell you what to be offended about, idiot.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:01:07.9161438-06:00
Mr Macgreggor, if you have only ad hominem attacks to offer, then I must say that you are disgracing the name of atheism here. You are no better than anyone who believes in God and uses ad hominem attacks on someone who does not. Please take your ad hominem attacks home and leave them there so that we can enjoy an intellectual discussion.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:05:00.8764353-06:00
That's not up to you to decide, Mr Macgreggor. I am offended by the fact that you have stated outright that there is no God without providing arguments for that claim which you made on a whim. Again, please refrain from using ad hominem attacks. I think most people reading this would think that you are the childish person here, Mr Macgreggor. Please save yourself from that sort of embarrassment.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:06:19.0158335-06:00
Oh boo radley hoo. I never said I was an atheist. I do and will enjoy intelligent discussions when there isn't a d*uchebag rambling insincerely on this site. You sir, are not intelligent, you are a parrot.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T03:07:48.6990837-06:00
Are you serious, Macgreggor? This is supposed to be an intellectual discussion. You're the one who stopped that, due to the fact that you ramble like an old cat lady, and make statements that are related to the topic tangentially at best, and don't actually address your posts to any person/argument in particular. Seriously, calm the f**k down, and stop insulting people, who have every right to be offended and are merely making this known; and while I'm at it, stop offending people yourself. There is no way that you don't realize you're doing this. It's rude and childish, and if you want an actual intellectual discussion you need to stop doing it.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:08:08.7003384-06:00
Your profile states that you are an atheist. Either you are messing around with it, Mr Macgreggor, or you have just contradicted yourself very badly. Please come back when you have something intelligent to say. You are a disgrace to the name of Science and Reason, Mr Macgreggor.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:08:44.2343717-06:00
I think they would think you are an idiot for starting an argument over something that did not concern you in the first place. I am embarrassed that a twit like you reared your ugly head on my poll. I am attacking you personally because you came off like an a**hole and your continue to do so. Trust me nobody cares a fraction of what your think.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:09:57.5066323-06:00
That is my profile, I did not state I was an atheist on this poll. See what I mean? In fact, you have pointed out my mistake, I am a nihilist actually.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:10:47.1359696-06:00
You abhiijeetwattsthf? Are a disgrace to reading comprehension.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:11:32.5637520-06:00
First of all, Mr Macgreggor, this is a public poll. People have the right to comment on it and since I quality as a person and Mr Jingram qualifies as a person, we can comment on it as much as we want. You have been using ad hominem arguments. I would like you to state why I had come off as an a**hole so that I can, perhaps, change my tone a little bit in my arguments. However, if you are unable to come up with a logical answer to that, I have no reason to not continue commenting on this in a dignified manner.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:12:10.7218412-06:00
You are undignified and insipid. Plus your command of the English language is faulty. Everything I have said you have either failed to understand or spit it back to me in different order.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:13:07.3817676-06:00
Get over yourself. You were vying for a fight and got one. Mr ABHIIJERKWATTS.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T03:13:43.9330362-06:00
And therein lies the rub; total lack of coordinated response to a basic question. "I would like you to state why I had come off as an a**hole so that I can, perhaps, change my tone a little bit in my arguments. However, if you are unable to come up with a logical answer to that, I have no reason to not continue commenting on this in a dignified manner." Can you point anything out, or are you just overreacting and being a d**k?
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:16:44.5209514-06:00
Mr Macgreggor, you are the undignified one here. First, you claim that you are atheist on your profile. Now, you claim that you are not an atheist on this poll. Make up your mind. Are you an atheist or not? Secondly, Please state how my command of the English language is faulty when I have made no spelling or grammatical errors whatsoever. Thirdly, please state how you mentioned the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as part of your arguments. You have mentioned psychological orders but have failed to use Quantum Mechanics as a basis for your reasoning. Again, I have no right to tell you to leave this post but again, please come back when you have an argument worth reading and worth rebutting.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:19:23.8417715-06:00
I already told you. You came at me about the statement, "THERE IS NO GOD" or if your prefer, Got ist tott. I did not need to 'prove' anything. I was responding to someone else's post and you grabbed on like a rabid dog. Your tone is that of an a**hole. How many times do I have to tell you, you jumped in on a comment not directed at you and got so offended. The whole thing is stupid. I told you there is no god [let me expand on that] in my belief system. Also, your post were nice and snotty as were mine. You should learn to pick your battles and we wouldn't be having, whatever this is.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:21:07.6740403-06:00
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. For definition: see a post about a hundred up. Happy now? I see now this isn't your fault.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:24:05.7414080-06:00
As I have said, I have the right to question you about it and be offended by it. That is not your decision. It is completely mine. I asked you to clarify your point on why there is no God. I asked you to give a simple argument to that and I also asked Ms Historylover555 to give her reasons as to why God exists before making an argument which presumes that God exists. I was impartial. If you truly wanted an intellectual discussion and still want one right now, you will stop trying to use ad hominem attacks and start putting out logical points, as you were doing at the beginning of this argument. I have the right to question you and be offended if you say something which offends me. You do not determine what I question and you, especially, do not determine what I get offended by, Mr Macgreggor.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:24:07.0986254-06:00
I clearly stated for the second time, I did not mention whether I was atheist or not on this post. My profile says atheist. I then said, no it should be changed to nihilist. How hard is this for you really. The reason the psychological discussion was on there brainiacs, would also be abundantly clear had you READ the entire post. You made no argument, and I did not argue with your point, in fact I agreed the whole time about the uncertainty factor. What is your damage?
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:26:37.1262165-06:00
I said there is no god. I am not arguing or debating. Get offended all you want. You should not have addressed me if you are so deeply affected by a statement. Perhaps your sensibilities are too weak for this robust activity. Yes? I think so.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:27:45.5157397-06:00
You came at me with ad hominem attacks. We were discussing fine points until you started making assumptions. I simply questioned you and asked you to clarify your statement 'there is no god'. All you had to do was to give me a simple clarification. But you didn't. Instead, you came at me with ad hominem attacks, Mr Macgreggor and I am simply using logic and reason as an answer to your ad hominem attacks. We should not even be arguing on this at all when you have made the clarification. I am now content and have no intention of arguing any longer.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:30:38.6792456-06:00
You are not supposed to make an assumption like that, Mr Macgreggor. But since you have clarified it, it should rest now. And honestly, if I were truly offended, I would have used ad hominem attacks like you did just now. But I decided to not stoop to that level. Please also tell me how my sensibilities are weak for this robust activity. If I feel offended or disheartened to see you make assumptions, I shall raise it to question. There's no doubt about that. That does not give you the license to make ad hominem arguments.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:32:19.0353322-06:00
But let's just leave it at that, shall we? You've clarified your point and have made it crystal clear. I see no need to argue on this any longer :) Thank you for a fruitful session of debate, Mr Macgreggor.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:34:41.9524007-06:00
Oh get off your huffy bike. That is YOUR perception. I'm glad your are not engaging me any further because my stultiphobia is off the charts. I wish I could say good points, but alas your never made one. Oh dear. Appeal to Pity: (also "Argumentum ad Miserecordiam"). The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand (e.G., “Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times their size!”) A corrupt argument from pathos. Argument from Ignorance: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). Either-Or Reasoning: (also False Dilemma, Black / White Fallacy). Reductionism: (also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering)
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:34:50.0330971-06:00
Tu Quoque (also Two Wrongs Make a Right): The fallacy of defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one's own bad action by pointing out that one's opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse. E.G., "Sure, we may have tortured prisoners of war, but we didn't cut off heads off like they do!" A corrupt argument from ethos. Related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:34:50.7316770-06:00
Tu Quoque (also Two Wrongs Make a Right): The fallacy of defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one's own bad action by pointing out that one's opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse. E.G., "Sure, we may have tortured prisoners of war, but we didn't cut off heads off like they do!" A corrupt argument from ethos. Related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T03:36:06.3629185-06:00
Anybody else sick to death of this thread already? I don't particularly care how upset either of you are by this point; stay on topic.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:36:31.9309907-06:00
The Pe Uke Fallacy
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:37:26.3904726-06:00
If you're sick of it then why bother? You didn't stay on topic either.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T03:37:46.5760337-06:00
Just Googled, and nothing; is that even a real thing, or are you just taking a dig at someone?
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T03:38:41.0505353-06:00
Also, I was trying to calm things down and get you two back on topic; clearly that wasn't going to happen, given how immature you were determined on being.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:39:54.9511772-06:00
You listed so many fallacies and never specified where I committed them. I also did make an argument. It's not my fault that you pretended to forgo my argument from the point of view of Quantum Mechanics.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:39:55.0871861-06:00
We have settled it and there is no need for you to fan the flames unless you have something constructive to say.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:44:09.9988470-06:00
Oh and it is quite ironic that you say that you have a fear of stupid people when you were not able to spell 'stultophobia' properly and spelled it as 'stultiphobia' and more commonly, it should be understood as a fear of one's own superiority complex, Mr Macgreggor. I'm not trying to fan the flames. I'm just pointing it out politely. If you want to use ad hominem arguments again, please do so. I'd welcome them :)
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:44:54.6310192-06:00
Are you kidding me with this AbhiijeetWatts? Let it go. It is over. Done. I am not talking about Quantum Physics because it was unrelated to the question. I also addressed that way back when. Schrodinger's cat really isn't applicable to this, ok? Leave it at that. When I want a physics answer for a Psychology -philosophy topic, I will make that more clear. Nice try, interesting twist, actually amusing twist [Schrodinger's Cat theory] I Just figured out the root of our argument. You think in concrete and I think in abstract. That's all. It's just two different ways of approaching something. Good show.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:48:20.7235035-06:00
I feel that, in a scientific way, Schrodinger's Cat does apply here because it deals with this problem. But of course, that is based upon hard and cold facts whereas philosophically, this problem does not really require data. But anyways, good debate and good show. I'm glad you didn't resort to ad hominem attacks again :)
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:50:01.6386097-06:00
No problem, I apologize for bad form. Thanks and I hope you will accept my apology for being obnoxious.
AbhijeetWatts says2013-12-16T03:51:38.2949705-06:00
I apologize for, perhaps, coming across as an a**hole and I hope that we can have a much more fruitful discussion in the future.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T03:53:20.6140587-06:00
I would actually enjoy that and I will keep my 'ad hominems' in check. LOL I'm glad we were able to work this out, thank you.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T13:05:35.3337138-06:00
MacGreggor is fine. I think this problem was solved, HistoryLover555, I do not see the need to come on here yet again and say anything. I don't need a mommy 'scolding' from you. We worked out our problem. I was not disrespectful of his beliefs, it was his attempt at making an argument out of nothing. Are you satisfied now? I told you I respected your beliefs and like AbhiijeetWatts, you should keep your interest on your post and not intercede in other's conversations, I think the civility will remain higher under those circumstances, don't you agree? There now, another problem solved. I am always peaceful Madame History 555, however, taking 'sides' is counterproductive as well as trying to explain away other people's thoughts and feelings. Am I now to get an advocate for my view? No. Now you have gone overboard and please stay there.
HistoryLover555 says2013-12-16T14:24:56.0630777-06:00
I am sorry.
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T14:27:32.9366668-06:00
Thank you, as am I. [history lover555]
Macgreggor says2013-12-16T14:41:59.4119580-06:00
Jingram994: Thank you for jumping as ambassador of peace. It was really helpful. As you can see it worked, all is worked out. Almost. But largely in due of the fact your compromising words totally changed the tone. Thank you.
Jingram994 says2013-12-16T23:32:36.1814331-06:00
Yeah, don't worry about it. It didn't seem like I was being a 'voice of reason' at the time, actually.
LeIdiot says2014-03-19T06:45:31.3792879-05:00
Being a believer in God everyone tells me i can't determine my own destiny because God has planned out my life. However i think it all comes down to matter of time, God knows what we will do because we have already done it, God has no input on the decision but the fact that he's not restricted by time he can see what we did/chose it's a weird concept to get around but it's pretty cool! I know what i did in 2005 but i can't change it the same way once something is written down by God because of what we do in the future it can't be changed
Jingram994 says2014-03-19T08:26:09.7205438-05:00
Not a weird concept, it just means that genuine free will and genuine omniscience are mutually exclusive. Whether God's knowledge of our decision before it is made actually impacts it or not does not change the fact that it is by definition not possible to act in any way other than what God already knows we will act. This very idea is totally incompatible with any meaningful use of the term 'free will'.
ImARedditFreakDontJudgeMe says2015-07-10T21:58:17.1557181-05:00
ImARedditFreakDontJudgeMe says2015-07-10T22:00:04.0143778-05:00
If you look at it technically science has shaped our bodies to adapt to our surroundings, make choices, etc. Based on that logic we don't. But if you look at US technically all we are is what's shaped to decide those things. It's a never-ending chicken egg situation
Bar_korb says2017-05-03T08:36:56.5624635Z
No we dont, our brain is like a dynamic computer that just responding to the envierment, it does change but we dont control it

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.