Atheistic morality

[BigBallinStalin]

Would anything I say change anything you think?

50-80%,

Changes in behavior? PTSD? Erectile dysfunction?

If you understood your source, it should be easy to explain it--as they explain (not you).

And this is one simple task. If you can't understand whatever you choose to confirm your bias, then there's little hope of you attaining a tenable grasp on reality.

[shickingbrits]

Understanding that clipping the tip off a finger is cruel doesn't require the info you seek.

Feel free to try it out. It will save you the need to trim your nails, scratch yourself,mor use them to harm others.

[Gillipig]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

[shickingbrits]

I'm choosing to write this post.

Now go become a researcher, write it up and I will cite it to you if that is what you need to understand you have free will.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Wiki:

Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is the most commonly used additive for water fluoridation.[34] It is an inexpensive liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture.[31] It comes in varying strengths, typically 23–25%; because it contains so much water, shipping can be expensive.[32] It is also known as hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid.[31]

From another site:

http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/

Dr. J. William Hirzy (2000) Senior Chemist at the U.S. EPA Headquarters states:
“If this stuff (hydrofluorosilicic acid) gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing.”

And? This surprises you?

Your body churns out HCl at around 2 pH constantly. Your lower digestive tract is permeated with any number of bacteria that can lead to epidemics without proper sanitation. Most animal life utilizes hydrogen peroxide and free radicals in immune system reactions.

Cancer patients are given radiation treatment and poisons to kill cancerous tissue. All of these things can kill you. There are tons of things that are hazardous to your health in large enough dosages, and yet in small enough doses they allow life to operate.

-TG

[shickingbrits]

If you want to drink hazardous waste, go for it.

If you want to put it in my water, then good on you. Maybe I'll churn out some HCI for your toast.

Atheistic morals to date:

torture animals;
poison people.

[PLAYER57832]

So happy you based this on the poor quality research available during the writing of the paper rather than subsequent studies.

Stop equating poor science with Christianity.

Christ teaches seeking truth, honesty. Poor science is laziness and poor reasoning at best, often plain fabrication by people with decidedly unchristian agendas (even if they use the church as a pawn).

There is nothing to be gained and MUCH to be lost by pretending that science and religion are in opposition.

Atheistic morals to date:

torture animals;
poison people.

More like evidence (atheists) and unsupported hyperbole on your part. A pretty sad showing for someone claiming to worship the God of truth.

[shickingbrits]

Player,

My bad, did you write one of those 3200 papers that were classified as poor quality?

I followed the invisible links backing up your accusations. It was as empty as your posts are.

[PLAYER57832]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

Of course its not scientifically proven, but Christians believe it to be true and feel it is proven through other means.

Denying things you cannot disprove, but simply dislike is essentially the crime you accuse theists of doing. True knowledge is gained not by insisting on either science or faith , God OR atheism, true intelligence recognizes that there is no firm proof for any belief system and recognizes that various people will find their own forms of evidence in lieu of firm, repeatable science. Intelligence accepts those differences, rather than condemning them... and it is that meshing in which true insights and advancements are found.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

My bad, did you write one of those 3200 papers that were classified as poor quality?

I followed the invisible links backing up your accusations. It was as empty as your posts are.

No, you pretend that anyone criticizing modern, standard science is somehow more intelligent because it allows you to believe you are part of some huge conspiracy.

Truth is you are... but you are the victim, not the illuminated.

Science operates on honest criticism. Sadly, you don't seem to be truly reading most of what you have posted as "contrary evidence".. instead you pick out pieces that seem to support your view.

[shickingbrits]

Player,

My bad, did you write one of those 3200 papers that were classified as poor quality?

I followed the invisible links backing up your accusations. It was as empty as your posts are.

[BigBallinStalin]

Player,

My bad, did you write one of those 3200 papers that were classified as poor quality?

I followed the invisible links backing up your accusations. It was as empty as your posts are.

Check it out: an inside glimpse into shickinbrits' mind!

[shickingbrits]

I guess you're right all. The US government would never cooperate with Monsanto to harm people.

Well, not Americans.

Well, not intentionally.

Well, oh, sorry I guess it's all of you who are wrong.

Does it amaze me that people can understand full well that a hazardous waste is being put into their own drinking water and they care not? Not really. I'd say most of those defending it don't drink the water. So all is well.

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[tzor]

Who said "God hates fags"?

Quite the opposite, actually, "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering fag he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;"

It is the evil one who constantly makes people snuff out their cigarettes.

[Gillipig]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

Of course its not scientifically proven, but Christians believe it to be true and feel it is proven through other means.

Denying things you cannot disprove, but simply dislike is essentially the crime you accuse theists of doing. True knowledge is gained not by insisting on either science or faith , God OR atheism, true intelligence recognizes that there is no firm proof for any belief system and recognizes that various people will find their own forms of evidence in lieu of firm, repeatable science. Intelligence accepts those differences, rather than condemning them... and it is that meshing in which true insights and advancements are found.

There's nothing in our existence that could not be explained without free will so assuming that free will exists purely out of habit or doctrine has to be considered at the very least a lazy thing to do. If one claims to be intellectual and has adopted a positive view of something for which there is no evidence, the onus definitely falls on him to motivate his postive view and show how not only it's plausible that it exists, but also how it is more likely that it does exist than that it does not. And here you run into problem, you can't assume that a theory is true when there is no evidence for it and that is what people who believe in free will do, even though there is not any sort of evidence for it's existence they assume that it exists. If a phenomenon has not been observed scientifically why should you assume that it exists? It is only because of our culture and our instinctive, and as often demonstrated, faulty perception of how our brain works, that you believe we have free will, it's not rooted in logic or science, it's rooted in emotion, and emotional arguments tend to be pretty weak. For example the whole idea that we are free to choose what to do is grounded in a feeling we have when our conciousness is active, we feel like we are completely free to do what we want at any given moment, but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet, he still thinks he's free to choose what he want, these kinds of experiment show how faulty our perception is, and it does not appear natural to me that in light of research such as that arrive with a positive assertion that we have free will.

[chang50]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

Of course its not scientifically proven, but Christians believe it to be true and feel it is proven through other means.

Denying things you cannot disprove, but simply dislike is essentially the crime you accuse theists of doing. True knowledge is gained not by insisting on either science or faith , God OR atheism, true intelligence recognizes that there is no firm proof for any belief system and recognizes that various people will find their own forms of evidence in lieu of firm, repeatable science. Intelligence accepts those differences, rather than condemning them... and it is that meshing in which true insights and advancements are found.

There's nothing in our existence that could not be explained without free will so assuming that free will exists purely out of habit or doctrine has to be considered at the very least a lazy thing to do. If one claims to be intellectual and has adopted a positive view of something for which there is no evidence, the onus definitely falls on him to motivate his postive view and show how not only it's plausible that it exists, but also how it is more likely that it does exist than that it does not. And here you run into problem, you can't assume that a theory is true when there is no evidence for it and that is what people who believe in free will do, even though there is not any sort of evidence for it's existence they assume that it exists. If a phenomenon has not been observed scientifically why should you assume that it exists? It is only because of our culture and our instinctive, and as often demonstrated, faulty perception of how our brain works, that you believe we have free will, it's not rooted in logic or science, it's rooted in emotion, and emotional arguments tend to be pretty weak. For example the whole idea that we are free to choose what to do is grounded in a feeling we have when our conciousness is active, we feel like we are completely free to do what we want at any given moment, but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet, he still thinks he's free to choose what he want, these kinds of experiment show how faulty our perception is, and it does not appear natural to me that in light of research such as that arrive with a positive assertion that we have free will.

Very well put but certain to be misunderstood my friend.

[nietzsche]

but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet

Source?

That seems a little.. uhm.. in disagreement with my understanding of things, like you just pulled that out of your ass. I mean, a similar idea is possible but that you just typed there I highly doubt.

Not trying to disprove your point. Yet.

[Gillipig]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

Of course its not scientifically proven, but Christians believe it to be true and feel it is proven through other means.

Denying things you cannot disprove, but simply dislike is essentially the crime you accuse theists of doing. True knowledge is gained not by insisting on either science or faith , God OR atheism, true intelligence recognizes that there is no firm proof for any belief system and recognizes that various people will find their own forms of evidence in lieu of firm, repeatable science. Intelligence accepts those differences, rather than condemning them... and it is that meshing in which true insights and advancements are found.

There's nothing in our existence that could not be explained without free will so assuming that free will exists purely out of habit or doctrine has to be considered at the very least a lazy thing to do. If one claims to be intellectual and has adopted a positive view of something for which there is no evidence, the onus definitely falls on him to motivate his postive view and show how not only it's plausible that it exists, but also how it is more likely that it does exist than that it does not. And here you run into problem, you can't assume that a theory is true when there is no evidence for it and that is what people who believe in free will do, even though there is not any sort of evidence for it's existence they assume that it exists. If a phenomenon has not been observed scientifically why should you assume that it exists? It is only because of our culture and our instinctive, and as often demonstrated, faulty perception of how our brain works, that you believe we have free will, it's not rooted in logic or science, it's rooted in emotion, and emotional arguments tend to be pretty weak. For example the whole idea that we are free to choose what to do is grounded in a feeling we have when our conciousness is active, we feel like we are completely free to do what we want at any given moment, but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet, he still thinks he's free to choose what he want, these kinds of experiment show how faulty our perception is, and it does not appear natural to me that in light of research such as that arrive with a positive assertion that we have free will.

Very well put but certain to be misunderstood my friend.

It would surprise me more if it didn't get misunderstood, I'm okay with that though, people will be people.

but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet

Source?

That seems a little.. uhm.. in disagreement with my understanding of things, like you just pulled that out of your ass. I mean, a similar idea is possible but that you just typed there I highly doubt.

Not trying to disprove your point. Yet.

Not pulled out of my ass, it's taken from Sam Harris lectures, he's a neuroscientist, it's not his own research but he quotes it in both his lectures and his books. I can almost guarantee that the names of the scientists who made the research is referred to in this lecture below, I hope I don't have to show you how to find their paper once you have their names.

[nietzsche]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

Of course its not scientifically proven, but Christians believe it to be true and feel it is proven through other means.

Denying things you cannot disprove, but simply dislike is essentially the crime you accuse theists of doing. True knowledge is gained not by insisting on either science or faith , God OR atheism, true intelligence recognizes that there is no firm proof for any belief system and recognizes that various people will find their own forms of evidence in lieu of firm, repeatable science. Intelligence accepts those differences, rather than condemning them... and it is that meshing in which true insights and advancements are found.

There's nothing in our existence that could not be explained without free will so assuming that free will exists purely out of habit or doctrine has to be considered at the very least a lazy thing to do. If one claims to be intellectual and has adopted a positive view of something for which there is no evidence, the onus definitely falls on him to motivate his postive view and show how not only it's plausible that it exists, but also how it is more likely that it does exist than that it does not. And here you run into problem, you can't assume that a theory is true when there is no evidence for it and that is what people who believe in free will do, even though there is not any sort of evidence for it's existence they assume that it exists. If a phenomenon has not been observed scientifically why should you assume that it exists? It is only because of our culture and our instinctive, and as often demonstrated, faulty perception of how our brain works, that you believe we have free will, it's not rooted in logic or science, it's rooted in emotion, and emotional arguments tend to be pretty weak. For example the whole idea that we are free to choose what to do is grounded in a feeling we have when our conciousness is active, we feel like we are completely free to do what we want at any given moment, but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet, he still thinks he's free to choose what he want, these kinds of experiment show how faulty our perception is, and it does not appear natural to me that in light of research such as that arrive with a positive assertion that we have free will.

Very well put but certain to be misunderstood my friend.

It would surprise me more if it didn't get misunderstood, I'm okay with that though, people will be people.

but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet

Source?

That seems a little.. uhm.. in disagreement with my understanding of things, like you just pulled that out of your ass. I mean, a similar idea is possible but that you just typed there I highly doubt.

Not trying to disprove your point. Yet.

Not pulled out of my ass, it's taken from Sam Harris lectures, he's a neuroscientist, it's not his own research but he quotes it in both his lectures and his books. I can almost guarantee that the names of the scientists who made the research is referred to in this lecture below, I hope I don't have to show you how to find their paper once you have their names.

80 minutes.. too much.

Still, even if there was a similar experiment as the one you mention, i bet the details are quire different. To you the details might not be important, but everything is in the details when it comes to research studies. Seconds? What was it, they detected he was very horny and put 2 buttons in front of him, one would bring a hooker and the other would bring a lasagna plate?

[BoganGod]

I wouldn't add the SIR!.

50%-1000%

No, no it does not.

It confirms my actual claim: 50-80%.

Tobias KS. Feline onychectomy at a teaching institution: a retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Surg 1994; 23:274-280.

" In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications."

So, if you bother skimming through the lit. review, you'll see how broad "post-surgery medical complications" is. lrn2read. Besides, what explains their large margin of error (30%)?? I'm sure your summary was accurate; however, your point doesn't help your stance as much as you strongly believe.

80% to 1000%. What explains your large margin of error? Learn two read.

Learn to write.Their have bean two meny attacks on three speech

[shickingbrits]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

Of course its not scientifically proven, but Christians believe it to be true and feel it is proven through other means.

Denying things you cannot disprove, but simply dislike is essentially the crime you accuse theists of doing. True knowledge is gained not by insisting on either science or faith , God OR atheism, true intelligence recognizes that there is no firm proof for any belief system and recognizes that various people will find their own forms of evidence in lieu of firm, repeatable science. Intelligence accepts those differences, rather than condemning them... and it is that meshing in which true insights and advancements are found.

There's nothing in our existence that could not be explained without free will so assuming that free will exists purely out of habit or doctrine has to be considered at the very least a lazy thing to do. If one claims to be intellectual and has adopted a positive view of something for which there is no evidence, the onus definitely falls on him to motivate his postive view and show how not only it's plausible that it exists, but also how it is more likely that it does exist than that it does not. And here you run into problem, you can't assume that a theory is true when there is no evidence for it and that is what people who believe in free will do, even though there is not any sort of evidence for it's existence they assume that it exists. If a phenomenon has not been observed scientifically why should you assume that it exists? It is only because of our culture and our instinctive, and as often demonstrated, faulty perception of how our brain works, that you believe we have free will, it's not rooted in logic or science, it's rooted in emotion, and emotional arguments tend to be pretty weak. For example the whole idea that we are free to choose what to do is grounded in a feeling we have when our conciousness is active, we feel like we are completely free to do what we want at any given moment, but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet, he still thinks he's free to choose what he want, these kinds of experiment show how faulty our perception is, and it does not appear natural to me that in light of research such as that arrive with a positive assertion that we have free will.

All you've done is transferred free will from the conscious to the subconscious. The inability to direct the subconscious through conscious acts is called insanity.

A child touches fire. It hurts. The child doesn't like the pain. Can the subconscious even feel the pain? Could the subconscious know of the pain without the conscious? Was it the subconscious that caused the act?

The child doesn't touch the fire again. This is a conscious act, because inadvertently our conscious selves will touch fire and our subconscious will let us.

Make the buttons hot and redo the experiment.

[shickingbrits]

I wouldn't add the SIR!.

50%-1000%

No, no it does not.

It confirms my actual claim: 50-80%.

Tobias KS. Feline onychectomy at a teaching institution: a retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Surg 1994; 23:274-280.

" In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications."

So, if you bother skimming through the lit. review, you'll see how broad "post-surgery medical complications" is. lrn2read. Besides, what explains their large margin of error (30%)?? I'm sure your summary was accurate; however, your point doesn't help your stance as much as you strongly believe.

80% to 1000%. What explains your large margin of error? Learn two read.

Learn to write.Their have bean two meny attacks on three speech

I'm so embarrassed. Good thing I have you too point this out. Two bad BBS doesn't have such friends.

[nietzsche]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

Where's your evidence for that? You said "we do have free will" and therefore I assume that you consider it scientifically proven, please share with me the research papers that confirms the existence of free will. It would be groundbreaking if you could provide such papers because every study into it has failed to do so. Or do you just assume that it must be true simply because the religion you believe in requires free will to exist or else things like sin and heaven and hell would not make much sense?

Of course its not scientifically proven, but Christians believe it to be true and feel it is proven through other means.

Denying things you cannot disprove, but simply dislike is essentially the crime you accuse theists of doing. True knowledge is gained not by insisting on either science or faith , God OR atheism, true intelligence recognizes that there is no firm proof for any belief system and recognizes that various people will find their own forms of evidence in lieu of firm, repeatable science. Intelligence accepts those differences, rather than condemning them... and it is that meshing in which true insights and advancements are found.

There's nothing in our existence that could not be explained without free will so assuming that free will exists purely out of habit or doctrine has to be considered at the very least a lazy thing to do. If one claims to be intellectual and has adopted a positive view of something for which there is no evidence, the onus definitely falls on him to motivate his postive view and show how not only it's plausible that it exists, but also how it is more likely that it does exist than that it does not. And here you run into problem, you can't assume that a theory is true when there is no evidence for it and that is what people who believe in free will do, even though there is not any sort of evidence for it's existence they assume that it exists. If a phenomenon has not been observed scientifically why should you assume that it exists? It is only because of our culture and our instinctive, and as often demonstrated, faulty perception of how our brain works, that you believe we have free will, it's not rooted in logic or science, it's rooted in emotion, and emotional arguments tend to be pretty weak. For example the whole idea that we are free to choose what to do is grounded in a feeling we have when our conciousness is active, we feel like we are completely free to do what we want at any given moment, but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet, he still thinks he's free to choose what he want, these kinds of experiment show how faulty our perception is, and it does not appear natural to me that in light of research such as that arrive with a positive assertion that we have free will.

All you've done is transferred free will from the conscious to the subconscious. The inability to direct the subconscious through conscious acts is called insanity.

A child touches fire. It hurts. The child doesn't like the pain. Can the subconscious even feel the pain? Could the subconscious know of the pain without the conscious? Was it the subconscious that caused the act?

The child doesn't touch the fire again. This is a conscious act, because inadvertently our conscious selves will touch fire and our subconscious will let us.

Make the buttons hot and redo the experiment.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you and Gillipig will understand each other, both pulling things out of your asses.

[shickingbrits]

You don't know shit. I will prove it by saying you don't know shit. You don't know shit. See I've said it so I must be right.

Can't argue with that.