Byron Dickens

Don't really like Corona all that much. Holding out for the Warsteiner virus instead:

I think it's been remarkably civil and hasn't been driven off the deep end. Everything a spirited discussion/ debate should be but, alas, seldom is these days.

That's really not fair to let just 99.99% of the politicians give the rest a bad name.

Quite frankly, I am much more concerned about the panic and stupidity than I am about the virus itself.

My wife and I are going to start a rumor that there is a shortage of dog poop and leaves & then just leave the gate open. The idiots will take it all off our hands....

First off, you insist on conflating free will with free action. You can reduce me to being a prisoner and bound in chains, to borrow from Hume again, so that I can in fact go nowhere but that does nothing to prevent me from wanting - from willing - to leave. Blocking the road might prevent me from driving on it, but it does not prevent me from wanting to, nor does it change the fact that I chose that route before. You can even tear it up & plant trees there but that doesn't mean the road never existed. That's the very definition of black & white thinking. https://lucidphilosophy.com/black-and-white-fallacy/ Organized or not doesn't matter. There are a multitude of religions some of which posit free will, some of which deny it, some where there is debate about it and some which are silent on the matter. Gibberish. Non sequitur. People do things all the time without being consciously aware of their motivations. It certainly has for thousands of years and it is way deeper than most realize. We haven't but barely scratched the surface.

Irrelevant. If the highway department blocks off a road, that doesn't mean the road doesn't exist. If some form of disability or external restraint interferes with the excersise of one's free will, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Black & white thinking. Again, irrelevant and black & white thinking. Religious and belief/ nonbelief (for lack of a better word) in evolution is not an either/or proposition. "Religious " encompasses a pretty broad spectrum. There are religions which posit free will and those which deny it. Religions which posit a single deity, a plurality thereof and even those which have no recourse to such. Even within Christianity, the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God has been used to argue for absolute determinism, for absolute free will and for everything in between.

What is it called when you stand an argumentum ad populum on its head?

Red herring.

In a purely determinist universe, isn't it rather hypocritical to try to change things?

It's actually far more sinister than most people imagine. There is no actual conspiracy, but they are all conspiring together to make us think there is a conspiracy when in fact there is none. That's how nefarious these people are.

And evolution is not a simple linear progression. But it is still irrelevant to the discussion of free will.

Double

Pure bovine excrement. There is nothing mutually exclusive about religion & science. But that's not just my opinion. More than one scientist and more than one theologian say the same.

Well, why bring it up? It is irrelevant to the issue at hand and therefore a red herring.

Individuals do not invade countries. You must be one of those peace and love people who spits on returning soldiers. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole chasing red herrings. We're not discussing evolution.

Really? REALLY? What the f**k is that? How does one even respond to such an asinine comment?

Red herring.

"Things beyond our control happen. Therefore no free will" is hardly a cogent argument.

It's not quite that simple.