The free will argument means pretty much a different thing to everyone who claims to believe there is a free will. While non believers in the concept as well as compatibalists will opt to simply define the concept as “that feeling of free will we seem to all have”.
The religious will usually come with a cop out of the “self” not being limited to the experiencing conscious self, but rather a dialog between that self and a soul – a homunculus “atomic” controlling entity – to which we are “slaves”. This does about the same thing to the actual argument as inserting quantum randomness or an invisible puppet master. It only detracts from the self but adds nothing new that can be included in what we can understand as a self.
I would of course like to know if there are any aspects I did not cover in this graph. So let me know and I will incorporate it and expand the graph accordingly.
This is the political compass as I can see it to the best of my knowledge. A bigger insight into some parties might of course make me want to move them around, but I suspect not by very much.
I find that the vertical column overshadows the horisontal in all meaningful issues. And though I can see the appeal of authoritarianism it can’t change my own liberal principles.
I also find that my location on the horisontal plane is very dependent on what issue is being discussed. And it seems like neither progressivism or conservativism are good principles as the outcome must be more important than the choice of politics.
Main stream media as well as normal conversations only consider the left-right paradigm that in real life is shaped like a horse shoe on the compass plane. The left would like the top center to be the natural “extension” of the right side of the horse shoe, while the right will sometimes claim the opposite. In reality, fascism, communism or national socialism were not very different in practice even though they had different principles for implementing their collectivist systems.
So currently in Sweden people are waking up to a new culture of fireworks usage. Rockets are used against people, vehicles and buildings in order to scare or vandalize. This is much the same behavior we have seen in other European cities before, but the Swedish culture was not ready for the war like scenes on New Years Eve 2016.
The question everyone is asking is what to do about it.
In good spirit I thought I would try to outline the options and how they map onto a political ideology map.
As usual, let me know if I forgot or completely botched something.
I’m not sure if this is even necessary to point out anymore. But for the sake of context I need this for upcoming arguments.
- Knowledge is a subset of the things one believe, the demarcation between which might be taken as whether a belief is justified and true. However, “justified” is subjective and “true” implies knowledge. Therefore, a common ground must be established between all debaters on what constitutes a justified belief. An example might be “I knowing something exists only if I see it” or “I accept knowing something doesn’t exist when the description of it is internally contradictory”.
- Personal knowledge exists but is per definition personal and does not serve as an argument to other people. For instance, personal revelation from a god might be enough to justify the gods existence to the person that had the revelation only.
- Strong Atheism is sometimes referred to as “Capital A-atheism” or Gnostic Atheism.
- Strong Atheism and Agnostic atheism are both in the category atheism.
- Being an agnostic atheist does not mean there are specific gods or versions of god that the claimant can know to not exist. For instance an agnostic atheist can claim to know that Thor does not exist due to the preponderance of evidence backing up this knowledge.
After watching Alexander Bards TEDx talk on “syntheism” I couldn’t shake the feeling having listened to a string of beautifully elegant non-sequiturs held together by the pure will of Alexander to fill already burdened words with even more baggage. I have to admit that it left me no wiser on the concepts he was trying to explain, yet it gave me an uneasy feeling that I was expected to find his conclusions very profound.
Maybe the whole thing is just incredibly meta and his talk is actually a representation of the void he described as a god, then getting it published on the internet is another god and, I guess, the pantheistic god sorta becomes the video as the video is a part of everything. I’m not making this to mock Alexander, but in all honesty to explain why it didn’t make sense, at least in any useful way. Then again, if the talk leads us towards this “perfect society” we all should be dreaming of, he can clearly and honestly claim to be a prophet of his very own four-deity, polytheistic religion, and as they say, that ain’t hay. ;)
Leave comments or discuss below. If you ask me to I might redo or clarify the graph. All steps are as usual numbered for ease of reference.
Since forever religious people have been stumbling all over their arguments when trying to square this circle. Still to this day there isn’t a single comprehensive, consistent argument to this that doesn’t end with the god either being incompetent or malicious.
This argument does not deal with humans or animals doing harm to one and other but only with the apparent needless suffering due to natural disasters, disease, drought caused famine, naturally occurring birth defects etc.
As always, if you feel I have omitted a step please leave your comment below and I’ll try to correct the graphics.
So here’s the deal, according to some there is one good and one evil entity. You’ve only ever heard from one of them and it claims to be the good one. Also it’s given you a book to prove his point. To underscore why you have to believe it, it claims it cannot lie, but it also also claims it is able to do anything.
How do you go about finding out if it is really the good entity you heard from?