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.
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.