Well of course I believe we have free will. I think free will could be said to be the foundation of atheism, so to speak. We are free to do as we choose. We can choose self-destructive or sacrificial behavior, or we can choose to try to achieve our own happiness.

My view of Christian mythology is that Lucifer was, in a sense, the first atheist. He rejected God's will in order to follow his own and think for himself.

I see by your tagline that you might be an objectivist.  I have always wanted to ask an objectivist where exactly they derive such notions as "self-destructive or sacrificial behavior, or [..] our own happiness"  The first one of course is easy to define without bringing in moral overtones, but 'sacrificial' seems to force a moral component.  But wouldn't 'happiness' simply be a particular arrangement of chemicals in your brain that your brain interprets as a 'pleasurable state'?

Yes, but did you read the thread on objective morality which is currently two topics down from this one in the Atheism forum? When happiness is referred to by an objectivist I believe it is implied for over the long-term. Which means living life so that the "pleasurable state" is achieved over the course of your life. Pursue a career that you enjoy, only stay with people that make you happy, romantically or otherwise, and so on.

If it makes you genuinely happy to serve others, by all means do so. If you serve out of some sense of obligation, however, then that might be considered immoral or amoral from an objectivist standpoint.

"If it makes you genuinely happy to serve others, by all means do so. If you serve out of some sense of obligation, however, then that might be considered immoral or amoral from an objectivist standpoint."

What if it makes me genuinely happy to oppress them?

I think its reasonable to ask about morality from a free will POV.  I think I did a good job of bringing it back to that.

For a refutation of Dennet, I recommend "Agents Under Fire" by Angus Menuge.  

"I believe we are a big bunch of chemical processes and within that i don't see how free will can exist."

Would you go as far as the Churchlands go?  

Do you think that free will doesn't exist to any degree

Ie, do we exist as fully deterministic beings, partially deterministic, of non-deterministic?  

For example, we might say that we don't have full free will in regards to eating, because we MUST eat, or else we will die.  This choice is determined for us, but we can exert other choices in regards to what exactly we do eat, and how, and where, etc.

Or is even our decision to go to MickeyD's the end result of a long series of physical events and inevitably follows from these events?

I suggest Menuge's work, anyway.  He handles all the big guns... Churchland, Dennet, even Dawkins.

I don't hate anyone because they are 'anti-capitalist.'  While I admit, I see no harm in resting the seat of government in one centralized location instead of spreading it out throughout the region.   I think it makes map making pretty though.  You get these 'stars' winking at you from the map.

Hang on.  That's probably not what you meant.   You are just saying that you are a lower case man.  Well, obviously your inconsistency is evident.  Still start your sentences out with capital letters, don't you?  DON'T YOU?

hmm.  so anyway, its not mere anti-capitalism that i don't like, its what people replace capitalism with.  its not even like i am in love with capitalism.  i just think, realistically, its the best thing going.


Oh yea.  Free will.

So, if you believe we are fully determined, what significance is there exactly to anyone holding any position?  Let's pretend that we were going to argue about political/economic systems.  It would be irrelevant as to whether any would be 'better' or 'right.'  Each of us would have positions that had been determined by the laws of physics.  Being fully determined means being fully determined.  

I mean really, you may think that I'm wrong in my belief in God, but how can I be blamed?  It was determined by processes started long ago that I would believe in God.  It was determined that I believe we have genuine free will (with Christian caveats).  There is no right or wrong here, just a particular state of particles in my brain reflecting these positions...

"If it makes you genuinely happy to serve others, by all means do so. If you serve out of some sense of obligation, however, then that might be considered immoral or amoral from an objectivist standpoint."

What if it makes me genuinely happy to oppress them?

I hate to answer a question with a question, so I've got two:  

1. Do you think anyone is genuinely happy oppressing people?

2. How long do you think you could oppress people before someone revolts and kills you? If it's a risk you're willing to take, by all means start oppressing. It is the responsibility of the oppressed to use their brains to overthrow you and undertake steps to make themselves happy. Or, if your oppression is mostly non-violent, it might be possible to be happy under the so-called "oppression." You would really need to define what you mean by oppression, and then answer if you honestly think someone can be happy if they are the cause of that oppression.

As interesting as this is, I think I'll log off and go eat some puddin'.

Did I just engage in some free-will decision making? I can change my mind and stay here typing some nonsensical blather. Seems like free will does exist. I can freely choose to puddin' or not to puddin'.  

Or will my decision be already determined through the chemical processes seeking pleasure? If so the puddin' will no doubt be scarfed soon.  There is no pleasure in no puddin', yet if I decide not to eat any that kind of kills the 'slave to the chemical process seeking pleasure' hyposisisis. (<--however you spell that).

But there is no puddin' available!! So much for "free-will"

"What causes happiness in individuals is subjective....  This is choice. This is free will."

I may be able to accept a position like this, but I would need to see it substantiated and supported.  I would need to see that it was consistent with other aspects of the worldview.  This thread is asking about free will from an atheist's point of view.  Atheists nowadays almost universally believe that evolution is actual history.   Do you?

I will draw the point right away, assuming a 'yes' answer.   Given evolution, what causes happiness may very well be subjective, but it doesn't follow that your choice to choose happiness is done freely.  In fact, doesn't it follow that if we are the product of evolution, every aspect of each of us- subjective or not- is the result of selection processes, whereby each decision has the goal of furthering our own survival long enough to successfully reproduce?  Within a world where evolution is real, shouldn't it follow that 'happiness' itself is an evolutionarily derived state that either contributes to or is synonymous to survival and reproduction, and so a determined thing?  

What you are calling choice may very well just be instinct, right?

"There is no way to determine whether this choice was preordained or predestined and I really have no control over the matter. We appear to have free will, and no one can prove otherwise."

So you believe we have free will based on faith?

"We may all be part of some vast VR network and controlled by little kids playing a SIM game, but we are not aware of it. It doesn't effect our lives in any meaningful way whatsoever, as far as we can see. So it is useless and not productive to theorize about it."

Sure, there is always solipsism.   But not all solipsistic (eh?) possibilities are created equal.   A 'VR network' 'controlled by little kids playing a SIM game' strikes me as implausible.  A VR network controlled by folks at Microsoft as strikely more plausible.   Whoever is in charge, they've done an awfully darn good of instilling in us a pretty darn good illusion, don't you think?  Might the quality of the illusion we experience somehow proportionally speak to the abilities of the entity that sustains it?

Couldn't free will itself be evidence of their existence?

I happen to think we may even be able to determine a way or two to test the particular scenario you gave us.

I am shocked, shocked, I say, that you would not want an explanation for this reality in your world.

"1. Do you think anyone is genuinely happy oppressing people?"

I thought you just said it was subjective.  We must allow for the possibility.

"2. How long do you think you could oppress people before someone revolts and kills you?"

Excellent.  You have now retreated to an evolutionary point of view.  Well, you've made your bed, now you've got to lie in it.  Consistent with this view, you need to agree that your 'will to happiness' is at best only a result of a survival mechanism or the survival mechanism itself.  Ie, its not free will.  Its determined by your brain chemistry and the long history of evolution leading up to this point.

However, that means if someone were to be happy oppressing people, this would only be another evolutionarily derived point of view.  Given that the history of humanity is filled with oppressing people, I can only imagine that the answer is "yes, some people are happy oppressing others."

We can oppose them, apparently, on survival grounds- both parties are not representing free willed choice- but not on moral grounds.  Because moral responsibility ultimately requires that there is a free choice and a person could have done otherwise.

This concept is just a bit overblown.
Yes, poeple have free will. It is the consequences of their actions that define good and evil.