romansh

You addressed cause and effect? Really? You used the word cause once in respect to the first cause - which is largely irrelevant to our immediate free will. While interesting that you recognize this "free choice" that is somehow independent of prior cause, one is left wondering how this might come about. This is fine, sounds good proper. I too accept that I am a proximate cause of the many effects I have. And I too accept responsibility in that sense. I don't particularly buy Joseph's position ... just pointing out the coincidence. Certainly there is not. So the question becomes why would one side with the believe in free will/choice side. Why not be agnostic about it? Ask what are the influences, biases, and mistakes in your belief. This is nuts. I too am ignorant of all the chemistry, biases, etc that go into any particular so-called "free" choice I make. But simply being aware that they exist I have to become circumspect with respect to the philosophical concept of free. Get your ad hominin correct thormas. Why would anyone be interested in the subject of free will? Well for me it is how the universe ticks (or does not) and how that ticking applies to the human condition that is interesting.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Here are your relevant posts to this topic - in which one do you address which bit of us is free of cause and effect? Interestingly Joseph denies cause and effect and sees the universe as unfolding (more or less) without any mechanism ... so we cannot responsible for any hurt we might think we cause (or joy for that matter). In a more causal model of the universe we can consider ourselves as a proximate (proximal) cause for hurt and joy. In the post of yours below, it highlights your unwillingness to enter into a dialogue that explores the reality of free will. I may very well be wrong, but my wrongness would be formed by my misconceptions, biases, desires etc. These are underlain by the chemistry that goes to form my thoughts. And the chemistry is a function of the underlying physics. Unless one takes Joseph's position, then it is just a happy coincidence that our mathematical models describe the chemistry and physics so nicely. Your posts listed above touch onto Being, Love etc without addressing does cause and effect exist and if so is there any part of you that is formed by cause and effect? We don't need to derail the thread by going back to the point of creation of the universe here ... just the moment before our conceptions will do.

Nope.

OK you don't have faith? You don't revere Love? Fair enough.

But not really addressed.

And yet you continually avoid the central point.

synonyms for religious [the Gospel according to Google] devout, pious, reverent, godly, God-fearing, churchgoing, faithful, devoted, committed

Ahh name calling ... I am ignorant about many things thormas. Say compared to other people's [here] familiarity with the Bible I am ignorant. Being ignorant of something is not a problem, not recognizing that one is has it downsides. Being ignorant is not a crime thormas or anything that unusual. If you mean by freely: completely unaware of what are the underlying mechanisms for your disagreement, then we are in agreement.

Thormas Well some of us had all sorts beliefs. Having a belief in free choice or free will is quite easy ... all it takes is a lack of awareness of the strings (causes) that underlie our choices or wills. When asked why did we did some unexplainable stupid thing and if we come up with the answer I don't know ... is this what we mean by free will? Sometimes we deliberate and think we can explain our choice or will. But here we are pointing to the strings that caused our choice. A belief in free will (for some of us) boils down to a considered ignorance of the underlying causes of our will.

Is that what it is about internal, satisfaction; really? I have a sense of awe ... not all the time. Materialism in the philosophical sense (rather than the social sense) does work for me. My intellect works for me.

A place for words Sanctify - ? When used in the sense of internal sanctification I have no idea.

People will believe what they believe ... they have no [free] choice in their beliefs. Is discussing people's beliefs and asking questions about what might seem as incoherence unreasonable? Or are they simply looking for reinforcement for their beliefs? Peace, joy and contentment? If that is what one is after, then fine. Why not chase after understanding? Why chase after anything?

I misread your post a little bit, sorry. So what did you feel as being judgemental, as a matter of interest?

Funny that ... my wife and I were talking about being judgemental this very morning. And for a change the comment was not directed at me. It is OK to be judgemental ... but can I suggest don't be hard on yourself. ps ... saying it is OK to be judgemental is itself not a judgement, but a recognition you could not have felt otherwise given the situation.

You did not answer my question. Are these people not religious? Are you speaking for them? Sauce for the goose - so to speak. Are you suggesting you can't be religious without the dogma associated with traditional positions?

My original point way it was for those who have lost their faith (religion) - ie no longer Anglican, CoE, Evangelical, fundamental whatever.

It is not a presentation to me being non-religious! And I am agnostically inclined. In what way will this be in anyway edifying to full blown atheists?

So are we agreed the title is misleading - irrespective of who conjured up the title?

My question is why go the progressive Christian route, why not progressive Tao, progressive Hindu, progressive Buddhist? Of course the PC answer is by all means do so. Another question why not go from the latest data? Of course we won't get it right, but then that is OK. PC seems to point to everything being divine ... that's all good, but then it washes out the meaning of divine. The universe just is ... it cannot be any other way. So in this sense I understand your attachment to aspects of Christianity. By all means reinterpret ancient metaphors. But how do we check that we have minimized the errors in our interpretations?

OK fair enough ... it is for Christians who feel non-religious ... Are we agreed the title Jesus for the Non-Religious is misleading?

So essentially you are agreeing with me

And how should we divvy up the suffering?

Here's my take on this aspect of people's lives. The government, the law, neighbours etc should stay out of the bedroom of consenting adults. You no doubt are aware of the Winston Blackmore debacle in your neighbouring BC. When the government went after Blackmore for the first time they had to shop around for a prosecutor. I am sure they got him on some detail the second time around, plus polygamy is against the law of the land regardless of whether it should be or not. It was interesting, the first time around there was some concerns expressed from families that were practicing polyandry. (Why a woman would want more than one husband beats me). Societally we don't seem too concerned with the much rarer polyandrous relationships but for some reason we are concerned with polygyny. There are pragmatic aspects to polygyny especially if it became wide spread. Not sure how it could be dealt with, without reducing women to chattel. The tricky bit for me is how the young are dealt with. This is where the law probably needs to be applied and perhaps clarified. From my perspective what Blackmore did was bordering or crossing into abuse with respect to the young. Of course some wives have left and say they felt abused as well primarily because it is difficult to leave with your kids.

I still have it on my bookshelf too. I never got a sense from the book as to why I should follow Jesus in non-religious way. This may well be - but I suspect pretty much irrelevant for the majority of non-religious people. Again this may well be; but, did not really answer my question.

Have you read Jesus for the non-religious thormas? What was in that book for a non-religious person? What was in it that might persuade me that I (a non-religious me) should treat the concept of Jesus at all seriously? Are you suggesting it was written for non-religious believers in Being, One, Love?