FastPace
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 1,842
- Reaction score
- 243
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Christian ministry labeled as a hate group is suing SPLC to ‘right a terrible wro
Wrong. You can not through exercises of the mind change, alter your physical phenotype like your blue eyes or wide nose. You can alter your thinking. I stated this already. This is the "get out of jail free card" anti-free will atheists and neuroscientist use when they claim biological determinism does not mean fatalism. Or to put it this way a drug addict, pedophile, and heterosexual man than does not find "fat" women sexually attractive have no choice over the physiological responses over triggers for their drug addiction (drug addict), sexual attraction to prepubescent children (pedophile), or lack of sexual attraction to "fat" women (heterosexual man). No choice. But they have a choice in how they work to resolve the dilemma (alter their thinking), and theoretically it is not impossible for a drug addict to eventually no longer have x thing be a trigger for them, for the pedophile to remain sexually attracted to children, or for the heterosexual man to developed attractions towards "fat" women.
Naturally, when you claim free will does not exist, and all human behaviors and thoughts are caused by the individuals biology/genes the question arises, "Then how can anyone be held accountable before the law for their action?" Ergo, atheist had to come up with a rational explanation to support their Genesis narrative they wrote and passed on as new sacred scripture to everyone. So, they claimed determinism does not equal fatalism and that in fact we may have no choice over what routes are thoughts neurologically traveled down in the brain but that we can overtime alter the routes (the new routes de facto = No Choice) our thoughts take, or that is to say we can close old routes our thoughts took and direct our thoughts down new routes they did not take (the routes are not infinite because the brain is limited in physical size, ergo limited in number of routes, and therefore the anti-free will crowd says, "that proves free will is an illusion because free will requires infinite number of routes in the brain."). So, the man that had no choice his thoughts went to murder his wife, and rape his niece, can be held accountable for his actions because he had the potential to exercise his mind years prior to altering the routes his thoughts traveled down in his brain. The anti-free will crowd would say.
The new paradigm shift of "epi-genetics" ("epi" meaning "above" or "beyond") from genetic determinism of old, further bolsters the argumentation humans have an ability to alter their futures, that once born one's whole destiny is not set in stone. That is to say... epigenetics claims individual humans have the power to literally alter their genetic expression by their behaviors and the environmental inputs they are subject to.
How many people will be successful in actually altering their thinking or sexual attractions or merely developing new sexual attractions or new sexual arousal even if they never rod themselves entirely of the old one? Maybe few people. Kind of like few people make it to the NBA, become rich in the USA, or win the lottery. But a minority making an achievement does not mean something is impossible, it means it is possible albeit statistically unlikely to happen.
Wrong. You can not through exercises of the mind change, alter your physical phenotype like your blue eyes or wide nose. You can alter your thinking. I stated this already. This is the "get out of jail free card" anti-free will atheists and neuroscientist use when they claim biological determinism does not mean fatalism. Or to put it this way a drug addict, pedophile, and heterosexual man than does not find "fat" women sexually attractive have no choice over the physiological responses over triggers for their drug addiction (drug addict), sexual attraction to prepubescent children (pedophile), or lack of sexual attraction to "fat" women (heterosexual man). No choice. But they have a choice in how they work to resolve the dilemma (alter their thinking), and theoretically it is not impossible for a drug addict to eventually no longer have x thing be a trigger for them, for the pedophile to remain sexually attracted to children, or for the heterosexual man to developed attractions towards "fat" women.
Naturally, when you claim free will does not exist, and all human behaviors and thoughts are caused by the individuals biology/genes the question arises, "Then how can anyone be held accountable before the law for their action?" Ergo, atheist had to come up with a rational explanation to support their Genesis narrative they wrote and passed on as new sacred scripture to everyone. So, they claimed determinism does not equal fatalism and that in fact we may have no choice over what routes are thoughts neurologically traveled down in the brain but that we can overtime alter the routes (the new routes de facto = No Choice) our thoughts take, or that is to say we can close old routes our thoughts took and direct our thoughts down new routes they did not take (the routes are not infinite because the brain is limited in physical size, ergo limited in number of routes, and therefore the anti-free will crowd says, "that proves free will is an illusion because free will requires infinite number of routes in the brain."). So, the man that had no choice his thoughts went to murder his wife, and rape his niece, can be held accountable for his actions because he had the potential to exercise his mind years prior to altering the routes his thoughts traveled down in his brain. The anti-free will crowd would say.
The new paradigm shift of "epi-genetics" ("epi" meaning "above" or "beyond") from genetic determinism of old, further bolsters the argumentation humans have an ability to alter their futures, that once born one's whole destiny is not set in stone. That is to say... epigenetics claims individual humans have the power to literally alter their genetic expression by their behaviors and the environmental inputs they are subject to.
How many people will be successful in actually altering their thinking or sexual attractions or merely developing new sexual attractions or new sexual arousal even if they never rod themselves entirely of the old one? Maybe few people. Kind of like few people make it to the NBA, become rich in the USA, or win the lottery. But a minority making an achievement does not mean something is impossible, it means it is possible albeit statistically unlikely to happen.
eace