Search the Community

Is Forgiveness possible without God? I argue, that it is not. At a metaphysical level, which is ironclad. As how can someone take back, that is to Fore-Give, given we are bound by time presumably, and God or the Gods are not. ....... In this context, forgive; is rather to change or bring to light ones values. ......... Instead of forgive all a person can do is pardon, make restitution(if possible) or correct their mistake(s). I pardon you. (couldn't resist). In short only God can forgive except he's outside of time, not subject to empricism. Therefore the use of forgive is incorrect/non-defined terminology. (though not necessarily, non-actual) "to err is human, to forgive divine." Was inspired by reading a blog posts and watching video by voxday, who said that forgiveness is impossible without God. Thought it was funny he refered to Jordan Peterson as a "Whack Job!" & non-Christian societies "Murderfests". Makes me think of the Fat Tony quote from The Simpsons. "It's funny cause it's true." Personally think it's a fairly important topic given current events and self knowledge, though maybe more interested in the entertainment value. "Are you not entertained???" How do you like your Truth? Raw. (as possible)

In FDR358 (Stef's wager) Stefan argued that it is better to believe in free will when lacking information to its existence. He calls this argument Stef’s wager. If you believe in free will but determinism is true then you were determined to believe in free will so you lost nothing. If you believe in determinism but free will is true then you lost your ability for personal responsibility which is worse. In this post, I will argue against the wager and utilise my argument against the wager to provide a case for, and to defend determinism. I will not cite all my paraphrases of Stefan for obvious reasons, but that is not a problem given that others may correct me if they believe I have misrepresented Stefan. Also, phrases with single quotation marks are quoting Stefan. Free will is defined as that which any person who possesses it could have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being uncaused by any physical effect. Decisions may be caused by something non-material like a soul. Or they may be self-caused, as Stefan has favoured. This definition of free will is the same definition Stefan has used. No sane determinist truly believes that beliefs cannot be changed or that choice does not exist. No sane determinist truly believes people cannot be rational or cannot debate. So naturally, a determinist will probably not find Stef’s wager convincing given that the determinist had probably considered the ability to choose when they adopted their belief in determinism. A determinist will not believe that beliefs cannot be influenced. Therefore, I argue that a better wager would be to show the pragmatic consequences of a determinist morality vs. a free will morality. This is more in line with the original Descartes wager. Descartes did not argue that if you believe in God but God does not exist then you cannot have lost anything because then morality does not exist anyway and so free will doesn't exist and you could not have changed your mind. Rather, he weighed up the consequences of the belief without changing epistemological postulates. He said if you believe in God but there is no God then you have not changed much in your life. If you believe in no God but there is a God then you will go to hell. Nowhere in this argument are one’s epistemological beliefs challenged. The wager is a pragmatic rather than a philosophical argument. Speaking in pragmatic terms, the wager favours neither position particularly strongly. There are many changes that a person makes if they are committed to determinism, for which it would be costly if they didn't make if determinism is true. Firstly, you stop evaluating people based on the decisions they make and start evaluating them on their behaviour. This makes life much simpler because you stop judging your own desires about people. You don't try to convince yourself someone is worth your time because they are trying their best to be a good person. You don't feel guilty for being selfish with regards to your relationships. According to a study, 44% of trait conscientiousness is heritable. This study supports the claim that virtue is predetermined. Secondly, you become compassionate towards others. You understand anger does not appeal to their rationality. Given that you evaluate them on their behaviour, you can infer that they are not worthy of your time if they don't change their behaviour. You may call them stubborn without any need to grant them free will. Thirdly, you have a richer understanding of human nature. How anger could change someone even if free will is true is difficult to imagine. A much simpler approach is to understand our emotions do not necessarily have any moral content. Anger may be a fight or flight mechanism. Shame may be a way of keeping the integrity of a tribe. Hatred depends on subjective values. There is not necessarily an unconscious 'true self' that 'knows everything' and then the extra component of free will. Rather, we can understand how people think by analysing their biology and experiences. According to free will, brain damage may affect a person’s emotions or unconscious motives, but it should not be able to affect a person’s virtue or moral worth, which should be solely determined by free will, and free will not being determined by physical effect. However, a study found that brain damage can casually make changes in the way that people reason which can causally change moral beliefs. Fourthly, you become compassionate towards yourself. A meta-analysis found a large effect size for the negative relationship between self-compassion and psychopathology, r = − 0.54 (95% CI = − 0.57 to − 0.51; Z = − 34.02; p < .0001). We can come to understand that when we say ‘sorry’, we don’t really mean we are worthy of shame, but rather that we understand that we should change how we behave in the future compared to the past. We also stop comparing ourselves to others. Under the dictum that reason equals virtue equals happiness, we may feel compelled to compare our levels of happiness to others, or to compare our virtue to that of others. This is not a good approach. We can accept that we are not all dealt the same hand, and there may as well be things that determine our virtue for which are difficult to control. It is not to say that we ought not to strive for virtue, but that virtue should not necessarily be the determinant of self-esteem. What is more appropriate is to compare oneself in the present to oneself in the past. Stefan has argued that determinism is paradoxical because it presupposes that a person is capable of choice, that is, changing their beliefs, while at the same time asserting that choice is impossible. Determinism is the opposite of free will. So, determinism is defined as not being able to have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being caused by physical effects. According to this definition, whether a person has actually made a choice remains untouched. So, the ability to choose and the fact that a person could not have chosen differently are compatible. Choice itself does not require free will. Choice is the ability to change behaviour in virtue of being rational. Rationality is simply conceptual ‘fidelity to reality’. This does not entail free will. Rationality distinguishes us from animals. Animals cannot think conceptually, and we can. Free will then is not required to distinguish human and animal thought. Stefan has argued that if a determinist attempts to debate because they believe others are 'inputs and outputs', then it explains why other people debate, but it would also mean the determinist is also an input-output machine. And therefore, a determinist has not chosen to debate with others and cannot attempt to debate in the first place which is a performative contradiction. To this argument I rebut. If free will does exist and we are watching two others debate, we can explain their behaviour without appealing to free will by labelling them as inputs and outputs much like philosophical zombies. A determinist simply takes that further to say that this is also a characteristic of the observer. We can still choose to debate even if it was determined. I am yet to have heard a philosophical argument from Stefan against determinism without him appealing to the argument of performative contradiction. If there is no contradiction with the belief of free will, we should look at the evidence and the simplest explanation. Stefan has acknowledged that determinism should be accepted only if it is non-contradictory given that it is simpler. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that determinism is simpler to free will for the following reasons. Firstly, everything else seems to be determined by all effects acting as also as all causes. Stefan has argued that we should not be surprised to find that the human mind possesses free will given that it is only the brain that possesses consciousness. However, I am not sure whether it's correct to assume that only the brain possesses consciousness. Consciousness cannot be objectively observed. If it were not for what we have observed in the physical human body and comparing it to our subjective experience, there would have been no way to know that consciousness resides in the brain. In fact, we still don't really know whether animals are conscious. In that regard, a rock could even be conscious in some manner, a position known as panpsychism. If a computer was capable of conceptual processing, it is likely that the computer would be conscious at a level similar to our own. Consciousness may have to do more with complexity and feedback loops than it has to do with the brain. I had a dream a while ago in which I saw consciousness and life itself arising from feedback loops, weird dream. Secondly, I do not know what it means to feel free. At least from my perspective, I see my thoughts as constant dialectics. I have said sorry enough times to my girlfriend where I really feel like I don't have much control as I thought I had. Do any men concur? Split-brain patients will often have opposing preferences in separate hemispheres. For example, one hemisphere may have atheistic leanings while the other has theistic leanings. Whether the person is actually theistic may have to do with what ever preference dominates consciousness as a unitary experience, but it does go to show the power of causality in the brain. Also, in my experience the biggest changes in my behaviour have arisen from changes in my environment rather than changes in my attitude. Thirdly, morality requires rationality but it does not require free will. Nowhere in the UPB framework is there a requirement for free will. If a person is rational, they will be moral by adopting universal preferences. Whether a person is rational may be predetermined. Fourthly, it is difficult to articulate what free will actually is. If you were asked to pick a random grass leaf from a field, it is difficult to claim you could have chosen differently. Every choice must depend on knowledge. Picking a grass leaf from a field is not an informative decision. You cannot for example say to have free will about whether to steer a ship east or west while in the middle of an unknown ocean at least without some scientific acuity. Likely, you will pick based solely upon gut feelings, or some kind of patterns of thinking or heuristics. Indeed, this is why neuroscientists can predict such behaviour before the person is aware of their decision. But even if a decision were to be more informative, like for example whether to watch this movie or that movie, there is nothing in your environment which informs you about what you ought to do. It is not intrinsically more rational to watch either movie. There is no ought from an is. Now, we can still say that morality exists. We can say it’s rational to be moral, for your behaviour to be universally preferable. However, choosing to watch a movie is not a moral decision. Subjective taste would largely determine which movie to watch, which arises from unconscious processes. If you are rational, unconscious motives will drive your specific behaviours. If you are irrational, unconscious motives will still drive your specific behaviours. Then, free will might not exist in the behavioural decisions per se, but rather in the choice about whether one acts rationally or irrationally regardless of what behaviour that entails. This is certainly what Ayn Rand believed. The point here is that free will how it is typically conceptualised as existing in every choice we make is unnecessary, and creates the problem of supposing some open system where we get inspiration or information from something that is neither in our environment or biology. To conclude, whether or not a person believes in determinism has significant effects on their life regardless of whether determinism is true. Determinism is not incompatible with the ability to choose. Therefore, it does not contradict how we act. Given that determinism is the simplest explanation, determinism is true. Determinism is defined as a lack of the ability have chosen differently. Free willers would argue the corollary to determinism is that choice does not exist. Conventionally then, determinism is also defined as the lack of choice. But I would argue that this belief is the idea of fatalism and not determinism. Given that morality exists and free will is an important concept in moral reasoning, I am in favour of compatibilism which states that free will does not contradict determinism if we define free will conventionally as the ability to choose and determinism as not having been able to have chosen differently. A person who is a compatibilist is still a determinist. I also wish not to do a disservice to free willers by abandoning the term known as free will used to describe the position of believing in the ability to have chosen differently, so I think it is appropriate to call that position free will while separating it from conventional free will.

I can recall Stefan saying, to paraphrase, if immigrants had great values and a genuine love of freedom he would not care where they were from or what ethnicity they were. The most recent pod-cast that comes to mind is the interview with Peter Brimelow. Given the results of the Putman study, does this not make Stefan a tall Chinese man? If so, does it follow that Stefan's comments could be considered virtue signalling?

Good Sunday Afternoon, Fellow FDR Comrades for Anarcho-Capitalism, Peaceful Parenting, Rationality, and Stefan Molyneux Please Notice Me Senpai! Since I've noticed a few other listeners/forum-ers have posted similar topics about how helpful FDR and Stefan-senpai has been, I decided it was high time I shared my experience (from after graduating high school) and how Stefpai was instrumental in my success. During the Summer and Autumn of 2016, I had greatly pondered whether or not to go to college. You see, I want to be a novelist. That means writing books and convincing someone I'm worth his time and my product is worth selling. What does college have to do with that? "Maybe the piece of paper would magically grant me opportunities"... Or so I thought, until I watched what Stefpai had to say to similar ex-kids my age. I decided I'd be wasting time and money (and I mean lots of time and money!) if I decided to get a "Liberal" Arts Degree and risking my sanity if I purposely put myself in an environment where everyone (or at least the majority) think in ways I am diametrically opposed and probably even want me dead for the crime of being a heterosexual White male with Rightist politics. And so from late December to mid January, I followed Stefpai's wisdom of actually entering the Free(ish) Market I claimed to uphold and defend and also beat the temptation of living my youth as a welfare parasite. In six weeks, along a schedule like this: Mondays; Talk to employers/manager's on the phone I've met or yet to meet; Wednesdays; Spend from noon to 6:00 pm knocking on every store from mom-and-pop's to smoking dens (cough cough) and Target to find a job (or at least seduce the employer into expediting my hiring). Thursdays; Review with my therapist (which I got on the advice of the Stefpai) what I was doing and how I'm doing it; Saturdays; Plan out what I'd be doing the following week. Eventually, after being to literally 90-something shops (with some repeats where I felt a little more time and persistence could get me a job) my resume was finally reciprocated by a young and wise Pakistani business owner who wanted someone to train and teach as a protege so he could expand his already successful enterprise. What was this enterprise? I had no idea. I forgot I even I submitted my resume to him. However, the morning after the call I followed Stefpai's business mindset of remembering it was the customer whose weight sustains the business, and respecting the role of my future (and now current) employer whose own energies had turned a dusty and empty space into a workshop full of technical gadgets I couldn't even begin to name. I knew nothing of technology (beyond vidya games) or how to repair them (I never break them), let alone how to do web designing, security, or finances. And yet, the man hired me. I knew he would too. When asked the loaded questions of "what would you do in X scenario" I gave answers that both my employer and his financial partner liked, which seemed to greatly compensate for my non-existent work history or experience in tech. And by God was this an opportunity; I went, nearly overnight, from parasite to workingman. However, this was just the beginning. I spent the last few weeks in training (unpaid but free, 30 hours a week) and now with only one week left I'm confidant in saying I now know what an LCD is and how to unscrew the multitude of tiny screws on iPhone 6S + Gorilla Voodoo Machine and finally secure not just my first job but something that could lead to a pretty stable and financially secure groove from which I can devote myself to my true career as a novelist. And so, with the security of employment and the persistence that promises Victory, this young bachelor's story begins. Now I just have to put in the work and learn what I can, seeing how far I can go while doing what I love (writing) so that once that's done I can start again the process of persistence and tenacity (redundant emphasis, I know) to actually sell what I've spent 6 years working on since I was 12. That was my FDR helping IRL for business and careers story, what about YOU?

Ok, with the higher profile interviews coming around I think that regular national appearances are just around the corner. Maybe we can provide some wardrobe suggestions for Stefan so that he not only looks good but sharp and relaxed, too. I'm no fashion guru and I think Stefan does a pretty decent job with his appearance. Let's see if we can take it to the next level. Here are some colors he has worn that really look good on him... In my opinion, the colder softer colors bring out the blue in his eyes (no homo) while softening the glare off his forehead *snicker*. Warm colors are not as effective and can take away from the white on blue coloring while harsh tones like reds and oranges and yellows clash. I'd stay away from greens, too. The shape of his head works better with collarless shirts. While typical business shirts with collars are fine, the roundness of his head looks like a marble resting on a spire. By wearing collarless, a degree of regalness emerges. The white dome sits kingly on top of square shoulders of grey, for instance. Notice how in the last pic the red background can make his skin look pink. Definitely not what you want. But the dark colored t-shirt works nicely. The following we really want to stay away from If you're going to wear a t-shirt, make sure the collar is nice and tight around the neck and not sagging or a v-neck Also, in my opinion Stef looks much better without facial hair. (or back hair, HD cameras pick it all up!) However, don't go full bald. Keeping some nicely trimmed hair on the head feels more approachable. I don't even like the stripes on Schiff, but I think they work better than on Stef. Too bright, but can be offset with a dark blazer. More to come. Add your suggestions. Please use example pictures. Fashion is important in the public eye. It's why there are armies of fashion peeps employed by politicians and celebrities.

How awesome would it be if we could organize a big FreeDomainRadio get-together in Washington D.C on inauguration day? Attend the speech and then maybe grab lunch/dinner somewhere after? Inauguration day is on January 20th. It will be a Friday. It is the perfect opportunity for many of us to see president Trump and Stefan from up close and celebrate our great victory. In my case, it will be my first ever visit to the United States and I really cannot think of a better day to do it. What do you guys think? Can we convince Stefan?

HaHa! https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/765889719699775488

Just wanted to say thank you Stefan & Mike for the hard work you do, the wonderful philosophy you bring to the world & these forums. I never really payed attention to them in the past. I'm so impressed with the ecosystem of FDR geniuses- IQs are through the roof here- it's like an oasis in the internet . Now i just need to make time to read every thread. Thanks again, Stef, Mike, & everyone on these forums. Proud of my fellow humans today.

Can someone explain to me why Stefan is so positive about Donald Trump? I honestly don't get it. Stefan says Donald Trump is for small government, but very little that I've heard from Trump suggests that. I mean, he has even donated to Hilary Clinton's campaign in the past. From where I stand, Trump looks like an unprincipled man running on a platform that, while somewhat more in touch with the sentiments of the American people, is no more principled than the desires of the American public at large, who are largely responsible for getting us into this mess. What am I missing? (Is Stefan really just a Russian operative sent to destabilize US politics?) P.S. That last question is (mostly) just a joke.

In Stefans recent discussions with Bill whittle and his numerious videos on immigration and Donald Trump, he has said some things that seem me to be either appealing to those in the fence on the right or implisidly advocating for State programs or even Donald trump himself. Now correct if i am wrong, but he has said that "we are at war with them" and that "youre squandering what youre forefathers fough and died for". He seems to me to have become more and more willing to implisidly promote if not endorse trump and the ideas that "western society" is something were all part of like a tribe. Which is i disagree with. We are all induviduals and should be judged so and advocating implicibly for any state policies would make one not an ancap. Forgive me if my concerns and fears are unfounded but for the last few months Stefan has been talking more and more about western culture and scoiety instead about peaceful parenting, philosofical deeper problems WHY there is this influx of muslims and also starting humbly from principles and NOT pushing these seemingly nationalistic and collectivist ideas. Has anyone else gotten this Implisiveness from his videos? Are my concerns unfounded?

Here is a Pic I created from one of the Stef pics I saw on google. Thought you guys might like this or something. I got other pics too. Thought this would be of interest. http://dokkou01.deviantart.com/art/Stefan-Molyneux-441542294

Hello everyone, I've been having a very important thought cross my head these last hours. I've been thinking about how much I value this show, this community and the incredible change that these ideas will make and are already making in the world. I already donate to the show, and I thought that my donation was sufficient to help Stefan grow the show and make the content more accessible and better. But I've thought about what would happen to the world if we lost this community and Stefan's abilities and communication skills. I've been thinking about mortality, and how it is an inescapable fact of life. I then thought about just recently how Stefan got a really close look at that eternal pit of emptiness, and I was terrified. I was extremely scared that we might lose the greatest mind that the world has right now, and our best chance for getting the most important ideas out there. After meditating about this for a while, I decided that I needed to make my commitment to the truth and the future of humanity more evident in my own life. I know that I might die tomorrow, and that Stefan might die as well, and all the other good people in the world could just go out at any time, and for sure, they will go out of this world at some time in the future. And so, I announce my new resolution to change the world in what little way that I know how to, by helping my good friend and personal mentor, mister Stefan Molyneux. Thank you so much for everything that you have done. It must have been so hard to go beyond the lies and propaganda that fill this world. It must have been extremely difficult to face the hostility and sometimes more painful apathy and relativism that define our society. You sir, have changed my life forever. You have made who I am today possible. You have helped me to gain the understanding and mental clarity that I need to make my life, my relationships and the entire world brighter by a single, extremely bright flame. Once again, I must bow to you and even though I know you are only human, I know that what you have done and are doing is truly heroic and I respect you extremely for it. Please do what you think is best with my money, and I am together with you in our building of a better future for all mankind. As I write this, I am feeling great emotion and feel as though I am beginning a new way of life, a more honest way of looking at myself and the world. It was very hard to get to this point, and I am now conscious of my ability to do good in this world. Thank you so very much, your humble friend, Emanuel Neves

I don't think Stefan's original philosophical work is likely to have a big impact on the thinking of future well-known philosophical thinkers. (But what do I know?) But I do think he is a great philosopher and one of the best philosophers in the best and most important sense: that is, he not only lives his life in accordance with his careful philosophical thinking, but he also does a very good job of encouraging others to also do so, and to help them become true philosophers (lovers of knowledge and reason). And I think it's important to recognize that that is probably more important than original contributions to philosophical thought.

Hello Freedomain Radio, I had put fish on the pan an hour ago. I was reading this FDR forum before and between cooking, hence I forgot the fish on the pan and the pieces burned from their bottom sides a bit. I turned the fish pieces around, thinking "Nah! Fish is always healthy." but then I thought about the cancer Stefan had obtained, so after just biting the best parts away, I threw the majority of my fish meal to the garbage bin. Fish isn't that cheap either. But I would rather be Prometheus in this regard and avoid cancer from the get-go, if I can. Does Stefan's cancer have an impact to your daily life? What are your thoughts on cancer overall? Share your thoughts, please.

I might be a little behind the 8-ball when it comes to horror movies. Has anyone else here seen The Lords of Salem? ​I was quite surprised to hear Stefans' podcast being used at the beginning (about 5 seconds worth)- it really helped set the mood for the rest of the film.

Hello everyone, I apologize in advance for the long-winded introduction – I will split it into parts and try to make it interesting and to-the-point for anyone who decides to read it. My Name This is of course a silly section. I am Stefan, and also go by Stef. I prefer my name to be pronounced like most male names ending in an –Dylan, Brian, Nathan, Ryan, Evan, Jonathan, etc. – though many try to call me Stef-ahn. I enjoyed finding a somewhat famous Stefan as there really aren’t many of us. A brief biography I am 25, and grew up in Asia, where my parents were Christian missionaries. I now live in Arizona, where I am an international health insurance salesman, and lead worship at a small charismatic church. I play a number of different instruments, play tabletop games (think Catan and newer), and study Chinese in my spare time. How I got here My parents were neo-conservatives, but growing up, I grew more and more disillusioned with politics, until I hopped on the Ron Paul 2012 bandwagon. He seemed to be a person with a history of integrity and more consistent ideals, but obviously that did not go well in terms of him being elected. While I was looking at some libertarian videos, I saw one of Molyneux giving a good case for a stateless society (basically that any state no matter how small or limited would grow – with an example of the U.S. government quickly becoming the biggest in the world). I was intrigued, so I watched a few of his videos, and have now read most of his books, starting with Practical Anarchy. I find anarcho-capitalism an intriguing, enticing system like I have not encountered anywhere else, and I find myself wishing it could be actually tried within my lifetime. Why I am here Smattered throughout the books I read (and focused on in the one I am reading now - “Against the Gods”) there was a lot tied to atheism and the harm that religion has done. This has coincided with me having a lot of doubts about God in my personal life. Surrounded as I am by friends and family who are passionate believers, I still do not want to run from the truth, whatever that may be. My plans I endeavor to study non-theistic arguments, if not exhaustively, as objectively as possible, as I have never really done before. Stefan Molyneux is a good writer, and seems like a deep thinker, so I am starting with his book, and the links he provided in the “For our religious friends” post. I also intend to personally test my religion for myself. What you can expect from me Much as I enjoy the idea of an intellectual community like this, I honestly have never really liked the communication format of forums. I am mainly joining so I can post a request in “Technical Issues”. I suppose an ulterior motive is to gauge the reaction of members of a community like this to someone in my situation. I am not an argumentative person, I think I am rather mature, and I understand the value of healthy conflict resolution. My main purpose is to learn. If this seems acceptable and I am welcome, perhaps I will make a forum post or two, or try out the chatroom. If not I am happy to disappear without further ado. In any case, thank you all for being committed to liberty and truth. Stefan