Is FDR really about philosophy and it's discussion?

[Demitri]

 

 

So I ask: Please remove the gun in the room of the fourm by removing the ban from the topic of determinism.

 

A review of prior postings might reveal that the gun is held by the "determinists". The so-called ban against determinism is a straw man. Numerous threads have been created to broach the topic. AFAIK, every one of them has degenerated, with little useful discussion. What I have read can be summarized as "You've banned determinism, therefore, determinism must be right." Not once have I read a "determinist" answering a direct question. I've even put forth the apples and oranges position: that determinism, though possibly applicable to chemistry and physics, does not leap into the arena of the human mind. No response.

I do understand the frustration of seeing that a "certain" topic is banned from a philosophy forum, but I will counter with this: It's good to have an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out.

 

Not sure what to make of all this. I'm not even close to being a determinist, nor do I want the topic unbanned so I can talk about it.
Also, I'm not frustrated by the ban either.

My argument is purely about principles and staying true to them.

If the free market is valid (which I believe it is), then a business that provides no value to anyone cannot, and will not, survive. The market itself will shut it down instead of governance.
Likewise, if a topic provides no value to anyone it cannot, and will not, continue being discussed; also without the need for governance.

Whether or not a business in the free market has value, is not determined by one person, or even a governance of persons. It is likewise not determined by the validity of the product.
The value of a business in the free market is determined only by the market that continues it.

I am against this ban because it is consistent with belief in the validity of the free market to be against it.

[David L]

 

My argument is purely about principles and staying true to them.

If the free market is valid (which I believe it is), then a business that provides no value to anyone cannot, and will not, survive. The market itself will shut it down instead of governance.
Likewise, if a topic provides no value to anyone it cannot, and will not, continue being discussed; also without the need for governance.

Whether or not a business in the free market has value, is not determined by one person, or even a governance of persons. It is likewise not determined by the validity of the product.
The value of a business in the free market is determined only by the market that continues it.

I am against this ban because it is consistent with belief in the validity of the free market to be against it.

 

Your logic here is impeccable.  Thanks for sharing. :-)

[NateForLiberty]

 

 

My argument is purely about principles and staying true to them.

If the free market is valid (which I believe it is), then a business that provides no value to anyone cannot, and will not, survive. The market itself will shut it down instead of governance.
Likewise, if a topic provides no value to anyone it cannot, and will not, continue being discussed; also without the need for governance.

Whether or not a business in the free market has value, is not determined by one person, or even a governance of persons. It is likewise not determined by the validity of the product.
The value of a business in the free market is determined only by the market that continues it.

I am against this ban because it is consistent with belief in the validity of the free market to be against it.

 

Your logic here is impeccable.  Thanks for sharing. :-)

 

 

His logic is not sound at all. He has twisted the argument in order to support his position while ignoring an obvious truth. FDR Forums belong to Stefan Molyneux, not "the market". There is not a "free market of business" and a separate "free market of ideas". There is only ONE Free Market and it contains the whole of humanity and everything that emerges from it. Compartmentalization is a great way to hide logical fallacies and mental dysfunction, is it not?! The free market will decide if determinism should be discussed by those wishing to discuss determinism starting their own forum and trying to stealing most or all of FDR Forums's users. Not by you or anyone else forcing Molyneux to use his property in a way he disagrees with. 

I own my home. In my home, I have set down a rule that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ shall not be discussed or debated. Those wishing to do so must leave my home. I invite Person A into my home. However, Person A then violates my rule of no virgin birth discussion. I ask Person A to please not violate my rule. Person A states that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ needs to be discussed as there are many people in the world who believe that it is true. Person A makes the argument that "the market" will decide if the virgin birth should be discussed. 

I tell Person A he has fogotten where he is and now needs to get the fuck out of my house. The only way for Person A to further his cause is to now trespass on my property by remaining there. Therefore, I remove him, by force if necessary. Person A cries out, "SEE!! HE'S USING VIOLENCE! HE'S A FRAUD!" 

 

Now reread my little tale, but replace "the virgin birth of Jesus Christ" with "taking a shit right where you stand as soon as the need arises."

Who's the aggressor? 

 

Violence (even of the very mild sort, if not more so) is not always initiated by those with malicious intent. Sometimes it comes from idiots who don't know what they're doing but have "good intentions". Intent is the beginning of action, knowledge is the informer of action, wisdom is temperance in action. 

 

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

 

My argument is purely about principles and staying true to them.

If the free market is valid (which I believe it is), then a business that provides no value to anyone cannot, and will not, survive. The market itself will shut it down instead of governance.
Likewise, if a topic provides no value to anyone it cannot, and will not, continue being discussed; also without the need for governance.

Whether or not a business in the free market has value, is not determined by one person, or even a governance of persons. It is likewise not determined by the validity of the product.
The value of a business in the free market is determined only by the market that continues it.

I am against this ban because it is consistent with belief in the validity of the free market to be against it.

 

Your logic here is impeccable.  Thanks for sharing. :-)

 

 

His logic is not sound at all. He has twisted the argument in order to support his position while ignoring an obvious truth. FDR Forums belong to Stefan Molyneux, not "the market". There is not a "free market of business" and a separate "free market of ideas". There is only ONE Free Market and it contains the whole of humanity and everything that emerges from it. Compartmentalization is a great way to hide logical fallacies and mental dysfunction, is it not?! The free market will decide if determinism should be discussed by those wishing to discuss determinism starting their own forum and trying to stealing most or all of FDR Forums's users. Not by you or anyone else forcing Molyneux to use his property in a way he disagrees with. 

I own my home. In my home, I have set down a rule that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ shall not be discussed or debated. Those wishing to do so must leave my home. I invite Person A into my home. However, Person A then violates my rule of no virgin birth discussion. I ask Person A to please not violate my rule. Person A states that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ needs to be discussed as there are many people in the world who believe that it is true. Person A makes the argument that "the market" will decide if the virgin birth should be discussed. 

I tell Person A he has fogotten where he is and now needs to get the fuck out of my house. The only way for Person A to further his cause is to now trespass on my property by remaining there. Therefore, I remove him, by force if necessary. Person A cries out, "SEE!! HE'S USING VIOLENCE! HE'S A FRAUD!" 

 

Now reread my little tale, but replace "the virgin birth of Jesus Christ" with "taking a shit right where you stand as soon as the need arises."

Who's the aggressor? 

 

Your logic here is impeccable.  Thanks for not sharing. :-)[/font]

[Demitri]

NateForLiberty, the points you made are valid in the context you are using them, but have little to do with the context I was addressing. My standpoint really has nothing to do with the what the ban is about, or whether the free market should apply to personal property. It was only about whether or not laying down an edict (with accompanying negative consequences for disobedience) was in keeping with the principles that Stef advocates (the principles upon which the free market is based), by asking if those principles apply universally for Stef. I am against the idea of any ban here (specifically here) because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and it's principles (which I fully agree with), and I believe in leading by example (as I am fairly certain Stef does). A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles.This is what I hope to have comment and discussion about.

[TheRobin]

The free market is based on the principle that you can do with your stuff whatever the hell you want. So how does that not apply to what Stef's doing here?

[Demitri]

 

The free market is based on the principle that you can do with your stuff whatever the hell you want

 

So I can do with my post whatever the hell I want, yes?

So if I'm not violating anyone with my post (by forcing others to read it, or intentionally being infammatory), but I talk about things which have been deemed not allowed... Then I should be forcibly removed from the community... Is that what you are advocating?

[NateForLiberty]

 

NateForLiberty, the points you made are valid in the context you are using them, but have little to do with the context I was addressing.
My standpoint really has nothing to do with the what the ban is about, or whether the free market should apply to personal property.

It was only about whether or not laying down an edict (with accompanying negative consequences for disobedience) was in keeping with the principles that Stef advocates (the principles upon which the free market is based), by asking if those principles apply universally for Stef.

I am against the idea of any ban here (specifically here) because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and it's principles (which I fully agree with), and I believe in leading by example (as I am fairly certain Stef does). A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles.

This is what I hope to have comment and discussion about.

 

You are still missing the so obvious and simple point. STEF. OWNS. THIS. FORUM. 

Is it not the responsibility of every property owner to ensure the protection of that property? Stef is protecting his property against further fruitless discussion of determinism. How is that not "leading by example" and displaying EXACTLY what the free market is about? 

 

Dude, come on. This is easy. 

 

Now, if you still don't get it and continue to disagree with Stef, what is the RESPECTFUL and VOLUNTARY course of action (i.e. What course of action should you take to show that you also believe in the free market and lead by example)? To continue to buck Stef's wishes by posting about determinism? Or to simply say, "Stef, I disagree with your decision here, but I respect you and your property and while I am here, will abide by the guidelines you've set out. Just as if you were to come over to my house, I would expect you to abide by my rules." . . . .

 

"Freedom of Speech" does not exist on private property. 

[NateForLiberty]

 

 

The free market is based on the principle that you can do with your stuff whatever the hell you want

 

So I can do with my post whatever the hell I want, yes?

 

No, you made the post, but it does not belong to you. It exists on servers that Stef has paid for. When you signed up for FDR Forums you entered into a voluntary contract with Stef. Now you are in violation of that contract. 

 

If you take your post and save it onto your computer, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it. FDR Forums is not the keeper of your "intellectual property".

[Demitri]

 

Now, if you still don't get it and continue to disagree with Stef, what is the RESPECTFUL and VOLUNTARY course of action (i.e. What course of action should you take to show that you also believe in the free market and lead by example)? To continue to buck Stef's wishes by posting about determinism? Or to simply say, "Stef, I disagree with your decision here, but I respect you and your property and while I am here, will abide by the guidelines you've set out. Just as if you were to come over to my house, I would expect you to abide by my rules." . . .

 

Time and again I have stated I have no desire to talk about determinism. Determinism is false and I agree with Stef that it really is a load of hogwash.

The very point of philosophy is to search for truth and to then live by those truths. This also means not backing down because a view about what is believed to be true is questioned, or unapproved by the majority. I did not come here because I seek to part of the cool kids gang; I came here because I respect Stef and the fact that he has made a place to discuss things exactly like this.

I am well aware this is Stef's site and can do what he wishes. Was there somewhere that I was being disrespectful? Perhaps you believe that questioning a decision is disrespectful?
If so, then you can you think of any decisions made by others that you wouldn't question due to not wanting to be disrespectful?

[Demitri]

 

 Now you are in violation of that contract. 

 

 

Please enlighten me where I have violated that contract.

[NateForLiberty]

 

 

Now, if you still don't get it and continue to disagree with Stef, what is the RESPECTFUL and VOLUNTARY course of action (i.e. What course of action should you take to show that you also believe in the free market and lead by example)? To continue to buck Stef's wishes by posting about determinism? Or to simply say, "Stef, I disagree with your decision here, but I respect you and your property and while I am here, will abide by the guidelines you've set out. Just as if you were to come over to my house, I would expect you to abide by my rules." . . .

 

Time and again I have stated I have no desire to talk about determinism. Determinism is false and I agree with Stef that it really is a load of hogwash.

The very point of philosophy is to search for truth and to then live by those truths. This also means not backing down because a view about what is believed to be true is questioned, or unapproved by the majority. I did not come here because I seek to part of the cool kids gang; I came here because I respect Stef and the fact that he has made a place to discuss things exactly like this.

I am well aware this is Stef's site and can do what he wishes. Was there somewhere that I was being disrespectful? Perhaps you believe that questioning a decision is disrespectful?
If so, then you can you think of any decisions made by others that you wouldn't question due to not wanting to be disrespectful?

 

 

I see. This is not about philosophy for you at all. This is about "standing up to authority", ....and you chose Stef as someone to stand up to?? I mean,...really? It would be more productive to stand up to the check out guy at the grocery store when he says you can't combine coupons. 

 

Stef is not anywhere close to being an authority problem. Nor is it a good use of your time to try and slay this dragon (which if it exists at all is the size of a flea). What you should be asking yourself is "Why am I looking for dragons and blowing teeny tiny ones way out of proportion?".

Is it good to question authority? Absolutely. 

Is it good to question ALL authority to stamp it out wherever it may be? No. 

Why?

Authority that rules by FORCE needs a passionate questioning response. 

Authority that rules through voluntary aggrement should be respectfully questioned and then left alone. 

 

In other words, if a person is using violence against another, by all means speak up, do something! But if you have entered into a voluntary contract with a person that gives them authority over you in a particular aspect, and then you violate that contract, "standing up to" that person makes no sense at all when they try to enforce the contract. Instead, simply say "I end our agreement and am moving on."

 

The real question here is about you and your relationship to authority. Nothing else.  

[Demitri]

 

The real question here is about you and your relationship to authority. Nothing else.  

 

To all of what you just said I can say only three things:

1> Thank you for taking the time to write all of that. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have done so.

2> I think you're WAY off base. I'm only talking about principles and getting a handle on where the line is drawn when it comes to the free market and the principles around it.

3> I believe you have a valid point about the contract to join, and the agreement made not to discuss a certain topic. This line of reasoning is closer to the kind of discussion I was looking to have on this matter. Perhaps we can move this forward by focusing on the actual points I'm talking about instead of resorting to various forms of repeating the mantra of, "It's Stef's house"

[NateForLiberty]

"I am against the idea of any ban here (specifically here) because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and it's principles (which I fully agree with), and I believe in leading by example (as I am fairly certain Stef does). A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles.

This is what I hope to have comment and discussion about."

 

Ok, let's address this again. 

"I am against the idea of any ban here..." -great. Doesn't matter. Not your property.

"...because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and its priniciples..."   -well, glad you recongized this is Stef's home. Now understand, he can do with it as he sees fit.

"...and I believe in leading by example." - This is where you go wrong in your logic. The "Free Market" does not require anyone to "lead by example". Free trade/free interaction is the natural state of man. FDR Forums is not a little mini free market. It is private property that exists in the Free Market. There is only one free market. No one is holding a gun to your head making you be a member here. If you disagree with how Stef runs his site, good for you! But don't go on and on about it while ON HIS SITE. That is disrepectful. I wouldn't show up at your home and tell you that I disagree with the way you treat your wife (unless there was violence involved).  That would be a one way ticket out of the front door. 

"A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles."  - Sorry it seems that way to you. It would help if you were clear about what "universality of those basic principles" meant. What basic principles? Why are they universal? To me, it seems as if you have a gap in your understanding of the free market. You may feel like you know the best way to run FDR Forums, but that doesn't matter. Voice your concern to Stef, and then leave it. Until it is your name on FDR, you can debate until you're blue in the face about the best way to run FDR, but it won't matter, because FDR is not yours. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

"Different Strings"




Who's come to slay the dragon?

Come to watch him fall?

Making arrows out of pointed words

Giant killers at the call?

Too much fuss and bother

Too much contradiction and confusion

Peel away the mystery

Here's a clue to some real motivation



What happened to our innocence

Did it go out of style?

Along with our naivete

No longer a child

Different eyes see different things

Different hearts beat on different strings

But there are times

For you and me, when all such things agree

--- Rush

[NateForLiberty]

 

 

The real question here is about you and your relationship to authority. Nothing else.  

 

To all of what you just said I can say only three things:

1> Thank you for taking the time to write all of that. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have done so.

2> I think you're WAY off base. I'm only talking about principles and getting a handle on where the line is drawn when it comes to the free market and the principles around it.

3> I believe you have a valid point about the contract to join, and the agreement made not to discuss a certain topic. This line of reasoning is closer to the kind of discussion I was looking to have on this matter. Perhaps we can move this forward by focusing on the actual points I'm talking about instead of resorting to various forms of repeating the mantra of, "It's Stef's house"

 

 

Ok, but there is no discussion. It is Stef's house. End of story. Until you stop and realize that, and realize exactly what that means, you'll continue to run in circles. 

Good luck. There is no point in talking further about this. 

 

Also,  The line is drawn where private property begins. You cannot tell someone how to use their private property. Once you begin doing that, you've turned your back on free market principles.

[Demitri]

 

Ok, but there is no discussion. It is Stef's house. End of story. Until you stop and realize that, and realize exactly what that means, you'll continue to run in circles. 

Good luck. There is no point in talking further about this.

 

Well thanks for your time and effort Nate.
I'll keep in mind the things you have shared, summed up as, "It's Stef's house, so shut up."
At least there was some value in the talk about entering into contract and so on...
Cheers!

[Stephen C]

I got a lot of "My house, my rules. Get your own house one day and you can do whatever you want, but not while you're staying here." from my mother growing up. I got the feeling that I had no home, I was homeless all my life. At best I was a guest somewhere and if I was lucky and behaved how they wanted me to, they would let me stay. That shit was really wack. 

[Stefan Molyneux]

 

NateForLiberty, the points you made are valid in the context you are using them, but have little to do with the context I was addressing.
My standpoint really has nothing to do with the what the ban is about, or whether the free market should apply to personal property.

It was only about whether or not laying down an edict (with accompanying negative consequences for disobedience) was in keeping with the principles that Stef advocates (the principles upon which the free market is based), by asking if those principles apply universally for Stef.

I am against the idea of any ban here (specifically here) because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and it's principles (which I fully agree with), and I believe in leading by example (as I am fairly certain Stef does). A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles.

This is what I hope to have comment and discussion about.

 

 

If you're into the free market, shouldn't you be paying for the board?

[Demitri]

 

If you're into the free market, shouldn't you be paying for the board?

 

I was under the impression it was donations from your audience that pays for the board. Shall I change that understanding?

The best response to my actual questions regarding my point has been from Nate when he mentioned the contractual agreement when joining this board. Upon consideration of this singular point (and only this point), I concede my view about banning that topic.

[David L]

 

No, you made the post, but it does not belong to you. It exists on servers that Stef has paid for.

 

 

 

If you're into the free market, shouldn't you be paying for the board?

 

 

? ? ? ? ? ?

 

 

 

[STer]

Demitri,

I think there is something possibly to what you're saying, but you are using the wrong angle on it.

There is no violation of the free market in Stef banning whatever topic and whomever he wants from a forum he owns.

What you could frame as a "violation" is claiming the forum is dedicated to "philosophy" and then banning a particular philosophical discussion. And if you look at the title of this thread, that was the original approach of it.

Stefan makes a couple claims with this forum. One is that he advocates for the free market. Another is that he advocates for an open philosophical discussion. I don't see him calling into question the first one. But I have seen the second one called into question a couple times. I myself have called it into question before. I've asked if this board is really dedicated to promoting philosophy or rather to promoting a particular philosophical viewpoint. It often seems to be more the latter. And this can be misleading to claim the forum is merely a philosophy discussion when, in reality, it is very much an advocate of a particular viewpoint.

So you might say that banning discussion of determinism flies in the face of claiming the forum is an open philosophical discussion and is rather evidence that it is a discussion only of certain aspects of philosophy that most of the people here agree with. In my case, I've run up against this more when I've called into question whether there is any biological basis to people becoming abusive or exploitative. That viewpoint doesn't seem very welcome here. But if it's an open philosophy discussion, why should any viewpoint not be welcome? You may ask the same about determinism.

So the real question is whether it would be more honest to refer to FDR as a discussion of philosophy from a particular viewpoint rather than just overall.

[nathanm]

This thread could not have gone any other way.

[Jose Perez]

You can't really blame idealists of the free market for arguing against idealists of the free market.

[PatrickC]

I've asked if this board is really dedicated to promoting philosophy or rather to promoting a particular philosophical viewpoint. It often seems to be more the latter. And this can be misleading to claim the forum is merely a philosophy discussion when, in reality, it is very much an advocate of a particular viewpoint.

If the discussion about determinism can progress any further than it already has, then you will find this board most interested and open to the discussion. If there is any kind of 'viewpoint' here, it is one of improving philosophical ideas. Sadly rehashing old debates becomes kind of futile and frustrating in that endeavour, if that makes sense.

It's interesting to note that we have actually had some discussions around the topic recently. So either Stefan's demand is really more of a request (or challenge perhaps) to move the topic along into a new and more fruitful area. Or people are being disrespectful by bringing the same arguments up each time.

 

 

[STer]

 

I've asked if this board is really dedicated to promoting philosophy or rather to promoting a particular philosophical viewpoint. It often seems to be more the latter. And this can be misleading to claim the forum is merely a philosophy discussion when, in reality, it is very much an advocate of a particular viewpoint.

If the discussion about determinism can progress any further than it already has, then you will find this board most interested and open to the discussion. If there is any kind of 'viewpoint' here, it is one of improving philosophical ideas. Sadly rehashing old debates becomes kind of futile and frustrating in that endeavour, if that makes sense.

It's interesting to note that we have actually had some discussions around the topic recently. So either Stefan's demand is really more of a request (or challenge perhaps) to move the topic along into a new and more fruitful area. Or people are being disrespectful by bringing the same arguments up each time.

 

If the reason for not allowing discussion of determinism is that there is a belief that nothing new can possibly be said about it that hasn't already been mentioned on this forum, then that should be stated as the reason for banning its discussion. I wonder if Demitri would accept that reasoning. Perhaps the rule could be something like this:

You are free to discuss determinism as long as you first make sure that what you are going to say has not basically already been discussed. The onus is on you to scour the previous threads. If you post and it is found that what you posted has already been discussed, then you will be banned. So the topic is not off limits, but wasting precious bandwidth and storage space duplicating something on the topic is.

As for saying that the only viewpoint here is improving philosophical ideas, I'm not sure how you can say that. Everyone is well aware that FDR is a pro-anarchist, pro-peaceful-parenting, pro-empiricism place. It definitely is based on certain values and not others. It takes a stance. Perhaps not every single person who posts here agrees with those stances, but the bias toward them is pretty clear. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. It's perfectly legitiamte to have a forum dedicated to those values. I just wonder if the preference for those values should be openly stated, rather than claiming it is just about philosophy as if it is value-free.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Per the Forum rules:

http://board.freedomainradio.com/user/createuser.aspx

1. Discussing determinism is not listed as a cause for banning.

2. Determinism is listed as an exhausted topic that was deemed "closed" by consultation with members, not by an arbitrary decision of Stefan's.

3. There is a requirement to research before starting new threads, so as to not revisit old material.

[Demitri]

Darkskyabove:

You just drove home the end of all doubts concerning this debate (for me) in expert fashion. Well done.
I now hold no thoughts or ideas that the ban on determinism should be lifted, as the principles I thought were conflicted have now been proven not to conflict, but were instead due to a misunderstanding on my part.
Oh how I wish more argued like this; actually addressing the points instead of re-hashing the same stuff over and over, hoping to throw enough out there that something sticks.

STer:

There are some things I agree with in what you said, but much I do not agree with.
To answer your question above: No, I would not accept that reasoning, as it did not address the points I was talking about.


NathanM:

The injection of a deterministic statement right then was classic, and made me laugh.
Thanks for that addition of humor, it was great!

 

[Edit: Removed comment to Nate, as I made a mistake and was attributing the nonsense Joseito said to him. My mistake, sorry.]

[tasmlab]

I'm curious, is determinism a fashionable thing to teach at university or something?

I've never come across it until reading Sam Harris' book on free will an then seeing it everywhere on FDR.  Is it a popular concept or does it just have a few very vocal advocates?

[Demitri]

While I'm not positive where the idea of determinism actually stems from originally, I do know that many religions believe God is all-knowing.
Some even tout phrases like, "God has a plan for you".

Religious people have a problem if they truly believe in what free will means because if you truly have free will, then that means God can't know ahead of time what choice you will make and still retain the title of being all-knowing.

So either determinism is true and God is all-knowing and there is no free will (and therefore no ability to take credit for anything you or others do, as well as no responsibility for anything)... which would also mean that the very idea of salvation would also be a big fat lie too... because if there is no free will, then there aren't any choices, and so we can't be responsible for anything we do, and therefore couldn't be "sinners"... (No matter how you look at this, religious doctrine implodes.)

... or free will is true and God is not all-knowing (and therefore people are acountable for their actions, and should take responsibility for the things they say and do).

It truly is a catch-22 for religions that believe in an all-knowing God and the need for salvation, since the two concepts are really mutually exclusive.

There is also the scientific school of deterministic thought (aka: Laplace's Demon) which believes the universe and everything in it is like one giant machine. This idea is based on the concept that if you could know the precise position, direction of movement, speed, and quality of every atom in the universe, it would be possible to calculate exactly where every atom would be 10 minutes or 100 years later. The position is summed up in Laplace's own words:

 

"We may regard the present state of the universe as
the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which
at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and
all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this
intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it
would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies
of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect
nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be
present before its eyes."  ~ Pierre Simon Laplace

This should highlight that Laplace is actually trying to use scientific words to rationalize an all-knowing God. However, in Laplace's theoretical universe, there must exist no interference beyond the strictly physical, which means consciousness could not exist in such a universe. So consciousness and Laplace's Demon are mutually exclusive - Acknowledging one is the same as saying the other is not true.

Any form of determinism has this same mutual exclusivity. (In the magical religious thinking some claim consciousness and
determinism both exist - but that would mean consciousness is impotent.) So because either consciousness does not exist (or is impotent) and determinism is true , or consciousness does exist and free will is true. This mutual exclusivity is why Stefan says determinism is not a topic for philosophy. No consciousness means no thought; no thought leaves no means to philosophize.

As for whether or not it is a popular concept, it is popular among religious people. Many religious people don't even realize they are trying to accept both free will and determinism as both being valid until they begin having discussions about the validity of their God's all-knowing status. When it comes to this point, there are too many things which are mutually exclusive. In light of them the only way they can continue to believe in the religious views of God is to either not understand what is said or to cling to religiously taught impossibilities as truth because the personal feeling of life-long betrayal by religious organizations is too much to bear.

I hope that makes sense as to who believes in determinism and why.
Cheers!
~Demitri