By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nuvendil said:

If you are a pure atheist or other materialist (that is someone who believes there's only the material world) then yes. That is the inevitable belief you must have to be consistent with your worldview.

However, ironically, the scientific crowd who champion this are kinda undermining themselves. Science, reason, understanding are all predicated on free choice. On the idea we can study two options and based on facts and observations and reason CHOSE the right one. If everything is predetermined by chemical reactions, we have no way of knowing that which we have arrived at is true. We will believe what we will believe, we will believe what we will believe is true, and it is no more significant than a series of domino's falling. Understanding, science, the search for truth, all nonsense. All illusions.

You seem particularly confused about what a non-sequitur is. The entire second paragraph lumps together completely separate ideas by magic.

Hitchens had an amusing answer to this question - do you believe you have free will? "Of course I do, I have no choice."

VXIII said:

I think we need to agree that the human consciousness is more than chemicals and electrical signals. Edit: assuming that we can simulate thoso chemical and electrical pulses in a brain-like machine, I think it is logical to say that machine won't have a self awareness because of said pulses. 

Why would anyone in their right mind agree with this?