Add new comment

I had never actually contemplated this line of thought before I read this post. At least not in a significant way.
 
I'm not even going to attempt a coherent response to this, because I'm just getting my mind around it, but I will say that you seem to be correct in your position that a purely naturalistic world is incompatible with free will, however, in doing some surfing around the web, I've found that there are a tonne of atheists who have absolutely no issue with this.
 
I thought this to be a decently well-thought out summation of the question. (Link goes to a specific comment by a reader in, yes, a Richard Dawkins forum...sorry in advance as he seems to be disliked by the believers in here).
 
In any case, I feel compelled to add to the debate in here. Not entirely sure why - I consider myself an atheist; I've explored both Christianity and atheism fairly dispassionately, and while I don't find it "crazy" that any person would choose one over the other - indeed I see compelling reasons for the choices people make in this area - my feelings aren't super-strong in either direction. Personally, with regards to free will, I'll happily accept that perhaps it doesn't actually exist (within the framework/confines of how we generally define it), and carry on in wonder of the world where we live. It's okay.
 
I will say, even though I've decided (free will!) to comment on this topic, I really, really, can't wait to carry on with the baseball (and occasional football) commentary on this blog - it's really the only place I come on the net where I make it a point to read ALL the comments, as well as the articles themselves. Everyone here deserves a huge thank you for furthering discourse on a wide range of subjects, and for putting "group think" far, far away.