Free will means that you own your action so much that if you could go back in time you may do it or do something else. You are free to go either way. This is called indeterminism or libertarian free will.

Some say we are programmed by psychological forces that we picked up over time unawares and these make the "decisions" we think we make. This view is called determinism.

Compatiblism is just a redefinition of free will - if you don't feel forced you are free. It can be safely ignored as semantics.

Libertarian free will is thought to be an oxymoron for it implies you have no character and like a psychopath can do anything at all.  It's regarded as a denial of free will for such randomness implies your actions are not saying what kind of person you are but just come out of nowhere.

Determinism does not pretend to believe in free will in any real sense. 

Compatiblism is nonsense for if neither of these give free will then mixing the two or blending them is only going to be worse than either of them.

If libertarian free will is not free will or nonsense they assume that free will must mean some kind of compatiblism or determinism.  That is a process of elimination.  It does not work in this case.  It assumes that if they cannot explain free will then something should.  It ignores how none of them may give you free will as a concept for the concept is nonsense.  Surely the process means that libertarian free will despite the problems is better than determinism which is a blunt denial of free will?  A process of elimination in a matter like this means you have to think to tell yourself you have free will and you have no direct evidence!  You should if you are a free agent!

Are we free because we feel free?
People think they have free will because they feel free. You never feel as free as you do when you are drunk though you are not. A drug is affecting your mind. The main argument for free will, the reason so many who should know better can't discard it, is that we are led to think that we seem to be told by our experience that we are free. We seem to feel that we have different options and that nothing programs us to choose one of them and not the others.
Feelings prove nothing. If I feel that Jesus is God that does not make me right. You can be programmed by nature to feel free. And we are for we simply cannot be free.
Even free willists know that we can feel free and not be free like when we are mad or when we have a lucid dream that seems very real and when we are making decisions in that dream for even they agree that these are not decisions or choices for most of the brain has been closed down. Dreams prove that free will is only an assumption.

The real reason free will is popular is that people are told they are free for they feel free.  Why do they want this feeling to be correct?Why do they want it to be their philosophy teacher?  Because they want to be able to judge people as deserving good things or punishments.  That such a weak argument is used shows we are not reliable at all.  If we have free will then we might still have no reason to believe in it.  X does not become true just because you don't like what happens if it is false.  If the feeling of free will should tell us if it is there, it cannot because of why we hear it and use it.

We could still be programmed though we may feel free for we could be set to feel that way and to act free though we are not really free at all. Nobody is able to explain how free will works. Indeterminism and compatibilism tell us nothing. Occam’s Razor says that you must always follow the simplest explanation which is invariably the one easiest to understand. We can understand programming therefore to believe in free will is to oppose his principle and to oppose reason. You cannot believe without reason so the result is faked belief.

Free will is a fascist doctrine for its proponents claim to know they have free will and they cannot know.  This has horrible consequences.  First if you say such a doctrine is certainly true and certainly good you are forced to be hostile to anyone who contradicts it even if you agree with them secretly.  You have to accuse them of knowing the truth and opposing it.  This is because you have to be consistent with your free will dogma.  It is strategic.  Second you know fine well you cannot know so you have to shut up anybody that tells you.

If you are a determinist, they claim to know you have free will like they do as if your lived experience does not count and as if you don't count.  The doctrine calls them to be hostile to deniers because it claims to exalt human nature so it follows that deniers do not. A doctrine that calls you a free agent cannot be tolerant to somebody that says this is not true for it says they erase and disparage your actual identity. It calls on the believers to discriminate and ostracise deniers for the deniers would have to be seen as insulting them and hating their dignity. Free will then is a battle cry against the rights of the determinist or the person who believes in free will but that we have so little of it that we are only a tiny bit accountable for what we do and so nobody should punish us much no matter what we do.
The opposition of free will to logic tells us that guilt is abnormal and a sickness caused by the perception of moral responsibility but there is no such thing as moral responsibility and there cannot be.
The divorce between logic and free will also tells us that religion is abnormal for if there is no free will we should not need religion. We should not need it to program the environment we are in to be good. We should need only ourselves and our reason.
Any system be it religion or whatever that claims to be founded on reason and then says that free will exists is a sham. That is because when free will is a fundamental issue to be solved, it has to be the bedrock on which the religion system is built just as our system is built on the abnegation of freedom. Free will as a doctrine is the root of religion and if the root is bad and useless so is the tree.
If Occam’s Razor is wrong as free will tells us, then it follows that there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong as distinct from morality. Right and wrong are founded on the principle of doing the good the simplest way possible. In other words, follow the Razor! The atheist who understands his or her philosophy and the need for atheism to improve the world has to dispense with free will. It is a purely religious hypothesis anyway and does not belong in atheistic or secular ideologies. The reason I say that is because none of the reasons given for believing it work so it is only an excuse for turning to belief in a God of love. The only reason people want the free will belief is because they want to believe in a God who evilly condones their sin and yet they use the belief as an excuse for "punishing" those who offend them. They want to believe in sin and condemn everybody for sinning but themselves while they are smugly assured that they themselves are forgiven.
Free will has no relevance to making the world a better place but is just a recipe for trouble and whatever trouble comes about because of the doctrine is as much the teachers of free wills’ doing as the disorderly persons. The only thing you need is to give people reasons to do good and that can be done without the doctrine of free will for people do nothing without reasons.
Even if we do have free will we cannot know it. Believing something and being right does not constitute knowledge but luck.
As William of Ockham, of Occam's Razor fame, taught, the moment I make a choice I am not free to avoid the choice because the past has led me ineluctably to it. So if I sin at moment X, I am not free to avoid sin and I haven’t incurred it at moment X for I am not free and cannot help it. Ockham dubiously solved this problem for he wanted to believe in sin by advancing the nonsensical solution that I must have sinned before moment X. So you the sin happens before it happens and not after! He was desperate. If I decide to sin that happens only in the present. That is obvious. I can no more incur the same single sin before I incur it than I can incur it after I incur it. I cannot sin and so I cannot do what is immoral and if I cannot do what is immoral I have no free will

Suppose you have no proof for or against free will and believe in it or assume that it is true. Or suppose that it is a paradox and so you don’t know if it makes sense or not for you can’t prove its existence. Examine yourself. Are you really sure that you are free? You won’t be sure. And you are so sure then why do you practice so much determinism? For example, you always assume that such and such an action will lead to a person doing X and another will result in Y. For example, if you offer Boris a baked Alaska or meringue you can know that your act will make him choose meringue.

Free will is no good to you when you are not sure if you have got it or not. You need to consciously use your freedom to be responsible for your acts. I cannot be free even if I have free will when I don’t know if I have got it. Christians will accuse me of dishonesty but this is a slur. They will say that when a man can see he still sees even if he is not sure if he is really seeing the object. They will say that you use your free will even if you don’t believe in or remember it. But the man physically sees the object but in a sense he does not see it for he does not believe it is there. He doesn't see it for he refuses to take it in.

As we can't go back in time to test free will, some present progress as evidence that free will is true.  It is the only real attempt at evidence for though people talk about feeling free as evidence for free will they must see that it is not really evidence but could be interpreted as an indication.  That is so weak. 

It is said that if we were not free we would not make progress. That is an odd argument for progress has to be made in one form or other for us to even survive in the first place. For example, even a caveman eating, that is progress! If that kind of progress is possible so is progress as in man leaving the caves to build houses.

The earth must have had free will then when it progressed from a ball of fire!

You can argue, "Is free will a form of progress? Yes - to have something and use it is progress in itself. In what way? Even to do evil is to do something and to experiences something. Doing and experiencing are still good in themselves even when used to do bad for it is not the power to do or to experience that is the problem. It is how you use them."

A computer that always performs at the same level of efficiency can contain an element waiting to work that makes it improve. It does not need free will to do that. A dog can learn tricks sometimes on his own and nobody says a dog has free will. Often our memory makes mistakes that turn out to be for the best. Our memory is not under the control of free will but does what it wants and experience shows that we can progress and improve without free will. For example, when we are drunk we have no free will but can still improve our dancing!

We must destroy belief in free will for free will does not exist and put determinism in its place for the sake of truth and human welfare. We must reject everything, for example, belief in God, that depends on the sinister doctrine of free will. The notion that disbelief in free will is in some way harmful has nothing at all to do with free will existing or not. Just because an idea does harm doesn’t mean that it is false.

No Copyright