but the brain, in all practical respects, creates a uniquely functioning being and entity. so for all practical purposes, your determinism changes nothing. it just offers a different explanation than free will. instead of a soul that can't be predicted determining actions, you have a brain that can't be predicted determining actions. you cannot predict human behavior in either case. so whether you believe in free will or determinism makes absolutely no difference in how you act in the real world.
It does make a difference. It differs on how you attribute causation. Whether the man stealing bread from you is stealing it because he is evil, or because he is hungry. It opens up crime to investigation. If we know to look at the brain, we might find an insufficiency in their orbital frontal lobe causing poor judgement. We can then use hyperstimulation to try to repair the damage and the so-called criminal can function normally in society. The alternative is to lock 'em up and throw away the key or death by lethal injection.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The same arguments you advance against determinism when applied to religious dogma uncovers an even more sadistic truth about religion.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It does make a difference. It differs on how you attribute causation. Whether the man stealing bread from you is stealing it because he is evil, or because he is hungry. It opens up crime to investigation. If we know to look at the brain, we might find an insufficiency in their orbital frontal lobe causing poor judgement. We can then use hyperstimulation to try to repair the damage and the so-called criminal can function normally in society. The alternative is to lock 'em up and throw away the key or death by lethal injection.
and who is to say that some people might not run the other way with determinism? the criminal has been wired to be a criminal and we should just kill them now to save society the trouble and cost of fixing them?
do you truly think that if the entire world converted to determinism overnight this would cease? instead of killing each other for god, you'd have people killing each other becos they think the other person is uncurably determined to be evil.
Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy. Being ignorant about the effects of a society believing in determinism is not reason to the contrary.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
and who is to say that some people might not run the other way with determinism? the criminal has been wired to be a criminal and we should just kill them now to save society the trouble and cost of fixing them?
I'm not saying that won't happen, but again, you are simply arguing from ignorance.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy. Being ignorant about the effects of a society believing in determinism is not reason to the contrary.
bullshit. you know you cannot refute my points so you insult me. you do not KNOW how determinism would be applied in a society. you only KNOW how you interpret it and how you THINK it should be applied. religious people would argue the same thing... if people did christianity the way it is "supposed" to be done, we'd have no problems with it. if you don't think determinism would be abused, then YOU are ignorant and as blind and naive as the most fervent christian.
I'm not saying that won't happen, but again, you are simply arguing from ignorance.
really? how so? enlighten me, almighty one. since i am so simple and you are so fucking brilliant. if you admit that it could happen, then there is nothing ignorant about my hyopthetical.
that is my point. the fact that the same arguments about misinterpretation apply to both renders them both equally susceptible to abuse.
Not equally. Determinism has much more under it's foundation than religion does. Determinism has the entire history of the universe supporting it. It ties in quite nicely with scientific determinism and everything we observe and has predictive values.
Religion has not a foot to stand on.
I'm concerned with what is real, not with what may or may not happen as a result, I'm not an economist and even if the results are identical, the paradigm is more realistic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
bullshit. you know you cannot refute my points so you insult me. you do not KNOW how determinism would be applied in a society. you only KNOW how you interpret it and how you THINK it should be applied. religious people would argue the same thing... if people did christianity the way it is "supposed" to be done, we'd have no problems with it. if you don't think determinism would be abused, then YOU are ignorant and as blind and naive as the most fervent christian.
It's not an insult, it's philosophy. It seems like you are letting this get to you, and that's a bad way to have an argument about philosophy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
really? how so? enlighten me, almighty one. since i am so simple and you are so fucking brilliant. if you admit that it could happen, then there is nothing ignorant about my hyopthetical.
I'm saying your hypothetical is fine, but a logical possibility is not synonymous with a real possibility, and arguing that something might happen is not a reason to accept it as false.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's not an insult, it's philosophy. It seems like you are letting this get to you, and that's a bad way to have an argument about philosophy.
clearly, you've never been to law school. your term does not apply to my argument, which never assumed anything was true. i merely said it was a possibility.
clearly, you've never been to law school. your term does not apply to my argument, which never assumed anything was true. i merely said it was a possibility.
What you were saying was that since it's logically possible that determinism will have the equivelant results as libertarianism or dualism, that it is therefor no better a theory. Yet, that argument does not target the facts of the thoery, it only targets the predicted effects, effects which you cannot predict because you are ignorant of all the values, as am I.
You are essentially saying:
"Since I cannot imagine that belief in determinism will have greater bennefits, it is either false or might as well be false."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm saying your hypothetical is fine, but a logical possibility is not synonymous with a real possibility, and arguing that something might happen is not a reason to accept it as false.
yours is also a hypothetical chief. it is logically possible that determinism would cause a golden age of society where everyone was happy and loved kittens and puppies. but that does not make it a real possibility and arguing that it might happen that way does not prove that my theory is false either. in fact, since you pointed to the history of the universe, i would point to the entire history of human social behavior as evidence that any belief system will inevitably be corrupted and abused to benefit the status quo.
yours is also a hypothetical chief. it is logically possible that determinism would cause a golden age of society where everyone was happy and loved kittens and puppies. but that does not make it a real possibility and arguing that it might happen that way does not prove that my theory is false either. in fact, since you pointed to the history of the universe, i would point to the entire history of human social behavior as evidence that any belief system will inevitably be corrupted and abused to benefit the status quo.
I'm not arguing for the predicted effects. I'm arguing for the plausibility of the opposing theories; determinism, dualism and libertarianism. If all had the very same effects than that would make my job all the more easier, since in terms of facts supporting the theories, dualism and libertarianism have none.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Since I cannot imagine that belief in determinism will have greater bennefits, it is either false or might as well be false."
no, what i am saying is that since it is entirely possible and even likely that determinism will not convey any benefits exceeding those offered by current systems (be they religion, capitalism, communism, or whatever else), it has no more practical value or benefit than any other ideology.
I'm not arguing for the predicted effects. I'm arguing for the plausibility of the opposing theories; determinism, dualism and libertarianism. If all had the very same effects than that would make my job all the more easier, since in terms of facts supporting the theories, dualism and libertarianism have none.
and im only arguing the effects. i don't care about the foundational basis. if you give me $100,000 i dont give a flying fuck if you did it out of charity, condescension or mistake. i care about the result. you're telling me determinism needs to be implemented in society. i'm not seeing why as i see no compelling reason to believe it's going to make a damn bit of difference in the lives of 99% of the world. so sure, let's all be determinism. i don't give a fuck. it doesn't make any difference if you're christian, determinist, or whatever else. the world is still going to function the same, people will still behave nice the same, and peopel will still fuck each other the same.
no, what i am saying is that since it is entirely possible and even likely that determinism will not convey any benefits exceeding those offered by current systems (be they religion, capitalism, communism, or whatever else), it has no more practical value or benefit than any other ideology.
Exactly, argumentum ad ignoratiam.
"since it is entirely possible .... it has no more practical value or benefit"
You are using something that you are ignorant about as evidence. You are using an indefinite statement to support a definite statement. You are unsure if it will have good effects, therefor is won't have good effects. Do you see the fallacy?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
and im only arguing the effects. i don't care about the foundational basis. if you give me $100,000 i dont give a flying fuck if you did it out of charity, condescension or mistake. i care about the result. you're telling me determinism needs to be implemented in society. i'm not seeing why as i see no compelling reason to believe it's going to make a damn bit of difference in the lives of 99% of the world. so sure, let's all be determinism. i don't give a fuck. it doesn't make any difference if you're christian, determinist, or whatever else. the world is still going to function the same, people will still behave nice the same, and peopel will still fuck each other the same.
You may want to check out http://www.beyondbelief2006.org for actual research on the pyschological affects of religion. At some point, I hope it will become clear that determinism is superior.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
For me, I have no desire to talk about free-will, because spiritual/religious people apparently have a different conception for it than non-believers, and therefore much needless misunderstanding happens in such discussions.
i get you angelica. but i would still like to know your opinion. just cause i'm atheist doesn't mean im not spiritual.
As for free choice, even if my choices conflict with others, I still make them, freely, whether unconsciously or consciously. To me, freedom is not related to lack to resistance or conflict. If everything were easy and there were no problems or conflict to rise above, the word "freedom" would have no meaning.
To me, freedom has nothing to do with controlling external or life factors. It's the exact opposite. It's about fully surrendering to one's life. It is only by accepting all aspects of one's life unconditionally, including conflicts and resistance, and including others that one chooses to interact with, that one can find the way to rise above such conflicts. By doing so, the drop of water can also experience being the ocean. The cell can also be the body. It's the short-sighted cancer cell that tries to overtake the cell next to it at the expense of the whole system.
There is nothing to be gained by fighting/denying/separating from one's very own life--unless one seeks separation, pain and struggle.
yes but in making those choices, external factors come into play. that's what i'm saying. the decisions i make are therefore subject to others' free will, which surely must negate mine.
actually now that i think about it, the initial action i choose to take is an act of free will. i just have to learn that after that, if others are involved, everything else is out of my control and just go with the flow and accept it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"since it is entirely possible .... it has no more practical value or benefit"
You are using something that you are ignorant about as evidence. You are using an indefinite statement to support a definite statement. You are unsure if it will have good effects, therefor is won't have good effects. Do you see the fallacy?
no, i am rather certain it will have no more positive effects. you believe it will. just like deadnothing believes if everyone followed jesus, thing would be better. you and he are on equal footing in my eyes. and i've not read anything from you that convinces me determinism is any more compelling than christianity. your argument is equally fallacious. you are telling me that i should subscribe to something with no proof of its superiority just becos the alternative is not perfect. you point out religion has caused problems and then say we should all accept determinism for no apparent reason just becos it hasn't fucked up like religion (and that only becos it hasnt had a chance yet). that's like a creationist argument that just becos evolution has holes we should all accept genesis. you're making the same case... religion has fucked people up... so why should we subscribe to determinism? it's not better. and i KNOW that... my evidence, as i mentioned, is the entirety of human history. maybe determinism has some limited scientific veracity, but in terms of a social movement, it is worthless. this is not using a negative to prove a positive, just the opposite. this is me asking you to give me evidence supporting your contention that determinism will have any sort of impact on society outside of the same reasoning christians use to justify their beliefs (ie. "if everyone just accepted x, we could all love and accept each other").
You might find it an interesting read, since Darrow was a lawyer as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You may want to check out http://www.beyondbelief2006.org for actual research on the pyschological affects of religion. At some point, I hope it will become clear that determinism is superior.
this is not logical fallacy? becos x is bad, therefore y is inherently superior? you can't simply state that and make it fact. you have to show proof that y is actually superior. you haven't done so. you've provided no compelling evidence to support your belief that determinism would create a better society than religion has aside from a david hume book grounded in abstract philosophical arguments... NOT scientific or even sociological research.
no, i am rather certain it will have no more positive effects. you believe it will. just like deadnothing believes if everyone followed jesus, thing would be better. you and he are on equal footing in my eyes. and i've not read anything from you that convinces me determinism is any more compelling than christianity. your argument is equally fallacious. you are telling me that i should subscribe to something with no proof of its superiority just becos the alternative is not perfect. you point out religion has caused problems and then say we should all accept determinism for no apparent reason just becos it hasn't fucked up like religion (and that only becos it hasnt had a chance yet). that's like a creationist argument that just becos evolution has holes we should all accept genesis. you're making the same case... religion has fucked people up... so why should we subscribe to determinism? it's not better. and i KNOW that... my evidence, as i mentioned, is the entirety of human history. maybe determinism has some limited scientific veracity, but in terms of a social movement, it is worthless. this is not using a negative to prove a positive, just the opposite. this is me asking you to give me evidence supporting your contention that determinism will have any sort of impact on society outside of the same reasoning christians use to justify their beliefs (ie. "if everyone just accepted x, we could all love and accept each other").
Christianity by it's doctrine spins it's wheels. It doesn't make progress. Deterministic thought constantly seeks progress by identifying causes. You should read some material on it, the link above is an excellent one that's been ignored by enlarge for the greater part of the last century.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Christianity by it's doctrine spins it's wheels. It doesn't make progress. Deterministic thought constantly seeks progress by identifying causes. You should read some material on it, the link above is an excellent one that's been ignored by enlarge for the greater part of the last century.
"by and large."
i've read some david hume. this is still all as abstract and hypothetical as the bible. no evidence, just "well maybe it would go like this..." but then again, it probably would not.
this is not logical fallacy? becos x is bad, therefore y is inherently superior? you can't simply state that and make it fact. you have to show proof that y is actually superior. you haven't done so. you've provided no compelling evidence to support your belief that determinism would create a better society than religion has aside from a david hume book grounded in abstract philosophical arguments... NOT scientific or even sociological research.
It's about epistemology. Christianity is an a priori way of obtaining knowledge about human behaviour. That is what makes it inferior.
I can only provide you with few examples of determinists in history.
As it turns out, the only determinists are deep thinking individuals who tend not to concern themselves much with the fruits of life. None of these people started nor fought in wars, they were all positive contributors to our modern way of life. I'm sorry the sample size isn't very large, but that's just the fact of the matter. I can't give you examples of determinist inquisitions, because they never happened. There has never been a case study like you are asking for, there is no data. And it certainly is non sequitur that determinism will create a utopia, but on the other hand we know that Christianity does not and determinism is a much more accurate theory of reality. For me, a more accurate theory is enough to suspect good things will come from it. Maybe it's not true, but Christianity is a pile of shit, that much is true. Maybe you'd rather stay in the comfort zone because you are used to the smell, but not me. I want something real, I want a more accurate theory of reality that is based on empirical experiment, not a priori archaic rhetoric.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no, i haven't. i just took an entire semester's worth of classes on criminal law, social justice, and our current system of doing things.
And you assume that it's the best?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
As it turns out, the only determinists are deep thinking individuals who tend not to concern themselves much with the fruits of life. None of these people started nor fought in wars, they were all positive contributors to our modern way of life. I'm sorry the sample size isn't very large, but that's just the fact of the matter. I can't give you examples of determinist inquisitions, because they never happened. There has never been a case study like you are asking for, there is no data. And it certainly is non sequitur that determinism will create a utopia, but on the other hand we know that Christianity does not and determinism is a much more accurate theory of reality. For me, a more accurate theory is enough to suspect good things will come from it. Maybe it's not true, but Christianity is a pile of shit, that much is true. Maybe you'd rather stay in the comfort zone because you are used to the smell, but not me. I want something real, I want a more accurate theory of reality that is based on empirical experiment, not a priori archaic rhetoric.
those people were all wealthy, respected, intelligent men. you're just as likely to find links between them with respect to levels of education and respect accorded to them by peers.
i never said christianity isn't a pile of shit. i don't subscribe to it. im just wondering why i should discard one pile of shit just so i can adopt another pile of shit. the fact that you suspect greater accuracy will produce better results is hardly reason enough for me to start drinking the koolaid. i don't need determinism or christianity to handle my affairs just fine. nor does society need one of the other to get sicker or better.
Comments
It does make a difference. It differs on how you attribute causation. Whether the man stealing bread from you is stealing it because he is evil, or because he is hungry. It opens up crime to investigation. If we know to look at the brain, we might find an insufficiency in their orbital frontal lobe causing poor judgement. We can then use hyperstimulation to try to repair the damage and the so-called criminal can function normally in society. The alternative is to lock 'em up and throw away the key or death by lethal injection.
i capitalized the key word there: "might." it also might make no difference. determinism could be abused just as readily as religion has been.
The same arguments you advance against determinism when applied to religious dogma uncovers an even more sadistic truth about religion.
and who is to say that some people might not run the other way with determinism? the criminal has been wired to be a criminal and we should just kill them now to save society the trouble and cost of fixing them?
that is my point. the fact that the same arguments about misinterpretation apply to both renders them both equally susceptible to abuse.
Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy. Being ignorant about the effects of a society believing in determinism is not reason to the contrary.
I'm not saying that won't happen, but again, you are simply arguing from ignorance.
bullshit. you know you cannot refute my points so you insult me. you do not KNOW how determinism would be applied in a society. you only KNOW how you interpret it and how you THINK it should be applied. religious people would argue the same thing... if people did christianity the way it is "supposed" to be done, we'd have no problems with it. if you don't think determinism would be abused, then YOU are ignorant and as blind and naive as the most fervent christian.
really? how so? enlighten me, almighty one. since i am so simple and you are so fucking brilliant. if you admit that it could happen, then there is nothing ignorant about my hyopthetical.
Not equally. Determinism has much more under it's foundation than religion does. Determinism has the entire history of the universe supporting it. It ties in quite nicely with scientific determinism and everything we observe and has predictive values.
Religion has not a foot to stand on.
I'm concerned with what is real, not with what may or may not happen as a result, I'm not an economist and even if the results are identical, the paradigm is more realistic.
Argumentum ad ignoratium
Argument from Ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
It's not an insult, it's philosophy. It seems like you are letting this get to you, and that's a bad way to have an argument about philosophy.
I'm saying your hypothetical is fine, but a logical possibility is not synonymous with a real possibility, and arguing that something might happen is not a reason to accept it as false.
clearly, you've never been to law school. your term does not apply to my argument, which never assumed anything was true. i merely said it was a possibility.
What you were saying was that since it's logically possible that determinism will have the equivelant results as libertarianism or dualism, that it is therefor no better a theory. Yet, that argument does not target the facts of the thoery, it only targets the predicted effects, effects which you cannot predict because you are ignorant of all the values, as am I.
You are essentially saying:
"Since I cannot imagine that belief in determinism will have greater bennefits, it is either false or might as well be false."
yours is also a hypothetical chief. it is logically possible that determinism would cause a golden age of society where everyone was happy and loved kittens and puppies. but that does not make it a real possibility and arguing that it might happen that way does not prove that my theory is false either. in fact, since you pointed to the history of the universe, i would point to the entire history of human social behavior as evidence that any belief system will inevitably be corrupted and abused to benefit the status quo.
I'm not arguing for the predicted effects. I'm arguing for the plausibility of the opposing theories; determinism, dualism and libertarianism. If all had the very same effects than that would make my job all the more easier, since in terms of facts supporting the theories, dualism and libertarianism have none.
no, what i am saying is that since it is entirely possible and even likely that determinism will not convey any benefits exceeding those offered by current systems (be they religion, capitalism, communism, or whatever else), it has no more practical value or benefit than any other ideology.
and im only arguing the effects. i don't care about the foundational basis. if you give me $100,000 i dont give a flying fuck if you did it out of charity, condescension or mistake. i care about the result. you're telling me determinism needs to be implemented in society. i'm not seeing why as i see no compelling reason to believe it's going to make a damn bit of difference in the lives of 99% of the world. so sure, let's all be determinism. i don't give a fuck. it doesn't make any difference if you're christian, determinist, or whatever else. the world is still going to function the same, people will still behave nice the same, and peopel will still fuck each other the same.
Exactly, argumentum ad ignoratiam.
"since it is entirely possible .... it has no more practical value or benefit"
You are using something that you are ignorant about as evidence. You are using an indefinite statement to support a definite statement. You are unsure if it will have good effects, therefor is won't have good effects. Do you see the fallacy?
You may want to check out http://www.beyondbelief2006.org for actual research on the pyschological affects of religion. At some point, I hope it will become clear that determinism is superior.
i get you angelica. but i would still like to know your opinion. just cause i'm atheist doesn't mean im not spiritual.
yes but in making those choices, external factors come into play. that's what i'm saying. the decisions i make are therefore subject to others' free will, which surely must negate mine.
actually now that i think about it, the initial action i choose to take is an act of free will. i just have to learn that after that, if others are involved, everything else is out of my control and just go with the flow and accept it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no, i am rather certain it will have no more positive effects. you believe it will. just like deadnothing believes if everyone followed jesus, thing would be better. you and he are on equal footing in my eyes. and i've not read anything from you that convinces me determinism is any more compelling than christianity. your argument is equally fallacious. you are telling me that i should subscribe to something with no proof of its superiority just becos the alternative is not perfect. you point out religion has caused problems and then say we should all accept determinism for no apparent reason just becos it hasn't fucked up like religion (and that only becos it hasnt had a chance yet). that's like a creationist argument that just becos evolution has holes we should all accept genesis. you're making the same case... religion has fucked people up... so why should we subscribe to determinism? it's not better. and i KNOW that... my evidence, as i mentioned, is the entirety of human history. maybe determinism has some limited scientific veracity, but in terms of a social movement, it is worthless. this is not using a negative to prove a positive, just the opposite. this is me asking you to give me evidence supporting your contention that determinism will have any sort of impact on society outside of the same reasoning christians use to justify their beliefs (ie. "if everyone just accepted x, we could all love and accept each other").
Then you haven't read Clarence Darrow's book.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm
You might find it an interesting read, since Darrow was a lawyer as well.
this is not logical fallacy? becos x is bad, therefore y is inherently superior? you can't simply state that and make it fact. you have to show proof that y is actually superior. you haven't done so. you've provided no compelling evidence to support your belief that determinism would create a better society than religion has aside from a david hume book grounded in abstract philosophical arguments... NOT scientific or even sociological research.
Christianity by it's doctrine spins it's wheels. It doesn't make progress. Deterministic thought constantly seeks progress by identifying causes. You should read some material on it, the link above is an excellent one that's been ignored by enlarge for the greater part of the last century.
no, i haven't. i just took an entire semester's worth of classes on criminal law, social justice, and our current system of doing things.
"by and large."
i've read some david hume. this is still all as abstract and hypothetical as the bible. no evidence, just "well maybe it would go like this..." but then again, it probably would not.
It's about epistemology. Christianity is an a priori way of obtaining knowledge about human behaviour. That is what makes it inferior.
I can only provide you with few examples of determinists in history.
Spinoza, Einstein, Freud, Baron d'Holbach, Darwin, Darrow, Voltaire, Skinner, Hawking, Russel, Minsky, Hume and Schopenhauer.
As it turns out, the only determinists are deep thinking individuals who tend not to concern themselves much with the fruits of life. None of these people started nor fought in wars, they were all positive contributors to our modern way of life. I'm sorry the sample size isn't very large, but that's just the fact of the matter. I can't give you examples of determinist inquisitions, because they never happened. There has never been a case study like you are asking for, there is no data. And it certainly is non sequitur that determinism will create a utopia, but on the other hand we know that Christianity does not and determinism is a much more accurate theory of reality. For me, a more accurate theory is enough to suspect good things will come from it. Maybe it's not true, but Christianity is a pile of shit, that much is true. Maybe you'd rather stay in the comfort zone because you are used to the smell, but not me. I want something real, I want a more accurate theory of reality that is based on empirical experiment, not a priori archaic rhetoric.
And you assume that it's the best?
those people were all wealthy, respected, intelligent men. you're just as likely to find links between them with respect to levels of education and respect accorded to them by peers.
i never said christianity isn't a pile of shit. i don't subscribe to it. im just wondering why i should discard one pile of shit just so i can adopt another pile of shit. the fact that you suspect greater accuracy will produce better results is hardly reason enough for me to start drinking the koolaid. i don't need determinism or christianity to handle my affairs just fine. nor does society need one of the other to get sicker or better.