'God's Will,' 'karma,' 'life contracts' and other such things.

[MineralMan]

In another place on DU, where I can't really have a discussion about this, someone has claimed that the death of Trayvon Martin was "pre-ordained" in some way, and that it was his "life contract" that led to his murder. In some way, the idea was that his death was important and would lead to a new consciousness and less racism, etc. For me, this is the equivalent of it being "God's will" that caused this young man's death. It's just an attempt to explain man's inhumanity to man and allow people to leave the act behind in their own minds, in my opinion.

Many black men, young and old, have been killed by racists. I have not seen a benefit from their deaths in the reduction of racism. I have not seen that at all. So, a religious or "spiritual" explanation of such an event seems specious to me, and in the extreme. Trayvon Martin signed no "life contract," nor is his murder part of some plan of some diety. He was just a young man attempting to live his life, which involved going and getting some Skittles and a soda on the day he died. There is no "greater plan" in this. Trayvon did not sign up to change the world. Contracts take two parties, at least, and Trayvon was not a party in any "life contract." He was just a young black man.

For me, such "explanations" are little more than a way of putting the incident away and not really taking it in. Trayvon Martin isn't the trigger that will end racism. His death is not going to change minds and lead to a new, peaceful, racism-free society. It would be wonderful, if that was the case, but to think that there's some "plan" or overwhelming spiritual reason for his death is simply not supported by any sort of rational thought. He was just past being a kid, and he was shot to death by another person - one who had hatred in his mind.

There is no long-term benefit for Trayvon or his family. There is no recompense for his death in some future "reincarnation" or reward in a mythical place. He is simply dead. The reason for his death is hatred and racism. If it makes some people think, that's good for those people, but the society will not change because a young black man was murdered. There is no positive thing to be taken from this murder. Only sadness. There is no comfort for those who cared about Trayvon Martin in this kind of nonsense.

Such expressions about some sort of "greater good" that comes from incidents like this seem to me to be nothing more than a way to get past the event by people who don't know either of the parties involved. This is another reason I am an atheist.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. People try to find meaning in the things that happen,

especially tragedies like this one. I think it's human nature. It's one reason religion exists - when you get down to it I don't think most people are all that enthusiastic about the idea that what happens in life is random and meaningless and that people suffer and die for no reason. So we have the idea of "God" (or gods) - a being who pulls the strings in the universe and supplies meaning for what "he" (it?) does. God intends a certain result, and causes things to happen to lead to that result. Being able to believe this may be comforting, just like believing in an afterlife where good people live happily forever and bad people are punished for their sins. This idea of cosmic justice is attractive. I understand why so many people belive i nit, just as I understand why many believe that they will see their loved ones again in Heaven some day. When you think about it, why wouldn't we want to believe something like that, instead of the bleak conclusion that after you're dead there's nothing, and there was no particular reason for your existence in the first place?

So maybe some people are inclined to believe that the sad and unfair circumstances of this kid's death were preordained by God to lead to a better outcome, because it's too grim and depressing to think not only that he died for no reason, but that nothing will improve. Personally, I don't think God was involved. If there is a God, and he caused the death of Trayvon Martin in order to make people think about racism and violence, then God is a dick who doesn't deserve the title of God. If God wanted there to be no racism and violence he could figure out a better, more efficient and less painful way for that to happen.

On the other hand, I don't blame people for looking for some higher meaning when bad things like this happen.

[MineralMan]

2. I understand that, of course.

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

However, when I see people use this to simply back away from the harsh reality of things, it reinforces my atheism. And that's exactly what's going on with trying to put what happened in this case, and in countless other similar cases off onto some "higher power" that has a plan we don't understand.

For me, reality is reality. I'm 66 years old. I'll die within the next two decades. My friends and loved ones will die. It is reality, and makes living as well as possible even more important. Right now, I'm dealing with deaths in the generation before mine. An aunt of my wife's just died a couple of weeks ago. Her sisters, all very strong Christians, are having no easier time dealing with her death because of their religious beliefs. They are not really comforted by the thought that she's now in Heaven and they'll see her soon. Not at all. In fact, they seem to be having a more difficult time than the other siblings who are not particularly religious.

Looking for a "higher meaning" in things does not alter the facts, nor does it do much in the way of comforting those left behind. We are born, we live, and we die. It is the interval between the first and the last thing that makes up our lives. For atheists, that is the only thing, so we savor that and simply mourn the loss of those who died. Much simpler.

Trayvon Martin got less than two decades of that. His death at the hand of a racist put a sudden end to it. It is a terrible way to end a life. No amount of rationalization can make it something it is not. No amount of wishful thinking will replace this young man. He is dead. I feel terrible about his death. It was a waste of a life. I will not and cannot put it aside by believing that it was for some "greater good." That's patently bullshit, to be quite frank. No good comes from his death, only proof of the hatred some hold in their minds.

Shit! He didn't even get to eat the Skittles. The whole thing just sucks.

[bongbong]

30. Religion & Death

Best book yet on the subject: "The Denial Of Death" by Becker

[cbayer]

3. I don't think you are going to find many people around here that are going

to say that this was pre-ordained.

Where did you see it elsewhere on the site?

One more thing - society can change when tragedies like this happen. It depends how we respond to it. That does not mean it is pre-ordained.

[MineralMan]

7. I'm not going to send anyone to the group where I saw that.

They don't seek nor do they need the attention.

Society can change, but does not in most cases. Instead, it moves on to the next incident. As I said, many, many young black men have died, and yet the reasons do not go away. I remember clearly a man who was dragged behind a pickup truck in Texas, a number of years ago. Did that change attitudes in Texas? I do not believe it did. Nor will this incident change the minds of people who are racists. It simply will not. It remains what it is: a brutal murder with fear and hatred as its cause. It is exactly what it is, and will be forgotten by most people soon.

[cbayer]

10. Hate crimes have most certainly changed laws and had a huge impact on society in general.

Sometimes a tragedy leads to a national discussion about issues that have been dormant.

[MineralMan]

12. No doubt such things lead to discussion.

That's good. But, the person who is dead had nothing to do with that, nor did any non-human source. Discussion is precious small comfort to him or to his family. The killer? Yes. We've been having a discussion on racial issues and racism for a very long time, indeed. Some things have improved. Others, not so much. These "Castle" and "Stand your Ground" laws are laws that enable racism to move into action. They were created, at least in part, for that very reason.

Will they be overturned? Not a chance, in most of the states where they exist. We almost had one here in Minnesota. Only a Governor who vetoed a bill that passed both houses of the legislature kept it from becoming law. In Minnesota. The people who supported it were the same people who supported looking the other way when GLBT students were bullied in one of our largest school districts.

The death of this young man in Florida will not change their minds. Their fear and hatred will continue. They will continue to push for the same legislation, and, if we cannot prevent them from enacting the same racist laws by electing legislators and executives who will resist their pressure, they will get that legislation passed and more young black men will die at the hands of racists.

By all means, let's have a discussion. Discussion is a good thing. Action, however, is more effective. And the action that is needed is to prevent Republicans and ALEC-based laws from gaining control. That's the action I'm working on.

[mother earth]

4. I know what you are referring to and I can assure you that no one is minimizing the

loss of this young man, or implying it was God's plan or any such thing.

The problem I have with "atheism", here's my assumption (since that's exactly what you are doing, assuming), is atheists seem to rarely (if ever) have any regard or tolerance for opinions of others as to how the universe works. They assume all other beliefs are God/deity based.

An atheist assumes that all people of any so called "religious" views fit into the little boxes and images they hold in their head on religion. Life contracts & karma are quite different views of mainstream religion, and sometimes have nothing at all to do with "God or any deity"...depending on whomever the view belongs to. I believe and respect that we are all entitled to voice an opinion, especially, here on DU. No one suggests there is any mythical reward, he is dead just as you've stated.

Whether you or I agree is meaningless, Trayvon's death absolutely is having a huge impact on the people in this country. Like you, I feel his death was murder, and certainly feel it was fueled by racism, ironically the discussion on the news and MM centers around that very fact & is pretty much in line with what the other thread was conveying. The eyes and ears of the nation are trying to make sense of this and come to terms with a very ugly aspect of our collective being. Will that translate into something good, something better to end or lessen senseless hatred? I sure hope so.

Frankly, I would hope that DU is a place where we can be tolerant of differing views...we aren't the "right" that is usually wrong and pig headed...we are the "left", and being from that "left" - I'm proud to have the ability to listen to other views and accept that, while I may not always agree, I am not going to add fuel to hatred on any level, in any shape or form...that's the "right" 's job isn't it? At least it seems that way...most days.

You know, I appreciate the views of atheists and the religious equally, never being quite sure any one has the truth just yet. I suspect none of us really do, but pompous attitudes and finger pointing at anyone other than he who pulled the trigger, are divisive and useless. I would hope, we DU'ers are better than that.

[MineralMan]

8. I thought better of attempting a discussion where that thought was expressed.

So I deleted the post I made there. Here, such things can be discussed, and different points of view can be expressed. I have done that. Your point of view may differ from mine, and that's fine. But, mine is also a valid point of view. Of course you can express your point of view, and are doing just that in this group. The Religion Group allows all points of view to be discussed. Thank you for sharing yours.

[mother earth]

11. Correct me if I'm wrong, but respectfully differing points of view are possible on all parts

of DU, or so I thought. Is it confrontation or a wider view of her opinion you seek?

That part of the board you are discussing here, is a place where many people go just for confirmation that humanity and tolerance in this hate filled world are still alive and well. The bravery that many display in even offering their thoughts and opinions in writing is awe-inspiring to behold to say the least. The mainstream has very little understanding of those who do not fall into easily defined "religion", even an atheist can offer valued views there...confrontations are what is barred. For you to do it here, only means you feel you may be incapable of maintaining mutual discourse and respectful dialect on this subject.

I encourage you take a wider view, if not here, then in your own life, for your own enrichment, and I offer you my condolences on the loss you and your family have recently endured. Whatever understandings we have of life, scientific or otherwise, I suspect are miniscule compared to reality.

One thing I know for sure, the poster you are referring to in your OT deserves better from a fellow DU'er, to address this in the manner you have done is to ridicule, and you certainly seem verbally capable of better and more. We are all Trayvons...hate is the enemy...ignorance cannot be what we deliberately choose. Peace, MM.

[MineralMan]

13. No, I cannot discuss this there. I do not believe the things that are believed

there. So, I will not intrude on that safe haven. That does not mean that I will not raise the question somewhere else, and even expand it to include other belief systems. There is no non-confrontive way to say what I have said here. Merely saying that I cannot believe in supernatural forces and believe them to be non-rational is confrontive. So, the discussion is taking place here. Anyone may join it, but I will stick to my opinion on these matters. It is an opinion of long standing, and much thought has gone into it.

I confront religious and spiritual belief all the time. It confronts me, as well, and on a frequent basis. That's the nature of things. It's fine to have safe havens for such beliefs. I do not go into churches and confront the believers there. Nor do I go into safe haven groups on DU and confront people there.

[mother earth]

15. I guess "supernatural" is questionable, is nature "supernatural"...may seem so when

you don't possess all knowledge. You assume to know her heart and mind, without ever engaging in any conversation, based on one statement she made...you could have gotten your point across without drawing attention to her. You could have gotten your point across in a generalized way, but you chose not to.

Supernatural, to me is based in some kind of magic or myth...you are so wrong to make characterizations in that way over someone's understanding of how she feels the universe might work. I'm sure the stars, the moon and the sun might have once been considered supernatural, tho today we know otherwise.

[MineralMan]

16. I mentioned nobody.

I'm discussing ideas, not people on DU. You're welcome to whatever beliefs you're able to hold. If I do not share them, I will not confront you directly about your beliefs. I will, however discuss such beliefs. You can join or avoid that discussion, as you choose. So can anyone else.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Interesting

I am not sure that this is really confined to religious people. Many atheists believe in 'reasons' and 'meanings' for bad things, even if they don't put it in terms of 'God's will'. Or say that the bad things are 'natural parts of life' or 'part of reality' or 'what happens in the real world' - well, obviously, they did/do happen in the real world, but that does not make them any better. I think there is a strong human tendency to try to rationalize the bad things in life in one way or another.

[MineralMan]

6. There is a difference between seeing such events for what they

are and attaching meanings to them for which there is no evidence. What this thing is is the murder of a young man because of his skin color by a man who has fear and hatred for people with that skin color. It is a bad thing because of that, and not because of anything else, in my opinion. I do not rationalize his death in any way. He is dead because of fear and hatred. There was no other reason.

[mother earth]

17. "Seeing such things for what they are"...if you claim to know all, I bow my hat to you if you

have such knowledge...I doubt you have any more than the rest of us. Tolerance is the key here, the lack of which was displayed in the very murder you attach your statements to. It boggles the mind.

Why is it an atheist can't just say he doesn't know? You want evidence for the "claims" of others, but offer none to prove your own. But you expect your knowing to be held as truth for all....why? Sounds like just a different brand of "super"natural, that's all. There's no natural or unnatural or supernatural, since we do not fully understand nature...in its entirety.

[MineralMan]

18. Atheists don't know all, and don't expect to.

We do, in general, depend on what can be seen, measured, and otherwise physically observed. If we do not know, we're happy to admit that we do not know. We do not live lives by faith in things, but by how things are in the physical world.

Atheists vary in their degree of knowledge of things. I'm quite certain that I don't understand subatomic physics, even though it interests me. I'm a pretty good hand at the biological sciences, and have the equivalent of a master's degree in mineralogy and geology. There are many things I do not know, though. For those, I rely on those who do, and who can demonstrate that they do.

There is much mind-boggling stuff that can still be seen and experienced. I needn't understand every detail of it to recognize it as real.

[mother earth]

19. Thank you, finally...precisely why all views are of merit....we just cannot know with certainty,

but even physicists claim the possibility of multiple existences. Is quantum physics not science? Michio Kaku theorizes we may live several existences or lives simultaneously....is that supernatural? I don't think so...at least I think he would disagree.

[MineralMan]

21. That is a completely different discussion than the one from my OP.

All views are not necessarily meritorious views that are worthy of discussion. Others can only be discussed by those who understand the science involved. At this point, I'm not going to discuss Kaku's theories with you in this thread. We could, however, discuss them in the Science Group. This is the Religion Group.

[mother earth]

26. It pertains in that many scientific discussions of reality can be categorized as

"supernatural", and that we truly do not fully understand nature or the universe in its entirety. Admitting that, it presupposes none of us can knowingly call another's beliefs supernatural. No man has the authority to dismiss another's claims as being "supernatural"...I offer two scientists that would claim theories and understandings of nature that might be considered supernatural.

I love Einstein's explanation that states we simply do not have the human capacity to understand the nature of "God" and how the universe works, as I suspect "God" is the universe...he denies a "personal god" that hands out punishment or judgement. I believe this is very suitable for discussion here, and defends the thread you dismissed as "supernatural", aptly.

[mother earth]

22. Of course there's also Albert Einstein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[11]

On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."[12] This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's The World as I See It, stating: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."[13]

[edit] Agnosticism and rejection of atheism

Einstein firmly rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[14]

Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein explained:

[MineralMan]

23. And so?

I'm familiar with Einstein's writings. Why do you bring them up? Do you suppose that I am not secure in my own disbelief? You know nothing about me or my path through life. I raised a very narrow question in my OP, and am not really interested in a general quotefest today. If you are quoting Einstein from a Wikipedia entry, I'm not interested, to be quite frank.

[mother earth]

27. I'm not speaking to your beliefs or lack thereof, just speaking to your intolerance of another's

that you consider "supernatural".

[MineralMan]

31. I am not intolerant of their beliefs. They can hold

any beliefs they wish. I do not share those beliefs, and will say that I do not share those beliefs when it seems appropriate to do so.

Let me use Scientology as an example. I think it is a made-up religion designed to rake in money from unsuspecting and uncritical people. I believe that it is founded on no sound principles, and that it sometimes engages in harmful behavior.

That said, anyone who wishes is welcome to become a Scientologist, despite the absurdity of that belief system.

I am not intolerant of individual Scientologists. I simple believe that the "religion" is a sham, concocted by a charlatan. Still, if someone believes that, they're welcome to, but I do not have to accept their statements without challenging them.

Tolerance is simply not objecting to someone who believes something. Telling a person that you do not believe what they believe and why is not intolerance.

There are clear definitions for words. Straying from those definitions is an error.

I tolerate all religious belief. That in no way restricts me from challenging any belief system. The decision whether or not to believe something lies solely with the individual, and they're welcome to believe anything they can.

I am, however, very intolerant of people who make attempts to coerce me to believe as they do in any way. Very intolerant, indeed.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. "Why is it an atheist can't just say he doesn't know?" Why do the magically minded lie?

We always say we don't know, that's the point, we don't know, hence we don't create believe in things to make ourselves feel better.

[MineralMan]

24. Thank you.

We don't insist on knowing. We leave that to others. We insist, however, on continuing to study and learn. That seems enough, to me, and will take far longer than my lifetime. Human beings continue to learn, as long as they try to learn.

[mother earth]

28. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point.

[mother earth]

29. Magically minded? I'm not sure who or what you refer to, but I'm guessing it's those who

hold those awful "supernatural" beliefs...and "supernatural" being by your standards and definition. Suffice it to say much of what Science considers theory - until proven might be lumped together with "magical minded" thinking. Just sayin...

Read my other posts on the subject, rinse and repeat until you have a measure of tolerance that includes those you deem "magically minded"....no one here has all the answers on any subject.

Have a nice day, and I hope you feel good, despite your lack of tolerance of those you deem less than yourself. I don't know anyone creating a belief in things to feel better...unless you are trying to start a war on the Religion board, of all places....apparently war is not just for religious crusaders as many an atheist would like to believe. I don't take insult to what you have said, since I am not particularly religious, but I like to practice tolerance of other beliefs and admit there's a whioe area of science that could be considered magical to the ill informed.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. So not only do you misrepresent atheists, but the scientific process as well?

Why the fuck should I tolerate misrepresentations and lies? That's all you are spouting, and when I object to LIES, you claim I'm intolerant?

[Leontius]

9. I think people just seek order and purpose in life as a way of feeling safe somehow.

It seems to calm their fear of the often violent and random acts we see around us all the time whether by nature or fellow humans.

[MineralMan]

14. Possibly, but I don't see much evidence that such things

actually reduce fear to any significant degree. Indeed, I often see people who have very strong religious beliefs who are among the most fearful people I know. So, it doesn't seem to me like that trick really works.

We are part of nature and nature is, as Darwin was fond of saying, "red in tooth and claw." Most of us kill freely, or have others kill for us, so we can eat. We are sometimes killed, as well, by other natural creatures, from sub-optically small viruses to other examples of our own species. Nature. It's a reality. Science, invented by humans, has managed to stave off some of the risks that kill humans. Religion, I believe, has never managed any such thing. Reason can protect. Religion can only pretend to protect.

No, I don't see the calming effect or fear-reduction of religion or supernatural beliefs of any kind. I just don't see it at all.

[YankeyMCC]

25. Karma isn't some kind

of cosmic or deist judgement.

It is actions and isn't separate from the reality of owning those actions. Whatever karma led to Trayvon Martin to be in that place at that time was his own karma not the universes or some deity's. And the same for the shooter.

And still Simmons choose to take the action of killing Trayvon with his weapon that action is his and only he can answer for it, to himself and the loved ones of Trayvon and the community at large.

Karma isn't an excuse it is a responsibility (maybe still not the best word but I think a much better fit than how it is often talked about)

[MineralMan]

35. I reject the entire idea of karma.

If you can show me some real, measurable evidence that such a thing exists, I will consider it. Until then, it's just another word that describes something that doesn't exist. More mumbo-jumbo, I think.

The concept exists in several religions, and each defines it differently. There's not even agreement among them about what karma actually is. You attempt an explanation, but it doesn't work. For an atheist, karma is just another bit of supernatural nonsense.

[YankeyMCC]

36. I was responding to the implication that Karma

is an idea equivalent of 'gods will' or 'fate'

Not trying to convince you that it exists.

In fact it doesn't 'exist' it is just word to describe owning and being responsible for the choices you make in life. And again, just explaining the idea and how the concept is different from the others you group it in with.

[MineralMan]

39. In the Vedanta tradition, karma is indeed

connected to supreme beings. As I said, it's definition and application depends on which religion you're looking at. You make a common mistake in believing that others don't understand things. On DU, that's often not true.

[2ndAmForComputers]

32. No, wait, let me guess.

It was one of those forums with a permanent soundtrack of a musical instrument that you play without touching and was invented by a Russian.

[MineralMan]

34. What on Earth does a theremin have to do with

this thread? Your post makes no sense at all. On the other hand, I built a Theremin in 1962, and used it in several musical groups I belonged to. It was a fun thing to play. It has nothing whatever to do with Trayvon Martin's death, however. I tossed it a few years later, and it's rotting in a landfill in California.

[2ndAmForComputers]

37. Sorry. In-joke. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[MineralMan]

38. Move along?

You're the one that brought up something that has nothing to do with this thread. You moved in, and now you want me to "move along." Nope, I won't oblige you. Again, what was the point of your post in this thread? It seems pointless and off-topic to me, so I wonder why you took the time to post it. I'll be happy to hear your explanation.

I don't do in-jokes when I'm not part of the in-group to which they're amusing.

[ZombieHorde]

40. "the death of Trayvon Martin was "pre-ordained" in some way"

If we live in a deterministic universe, then Martin's death was pro-ordained by cause and effect.

[MineralMan]

41. Do we live in a deterministic universe, do you think?

Perhaps in a scientific setting, we do, since cause and effect are part of science. Put human beings into the picture, though, and determinism falls apart.

With humans, events are not pre-ordained at all in a temporal sense.

[ZombieHorde]

42. I have read about particles which come into existence without a known cause,

but quantum mechanics is above my education, so I can't speak very intelligently on that subject.

Do humans live outside of the laws of cause and effect? Does causation not apply to our thoughts and behavior? Does one thing not lead to another on the subject of human beings? These are difficult questions to answer.

On a large scale, we know we can manipulate human behavior with social programs and education/propaganda.

We also know "outsiders" exist. Do outsiders live outside of cause and effect, or are there simply different causes at play?

[MineralMan]

43. With living things, there are too many variables for it to be

a deterministic system

As for your outsiders, I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

[ZombieHorde]

44. How can we be sure every variable doesn't have one or more direct causes?

As for your outsiders, I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

I was trying to say we can predict and control the behavior of most people by manipulating their environment, such as increasing or decreasing social programs. The "outsiders" are those who are more difficult to predict or control through manipulation of society.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. It depends on how broad or narrow you want to be, and also whether it applies to an individual...

or the species itself.

For example, in a broad sense, what I'm about to say applies to the life of human beings, when we are born, we will, within the first few years of life, learn language and motor skills that will serve us the rest of our lives. By the time we reach 12-13 years of age, we will realize we are attracted to other people sexually, by the time we are 18, we will have had at least one sexual experience, by 30 most of us would have married one or multiple times, by the time we are 40 we would have reproduced at least once. We may live well past that age, until we finally die, around 70-80 years old.

Now, this is extremely general, and it fails on the individual level in timing, mostly, but also in other ways, because we generally have a choice, not necessarily complete free will, we are shaped by our environment, our biology, and our reason. Most people follow this pattern that I mentioned above, simply because it follows what most of us experienced in our environment and in our biology. Its common, in all of us, but within such a pattern there is variation, and that is what throws the spanner in the works, so to speak. So in general terms, its deterministic, but in specifics its not.

The variation isn't nearly as great as believed, simply because we emphasize the outliers without bothering to check how much of the population they truly represent. However, just as in evolution, human behavior can change over time, the determination can change over time. What use this has is in probabilities only, not in individual action. Given the environment Zimmerman was raised in, it increased the probability that something like what happened to Martin would happen, that Zimmerman would shoot someone. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility however, because the ultimate decision to pull the gun and fire was his alone. We have the capability to break from determinism when necessary.