A Choice

[Gadarene]

And yet there are other ways that you choose not to engage in. God, if He exists is not a science experiment. He would be the Creator of everything we see around us and as such should be treated with the respect that would entail. If not, than how sincere of a seeker could you possibly be?

How do you know I haven't engaged in them? I already have, and there was nothing to be found.

I have yet to see a Christian confront the thousands of testimonies out there involving people earnestly seeking God and finding nothing with anything other than denial or what amounts to little better than a character assassination.

On one hand, it's incredibly insulting to have to have one's sincerity questioned on the basis of so little, on the other hand, guff like that is precisely why belief is on the wane, so no skin off my nose.

I'm sorry that our methods are below you.

Equivocation. I don't determine truth by emotional experience, nor do many people. Nor do most Christians or other religious believers for 99% of the events they encounter.

It is a lower standard in that it is simply far less reliable than taking an analytical approach, not that it is "below me".

Would you agree that analytical thought is the source of doubt?

And also the best source of certainty. Both are very good things.

I was replying to Mark's article of analytic thinkers and how they are less likely to be religious. You are taking this out of context. And you should really stop making statements like "the arguments aren't compelling", when you are compelled to sit in front of a computer and argue with me about them on a saturday afternoon. It's kind of a silly thing to say when you think about it.

Equivocation again.

"Compelling" - as in true or convincing, not "compelling" as in engaging or diverting.

I beg to differ and the dramatic rise in students taking philosophy of religion would also differ with your opinion. Christ was fighting the opressors of His Kingdom on the theological landscape. You might not like what He taught, but the fact is He was a teacher and valued education.

He may have valued education, but he wasn't tearing down one theological elite just to replace it with another.

Secondly, if Jesus was who He claimed to be, than you have no idea what kind of methods He would use or His reasons for using them. This is simply an assertion which cannot be verified. As a matter of fact, do you think that a statement such as "not come up with really neat modal logic ontological "proofs" of God 2000 years after the horse has bolted" can be verified by your own methods of verification? If Christ was who He claimed to be than He can do whatever He wants.

Right, which is what I was assuming. That implies that the accounts about him that he apparently divinely inspired are correct, and the exhortation is for his disciples to be miracle workers, not philosophers.

My overarching point is - what accounts we have of Christianity pledge miracles, not high-falutin' philosophy, none of which has consistently held up. You could convince more people far more rapidly with such actions, but they are apparently impossible.

My own belief is that things such as the Ontological arguments for God's existence is not to win over legions of followers, but to show people like yourself that there IS intelectual stimulation found in God and that His existence will not be dismissed as easy as skeptics claim.

I don't believe I claimed that it wasn't intellectually stimulating, but stimulating is a far cry from whether it is actually true - or not.

Once again you are taking me out of context as I was talking about trying different methods of discovering truth. Christian philosophers ARE playing this game on your terms; using logic and reason to make it intellectually viable that God exists.

So? Christian philosophers can hardly be said to be massively willing to sacrifice what they think they know to be true either. It seems like somewhat of a double standard in that you're only levelling this criticism at atheists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In regards to open-mindedness, is one not being open-minded by trying all avenues?

Where should I start? With Aztec sacrifices? And work my way to Zoroastrianism? With a fulfilled billion year contract with the Church of Scientology along the way?

Being open-minded does not mean "trying everything". It simply means being critically reflective, especially regarding new claims, observations, information, etc.

Surely someone who is seeking the truth will be open to all roads discovery and not just one.

Being open to all roads isn't the same thing as attempting to walk all roads, or to take unpromising ones.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

That's bewildering.


Nonetheless, working from an assumption isn't the same as actually believing it, as firmly and surely as you believe the Earth is round or summer is warm. I just can't flip a switch and decide to believe something that has no substantiation. I can't decide to suddenly believe I can fly, and then confidently jump off a cliff. I can't suddenly affirm, attest, abjure, swear, promise, and bind, that where once I never believed in the existence of Lord Krishna, I now do. With or without contrary evidence, I don't see how anyone can do that - not out of intellectual honesty, but physically, how do you do it?

I talked to a guy in the science forum. I said, in order to discuss your question about God, you MUST first accept the assumption that such a God does exist. Otherwise, there is no point to continue. For some reason, the discussion could not pass this beginning threshold. This obviously is the consequence of his "choice".

That is how I started it. Accept the assumption that God exists. Accept the assumption that the Bible IS the words of God. From there, examine the Christian doctrine carefully one by one. For those do not make sense, put it aside and see if it will make sense at a later time. In other words, the study of Christian doctrine is very similar to the study of physics. Except that in physics, we have contents from 101 level to 700 level in good order. But in theology, it is all mixed up. You may hit some information of 600 level right at the beginning. Usually, it is definitely hard to swallow. But, since it took 8-9 years to get a Ph.D. in physics from freshman. One should expect that it would take at least a few years for a person to become familiar with the content of the Bible.

My witness to you is: I am a logic person to the bone since my high school time. That is why it took me a few decades to accept (believe) the Bible. But, thanks to God that He makes me to keep my weak faith hanging there through time. Now I overcame most of the "illogical" part of the Bible (not I become illogical, but the Bible becomes logical) and I think the choice I made when I was 20 is a correct one.

 

[Ken-1122]

I talked to a guy in the science forum. I said, in order to discuss your question about God, you MUST first accept the assumption that such a God does exist. Otherwise, there is no point to continue. For some reason, the discussion could not pass this beginning threshold. This obviously is the consequence of his "choice".

I think your friend has probably gotten it backwards. Once you already believe God exists, what’s the point to continue discussing his existence? You already believe!
I will bet there are plenty of subjects your friend can discuss without believing them to be true, such as whether or not 911 was an inside job, life on other planets, evolution etc.
I think your friend was a little off track on that one.

K

 

[ImperfectGirl]

Well.. I believe that you either choose or you don't choose to believe. As you *choose* not to believe or to believe, it makes belief a choice.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well.. I believe that you either choose or you don't choose to believe. As you *choose* not to believe or to believe, it makes belief a choice.

So, could you, right here and now, choose not to believe in something you currently do believe in?

 

[KCfromNC]

So, could you, right here and now, choose not to believe in something you currently do believe in?

For example, from my previous post, one should be able to choose to honestly believe that belief is not a choice to prove their idea right. Therefore anyone answering yes to this survey is providing evidence that their idea is wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

I think your friend has probably gotten it backwards. Once you already believe God exists, what’s the point to continue discussing his existence? You already believe!
I will bet there are plenty of subjects your friend can discuss without believing them to be true, such as whether or not 911 was an inside job, life on other planets, evolution etc.
I think your friend was a little off track on that one.

K

No. His question was: why is your God so cruel?

 

[juvenissun]

So, could you, right here and now, choose not to believe in something you currently do believe in?

Yes, it is very easy.

Choose to believe that the bread you eat every day is actually poisonous.

The important thing is: so what? Are you going to keep eating it or not? If you do, then what does that "belief" mean?

For me, I will start to explore what are the exact ingredients in the bread and are they really safe even in trace amount. Or, I start to make my own bread.

There has to have something happened once you made a different choice.

 

[pgp_protector]

I wasn't being sarcastic. In regards to open-mindedness, is one not being open-minded by trying all avenues? Surely someone who is seeking the truth will be open to all roads discovery and not just one.

So are you open minded?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, it is very easy.

Choose to believe that the bread you eat every day is actually poisonous.

The important thing is: so what? Are you going to keep eating it or not? If you do, then what does that "belief" mean?

For me, I will start to explore what are the exact ingredients in the bread and are they really safe even in trace amount. Or, I start to make my own bread.

There has to have something happened once you made a different choice.

Well, yea, that's the point. If you truly can choose to believe that bread is, in fact, poisonous, you'll probably stop eating immediately. So could you? I couldn't. I currently believe that bread isn't poisonous, based on the evidence. I literally cannot choose to believe the bread is poisonous.

Suppose you're in a sensory deprivation tank, and someone texts you saying it's raining outside your house. But someone else simultaneously texts you saying it's sunny and dry outside. Could you choose to believe one or the other? I couldn't. I can assume one or the other, and act accordingly, but I wouldn't actually believe it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, it is very easy.

Choose to believe that the bread you eat every day is actually poisonous.

The important thing is: so what? Are you going to keep eating it or not? If you do, then what does that "belief" mean?

For me, I will start to explore what are the exact ingredients in the bread and are they really safe even in trace amount. Or, I start to make my own bread.

There has to have something happened once you made a different choice.

Unless there is something mentally wrong with you, I don’t think you would be able to believe the bread is poisonous unless you had a reason to believe it was. As I said before, belief happens after reason and logic demands it, not before.
You have no choice in the matter however you can choose to direct your research in one direction or another; omitting some evidence and focusing on others, doing so might convince you one way or another, but that is not the same as simply the same as choosing to believe.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

No. His question was: why is your God so cruel?

actually my point still stands; you can still discuss "why his God is so cruel" without believing his God exists.

Ken

 

[juvenissun]

actually my point still stands; you can still discuss "why his God is so cruel" without believing his God exists.

Ken

On the surface, it seems you can.
But ultimately, you can not. The last argument you will hit in the discussion/debating is the existence of God. There is no solution to this question.

 

[juvenissun]

Unless there is something mentally wrong with you, I don’t think you would be able to believe the bread is poisonous unless you had a reason to believe it was. As I said before, belief happens after reason and logic demands it, not before.
You have no choice in the matter however you can choose to direct your research in one direction or another; omitting some evidence and focusing on others, doing so might convince you one way or another, but that is not the same as simply the same as choosing to believe.

K

I think it is very very rare for one who made a choice, then immediately believe.

Case closed on this argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, yea, that's the point. If you truly can choose to believe that bread is, in fact, poisonous, you'll probably stop eating immediately. So could you? I couldn't. I currently believe that bread isn't poisonous, based on the evidence. I literally cannot choose to believe the bread is poisonous.

Suppose you're in a sensory deprivation tank, and someone texts you saying it's raining outside your house. But someone else simultaneously texts you saying it's sunny and dry outside. Could you choose to believe one or the other? I couldn't. I can assume one or the other, and act accordingly, but I wouldn't actually believe it.

That means you do not make a choice. Then the case is not related to the OP.

By the way, I do believe some bread is poisonous if one takes it for, say, 25 years. Be careful. The food industry is not as innocent as you think. Have you heard recently that some Lipton tea bags contain too much rare elements and pesticides?

 

[Ken-1122]

On the surface, it seems you can.
But ultimately, you can not. The last argument you will hit in the discussion/debating is the existence of God. There is no solution to this question.

A solution is not necessary in order for the discussion to take place. My argument stands

K

 

[Ken-1122]

I think it is very very rare for one who made a choice, then immediately believe.

Case closed on this argument.

why is it rare? Why is it rare to search out evidence for an issue, then immediately believe the evidence found? Why is this rare?

K

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Yes

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes

OK. Can you choose, here and now, to believe that I am an extra-terrestrial?