Accountable for our beliefs

[levi501]

wow!

What fresh madness is this !

Belief in something is not a choice, this is so wonderfully simple it surprises me people are even trying to defend this comic assertion that one 'chooses' to believe.

If belief was a choice, I would simply go 'shopping' around the numerous faiths (every one the 'true' and 'only' faith) to see which one offered the best 'deal', the one which appealed most to my sensibilities and desires.

Maybe this is what theists do, or would do outside of the influence of parental and cultural indoctrination.

yep so simple... yet disturbing for some because it makes them feel less special or superior in their religion.

 

[elman]

How do you know? Can you see my desktop, and do you see what I see on it?


No, I have not said nor implied anything to that effect. I have said what you can reread in my previous post. You yourself were the one who started judging things "insane".

I was merely talking about beliefs being the result of individual information, perception, experiences, disposition etc. - as opposed to arbitrarily chosen.
You are different than me in all those respects, and therefore I could and would never make any statement about you.

I made the wild assumption the green elephant was not there-how presumptious I am. I don't arbitrarily chose to believe in the existence of a reason for my existence. I use individual information, perception, experiences, disposition, reasoning etc. I am not however forced into that belief but chose it on my own.

 

[elman]

Loving ones neighbor being a good Idea and all, it is simply not the point.

Almost every religion ever in existence sought to impose both a cultural morality through a linked set of metaphysical beliefs (In this case one should love thy neighbor because of a Christian God). The moralities of any religion may have been either superior or inferior to one another but that never proves the God, it proves the morality was better suited to forming a particular society’s

Personally I have few issues with Christian morality, and I will never speak much if any ill words of any Christian who actually practices it or those who sincerely attempt to practice it. There are objective reasons why the tenants of such a moral system are worthwhile that have nothing to do with a belief in God. It is a good example of how to live. My problem has never been practicing morality (I try to do my best), it is the faith, and I simply don't have it. I don’t think I could choose to have it either, any more than any of you could choose to believe in any religion you don’t already believe in.

If it were true that truth in a moral system lead directly to the truth of a metaphysical system that was attached to it, we could say, abstract back from say the inherent truths found in Buddhism (which reads a lot like Christianity to me) to say that Nirvana and reincarnation are realities..

Is this a reasonable conclusion?

In my opinion it is not a reasonable conclusion. People are being converted all the time into a belief different than the one they were born into. This means we can chose and it means we are not trapped into the belief we are born into. Futher in my opinion faith in the Christian God is about loving your neighbor and not about simple intellectual assent to existence. Paul taught that faith without love is worthless. James said faith without works is dead. Jesus said it not those who say Lord, Lord, but those who do what I say and He said the entire law of God is summed up in loving God and He said we love God by loving each other. This all reasonates with what I felt inside to be true. I think we are all given the ability to love and the knowledge that to love is good and to hate or be cruel to others is not good. We are not all given the knowledge that reincarnation is real.

 

[quatona]

I am not however forced into that belief

What do you mean - forced? By another person? That´s not my claim.

but chose it on my own.

Fine. I don´t.

 

[icbeckyc]

Fine. I don´t.

I think that is our point. We can choose. What you see is not what I see so we can make separate choices. We are both looking at the world and asking the question do I see God. You say you don't see him when I say I do see him.

 

[levi501]

Futher in my opinion faith in the Christian God is about loving your neighbor and not about simple intellectual assent to existence.

How I honestly interpret this is... that it doesn't matter if there is a god as christian doctrine of love is a moral truth. Personally my own code of morality agrees. But the truth about the existence of god isn't contingent on how well a religion resonates with your moral code.

Paul taught that faith without love is worthless. James said faith without works is dead. Jesus said it not those who say Lord, Lord, but those who do what I say and He said the entire law of God is summed up in loving God and He said we love God by loving each other.

I disagree with 99% of what you type, but I feel compelled to point out where we agree.

I believe "love" to be the sole doctrine of christianity... and is infact a humanist mandate by jesus himself.
Matt 22:36-4
Rom 13:8-10
Gal 5:14

 

[JustJack!]

If your could you would be insane. Are you saying my choice to believe I was created for a reason and the Creator is interested in my loving others makes me as insane as you believing in the green elephant?

For me, yes. Or at least your paticular version of things.

No...because of sin and choosing to reject God's forgiveness.

I've never rejected God. I've only rejected what Christians have told me about God.

If you do that, you are the only one in which to blame.

Lot of people have never heard of your God. Lot of people are brainwashed into their own local religious sect at an early age, in countries where conversion gets your hung. That kinda stacks the odds, doesn't it. Are the still responsible.

Excuses are meaningless because you choose to sin everyday.

I choose not to be enslaved to a false religion and it's oppressive, insane rules, and logical absurdities and extremely cruel Deity.

You decide to fufil your will over God's on a daily basis.

1. God wants me help, He'll let me know.

2. God wants something done, he doesn't need my help.

The fact is, there is no good to sin at all. Sins effects is already messing up society and having a harmful effect on folks now......claiming that sin, which is the choice of doing your will over God's, isn't harmful and has no affect on folks is inaccurate because sin is an action.

If that's sin, then I have never once sinned. Again, if God wants me to do something, He'll let me know. Your Bible, your preist, your religion isn't God and sure as hell isn't good enough to speak for God. .

I'll make it real clear for ya'll. The sky is blue. I can not look up, and believe the sky is red. I can pretend it's red, I can act like it's red, but in my heart of hearts, I will know it isn't red.

Same with Christianity. It just doesn't make any sence. I can go though to motion, pretend to break down and cry Jesus, but it won't be sincere. It would be an insurance policy, and a bad one at that.

Now if I'm to be held accountable for your religions' lack of evidence, your religions' hypocracy, your religions' illogical assertions, then so be it. I will stand before your God, and tell Him just why I never believed in him by name, because He did such a ****poor job getting His message across.

Because it is the truth.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

wow!

What fresh madness is this !

Belief in something is not a choice, this is so wonderfully simple it surprises me people are even trying to defend this comic assertion that one 'chooses' to believe.

If belief was a choice, I would simply go 'shopping' around the numerous faiths (every one the 'true' and 'only' faith) to see which one offered the best 'deal', the one which appealed most to my sensibilities and desires.

Maybe this is what theists do, or would do outside of the influence of parental and cultural indoctrination.

There are people that serve God when everything in their mind and everyone they know and love tells them otherwise and tells them and even supposedly 'shows' what they believe is 'false'. Are these people indocrinated into believing? Did they not choose to do so by choice? Did something/one force them to choose one way and not the other. And I'm not talking about influence, I'm talking about willfully against the odds even choosing what they do...

 

[quatona]

I think that is our point.

Sorry, I don´t understand who this "our" is in this sentence.
Your and my point? Yours and elmans? That of Christians?...

We can choose.

I have understood that this is your claim. What however I am looking for is a substantiation.

What you see is not what I see so we can make separate choices.

Can we agree, that this is not a logical conclusion, but a non-sequitur, i.e. but a mere assertion?

We are both looking at the world and asking the question do I see God. You say you don't see him when I say I do see him.

Yes, we can agree upon that. Does being different from each constitute things/beings to have a choice? That would not match the definition of choice I am working with.
But it´s not only that I say so, but that I don´t see any such character. The choice to say or believe I see him is not really there.

 

[icbeckyc]

Can we agree, that this is not a logical conclusion, but a non-sequitur, i.e. but a mere assertion?

You mean like the comic...Non-Sequitur....

Sometimes I just crack me up. You shouldn't have used that word(non-sequitur), it was way to funny this morning. lol

Sorry I am very OT. We all need a laugh sometimes.

 

[variant]

In my opinion it is not a reasonable conclusion. People are being converted all the time into a belief different than the one they were born into. This means we can chose and it means we are not trapped into the belief we are born into. Futher in my opinion faith in the Christian God is about loving your neighbor and not about simple intellectual assent to existence. Paul taught that faith without love is worthless. James said faith without works is dead. Jesus said it not those who say Lord, Lord, but those who do what I say and He said the entire law of God is summed up in loving God and He said we love God by loving each other. This all reasonates with what I felt inside to be true. I think we are all given the ability to love and the knowledge that to love is good and to hate or be cruel to others is not good. We are not all given the knowledge that reincarnation is real.

I have doubts that you are even reading me.

Reincarnation is the metaphysical claim, not the moral one. Hinduism and Buddhism make lots of moral claims, some of which are true, which do not lead to the conclusion that reincarnation or nirvana are real.

This is the problem.

Almost all religions make moral claims ("We should love one another", or say, "Desire leads to suffering"), and almost all religions make metaphysical claims (God exists, or say, "Nirvana and reincarnation exist").

The problem is linking the two.

If I agree with you that it is a good idea to love one another (which I do), I don't have to jump to the conclusion that a Christian God exists, any more than If I agree with the idea that desire leads to suffering, I am not committed to the claim that nirvana or reincarnation exist.

The workability of a moral claim doesn’t lead you to a metaphysical truth, it can not. Your argument is moot.

 

[elman]

I have doubts that you are even reading me.

Reincarnation is the metaphysical claim, not the moral one. Hinduism and Buddhism make lots of moral claims, some of which are true, which do not lead to the conclusion that reincarnation or nirvana are real.

This is the problem.

Almost all religions make moral claims ("We should love one another", or say, "Desire leads to suffering"), and almost all religions make metaphysical claims (God exists, or say, "Nirvana and reincarnation exist").

The problem is linking the two.

If I agree with you that it is a good idea to love one another (which I do), I don't have to jump to the conclusion that a Christian God exists, any more than If I agree with the idea that desire leads to suffering, I am not committed to the claim that nirvana or reincarnation exist.

The workability of a moral claim doesn’t lead you to a metaphysical truth, it can not. Your argument is moot.

I have never taken the position that moral claims proved the existence of metaphysical reality but I have said it is some evidence that could make it reasonable to chose one belief system over another. If Jesus says love your neighbor and I already knew before He said it that was a good way to live, then He deserves more credit from me as a bearer of truth than a green elephant on your desk that does not exist or tell you anything.

 

[elman]

What do you mean - forced? By another person? That´s not my claim.

And it was not my claim either. It is your claim we are forced by cirmstances to chose as we do, otherwise you cannot sustain the argument we have no choice.

Fine. I don´t.

I see you using your ability to chose by chosing to believe you don't have any ability to choose-a belief you chose to believe by the way.

 

[elman]

How I honestly interpret this is... that it doesn't matter if there is a god as christian doctrine of love is a moral truth. Personally my own code of morality agrees. But the truth about the existence of god isn't contingent on how well a religion resonates with your moral code.

I don't know what you are saying. It does matter if there is a God who is loving and gives you life after death, otherwise, there is no destiny but the grave.

I disagree with 99% of what you type, but I feel compelled to point out where we agree.

I believe "love" to be the sole doctrine of christianity... and is infact a humanist mandate by jesus himself.
Matt 22:36-4
Rom 13:8-10
Gal 5:14

This is the 1%that matters but I don't agree it is a humanist mandate. It is the teaching of Christianity and I think it is ultimately the only thing that matters. Incidently I don't think it is very important if you are correct or incorrect on the humanist mandate part. I think that 1% is 100% of what really matters.

 

[levi501]

Humanism isn't exclusive to Christianity... in case you're interested.

Christian Humanism

 

[quatona]

I see you using your ability to chose by chosing to believe you don't have any ability to choose-a belief you chose to believe by the way.

Text book example for begging the question.
Nevermind.

 

[quatona]

And it was not my claim either. It is your claim we are forced by cirmstances to chose as we do, otherwise you cannot sustain the argument we have no choice.

Well, "forced" would be a pretty loaded term for that. I haven´t used it, so I would kindly ask you not to paraphrase my statements using it.
Btw, in this thread I have so far just been asking for anything that might justify the assumption that I have a choice in believing what I believe. Other than mere reassertions, circular reasonings and "begging the question" I haven´t seen any suggestions.

 

[variant]

I have never taken the position that moral claims proved the existence of metaphysical reality but I have said it is some evidence that could make it reasonable to chose one belief system over another. If Jesus says love your neighbor and I already knew before He said it that was a good way to live, then He deserves more credit from me as a bearer of truth than a green elephant on your desk that does not exist or tell you anything.

More reasonable on a sliding scale I suppose.

However, the people who believe in other religions feel that they are being perfectly reasonable as well.

Personally I find it all unreasonable, because no religious person is ever consistant about what sorts claims they will accept and which they are skeptical of (I don't even think it's possible by nature of what religion is).

It doesn’t really answer the claim that I could or should jump to the same conclusion as you based on what I see of the world. Nor does it tell me that if you had been brought up a Hindu, and a person of that culture, that you would find Christianity more reasonable. Biases are hard things to look past.

It is more reasonable to believe in a Christian God than to believe in a God that tells you to do ridiculous and contradictory things. But that hardly makes the case for anyone, it simply doesn’t unmake it.

But I never claimed to have any evidence against a Christian God, I just don’t specifically believe in one.

In this scenario we are supposing of course that any God that did exist would have to be reasonable.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I've never rejected God. I've only rejected what Christians have told me about God.



Lot of people have never heard of your God. Lot of people are brainwashed into their own local religious sect at an early age, in countries where conversion gets your hung. That kinda stacks the odds, doesn't it. Are the still responsible.



I choose not to be enslaved to a false religion and it's oppressive, insane rules, and logical absurdities and extremely cruel Deity.



1. God wants me help, He'll let me know.

2. God wants something done, he doesn't need my help.



If that's sin, then I have never once sinned. Again, if God wants me to do something, He'll let me know. Your Bible, your preist, your religion isn't God and sure as hell isn't good enough to speak for God. .

I'll make it real clear for ya'll. The sky is blue. I can not look up, and believe the sky is red. I can pretend it's red, I can act like it's red, but in my heart of hearts, I will know it isn't red.

Same with Christianity. It just doesn't make any sence. I can go though to motion, pretend to break down and cry Jesus, but it won't be sincere. It would be an insurance policy, and a bad one at that.

Now if I'm to be held accountable for your religions' lack of evidence, your religions' hypocracy, your religions' illogical assertions, then so be it. I will stand before your God, and tell Him just why I never believed in him by name, job getting His message across.

Because it is the truth.

If someone tells you something that is truth...(even if you may not believe it, but lets just go on the assumption it is indeed truth)...then are you not rejecting the very truth they claim?

Yes, because no one has any excuse....Plus....there are some that haven't, but there is a vast majority that has......w/ missionaries, TV, internet, and radio...etc...the amt. has greatly increased.

Saying it's false is in and of itself false because you have no proof to say it's false.

How do you know He hasn't let you know?

True...but it's up to you to listen because God won't save you if you don't want it. He gives us choice and thus us responsibility.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you say otherwise you call God a liar and saying His Word is false is calling Him a liar as well...

God wants sincerity. And that's all that'll count anyway because if you are faking, then that's pretty much lying and thus it's not real salvation anyway. I'm not asking you to fake that you believe in God and the Bible and etc...I'm just explaining how no one has any excuse and that all are responsible for their actions.

All I have to say is.....you either believe God or not. In His word, which even in this day He uses and etc..., He has said no one has any excuse, His attributes are clearly visible, and etc....bottom line.

 

[TooCurious]

Having just read through all twelve pages of this thread, it seems as though there are a couple of points where the two sides aren't connecting on a semantic basis.

When I say that I do not choose my beliefs, I am not claiming that any external personal force, be it a god or a person or a group, is "forcing" me to have a certain belief. Rather, when I consider a proposition and seek out evidence that would lead me to a conclusion that the proposition is true or false, it is the evidence itself that compels me to believe yes or no. Saying, "I do not choose my beliefs" is comparable to saying, "The facts compel me in a single direction, and I could not honestly believe otherwise." This is nothing more than intellectual honesty. (And before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, no, I'm not saying that theists are intellectually dishonest; their understanding of the facts simply differs from mine. That doesn't make either the theist or myself any less intellectually honest than the other.)

The other thing I noticed was that some of the Christians here were taking issue with the concept of "belief," saying that faith in God is more than just an intellectual assent to the question of God's existence, but is a complex issue of trust and faith. That's fair, but implicit in that notion of faith is the assertion that the being you're trusting in exists in the first place. It's that element that I, and probably the other atheists here, have trouble with.

As for whether evidence for the existence of God is "clearly visible" or any such thing, the only response I have to that is that it obviously isn't "clearly visible" to me as evidence, because if it were, I would be convinced by it. After all, I don't just arbitrarily decide what things I think exist.