Accountable for our beliefs

[icbeckyc]

Yes, indeed. Circular reasoning plus begging the question.
You seem to be argmenting from the idea that the existence of hypothetical alternatives constitutes a choice already. This is certainly not so. A leaf can remain on the tree, or it can fall down. Two options, no choice.

A leaf on a tree can make a decision or a choice? Wow now that is something I will have to begin studing. I never new.

Ok but seriously. Part of a belief is an

1. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

We can chose to believe or not to believe. Like my youngest is always coming home with stories that these two friends at school tell her. They are wild and completely not true. But for some reason with these couple of girls she believes everything they say. My daughter thinks it is real. I think they are full of poop. So we are both making a decision with the same data and coming to different conclusions. So there is a choice.

The point is we come to conclusions based on knowledge as well as some experience. Like in the questions you asked I make a choice based on the knowledge. Ask the same question posed by Telephone to a 6 year old and you may or may not get the same answers or beliefs.

One last point for the day. My brother, right now says he doesn't believe in God. Well I truely believe it's really he is just mad at God and (plus my mom and dad are trying to force him to go to church) he doesn't want to believe right now. When I talk to him he will say things that imply there is still a belief, but then stops. I don't go at him like my parents do, so he is a little more open with me. I know they are hacking him off and because of that he is refusing to go back to the point he was. He is forcing himself to have a belief.

 

[quatona]

A leaf on a tree can make a decision or a choice? Wow now that is something I will have to begin studing. I never new.

Well, actually I said "no choice".
I don´t know that humans have choice, either, and I was under the impression that we were commonly studying the question what demonstrates a difference to be based on "choice".

Ok but seriously. Part of a belief is an

1. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

I think I can agree with the first sentence. I have no idea though whom the "His" in the second sentence refers to.
And, once you have started with" 1.", where´s "2.", "3."....?

We can chose to believe or not to believe.

I do have understood that to be your hypothesis. What however I am actually hoping for is some supporting argumentation.

Like my youngest is always coming home with stories that these two friends at school tell her. They are wild and completely not true. But for some reason with these couple of girls she believes everything they say. My daughter thinks it is real. I think they are full of poop. So we are both making a decision with the same data and coming to different conclusions. So there is a choice.

You haven´t shown that. What you merely have shown that people react differently to the same information. Like some leaves falling off the tree due to the wind blowing and others don´t. You have simply ascribed that to "choice" and "decision" without actually showing it.
Differences don´t constitute choice or decision yet - I think we have agreed on that, looking at the example of the leaves.

The point is we come to conclusions based on knowledge as well as some experience. Like in the questions you asked I make a choice based on the knowledge. Ask the same question posed by Telephone to a 6 year old and you may or may not get the same answers or beliefs.

Yes, people react differently. Has never been disputed, I think. Now based on what do you conclude certain differences to be choices/decisions?

One last point for the day. My brother, right now says he doesn't believe in God. Well I truely believe it's really he is just mad at God and (plus my mom and dad are trying to force him to go to church) he doesn't want to believe right now. When I talk to him he will say things that imply there is still a belief, but then stops. I don't go at him like my parents do, so he is a little more open with me. I know they are hacking him off and because of that he is refusing to go back to the point he was. He is forcing himself to have a belief.

Thanks for sharing your mind-readings concerning your brother. I fail to see, though, how this contributes anything to solving the problem in question.

 

[icbeckyc]

Well, actually I said "no choice".
I don´t know that humans have choice, either, and I was under the impression that we were commonly studying the question what demonstrates a difference to be based on "choice".
[/list]I think I can agree with the first sentence. I have no idea though whom the "His" in the second sentence refers to.
And, once you have started with" 1.", where´s "2.", "3."....?
I do have understood that to be your hypothesis. What however I am actually hoping for is some supporting argumentation.


You haven´t shown that. What you merely have shown that people react differently to the same information. Like some leaves falling off the tree due to the wind blowing and others don´t. You have simply ascribed that to "choice" and "decision" without actually showing it.
Differences don´t constitute choice or decision yet - I think we have agreed on that, looking at the example of the leaves.


Yes, people react differently. Has never been disputed, I think. Now based on what do you conclude certain differences to be choices/decisions?


Thanks for sharing your mind-readings concerning your brother. I fail to see, though, how this contributes anything to solving the problem in question.

First I will state, as to not confuse people. I haven't figured out how to have multiple quotes yet in a post (haven't really tried but once or twice and it so didn't work). So each paragragh should conicide with quatona post above. I do have to say somethings and then I will bow out of this discussion permantly.

First the leaf thing. I don't "believe" that leafs have anything to do with beliefs, decisions, or choices, because(and this is my supporting information) they have no brain or any such ability to decide if they are going to fly, fall or otherwise. They are completely dependant on their surroundings and if that isn't enough supporting information then try any botany or high school science book.

Ok I didn't realize that the 1 from the on-line dictionary that I took the definition from was copied as well. The sentence was a part of the definition. Seems like common sense would have told you it was a definition, but I definately should have put my source info with it sorry for the confusion.

I believe that I have given my arguement but you and others chose to see it as a lack of support. Too bad you chose to not try to see what someone else is saying. I may be a smart butt sometimes but I do see your point when I realize I have missed something and then I try and redirect and not attack as many of you do.

The point that I am have been trying to make, apparently unsuccesfully, is our choices and decisions affect our beliefs. Plus more tree and wind unnecessary nonsupporting information.

Lastly how dare you think that I am mind reading with my brother. I am very sorry if you seem to be having problems with your siblings I do not. I had a point I was try to make and instead of thinking and reading you chose to just mind read yourself and my point was lost so I will leave it at that.

 

[quatona]

icbecky,
since you seem to have lost interest in continuing the conversation, there seems to be no point in responding to each of your paragraphs.
Please allow me to just communicate an observation, that may or may not help illustrating my point.

I haven't figured out how to have multiple quotes yet in a post.

In view of the fact that you keep picturing the processing of informations as a matter of decision (particularly when it comes to opinions which you disagree with) by adding a "you chose to...", wouldn´t there be some consistency in rewording the above statement to "I chose to be unable to figure out...."?

 

[icbeckyc]

icbecky,

In view of the fact that you keep picturing the processing of informations as a matter of decision (particularly when it comes to opinions which you disagree with) by adding a "you chose to...", wouldn´t there be some consistency in rewording the above statement to "I chose to be unable to figure out...."?

You crack me up. lol How about I chose to be lazy.

 

[TooCurious]

On the contrary, I was not putting words in TooCurious' mouth, I was mearly using her words and forming my own sentences. I was not drawing incorrect conclusions from her posts just using a play on words for more dramatics.

Actually, you were putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that all evidence would lead people to my conclusions, and if you're claiming that I did, please stop lying about me. What I said was that evidence (whatever a given person accepts as evidence) leads a person to a single conclusion. Is that clearer?

You either have totally misunderstood my statement or blatantly chose to disregard my point entirely.

Then perhaps you will explain it more clearly this time.

My point is not hard to understand, but it seems that people are complicating it tremedously. Why are you an athiest? Did your evidence just "force" you to believe as you are implying or did you come to a point where you decided that through your understanding that it was the best for you?

The evidence did force me, in fact. Coming to atheism was a realization on my part, not a choice. I didn't wake up one morning and say, "You know what? I think I'll stop believing in God." Rather, over a period of time, I learned things that made me realize, "Wait; this whole idea of God doesn't make sense. No wonder I've never really been comfortable with it. It looks like 'atheism' is the best word to describe my ideas. Huh."

I can guarantee that it is the latter.

Your attempt at mind-reading fails dramatically.

Another thing is that issue that you said of "lying to oneself" is just your opinion and people who might disagree with might think that you are "lying to oneself" and then we got two people who believe to different. Again it is because you once chose to believe that people were lying to themselves.

You apparently misunderstood what I said rather dramatically. I think a person is "lying to himself" if he attempts to make himself believe something which he otherwise understands as false, without the addition of any evidence to persuade him of the thing's veracity.

For me, attempting to believe that God exists would be lying to myself, because I would otherwise consider the proposition false and I have no evidence to support God's existence. Some other people might have what they accept as persuasive evidence for God's existence, and so would not be lying to themselves in believing in God. However, you would probably be lying to yourself if you tried to believe that you were a giraffe.

One more thing about the "giraffe" example is that we don't only choose to believe, we also choose not to believe. If someone told me that I was giraffe then I have choice to believe it or not to believe it. I chose to believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ, I chose to believe in Creationism over evolution, etc... I chose all of these beliefs because of the evidence that I found to be the most accurate. Everything is a choice whether you believe it or not, which incidentally is also choice. It all seems to come full circle.

But if you have a "choice" to believe or not, then you don't need evidence. It may be the more logical "choice" to believe what the evidence indicates, but you still have the "choice" to believe the opposite. So please, demonstrate your power to choose your beliefs, and believe sincerely and completely that you are a giraffe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

If you require evidence to "choose" to believe something, then you're not really choosing; the evidence is determining what you believe by supporting the statement that strikes you as the most rational. A "choice" would mean that you could just as easily believe something contrary to the evidence. Otherwise, belief simply follows evidence along the path of logic, and there's no arbitrary "choosing" involved. So; are you a giraffe?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Ok, this is not an easy one!

Please read the points below and tell me if you think any are correct or not.

________


A) God knows my fate, be it heaven or hell.

B) He has known my fate for all eternity.

C) 5000 years before my birth, god knew I would be a non-believer.

D) Omnipotence negates mistake, he cannot be wrong about my fate.

E) Regardless of my actions or attempts to outwit god, the fate that awaits me, the fate he has know for all eternity, is the fate that will greet me on death.


_________


Do we agree on these basic points ? please say if you consider any to be wrong and I will try and clarify my point or, if shown it to be wrong, withdraw it.

_________

I have an issue w/ 'E'. No one can outwit God, correct, but having choices and choosing isn't outwitting Him. What He knows is what we have willfully chosen. Thus we are responsible.

 

[Godfixated]

Actually, you were putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that all evidence would lead people to my conclusions, and if you're claiming that I did, please stop lying about me. What I said was that evidence (whatever a given person accepts as evidence) leads a person to a single conclusion. Is that clearer?



Then perhaps you will explain it more clearly this time.



The evidence did force me, in fact. Coming to atheism was a realization on my part, not a choice. I didn't wake up one morning and say, "You know what? I think I'll stop believing in God." Rather, over a period of time, I learned things that made me realize, "Wait; this whole idea of God doesn't make sense. No wonder I've never really been comfortable with it. It looks like 'atheism' is the best word to describe my ideas. Huh."



Your attempt at mind-reading fails dramatically.



You apparently misunderstood what I said rather dramatically. I think a person is "lying to himself" if he attempts to make himself believe something which he otherwise understands as false, without the addition of any evidence to persuade him of the thing's veracity.

For me, attempting to believe that God exists would be lying to myself, because I would otherwise consider the proposition false and I have no evidence to support God's existence. Some other people might have what they accept as persuasive evidence for God's existence, and so would not be lying to themselves in believing in God. However, you would probably be lying to yourself if you tried to believe that you were a giraffe.



But if you have a "choice" to believe or not, then you don't need evidence. It may be the more logical "choice" to believe what the evidence indicates, but you still have the "choice" to believe the opposite. So please, demonstrate your power to choose your beliefs, and believe sincerely and completely that you are a giraffe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

If you require evidence to "choose" to believe something, then you're not really choosing; the evidence is determining what you believe by supporting the statement that strikes you as the most rational. A "choice" would mean that you could just as easily believe something contrary to the evidence. Otherwise, belief simply follows evidence along the path of logic, and there's no arbitrary "choosing" involved. So; are you a giraffe?

Actually, you know what's funny, is that I didn't put a single word in your mouth. I was basically just telling you my own opinion about how you and many others like you who I have talked to, that think that evidence can only be believed one way, it seems, and that evidence compels one to believe a certain way. It has really nothing to do with what you were saying and more to do about my preconceived notions being correct.

What's funny is that realization is, in essence a choice. The phrase "I came to a realization..." is the same as "I chose to realize.." You must not understand that you can not realize something until you come to the free will choice to realize it. Nothing "makes" you or "forces" you to believe in something, you must decide that your conclusion is in line with the evidence. Decision leads to a choice and if anyone is "made" to believe something through evidence, then they must be CD-R because their beliefs are being written on them and they have no control. Are you a CD-R? No, you are a human being.

What's funny is that your perception of what is false is only based on opinions from conclusions that you drew up through experiences, yet not everyone agrees with you; so, evidence cannot simply "make" someone believe because there are so many conclusions that can be drawn from the same evidence, which people through their unique experiences decide are right. You, also, bring up a point that people need evidence to believe, which is totally false. People do not require evidence to believe something is real. Take a look at the Geologic Column, there is no evidence for it. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, yet people are adamant to believe it. People believe in black holes, even I believe in black holes; yet, there really is no evidence to support the concept except the word of scientists. People believe in crop circles, yet we know that artists make them. People chose to believe everything regardless of evidence. I have already said the same point over and over, either you have an understanding or not because I was hoping to move on in this debate, yet you and Telephone keeping me saying the same thing over and over. What I don't understand is that I am describing a very basic concept of modern psychology and I didn't expect such an opposition to something that is widely accepted by the psychological and scientific communities.

 

[Telephone]

.....but having choices and choosing isn't outwitting Him (god)....

This is correct, having choices is not outwitting god, I am not so sure I remember saying otherwise.

What He knows is what we have willfully chosen.

Yes of course he knows everything, he knows all the choices we are to make from before we are born.

If he knows I am to be born, 'sin', lack belief in him and die in a hotel at the age of 64 on the outskirts or Berlin from a heroin overdose, then that is what will happen.

He cannot be wrong, he knew these details from before I was born, these details cannot be changed.

I may make choices, but they are the only choices I can make, to make differing choices, to believe in him, to reject drug taking, to become a pastor would render his foreknowledge incorrect.

He cannot be wrong - I cannot change what he knows will be my fate.

I have no choice as to the path my life will take if we believe in an omniscient diety with inerrant foreknowledge.

Thus we are responsible.

Lilly, if you were wholly honest would you say that this view is at least partially held by a need to validate some aspects of Christian theology ?

 

[elman]

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.

Your not seeing them is your choice. It has nothing to do with reality. You like to use responses like mere assertions, circular reasoning and begging the question to avoid engaging on the issue being presented.

 

[elman]

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.

Where do we get the ability to be reasonable if there is no God? How do we know what is reasonable if there is no God? Yes it seems reasonable that God who gave us this ability would be reasonable.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

This is correct, having choices is not outwitting god, I am not so sure I remember saying otherwise.



Yes of course he knows everything, he knows all the choices we are to make from before we are born.

If he knows I am to be born, 'sin', lack belief in him and die in a hotel at the age of 64 on the outskirts or Berlin from a heroin overdose, then that is what will happen.

He cannot be wrong, he knew these details from before I was born, these details cannot be changed.

I may make choices, but they are the only choices I can make, to make differing choices, to believe in him, to reject drug taking, to become a pastor would render his foreknowledge incorrect.

He cannot be wrong - I cannot change what he knows will be my fate.

I have no choice as to the path my life will take if we believe in an omniscient diety with inerrant foreknowledge.


Lilly, if you were wholly honest would you say that this view is at least partially held by a need to validate some aspects of Christian theology ?

We do choose the path. I am having a hard time putting it any clearer than I have...you just aren't getting it....

No...It's fact. The fact is, God said He is one way, I believe Him.....thus anything that says otherwise is off.

 

[Telephone]

What's funny is that realization is, in essence a choice. The phrase "I came to a realization..." is the same as "I chose to realize.."

Agenda driven nonesense !

To 'realize' is the act of becoming fully aware of something as a fact.

To say "I came to a realization" means "I became aware fully of something as a fact"

Does it make sense to say "I chose to become aware of something fully as a fact" ?

You must not understand that you can not realize something until you come to the free will choice to realize it.

Are you now saying that we chose to realize something !?

What fresh madness is this ! LOL!

So we choose to believe something and we also choose to realize something !!

If I am cycling through ol' London town and suddenly realize that I have left the gas fire on at home, did I honestly choose to realize this ?

Or if I suddenly realize that I have taken the wrong road, did I honestly choose to realize this ?

Nonesense, please can't we all be honest here and make some ground on these difficult questions, instead of putting forward increasingly nonsesne ideas to protect religious notions!

Nothing "makes" you or "forces" you to believe in something, you must decide that your conclusion is in line with the evidence.

Your conclusions must be in line with the evidence.

Your conclusions inform your beliefs.

Your beliefs are reliant upon the evidence.


When you say nothing makes you believe in something this is entirely wrong.

If I see a house on fire, I believe the house is on fire, I am forced to believe this by the visual, auditory and sensory evidence, from heat shock proteins telling my brain that my skin is warm where it faces the fire, from the sight of fire engines racing all around me, from the sight of firemen, from the sight of the crowd of similary curious people doing as I do watching the fire.

I am compelled to believe the house I see in front of me is on fire.

I cannot choose to believe the house is not on fire.

Equally I do not choose to believe the house is on fire.

I choose nothing, I am led to my belief by evidence.

Can you really watch a house burning to the ground and think to yourself "This house is not on fire".

Do you really have a choice when confronted by what you consider facts ?

Decision leads to a choice and if anyone is "made" to believe something through evidence, then they must be CD-R because their beliefs are being written on them and they have no control. Are you a CD-R? No, you are a human being.

I will right here "make" you believe something through evidence.

I will "make" you believe that I am going to type a bold letter 'B'


B


Right look above do you see the 'B' ?

Can you choose to not believe I have typed it ?

Or does the evidence force you to conclude that I have in fact typed it.

Answer: Yes I did type a large 'B', you cannot choose to disbelieve this, you have no choice to believe or disbelieve, anything else is intellectual dishonesty, agenda driven self dellusion or (rarely) mental impairment.

People believe in black holes, even I believe in black holes; yet, there really is no evidence to support the concept except the word of scientists.

There is a massive body of research and evidence to support the 'theory' of black holes.

You are very simply wrong here !

People believe in crop circles, yet we know that artists make them.

Some people see the evidence as pointing to aliens, some see the evidence as pointing to pranksters, both groups make their conclusions based on the evidence they see.

People chose to believe everything regardless of evidence. I have already said the same point over and over, either you have an understanding or not because I was hoping to move on in this debate, yet you and Telephone keeping me saying the same thing over and over. What I don't understand is that I am describing a very basic concept of modern psychology and I didn't expect such an opposition to something that is widely accepted by the psychological and scientific communities.

You are now making the time honored mistake of appealing to outside support (the psychological and scientific communities of all people) to shore up your crumbling argument !

I am sure if you were to tell a psychologist that you have 'choosen' to believe the sun is blue, he may just book you in as one of his patients.

 

[Telephone]

No...It's fact. The fact is, God said He is one way, I believe Him.....thus anything that says otherwise is off.

Lilly I think here lies some salient truth.

Your belief in the Christian doctrine is absolute, blind, inerrant.

It cannot be wrong.

Therefore anything that undermines any part of that doctrine must be wrong, must be proved wrong, regardless of the evidence.

This is no different from any other totalitarian system, any system of governance that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the system.

You will never be convinced of anything that conflicts with your religious beliefs, and you are only 17!

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Lilly I think here lies some salient truth.

Your belief in the Christian doctrine is absolute, blind, inerrant.

It cannot be wrong.

Therefore anything that undermines any part of that doctrine must be wrong, must be proved wrong, regardless of the evidence.

This is no different from any other totalitarian system, any system of governance that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the system.

You will never be convinced of anything that conflicts with your religious beliefs, and you are only 17!

For me, it comes down to what God has said...I know God and I choose to believe HIM....I will believe HIM over man any day and yes, I will never go otherwise because I believe God.

Adios.

 

[Telephone]

For me, it comes down to what God has said...I know God and I choose to believe HIM....I will believe HIM over man any day and yes, I will never go otherwise because I believe God.

Adios.

You are fallible, you are human like all of us you may be wrong, you are not inerrant, you are not omniscient, you are capable of being in error, your belief in god may be mistaken.

 

[quatona]

You are fallible, you are human like all of us you may be wrong, you are not inerrant, you are not omniscient, you are capable of being in error, your belief in god may be mistaken.

I take it you haven´t met Lilly very often yet.

Hi Lilly - long time no see! Hope you are well!

 

[Telephone]

I take it you haven´t met Lilly very often yet.

The fact is I have not.

But let's not that stop me from choosing to believe that I have met her often.

So now may I re-answer the question:

Yes! I have met her often.





Wow! this choosing to believe somethig is much easier than I thought !

 

[Telephone]

Where do we get the ability to be reasonable if there is no God?

Reciprocal altruism.

How do we know what is reasonable if there is no God?

We judge what we consider reasonable treatment of others mostly on how we would like others to treat us.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Haha!