Can you control what you believe?

atheist88 · May 5, 2006

elman said:
I have not rejected all other religious writings. Whenever they teach God is loving and wants us to be loving they contain devine truth. It is more logical to propose a God who is loving and created us for the purpose of being loving than some other god we create. God created us to be able to love and in having that ability it is necessary we have the ability to not love. If we have the ability to not love-i.e. hurt each other, then we have a world of suffering, but it was needed to get to the bottom line. Why did your god create a world of suffering? When I look elsewhere to prove this is a world created for the purpose of our loving each other, there is some evidence. I knew instintively that Jesus was correct when He taught us to love your neighbor and I know instintively that Hitler was wrong to kill all the people he killed. Where did that instinct come from? Why is my instinct on that the same as men and women the world over? That is evidence. We are extremly complex beings, living in a complex universe. That is evidence. Yes there is contrary evidence in both cases, but to say there is no evidence to support a loving creator is incorrect.

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying now.

You ask where that instinct came from. It came from the desire to survive. Every biological organism on the planet has the same primary goal, to survive. In addition to that survival instinct, we, as humans, have something extra the others don't, intelligence. It is intelligent in the interest of survival to make an agreement with others to abstain from murder. I don't want you to harm me in any way so in order to achieve my desire to live a harm free life I'll agree to not harm any one else. It is not miraculous, just common sense. So I would say that it is definitely evidence, evidence that our species is intelligent.

The fact that we are extremely complex beings is evidence for evolution.

I could argue that some god created us not to love but to hate. Love perpetuates the species, hate does not. So in the interest of survival it behooves us to advocate love and not hate. The fact that we hate anyway means that god has instilled it within us...maybe Hitler sits at the right hand of god. See practically any book in the old testament for evidence that god adores genocide.

I would like to hear more on why love is what led you to be convinced that there is a god and he advocates love. It is a pretty neat idea to just extract all the loving parts from all the religious books of the world and junk the rest.

Ok, here is a question for you and I'm completely serious, this is not facetious in the least. Why do you not refer to your god as "Aphrodite"?

Soul Searcher · May 5, 2006

AFallingStar said:
Can you control what you believe or do you think the very core of your beliefs are determined by outside/other factors?

I don't think one can control what they believe, We weight various factors in our mind, assign a value to various inputs and make decisions on the information that we have. Does it make sense, is it from a creditable source, is it important, is it likely to be true, has it been proven, can it be proven, what are the effects if it were true or false.

All these things are factors in what we believe and sense most of these factors are not under our control the conculsions we arrive at are not under our control either.

Druweid · May 6, 2006

AFallingStar said:
Can you control what you believe or do you think the very core of your beliefs are determined by outside/other factors?

I'm pretty late to this thread, and haven't read through all the prior posts, so if I missed anything significant, or repeat something already covered, I apologize in advance.

I think the first problem with this question is it assumes (as do many who have posted) that 'belief' is a black & white issue. Either you do, or you don't. I propose that is not that case at all. I would suggest that beliefs are fully quantifiable, and cover a full spectrum from the lightest of assumptions to the staunchest of core beliefs, and everything in between. How much one can control those beliefs (imho) is directly proportional to that spectrum. The lightest of assumptions can easily be changed (with a different view, new or more accurate information) up to core beliefs that, by and large, are beyond our control.

Just my thoughts,
-- Druweid

JGG · May 6, 2006

AFallingStar said:
Can you control what you believe or do you think the very core of your beliefs are determined by outside/other factors?

Of course we can, and we do. Through psychological methods such as selective attention, selective memory, and selective reasoning we select what information we will allow ourselves to be exposed to. If we come upon information which threatens our beliefs we will use one of these processes (take denial, selective reasoning) to "unexpose" ourselves from that information. In this way, we select what we believe.

Ironically, its far easier to control what others believe.

Druweid · May 6, 2006

JGG said:
Ironically, its far easier to control what others believe.

Hah! I don't believe you.

JGG · May 6, 2006

Druweid said:
Hah! I don't believe you.

Yes you do. (insert Jedi Mind trick emoticon here)

Rosa Mystica · May 7, 2006

elman said:
Yes I can believe in a Creator. No I cannot believe in your big bunny. The two beliefs are not connected logically.

I don't think he meant for these two concepts to be connected. Besides your current argument, why else can you not believe in his "big bunny"?

As for whether or not you can choose to believe, I really don't know the answer to this, though I'm leaning towards a "no" answer. I mean, I suppose you *could* try to make yourself think a certain way, but isn't that really a form of self-brainwashing? Why would *anyone* want to do this, especially considering the amount of cognitive dissonance it might cause? Also, one needs to consider the possibility that not all thoughts can be controlled. People who suffer with OCD have constant intrusive thoughts. Are they "choosing" to have them? I think not. My experience with the disease proves this.

Not everything can be controlled as well as some people think it can be.

relaxeus · May 7, 2006

AFallingStar said:
Can you control what you believe or do you think the very core of your beliefs are determined by outside/other factors?

I don't think a person can choose to believe something.

I think that people with true faith in God got that faith in one of 2 ways: One, God actually exists and that person received faith because of God. Two, some biological switch turned on inside their minds and they now believe.

If someone "chooses" to believe something, lets say in unicorns, then that strikes me as crazy.

elman · May 8, 2006

Rosa Mystica said:
I don't think he meant for these two concepts to be connected. Besides your current argument, why else can you not believe in his "big bunny"?

As for whether or not you can choose to believe, I really don't know the answer to this, though I'm leaning towards a "no" answer. I mean, I suppose you *could* try to make yourself think a certain way, but isn't that really a form of self-brainwashing? Why would *anyone* want to do this, especially considering the amount of cognitive dissonance it might cause? Also, one needs to consider the possibility that not all thoughts can be controlled. People who suffer with OCD have constant intrusive thoughts. Are they "choosing" to have them? I think not. My experience with the disease proves this.

Not everything can be controlled as well as some people think it can be.

I am not saying we can force ourselves to think a certain way. I am saying in our search for truth we find options for choice, both of which have some evidence to support them. We chose which evidence is the more convincing to us.

elman · May 8, 2006

atheist88 said:
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying now.

You ask where that instinct came from. It came from the desire to survive. Every biological organism on the planet has the same primary goal, to survive. In addition to that survival instinct, we, as humans, have something extra the others don't, intelligence. It is intelligent in the interest of survival to make an agreement with others to abstain from murder. I don't want you to harm me in any way so in order to achieve my desire to live a harm free life I'll agree to not harm any one else. It is not miraculous, just common sense. So I would say that it is definitely evidence, evidence that our species is intelligent.

The fact that we are extremely complex beings is evidence for evolution.

I could argue that some god created us not to love but to hate. Love perpetuates the species, hate does not. So in the interest of survival it behooves us to advocate love and not hate. The fact that we hate anyway means that god has instilled it within us...maybe Hitler sits at the right hand of god. See practically any book in the old testament for evidence that god adores genocide.

I would like to hear more on why love is what led you to be convinced that there is a god and he advocates love. It is a pretty neat idea to just extract all the loving parts from all the religious books of the world and junk the rest.

Ok, here is a question for you and I'm completely serious, this is not facetious in the least. Why do you not refer to your god as "Aphrodite"?

How do you know the instinct came from the desire to survive? Selfishness and not love would be more logical from the instinct to survive. Complexity can also be an argument against evolution. I am not anti evolution so lets not get into that argument. I just don't believe evolution explains all the compexity of us and the universe. Common sense in some cases borders on the miraculous. Sex is not love so Aphrodite is not my god. Love is empathy for the needs of others and action on that empathy. If Hitler is an indication of the nature of God, why are we disgusted by him? Hitler is an example of the fact that we can chose to not love. That ability to chose to not love is necessary if we are to have the ability to chose to love.

Rosa Mystica · May 10, 2006

elman said:
I am not saying we can force ourselves to think a certain way. I am saying in our search for truth we find options for choice, both of which have some evidence to support them. We chose which evidence is the more convincing to us.

Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere!

Tell me this, though: what about those who find the evidence for Christianity to be weaker than for another position (like, for example, a non-Christian religion)? Should that person still be a Christian if they're not convinced by it? Or should they follow honesty and go with the system that they *are* convinced by?

elman · May 10, 2006

Rosa Mystica said:
Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere!

Tell me this, though: what about those who find the evidence for Christianity to be weaker than for another position (like, for example, a non-Christian religion)? Should that person still be a Christian if they're not convinced by it? Or should they follow honesty and go with the system that they *are* convinced by?

I think we should always be honest with ourselves in our search for truth. That has caused me to change my theology over the years and I now see that process of change in theology to be a good thing. I would add to that that I think if you are convinced by a religion that does not stress love for your fellow man, you need to reexamin the evidence. I think you have missed something.

Rosa Mystica · May 12, 2006

elman said:
I think we should always be honest with ourselves in our search for truth. That has caused me to change my theology over the years and I now see that process of change in theology to be a good thing. I would add to that that I think if you are convinced by a religion that does not stress love for your fellow man, you need to reexamin the evidence. I think you have missed something.

Says who that other religions can't- and don't- stress love for your fellow man? Since when does Christianity have the monopoly on the "love your neighbour" philosophy?

Oh, and in reality, many Christians do *not* show respect for their neighbour. Most that I know treat people outside their system as subhuman. Hardly a loving system, IMO.

Sorry, the evidence I've seen is not enough to convince me. Not when it contradicts what the system was originally meant to teach.

Druweid · May 12, 2006

Rosa Mystica said:
elman said:

I would add to that that I think if you are convinced by a religion that does not stress love for your fellow man, you need to reexamin the evidence. I think you have missed something.

Click to expand...

Says who that other religions can't- and don't- stress love for your fellow man? Since when does Christianity have the monopoly on the "love your neighbour" philosophy?

Begging your pardon Miss Rosa, but I think what is being said here is not so much a declaration of "other religions" not being loving, but rather, a disclaimer, that of all the belief systems presently in existence, some do not include or support the concept of "love your fellow man." Of course I could be mistaken, but if such is the case, I would be inclined to agree and support that statement.

Rosa Mystica said:
Oh, and in reality, many Christians do *not* show respect for their neighbour. Most that I know treat people outside their system as subhuman. Hardly a loving system, IMO.

I agree, however, Christians don't have the monopoly on this either.

Regards,
-- Druweid

elman · May 12, 2006

Rosa Mystica said:
Says who that other religions can't- and don't- stress love for your fellow man? Since when does Christianity have the monopoly on the "love your neighbour" philosophy?

Oh, and in reality, many Christians do *not* show respect for their neighbour. Most that I know treat people outside their system as subhuman. Hardly a loving system, IMO.

Sorry, the evidence I've seen is not enough to convince me. Not when it contradicts what the system was originally meant to teach.

If you had read what I said you should have seen I did not claim Christianity had a monopoly on promoting love for your neighbor. I don't think Christ or His teachings should be blamed for people who do not do it and call themselves Christians.

Emmy · Jun 1, 2006

Dear FallingStar, yes, I do believe we can control what to believe, but I do admit, that should not be done without considering and weighing things up, spending time to be sure what one really believes, and why. Some decisions are easy, what to eat, to drink, or to spend time on, but important decisions should be weighed up. I also believe, as we grow older and wiser, we learn to choose right, but being young is no excuse for making wrong choices, God gave us brains to use, not to find easy excuses, "I could not help it." I say this humbly and kindly, FallingStar, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

rstrats · Jun 1, 2006

elman,

re: "I think your assumption is faulty. By the way the word believe in the context of scripture is never just mental. The Bible says the demons believe in that way. In Christianity one believes on Jesus by doing what He says to do..."

Agreed. But "believes" in John 3:16 also has to included a conviction without any doubt as to the Messiahs existence and authority.

elman · Jun 1, 2006

rstrats said:
elman,

re: "I think your assumption is faulty. By the way the word believe in the context of scripture is never just mental. The Bible says the demons believe in that way. In Christianity one believes on Jesus by doing what He says to do..."

Agreed. But "believes" in John 3:16 also has to included a conviction without any doubt as to the Messiahs existence and authority.

Why? Jesus said it was not the ones who called Him Lord but the one who did what He commanded. I see no mental exercises in Matt 25:31 and following. The sheep are well defined. They are not defined as those who had a conviction of existence and authority.

rstrats · Jun 1, 2006

elman,

re: "The sheep are well defined. They are not defined as those who had a conviction of existence and authority."

I don’t think that I have ever heard anyone else say that a person can doubt the existence of the Messiah and still be counted among the sheep.

elman · Jun 5, 2006

rstrats said:
elman,

re: "The sheep are well defined. They are not defined as those who had a conviction of existence and authority."

I dont think that I have ever heard anyone else say that a person can doubt the existence of the Messiah and still be counted among the sheep.

I had a Bible Class at church once where I was teaching and explaining my annilationist beliefs and one of the women said: "I never heard anything like that before". Both ideas are not original with me and I am certainly not the only Christian who believes this way.

Can you control what you believe?

Active Member

The kingdom is within

{insert witty phrase}

Well-Known Member

{insert witty phrase}

Well-Known Member

I'm not like the others.

YES!! Another possibility!!

elman

elman

I'm not like the others.

elman

I'm not like the others.

{insert witty phrase}

elman

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

elman

Senior Member

elman

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency