Can you control what you believe?

[rstrats]

Merlin,

re: "If you are taught how, then yes."

Perhaps you can help me then. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that - for example to effect a belief that it is possible for me to become a more compassionate person. Since you seem to be saying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron." So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

 

[Merlin]

The beginners course is 4 years long.
What would you have me post (in 1000 words or less)?

 

[atheist88]

I did not intend to insult, neither do I offer a tutorial of how to.
I only intended to inform you that such exists.
I use it regularly.

When a person comes to me seeking (for instance) to stop cancering or to rebalance their sugar levels so as to no longer need insulin, then they usually need belief changes.

Ok, an invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
I don't intend to insult you by implying that you wouldn't already know such a thing, neither do I intend to offer a tutorial on how one can prove this.
I only intend to inform you that such a being exists.

Surely you can see why this type of discussion is silly.


Anyway, what sort of belief changes do you have to convince people to make in order for them to quit smoking. Certainly that doesn't take 4 years just to get started.

 

[rstrats]

Merlin,

re: "The beginners course is 4 years long. What would you have me post (in 1000 words or less)?

Well, 24 minutes transpired between my post and yours. Sometime during that period - if you really can consciously CHOOSE to believe things - you made the instant transition from the one state of mind to the other and you now believe that leprechauns exist. I simply would like to know what you did at the last moment to engender that change

 

[Merlin]

Ok, an invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
I don't intend to insult you by implying that you wouldn't already know such a thing, neither do I intend to offer a tutorial on how one can prove this.
I only intend to inform you that such a being exists.

Surely you can see why this type of discussion is silly.

Certainly.
I'm often ridiculed.
Won't change things though.

Anyway, what sort of belief changes do you have to convince people to make in order for them to quit smoking. Certainly that doesn't take 4 years just to get started.

Just a belief that they used to be, but are now no longer a smoker and will remain a non-smoker from now on.

 

[Merlin]

Merlin,

re: "The beginners course is 4 years long. What would you have me post (in 1000 words or less)?

Well, 24 minutes transpired between my post and yours. Sometime during that period - if you really can consciously CHOOSE to believe things - you made the instant transition from the one state of mind to the other and you now believe that leprechauns exist. I simply would like to know what you did at the last moment to engender that change

I didn't make that belief change in myself.
For me, if I did, I'd change my neurosynaptic pathways accordingly.

 

[atheist88]

Certainly.
I'm often ridiculed.
Won't change things though.

Just a belief that they used to be, but are now no longer a smoker and will remain a non-smoker from now on.

I wasn't ridiculing you. I was attempting to demonstrate why a discussion like that is worse than no discussion at all. At least you apparently understand why I was insulted by that.

Being a smoker has nothing to do with belief. You either are or are not a smoker. If you smoke cigerettes, you are a smoker. If you don't, you are not a smoker. If you do not smoke cigerettes but believe you are a smoker, you have bigger problems than your pretend nicotine habit.

 

[rstrats]

Merlin,

re: "I didn't make that belief change..."

So you’ve evaluated your previous position and have decided that you are not able to consciously CHOOSE to believe things?

 

[elman]

And we all want to do the right thing. Suffering is not all physical. Sometimes I do things for others that have no apparent benefit to me, such has spending time and money for habitat for humanity.

However, I WANT to do these things because I would feel guilt for not doing them. So the suffering of me working all day for no physical reward has a mental reward.

Let's simplify things, give me an example of a selfless act.

On belief, we can not choose what to believe. We are either convinced it is true or we are not. Everything a person "believes" is nothing more than things they have accepted to be true. Even what we accept as evidence is not a choice, we are either convinced of its validity or we are not.

There is no such thing as a belief, only acceptable truths.

Keeping it simple, give me an example of you rejecting evidence you deem valid and accepting evidence you deem false. For instance, are you capable of going outside, seeing the green grass, returning inside and telling us that you "believe" that grass is actually red.

No and that does not prove I have no control over what evidence convinces me of what conclusions I reach on what is truth. Again in the Christian context, belief is not mental assent to something. Belief is responding to the love of God and love is an action in behalf of somone. Wanting to do the right thing does not make it not the right thing, just as wanting to do the wrong thing does not make it the wrong thing. Want actually is not relavant to it being a choice and neither is feeling good about making the right choice or feeling bad about making the wrong one.

 

[atheist88]

No and that does not prove I have no control over what evidence convinces me of what conclusions I reach on what is truth. Again in the Christian context, belief is not mental assent to something. Belief is responding to the love of God and love is an action in behalf of somone. Wanting to do the right thing does not make it not the right thing, just as wanting to do the wrong thing does not make it the wrong thing. Want actually is not relavant to it being a choice and neither is feeling good about making the right choice or feeling bad about making the wrong one.

If you have control over what evidence convinces you, please give me an example of you being able to exert that control by refusing to accept obviously valid evidence.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. Are you saying that as long as I show my love towards others via my actions, that is the same as believing in god?

 

[elman]

If you have control over what evidence convinces you, please give me an example of you being able to exert that control by refusing to accept obviously valid evidence.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. Are you saying that as long as I show my love towards others via my actions, that is the same as believing in god?

That seems to me to be what Jesus said Matt 25:31 and following. He also said it was not those who said Lord Lord but those that did what He said and He said the entire law of God was summed up in loving God and man. Paul said in 1 Cor 13 that faith that moves mountains is worthless without love. John said In First John that a failure to love is a fatal flaw, one that means we are not a child of God and James said faith without works, i.e. love is dead. I did not say I would refuse to accept obviously valid evidence. I did say we have control over our search for evidence and what we decide is valid evidence.

 

[atheist88]

That seems to me to be what Jesus said Matt 25:31 and following. He also said it was not those who said Lord Lord but those that did what He said and He said the entire law of God was summed up in loving God and man. Paul said in 1 Cor 13 that faith that moves mountains is worthless without love. John said In First John that a failure to love is a fatal flaw, one that means we are not a child of God and James said faith without works, i.e. love is dead. I did not say I would refuse to accept obviously valid evidence. I did say we have control over our search for evidence and what we decide is valid evidence.

I will concede that we have control over what we choose to research and read up on. We do not have control over what evidence we accept. If we are convinced of its validity, we accept it. If we are not, we reject it. For instance, I'm sure you believe that the moon is basically off-white or grey. If I showed you hundreds or even thousands of photos of the moon being purple would you accept them as evidence? Could you choose to accept them as evidence?

I guess I'll see you in heaven someday because I certainly have love for my fellow man...at least most of them...well, some of them...I love myself, does that count?!?

I'm joking, I love everyone!

 

[rstrats]

elman,

re: "I did say we have control over our search for evidence and what we decide is valid evidence."

And then what? Once you decide that you have valid evidence, what do you do to engender a belief?

 

[elman]

elman,

re: "I did say we have control over our search for evidence and what we decide is valid evidence."

And then what? Once you decide that you have valid evidence, what do you do to engender a belief?

Nothing. That is deciding what you believe, deciding what is valid evidence.

 

[elman]

I will concede that we have control over what we choose to research and read up on. We do not have control over what evidence we accept. If we are convinced of its validity, we accept it. If we are not, we reject it. For instance, I'm sure you believe that the moon is basically off-white or grey. If I showed you hundreds or even thousands of photos of the moon being purple would you accept them as evidence? Could you choose to accept them as evidence?

I guess I'll see you in heaven someday because I certainly have love for my fellow man...at least most of them...well, some of them...I love myself, does that count?!?

I'm joking, I love everyone!

I agree that we do not have a choice in accepting obviously valid evidence. It is the not so obvious evidence that is along side othere not so obvious evidence where we have choices.

 

[rstrats]

elman,

re: " Nothing. That is deciding what you believe..."

So what you’re saying is that you can’t consciously CHOOSE to believe things. - That you can only become consciously aware of a belief that you already possess.

 

[atheist88]

I agree that we do not have a choice in accepting obviously valid evidence. It is the not so obvious evidence that is along side othere not so obvious evidence where we have choices.

A rational and logical person would not commit to anything given unvalidated evidence. If you were blind and had never seen the moon, how do you know what color it is? You can only go by hearsay. You can only listen to what people tell you about the moon, after they convince you there is a moon. I would imagine that eventually you would believe it to be grey because that is what almost everyone would tell you even if someone tells you it is purple. IOW, you would be convinced that it is grey. Now for a blind person, this evidence isn't obvious and there is no way to test it. If pressed a rational blind person would have to admit that it is possible that the moon is purple.

So, can you at least admit it is possible that there is no god?

 

[elman]

A rational and logical person would not commit to anything given unvalidated evidence. If you were blind and had never seen the moon, how do you know what color it is? You can only go by hearsay. You can only listen to what people tell you about the moon, after they convince you there is a moon. I would imagine that eventually you would believe it to be grey because that is what almost everyone would tell you even if someone tells you it is purple. IOW, you would be convinced that it is grey. Now for a blind person, this evidence isn't obvious and there is no way to test it. If pressed a rational blind person would have to admit that it is possible that the moon is purple.

So, can you at least admit it is possible that there is no god?

I have always admited that was possible. Now can you at least admit it is possible there is a God?

 

[atheist88]

I have always admited that was possible. Now can you at least admit it is possible there is a God?

Absolutely. I don't think it is possible to say there is no god only that I have not been convinced that there is. I am what is usually refered to as a weak atheist when we are talking about a generic god. However, I am a strong atheist when it comes to taking the bible literally. I can say that the literal god of the bible does not exist.

I must point out though that just because I can admit the possibility that a generic god exists is not very meaningful. I also will admit that it is possible that the IPU exists or leprechauns or an infinite amount of other imaginary things. But I am convinced of none of them. In fact, I do not "believe" in anything supernatural... but they are possible...I guess.

 

[Merlin]

I wasn't ridiculing you. I was attempting to demonstrate why a discussion like that is worse than no discussion at all. At least you apparently understand why I was insulted by that.

Being a smoker has nothing to do with belief. You either are or are not a smoker. If you smoke cigerettes, you are a smoker. If you don't, you are not a smoker. If you do not smoke cigerettes but believe you are a smoker, you have bigger problems than your pretend nicotine habit.

Being a smoker has nothing to do with belief. You either are or are not a smoker. If you smoke cigerettes, you are a smoker. If you don't, you are not a smoker. If you do not smoke cigerettes but believe you are a smoker, you have bigger problems than your pretend nicotine habit.

Actually, it has everything to do with beliefs.
A persons behaviours/actions are driven by beliefs.