Can you control what you believe?

[Merlin]

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

No. I've not decided I'm not able.

I'm quite able. But I don't want to.
I've consciously chosen not to make such a change.
I can. But I consciously choose not to.

 

[atheist88]

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

I agree if we are talking about choosing whether or not to go to church on a Sunday morning but it isn't true in a lot of circumstances.

A person might try smoking because of a belief but they continue smoking because they are addicted, not because they believe they are addicted.

 

[rstrats]

Merlin,

re: "I've consciously chosen not to make such a change. I can. But I consciously choose not to."

I didn’t ask you to choose to not make a change. I asked just the opposite. You say that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, so I again ask you to demonstrate that ability. I don’t think that beliefs can be consciously CHOSEN, so it would be a big help if I saw that someone could actually do it. What do you do at the last moment to make the instant change from one state of mind to the other?

 

[rstrats]

n/a

 

[elman]

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.

That was not what I said. I believe we can consciously chose between two or more worldviews and reject other world views. It is not becoming aware of a beilef we already possess.

 

[elman]

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.

I don't believe in a generic god. I believe in the God that is described in much of the Bible, a God who is creator and loving. I also do not believe the Bible is literally perfect, as many Christians do not. When I say faith or believe that means obviously it is possible there is no God. I believe however there is a God and that I was created for the purpose of responding to His love by being loving.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

This thread is silly and makes my head hurt. You can not control what you believe. For those that think you can, I'll accept your stance when you force yourself to believe that there is a 432 foot bunny standing in front of you. I mean believe... like with all your heart and soul.

 

[rstrats]

elman,

re: "That was not what I said. I believe we can consciously chose between two or more worldviews..."

But can you consciously CHOOSE - be convinced, without a doubt - that someone or something does or doesn’t exist, or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?

 

[atheist88]

I don't believe in a generic god. I believe in the God that is described in much of the Bible, a God who is creator and loving. I also do not believe the Bible is literally perfect, as many Christians do not. When I say faith or believe that means obviously it is possible there is no God. I believe however there is a God and that I was created for the purpose of responding to His love by being loving.

So the bible is neither literal nor perfect? Then why do you believe any of it. Can you describe the process that convinced you to believe in only some parts but not others? If you were never convinced of the truth of any of it as you say but instead chose to believe it, why not choose to believe in a god that sends people to heaven for whatever it is that you like to do most?

 

[elman]

So the bible is neither literal nor perfect? Then why do you believe any of it. Can you describe the process that convinced you to believe in only some parts but not others? If you were never convinced of the truth of any of it as you say but instead chose to believe it, why not choose to believe in a god that sends people to heaven for whatever it is that you like to do most?

Because that is not logical. The Bible is not lilteral because it contains teachings of the spiritual which is not physical. It is not perfect because imperfect men were involved in its production. It does however contain divine truth. I was raised to believe it was inerrant but I found some mistakes and began to question that. Just because we all make mistakes does not mean we are never right. This is also true of the Bible.

 

[elman]

elman,

re: "That was not what I said. I believe we can consciously chose between two or more worldviews..."

But can you consciously CHOOSE - be convinced, without a doubt - that someone or something does or doesn’t exist, or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?

No you cannot chose to believe without a doubt. Faith is not having no doubts. Faith is believe even with doubts. Either world view you have, you will have some doubts on if you are thinking.

 

[elman]

This thread is silly and makes my head hurt. You can not control what you believe. For those that think you can, I'll accept your stance when you force yourself to believe that there is a 432 foot bunny standing in front of you. I mean believe... like with all your heart and soul.

That is silly. Just because I do not believe in your big bunney does not mean I can't believe in my particular world view and you believe in yours. Both are based on faith. That we are created can be believed based on logic just as believe we are not created can be belileved based on logic, but the big bunny has no logic to support it.

 

[rstrats]

elman,

re: "...you cannot chose to believe without a doubt."

So then John 3:16 could be written: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever is almost sure that He exists, with only a few doubts, should not perish but have everlasting life." ?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

That is silly. Just because I do not believe in your big bunney does not mean I can't believe in my particular world view and you believe in yours. Both are based on faith. That we are created can be believed based on logic just as believe we are not created can be belileved based on logic, but the big bunny has no logic to support it.

Oh, so you can't do it then? Okay.

 

[elman]

elman,

re: "...you cannot chose to believe without a doubt."

So then John 3:16 could be written: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever is almost sure that He exists, with only a few doubts, should not perish but have everlasting life." ?

Where did you get the defintion of believe to be to know without doubt?

 

[elman]

Oh, so you can't do it then? Okay.

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

 

[atheist88]

Because that is not logical. The Bible is not lilteral because it contains teachings of the spiritual which is not physical. It is not perfect because imperfect men were involved in its production. It does however contain divine truth. I was raised to believe it was inerrant but I found some mistakes and began to question that. Just because we all make mistakes does not mean we are never right. This is also true of the Bible.

First let me say that I would agree that a document that contains errors can still be the truth. For example, I'm certain all science text books have typos and other errors in them.

However, science text books can be tested. The bible can not. I looked to the bible to be perfect because its perfection would count as evidence of its veritability. It isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it is wrong as you say but it does mean it is more likely to be wrong than if it were perfect (even perfection in consistency and wording wouldn't mean it was correct either), and you have to look elsewhere to verify that it is in fact evidence of god. The problem is that there is no other evidence.

So, then, it is no more illogical to believe in the god I suggested, which I made up, than it is to believe in the god you suggested, which you made up. If it would make you feel better I could write a imperfect, metaphorical book about a god that sends people to heaven for just being born then my god would be on equal footing with your god?

Basically, what I'm saying is, what convinced you to believe in the bible as truth while rejecting all the other religious writings out there.

 

[elman]

First let me say that I would agree that a document that contains errors can still be the truth. For example, I'm certain all science text books have typos and other errors in them.

However, science text books can be tested. The bible can not. I looked to the bible to be perfect because its perfection would count as evidence of its veritability. It isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it is wrong as you say but it does mean it is more likely to be wrong than if it were perfect (even perfection in consistency and wording wouldn't mean it was correct either), and you have to look elsewhere to verify that it is in fact evidence of god. The problem is that there is no other evidence.

So, then, it is no more illogical to believe in the god I suggested, which I made up, than it is to believe in the god you suggested, which you made up. If it would make you feel better I could write a imperfect, metaphorical book about a god that sends people to heaven for just being born then my god would be on equal footing with your god?

Basically, what I'm saying is, what convinced you to believe in the bible as truth while rejecting all the other religious writings out there.

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.

 

[rstrats]

elman,

re: "Where did you get the definition of believe to be to know without doubt?"

I assumed that the intent of the word "believes" in John 3:16 is that you cannot doubt that the Messiah exists and still expect to be given everlasting life.

 

[elman]

elman,

re: "Where did you get the definition of believe to be to know without doubt?"

I assumed that the intent of the word "believes" in John 3:16 is that you cannot doubt that the Messiah exists and still expect to be given everlasting life.

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 belives on Jesus by doing what He says to do-there is a quote from Jesus to that effect. And if you do what He said do, you will love your neighbor. That is a belliever, one who loves his neighbor, called a sheep in Matt 25:31 and following as opposed to the goat-the unbeliever-the one who does not love.