I just don't *want* to believe!

[Dave-W]

Not meaningless. Urging people to believe us is a rhetorical tactic to encourage belief. It's also not obvious that "believing in" means "believe in the truth of a proposition". And of course there's this: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

Believing is (to some degree) both a decision and a gift. (that drawing)
BTW - Repentance is also both a decision and a gift.

 

[dysert]

there is part of my brain that won't accept what is inherently illogical to me.

I feel the same way (although I suspect that we're talking about two different things).

 

[pitabread]

That means you have not properly repented. If someone struggles with unbelief, it is a sign of improper or insufficient repentance.

You don't know me.

For one, I'm not "struggling" with unbelief. Rather over the years, I've arrived at my own philosophical viewpoint about existence and religion that I am comfortable with.

Part of my view is that I feel that each person's belief is a result of their own personal journey. I wouldn't expect anyone to adopt my own beliefs anymore than I think anyone else should expect me to adopt theirs.

 

[Willie T]

I have just started a book wherein is the question of the dating of the authorship of the book of Revelation. And the problem with "I don't want to believe" was considered, front and center, in one of the opening chapters.....

The actual defense of the early date of Revelation will be begun by initially considering the external evidence. This species of evidence is greatly stressed by late date advocates and is generally conceded on all sides to be their strongest argument. Indeed, F. J. A. Hort even states in regard to the evidence for a late date: “This is virtually external only.” Though this undoubtedly is an overstatement, the fact remains that late date advocates do make much of the external evidence.

For instance, J. P. M. Sweet’s comment is illustrative in this regard: “To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus.”

Similarly, Feuillet writes: “The traditional setting of the Apocalypse in the reign of Domitian is too solidly established to be brought into question.” (These statements are bordering on being ridiculous due to only believing what one chooses to believe. WillieT)

 

[SkyWriting]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

Yes, everybody believes what they want to believe
and never one thing more.

 

[Sanoy]

Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

Well, think of it this way. If naturalism is true, then your unwillingness to believe in Naturalism is a product of Naturalism. So if anyone disagrees with you, just tell them you're doing what you're told.

 

[sfs]

Believing is (to some degree) both a decision and a gift.

Evidence for this claim?

 

[sfs]

Yes, everybody believes what they want to believe
and never one thing more.

Evidence?

 

[SkyWriting]

Evidence?

Name something that you believe is true, but choose not to believe it's true.

 

[JIMINZ]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

.
Those types of things don't mean anything anyway, they are nothing more than the inane discussions we have while here on earth.

The only thing we really need to know is.

I AM A BELIEVER IN CHRIST AND HAVE BECOME BAPTIZED.

Mar. 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

That's it folks.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Name something that you believe is true, but choose not to believe it's true.

I think many of us flip flop on our view of the nature of man, what I mean is inconsistency within our belief, but it is because of our nature, one moment we may see man in general as sinful, but then live as though people are basically "good", and it is our sinful nature that deceives us into putting the creature on a pedestal, and creatures do this, and creatures follow with starstruck eyes. It's the kind of shock we experience when finding out about a secret sin of a Pastor, as though they were exempt from the sinful nature that still remains, nevertheless we are appalled and disgusted, while not looking in the mirror. So in this, we sometimes choose not to believe it's true.

 

[tas8831]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing...if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something

You could not have been thinking very hard, for evolution is not about "nothing became something."

That is, in fact, what you believe.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

 

[JIMINZ]

Not meaningless. Urging people to believe us is a rhetorical tactic to encourage belief. It's also not obvious that "believing in" means "believe in the truth of a proposition". And of course there's this: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

.
But aren't there Denominations where someone is Baptized into the Faith of the Parents when they are infants, and eventually end up belonging to that particular Denomination for the rest of their lives?

How is a person who has been Baptized as an infant, been Drawn by God unto Salvation?

 

[pitabread]

Name something that you believe is true, but choose not to believe it's true.

That doesn't make sense. If one could choose not to believe in something, then they would by definition not believe in that thing in the first place. One can't simultaneously believe and not believe in something.

I suppose one could arguably be in denial about believing something, but that's not the same as believing something and then choosing not to believe it.

I'm not even sure the latter is possible.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That doesn't make sense. If one could choose not to believe in something, then they would by definition not believe in that thing in the first place. One can't simultaneously believe and not believe in something.

I suppose one could arguably be in denial about believing something, but that's not the same as believing something and then choosing not to believe it.

I'm not even sure the latter is possible.

Ok, here's an example, let's say a man has cheated on his wife, and she has seen enough evidence that would be sufficient in a court, but she does not want to believe it, and chooses not to. Or let's say you have a child, and the child gets in trouble at school, and the school has witnesses, but as the parent, you cannot believe your child would ever do such a thing. These situations do occur.

 

[pitabread]

Ok, here's an example, let's say a man has cheated on his wife, and she has seen enough evidence that would be sufficient in a court, but she does not want to believe it, and chooses not to. Or let's say you have a child, and the child gets in trouble at school, and the school has witnesses, but as the parent, you cannot believe your child would ever do such a thing. These situations do occur.

Like I said, a person might be in denial over something, but that's not the same thing as simultaneously believing and then choosing not to believe something.

I suppose in these cases the cognitive dissonance caused by evidence versus their previously held belief would cause a person discomfort. But ultimately arriving at a particular belief does not necessarily seem like a specific choice a person is making.

 

[USincognito]

I am the same way, I don't wanna believe it and I won't and further I have not to worry, because they cannot prove big bang, because it is a lie...

1. Science doesn't prove anything.
2. How the Big Bang "a lie"? That doesn't even make sense.
3. Are you aware that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic priest?
4. There sure is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang when it's, as you put it, "a lie".

 

[USincognito]

What evolutionist cannot offer is proof of what caused the universe to come into existence...

I have no idea what you mean by "evolutionist" but evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. Also science doesn't prove anything and there's no such thing as scientific proof.

and without this all there therories and ideas are simple smoke and mirrors as they seek to evade the consquence of something supernatural having created the universe.

The Big Bang Theory does not address "who" or "what" created the universe and no scientific proposition includes the supernatural (if it does, it's no longer scientific). That said, there is plenty of evidence supporting Big Bang Theory.
Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang

 

[SkyWriting]

That doesn't make sense. If one could choose not to believe in something, then they would by definition not believe in that thing in the first place. One can't simultaneously believe and not believe in something.

I suppose one could arguably be in denial about believing something, but that's not the same as believing something and then choosing not to believe it.

I'm not even sure the latter is possible.

So then you've proven my point.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Like I said, a person might be in denial over something, but that's not the same thing as simultaneously believing and then choosing not to believe something.

I suppose in these cases the cognitive dissonance caused by evidence versus their previously held belief would cause a person discomfort. But ultimately arriving at a particular belief does not necessarily seem like a specific choice a person is making.

To be clear, are you suggesting denial does not involve choice? Perhaps exceptions could be made where doubt can be established, but is it a rational or irrational doubt?