Is belief that a god exists a choice?

[talquin]

You probably can't choose what to believe...but you can choose whether or not to have faith in things. I mean, you can probably believe anything you want to. But to have faith in it means that you understand and trust in it because of what it does, or what it represents.

I believe in the Bible. I believe it is a book that physically exists. I can prove it. I also believe that what it says is true. But I can't prove that it's true...only that I believe it to be so. And even that is subjective. I could also be lying to you, and I don't honestly believe.

I can try to explain to people why I have faith that the contents of the Bible speak truths by sharing some of my successful life experiences in which I applied what I'd learned from the study of the book, but someone might just as easily show me a "self-help" book written by some doctor and do the same thing. Or use no book at all.

If someday you feel that whatever objects and ideologies you place your faith in have betrayed said faith, obviously you're free to choose another object or ideology. But I would say that understanding and trust need to come before belief.

If I wrote a book about an elephant which turned into a human, could you choose to believe that what is in the book is true?

 

[talquin]

Then we are agreed...and I'm glad for the agreement. Being an atheist means you do not believe that God exists, not that you haven't decided.

Let's say a newborn baby doesn't hold a belief that a god exists. He is therefore an atheist. And he hasn't made any decisions on the matter.

 

[talquin]

Professional atheists? How do you determine whether someone is a "professional atheist"?

And yes, atheism means you do not believe a God exists, not that a God does not exist. It means, a person has concluded, that a God does not exist.

A person doesn't have to make a conclusion that a god doesn't exist to be an atheist. If they merely don't hold a belief that a god exists, they are an atheist.

I don't believe ghosts exist, but that does not mean I claim there is zero percent chance they exist and I am wrong. It is the same thing with a God.

I was a christian for 40 years and I would call myself atheist towards the christian God. Why? the christian story and description of God is not something I could continue to reconcile with the reality of the world and also after learning much more about the NT than I had known previously. Does this mean my position is the christian God does can not exist? No, I may be wrong, but my position is the christian personal God does not exist.

Now, in regards to a universal non-personal God, I would give that God a greater likelihood of existing, but still very remote and would be agnostic towards that type of God.

I suggest you read up on the difference between atheist and agnostic. Agnostic isn't a position which lies between atheist and theist.
Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[talquin]

That's what professional atheists like to say of themselves. It makes them feel they are less closed-minded or absolutist or credulous (all of which they like to say characterize theists).

But the word does not mean agnosticism. It refers to a position that's been taken.

More to the point, and before we go further with your inquiry, I took you at your word when you wrote:


Was that a serious request...or were we theists merely being baited into an argument by which we could be sneered at for anything we might suggest to you in good faith?

Atheism doesn't necessarily refer to a position which has been taken. It means to not hold the belief that a god or gods exist. For example, a newborn baby would be an atheist - even though it hasn't taken a position on whether or not a god exists. That type of atheism is called implicit atheism. For those who have taken a position, it would be called explicit atheism. See Dale McGowan's book Atheism for Dummies for more on this.

 

[Albion]

Atheism doesn't necessarily refer to a position which has been taken.

Yes, it is--by definition.

It means to not hold the belief that a god or gods exist.

Then that is a position that has been taken, even if it leaves open several possibilities.

I realize that some dedicated and outspoken atheists want to soften their image by redefining the word, but I'm using it in the conventional sense.

 

[pshun2404]

I have a question for Ken-1122

Have you considered what is "empirical evidence"? For surely you must accept that empirical evidence is indeed evidence!

Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than on theory or pure logic; relying on experience or observation; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

The reason I ask is because to believe there is no God one must be in denial of the empirical evidence of millions of people from every walk of life, from every culture (both genders), and all different ages though out time. Many have seen Him (though many have not). Many have heard His voice (though many have not). Many have been transformed and forever changed (though not all). Prophecy alone rebukes the accusation by blowing away statistical probabilities (but you cannot see that many things have been prophesied that came to pass).

Too many people have been healed to be blown off by the “mere coincidence “ argument (many have likewise been self-deceived by con-men). Apply the scientific method, test Him and do what He says, and see for yourself if you do not get the promised result (but I know you are afraid to and that you like being your own lord). I could go on, but you can see how absurd a position it is to believe with any conviction that God is not.

So if you are an honest agnostic, though I do not agree, I can respect this position, but if you are an Atheist then I must conclude you are assumptive at best, or else delusional, but in no wise are you being rational, regardless of how many books you have read or what degree you may have.

So let me ask you straight forward…are you an agnostic that admits there could be a God but you personally have no reason to believe there is? Or are you an Atheist who bases their belief on blindly accepting an unprovable universal negative?

Paul

 

[bhsmte]

A person doesn't have to make a conclusion that a god doesn't exist to be an atheist. If they merely don't hold a belief that a god exists, they are an atheist.


I suggest you read up on the difference between atheist and agnostic. Agnostic isn't a position which lies between atheist and theist.
Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

As an atheist towards the christian god, i have come to a conclusion based on the evidence that this god does not exist. When i was a christian, i came to the conclusion that he did exist, but new knowledge changed my mind.

In being atheist towards the christian god, i acknowledge two things; i could be wrong and i could change my mind with new evidence.

 

[talquin]

Yes, it is--by definition.


Then that is a position that has been taken, even if it leaves open several possibilities.

I realize that some dedicated and outspoken atheists want to soften their image by redefining the word, but I'm using it in the conventional sense.

By that logic, to not hold the belief that the planet Mars used to be a large purple elephant is a position that has been taken.

 

[Albion]

By that logic, to not hold the belief that the planet Mars used to be a large purple elephant is a position that has been taken.

That's right. You don't think that the above is true of Mars.

 

[talquin]

That's right. You don't think that the above is true of Mars.

Then every belief or lack of belief is a position which has been taken - regardless of whether or not one is aware of it. Or do you take the position that one must be cognizant of their position for it to qualify as a position?

 

[Albion]

Then every belief or lack of belief is a position which has been taken - regardless of whether or not one is aware of it. Or do you take the position that one must be cognizant of their position for it to qualify as a position?

Well, consider this. We may speak of someone being "amoral." Does that necessarily mean--and it only--that they are devotees and advocates of immoral practices OR does it suggest that they are not moral in their behavior?

 

[talquin]

Well, consider this. We may speak of someone being "amoral." Does that necessarily mean--and it only--that they are devotees and advocates of immoral practices OR does it suggest that they are not moral in their behavior?

What do you think amoral means?

 

[Albion]

How about just answering my question?

 

[talquin]

How about just answering my question?

Amoral is neither moral or immoral. How it is analogous to a god belief:

Moral = believes a god exists
Immoral = believes that no god exists
Amoral = doesn't hold either a belief that a god exists or a belief that no god exists

From http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
The god exists.
The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
Belief or acceptance of the claim.
Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

 

[Albion]

Amoral is neither moral or immoral.

Really? So if I say that the Marquis de Sade was amoral, you will think I am saying he was neither moral nor immoral? Interesting, but I must disagree.

 

[talquin]

Really? So if I say that the Marquis de Sade was amoral, you will think I am saying he was neither moral nor immoral? Interesting, but I must disagree.

Not necessarily. The point you're trying to get across and a literal interpretation of what you said could be different.

George: What's this? (points to his nose)
Fred: It's a nose
George: How do you spell it?
Fred: N-O-S-E
George: Incorrect. You spell it I-T.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I know people who believe less credible things.

That doesn't make the belief a fully conscious choice

 

[Albion]

That doesn't make the belief a fully conscious choice

Were we discussing "conscious" choices? I thought it was free will/choice.

 

[Belk]

Really? So if I say that the Marquis de Sade was amoral, you will think I am saying he was neither moral nor immoral? Interesting, but I must disagree.

Apparently you do not know the meaning of amoral?

not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

 

[Belk]

Yes, it is--by definition.


Then that is a position that has been taken, even if it leaves open several possibilities.

I realize that some dedicated and outspoken atheists want to soften their image by redefining the word, but I'm using it in the conventional sense.

I begin to suspect definitions are not your forte since nothing in the definition of atheism requires on to take a position.