Is belief that a god exists a choice?

[PsychoSarah]

Let me just say that I think belief in God is a choice that can be freely made. I would be a poor example in trying to prove this.

6 years of seeking belief and I have yet to succeed. Not only do I desire belief, but I despise the state of not having it. So tell me again how one can just choose to believe something?

 

[dysert]

6 years of seeking belief and I have yet to succeed. Not only do I desire belief, but I despise the state of not having it. So tell me again how one can just choose to believe something?

My guess is that you need some objective evidence to at least have the door open a crack. Why not look up those prophecies about Jesus I posted a while back to convince yourself that they're legit and sufficiently specific. If you get to that point, maybe the door will crack open a little -- at least to the possibility of the supernatural existing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

My guess is that you need some objective evidence to at least have the door open a crack. Why not look up those prophecies about Jesus I posted a while back to convince yourself that they're legit and sufficiently specific. If you get to that point, maybe the door will crack open a little -- at least to the possibility of the supernatural existing.

Convince myself- ha, if I would have to actively force myself to consider those prophecies legitimate, wouldn't that mean they weren't legitimate? Remember, I am biased IN FAVOR of them being true as it is, because I want there to be some indication that they are more than fiction. If it comes to the point where I have to force it to that degree, I will be knowingly lying to myself and therefore I would never be able to solidly believe they were true.

The whole "what Jesus would ride thing" and other such prophecies he supposedly fulfilled (he actually didn't fit all of them), aren't reliable because people could have "filled in facts" about Jesus to make him fit the prophecies better.

 

[dysert]

Convince myself- ha, if I would have to actively force myself to consider those prophecies legitimate, wouldn't that mean they weren't legitimate? Remember, I am biased IN FAVOR of them being true as it is, because I want there to be some indication that they are more than fiction. If it comes to the point where I have to force it to that degree, I will be knowingly lying to myself and therefore I would never be able to solidly believe they were true.

The whole "what Jesus would ride thing" and other such prophecies he supposedly fulfilled (he actually didn't fit all of them), aren't reliable because people could have "filled in facts" about Jesus to make him fit the prophecies better.

I gotcha. Sorry, Sarah, but I've got nothing better for you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I gotcha. Sorry, Sarah, but I've got nothing better for you.

Fair enough, you tried. And at least you are honest about it, and don't try to bash me for finding fault in your examples.

 

[Albion]

Convince myself- ha, if I would have to actively force myself to consider those prophecies legitimate, wouldn't that mean they weren't legitimate? Remember, I am biased IN FAVOR of them being true as it is, because I want there to be some indication that they are more than fiction.

I don't think that's what he meant, and I didn't pick up anything about "force." The impression I got from his post was that a closer look at the basis of this religion (or any, for that matter) could show you what its claims are built upon--and then that can be studied the same way any other piece of evidence would be studied. In other words, the exact opposite of taking a pig in a poke.

But I do also think that you feel you have done this and yet are not persuaded. That's fair.

The whole "what Jesus would ride thing" and other such prophecies he supposedly fulfilled (he actually didn't fit all of them), aren't reliable because people could have "filled in facts" about Jesus to make him fit the prophecies better.

Could have? My goodness, then there's no reason to think man walked on the moon or that JFK is dead. There's a conspiracy theory that does away with almost every fact of history if we want to go that way.

However, historians--who I would think might be given some credit for having some healthy skepticism and also for having an ability to research such matters--have not dismissed the Bible record out of hand as you seem to have done, and certainly not because it all could have been phonied up.

 

[Non sequitur]

My guess is that you need some objective evidence to at least have the door open a crack. Why not look up those prophecies about Jesus I posted a while back to convince yourself that they're legit and sufficiently specific. If you get to that point, maybe the door will crack open a little -- at least to the possibility of the supernatural existing.

Most atheists accept the possibility of the supernatural existing; they just conclude there isn't sufficient evidence for it (and it would be hard to test for).

Conversely, is the door open a crack that atheism is legit?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't think that's what he meant, and I didn't pick up anything about "force." The impression I got from his post was that a closer look at the basis of this religion (or any, for that matter) could show you what its claims are built upon--and then that can be studied the same way any other piece of evidence would be studied. In other words, the exact opposite of taking a pig in a poke.

But I do also think that you feel you have done this and yet are not persuaded. That's fair.


Could have? My goodness, then there's no reason to think man walked on the moon or that JFK is dead. There's a conspiracy theory that does away with almost every fact of history if we want to go that way.

However, historians--who I would think might be given some credit for having some healthy skepticism and also for having an ability to research such matters--have not dismissed the Bible record out of hand as you seem to have done, and certainly not because it all could have been phonied up.

You have to understand, when considering eyewitness testimony (being really generous with the bible here), when people give exceedingly detailed descriptions of events, that's a red flag. You see, people generally forget most small details about events very quickly, so when they seem to recall those details, in reality, they are mostly making them up. There are also details in the bible about Jesus that completely don't make sense from the perspective of an eyewitness account, such as how much Judas was paid to betray him. Who the heck besides Judas and the person paying him would have bothered to count it? When your Messiah is being crucified, that doesn't seem like a priority. And yet, the bible has that detail. In regards to considering "historical" accounts, excessive detail is viewed as a detriment.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Most atheists accept the possibility of the supernatural existing; they just conclude there isn't sufficient evidence for it (and it would be hard to test for).

Conversely, is the door open a crack that atheism is legit?

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, not the assertion that they do not exist. And how likely a belief is to be true has no bearing on whether or not it is a legitimate belief in any objective sense.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think that's what he meant, and I didn't pick up anything about "force." The impression I got from his post was that a closer look at the basis of this religion (or any, for that matter) could show you what its claims are built upon--and then that can be studied the same way any other piece of evidence would be studied. In other words, the exact opposite of taking a pig in a poke.

But I do also think that you feel you have done this and yet are not persuaded. That's fair.


Could have? My goodness, then there's no reason to think man walked on the moon or that JFK is dead. There's a conspiracy theory that does away with almost every fact of history if we want to go that way.

However, historians--who I would think might be given some credit for having some healthy skepticism and also for having an ability to research such matters--have not dismissed the Bible record out of hand as you seem to have done, and certainly not because it all could have been phonied up.

Historians have a method they follow, which is the historical method, which is utilized similar to the reasons the "scientific method" is used in science.

There is established criteria in the historical method, to be utilized to determine if any written record has historical credibility and although the method is well established, everyone doesn't apply it with the same rigor.

Most NT historians are christians, and hence, this is not exactly the most objective basis to form critical opinions of ancient writings. I would equate it to, relying on tobacco company scientists, to determine the harms of cigarette smoking.

I have read the works of; conservative historians, moderate historians and liberal historians and their positions on the historical credibility of the NT are all over the map. If one was to look at mostly the moderate historians, most conclude, the NT has some pieces that are historically credible, but much of it is not only not historically credible, but there is ample evidence the gospels have been changed over time, with stories added, authors names added, etc. etc.

 

[bhsmte]

You have to understand, when considering eyewitness testimony (being really generous with the bible here), when people give exceedingly detailed descriptions of events, that's a red flag. You see, people generally forget most small details about events very quickly, so when they seem to recall those details, in reality, they are mostly making them up. There are also details in the bible about Jesus that completely don't make sense from the perspective of an eyewitness account, such as how much Judas was paid to betray him. Who the heck besides Judas and the person paying him would have bothered to count it? When your Messiah is being crucified, that doesn't seem like a priority. And yet, the bible has that detail. In regards to considering "historical" accounts, excessive detail is viewed as a detriment.

Only conservative christian NT scholars and historians will claim the NT has legit eye witness accounts. When you get into the more moderate scholars/historians, they all pretty much agree, the NT is not based on legit eye witness accounts.

 

[Albion]

Historians have a method they follow, which is the historical method, which is utilized similar to the reasons the "scientific method" is used in science.

There is established criteria in the historical method, to be utilized to determine if any written record has historical credibility and although the method is well established, everyone doesn't apply it with the same rigor.

Most NT historians are christians, and hence, this is not exactly the most objective basis to form critical opinions of ancient writings.

I'm sorry, but it's not a very credible answer to claim, flatly, that because "most" historians are Christians (are they? ) they are biased and would not adhere to the standards of their profession. No, it's not.

But I'lI give you credit for creating a forcefield around your beliefs that absolutely repels anything you don't want to hear, but you're only fooling yourself by using it. I would suggest that anyone seeking answers make an honest examination of the research be done first and then see what they have.

I have read the works of; conservative historians, moderate historians and liberal historians and their positions on the historical credibility of the NT are all over the map.

Well, that's true of any subject, isn't it? Natural Scientists are all over the map, too, and yet I take it that you are inclined to believe in Science and the Scientific Method.

If one was to look at mostly the moderate historians, most conclude, the NT has some pieces that are historically credible, but much of it is not only not historically credible, but there is ample evidence the gospels have been changed over time, with stories added, authors names added, etc. etc.

All of that has been handled and considered by historians, linguists, and the like without throwing the "baby out with the bathwater." You are eager, it appears, to find anything that can be pointed to that's unsolved or dubious, so that you can dismiss even the most basic of facts that would tend to verify the Bible and historical record. I would hope that this is NOT the approach PsychoSarah brings to this matter.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry, but it's not a very credible answer to claim, flatly, that because "most" historians are Christians (are they? ) they are biased and would not adhere to the standards of their profession. No, it's not.

But I'lI give you credit for creating a forcefield around your beliefs that absolutely repels anything you don't want to hear, but you're only fooling yourself by using it. I would suggest that an honest examination of the research be done first and then see what you have.


Well, that's true of any subject, isn't it? Natural Scientists are all over the map, too, and yet I take it that you are inclined to believe in Science and the Scientific Method.

\

Honest examination of the research?

How do you know I haven't?

I have read and studied the works of numerous NT scholars and historians and it is a mixed bag. One thing a person can do though, is become familiar with the criteria in the historical method, and then review how each historian applies the method, in reaching their conclusions. Some apply it loosely, some apply it moderately and some apply it rigorously.

From that point, each person can come to a conclusion, which view is the most objective and based on the best evidence, or lack of evidence.

 

[Non sequitur]

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, not the assertion that they do not exist. And how likely a belief is to be true has no bearing on whether or not it is a legitimate belief in any objective sense.

Correct.

 

[Albion]

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, not the assertion that they do not exist.

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:

6 years of seeking belief and I have yet to succeed. Not only do I desire belief, but I despise the state of not having it. So tell me again how one can just choose to believe something?

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?

 

[Albion]

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.

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.

 

[Non sequitur]

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.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

What position is being taken?

 

[Albion]

Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

What position is being taken?

It's atheism that I was referring to.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

I appreciate your words, juvenissun. I should have explained better that, when I entered into the thread, a lot had already been said, so I confined myself to dealing with the poll choices and why I personally felt "stuck" for an answer to the poll.

It does, however, address a point that I think is important--choosing a god, any god, may be as natural and free as taking a stand on whether or not it will be a hard winter. It's natural to contemplate and anyone's guess is as good as the next person's. But we Christians aren't especially concerned about having the free will to choose the wrong answer, and knowing the true God is not something all men do as automatically as choosing your favorite color.

I agree.
Godspeed in engaging conversation with them.