So, this is floating around the Facebook, this morning...

#101
#101
therealUT said:
Do you choose to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow? If you spend all day telling yourself that the sun will not come up tomorrow, do you think that by the end of the day you will believe that the sun will not come up tomorrow?

One can choose to profess belief; that does not mean that one believes. One can choose to go to church; that does not mean that one believes. One can choose to read the Bible; again, that does not mean that one believes.

There are many, particularly many Christians, who want to equate the profession of belief with belief. I surmise that this is because many are instructed that their salvation depends upon belief, yet they do not fully believe. However, if they equate profession of belief with belief, then they can profess their belief and, at the same time, find solace with the hope that they will be saved.
Click to expand...

Just started a book called "Not a Fan" and the author talks about belief. He says belief is necessary, but that commitment goes hand-in-hand with it. He talks how most churches just "sell" Jesus as opposed to preaching what it takes to be a follower. It's really eye-opening and makes the best case I've ever read how Christianity is not just a religion, but a relationship with Christ.
 
#102
#102
therealUT said:
Do you choose to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow? If you spend all day telling yourself that the sun will not come up tomorrow, do you think that by the end of the day you will believe that the sun will not come up tomorrow?

One can choose to profess belief; that does not mean that one believes. One can choose to go to church; that does not mean that one believes. One can choose to read the Bible; again, that does not mean that one believes.

There are many, particularly many Christians, who want to equate the profession of belief with belief. I surmise that this is because many are instructed that their salvation depends upon belief, yet they do not fully believe. However, if they equate profession of belief with belief, then they can profess their belief and, at the same time, find solace with the hope that they will be saved.
Click to expand...


An atheist lacks belief in God. Once you are exposed to the concept, you do have to make a choice. To say that you lack belief in God is to say that you do not believe He exists. It's the same thing. You have taken the position that you believe God does not exist if you choose not to believe he exists. It's that simple. You have a position if you are an atheist after being exposed to theism.
 
#103
#103
Gramps said:
I have confidence in you that you will handle this situation in an appropriate manner.

You go on with some BS on the board but I have read enough of your post to believe
you are a good family man who will do whatever you feel is best for your family.
Click to expand...

The board is destress time

:)
 
#104
#104
therealUT said:
Do you choose to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow? If you spend all day telling yourself that the sun will not come up tomorrow, do you think that by the end of the day you will believe that the sun will not come up tomorrow?

One can choose to profess belief; that does not mean that one believes. One can choose to go to church; that does not mean that one believes. One can choose to read the Bible; again, that does not mean that one believes.

There are many, particularly many Christians, who want to equate the profession of belief with belief. I surmise that this is because many are instructed that their salvation depends upon belief, yet they do not fully believe. However, if they equate profession of belief with belief, then they can profess their belief and, at the same time, find solace with the hope that they will be saved.
Click to expand...

There are conscious thoughts/choices and subliminal thoughts/choices. These thoughts and choices are not stagnate meaning they bounce from one category to another. At some point in one's conscious life, they had a choice about the sun, whether the sun would always rise, what it was, and the general nature of the sun. They were presented information (whether it was balanced or not) and made a decision based upon it (or simply just to not reject such information). Either way, it was a conscious choice at one point. Since then, the topic of the sun was relegated to the subliminal thoughts/choices category. This absence of conscious choice or thought on a daily basis does not strip it of being a "choice".
 
#105
#105
therealUT said:
Subjecting children to literature that asserts one certain god, while shielding then from literature that asserts other gods or no god, is indoctrination.
Click to expand...

I was brought up in a strict church and private school. Oddly enough it was a literature class that changed every thing.

Gilgamesh opened my eyes to a different world.
 
#106
#106
Gramps said:
An atheist lacks belief in God. Once you are exposed to the concept, you do have to make a choice. To say that you lack belief in God is to say that you do not believe He exists. It's the same thing. You have taken the position that you believe God does not exist if you choose not to believe he exists. It's that simple. You have a position if you are an atheist after being exposed to theism.
Click to expand...

I still fail to see where a choice is made. One either believes in something because they intuitively believe or because they have been exposed to a convincing (at least to them) argument. If one intuitively believes, then the belief is not a choice; if one does not intuitively believe, then the disbelief is not a choice. If one is exposed to an argument that convinces them, then they are convinced and they believe; if one is not exposed to an argument that convinces them, then they are not convinced and they do not believe. No where in this process was a choice made to believe.

Certainly, individuals might choose to avoid broaching the subject because they fear they might be convinced. This is not a choice not to believe, though; it is a choice not to examine something. There are plenty of individuals, however, who have examined these things and have yet to be convinced (I count myself in that group). I can, and I have in the past, chosen to profess belief, but that does not mean that I do, or did, actually believe.
 
#107
#107
PKT_VOL said:
There are conscious thoughts/choices and subliminal thoughts/choices. These thoughts and choices are not stagnate meaning they bounce from one category to another. At some point in one's conscious life, they had a choice about the sun, whether the sun would always rise, what it was, and the general nature of the sun. They were presented information (whether it was balanced or not) and made a decision based upon it (or simply just to not reject such information). Either way, it was a conscious choice at one point. Since then, the topic of the sun was relegated to the subliminal thoughts/choices category. This absence of conscious choice or thought on a daily basis does not strip it of being a "choice".
Click to expand...

I most certainly never made the conscious choice to believe that the sun would rise tomorrow; nor have I made conscious choices to believe much of what I believe. If, however, you want to relegate "choice" to the subconscious level, then we are removing the normative force from the word "choice" that the religious (particularly Christians) both want and need it to have.
 
#108
#108
OrangeEmpire said:
I was brought up in a strict church and private school. Oddly enough it was a literature class that changed every thing.

Gilgamesh opened my eyes to a different world.
Click to expand...

I was brought up in a strict private school as well. I was probably the only one that didn't attend church service every week, and people would act extremely surprised to hear that.

I'm a Christian and am one to this day, but I am also with you in searching for more understanding. I think it's only healthy, though. A friend of mine recommended The Case for Faith for me, but I have yet to pick it up.

And Weezer had a great post. People see what they want to see when reading holy books. You can find peace, but you can also find hate. You see what you want and adhere to what you want.
 
#109
#109
therealUT said:
I most certainly never made the conscious choice to believe that the sun would rise tomorrow; nor have I made conscious choices to believe much of what I believe. If, however, you want to relegate "choice" to the subconscious level, then we are removing the normative force from the word "choice" that the religious (particularly Christians) both want and need it to have.
Click to expand...

You most certainly did. It didn't neccesarily have to be an active contemplative choice. It was more likely a passive, accepting/non rejection choice. It was a choice nonetheless.
 
#110
#110
Belief goes byond empirical evidence. A blind man living in a cave can believe in the sun rising and setting despite never having experienced it. Some would have to argue for or against the sun and he could choose to believe or not, despite what others may know to be true.

Belief in any spiritual being will always entail weighing evidence, most of which will not be provable at this point in time. At some point each will have to choose to accept the evidence at hand or reject it.
 
#111
#111
PKT_VOL said:
You most certainly did. It didn't neccesarily have to be an active contemplative choice. It was more likely a passive, accepting/non rejection choice. It was a choice nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Now my choice is passive and lacks contemplation? If that is how you choose to define "choice", then feel free to do so; however, a passive, non-contemplative state (not even an act) that I somehow accept (without contemplation or active acceptance) and adhere to does not seem to me to pertain, in any manner whatsoever, to the the notion of choice as a deliberative decision that one makes (thus, one acts).
 
#113
#113
YorkVol said:
Belief in any spiritual being will always entail weighing evidence, most of which will not be provable at this point in time. At some point each will have to choose to accept the evidence at hand or reject it.
Click to expand...

Here we go again...

what evidence are you referring to?
 
#119
#119
therealUT said:
Now my choice is passive and lacks contemplation? If that is how you choose to define "choice", then feel free to do so; however, a passive, non-contemplative state (not even an act) that I somehow accept (without contemplation or active acceptance) and adhere to does not seem to me to pertain, in any manner whatsoever, to the the notion of choice as a deliberative decision that one makes (thus, one acts).
Click to expand...

How was it not an act? You formed your thought process about the sun, that's an act in my book.

The fact that I call it "passive" is because there is no rigorous contemplation upon the matter. The information that was given to you did not contradict your empirical information at the time. You most likely passively accepted or non-rejected it (however you want to view it) based upon your experiences. That's a choice. If information or a theory which contradicted your empirical experiences was presented and you rejected it (like you should), that is no more of a choice than passively accepting something because you have no reason not reject it.

Choices are the cornerstone of beliefs. Beliefs don't just form out of thin air.
 
#121
#121
YorkVol said:
Belief goes byond empirical evidence. A blind man living in a cave can believe in the sun rising and setting despite never having experienced it. Some would have to argue for or against the sun and he could choose to believe or not, despite what others may know to be true.

Belief in any spiritual being will always entail weighing evidence, most of which will not be provable at this point in time. At some point each will have to choose to accept the evidence at hand or reject it.
Click to expand...

I agree mostly. Philosophers would argue that hearing two people argue over their experiences is an experience to you (yourself) and thus empirical evidence as well.
 
#122
#122
Thrasher865 said:
That is not evidence. That is conjecture.
Click to expand...

Not sure your point. My point is you are free to pick the evidence you want and free to derive your beliefs accordingly. That selection process involves a series of choices which then leads to a decision, i.e. another choice.

You are also free to look at the evidence selected by others and reject it as invalid according to your own beliefs, but that does not invalidate their belief.
 
#124
#124
PKT_VOL said:
I agree mostly. Philosophers would argue that hearing two people argue over their experiences is an experience to you (yourself) and thus empirical evidence as well.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you differentiate between empirical and experiencial evidence?
 
#125
#125
For Godel, OE, the incompleteness theorem applies only to a closed system. So, to fill the gaps in the logic, all you have to do is introduce a broader reaching theorem, as science has always done.

Does that mean that a "theory of everything" is impossible? Maybe. Or maybe there is simply too much to be encompassed by a single theory. Even if there were a gap in the theory, does that prove the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe? Absolutely not.

God is simply an easy way for some people to fill the gaps in their understanding, and it will always be the answer for some, because I believe we will never have a fully complete understanding of everything in the universe.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top