Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no difference between you doing something because you have no choice and you doing something because you chose to?
Not in the mechanism, no. The only difference is in whether the reasons (parameters) for the choice are pretty obvious, not so obvious or we don't actually know what instincts or educated instincts are influencing us.
I didn't choose not to believe.
I just didn't believe.
I could never choose to believe.
No. Not if one is talking in terms of Faith. In terms of persuasion or self persuasion, one is convinced or self -convinced. I am thinking of Anthony Flew who was persuaded by the evidence (though he didn't realize it was invalid evidence) or Peter Hitchens, who was inclined towards belief and pushed away from disbelief by a couple of factors he mentions (none good reasons for converting) and i don't doubt a few others he doesn't even realize. And there is Rachel Slick, trying to prove or show that the Bible is reliable and finding out (as so many have done) that it isn't. She was forced by the evidence into disbelief, not by choice (preference) but in spite of it.
One can Choose to not believe, as in those who refer to believe the less good case or dismiss compelling evidence against. Old Eusebius was a good Bad example of this choice Not to go with the evidence. And even there, though he would probably have seen it as choosing to believe (or keep on believing), it was not a coin -flip preference (though it would have seemed like it -the 'believe or not, choose to believe or not' that theism talks of) but there were personal reasons to reject the weight of evidence.
Some we know of - of course we want to think our views are right and it takes a discipline to get used to admitting being wrong and changing one's views. But there is a sort of self -belief about Faith that is based (I suspect) on belief that one is inspired with the truth. Thus to admit being seriously wrong by the Other side (changing one's mind about hellthreat, for example is ok - you were Inspired to that Knowledge) shatters this delusion. Thus this has to be blocked. By appeal to Faith if all else fails. And the person dong it doesn't realize what they are dong or why. To them it is adhering to their faith -which it is, but the self -justification isn't understood by many yet.
But it is pretty well known to a few. 'God approves and disapproves exactly the sorts of things I approve or disapprove of'. But what those approvals or disapprovals are can come with the religion as much as be the preferences that led to conversion (e .g Peter Hitchens) in the first place! If personal preferences lead a choice, and maintain it thereafter on a basis of need for self -justification, to Choose to believe makes a sot of sense.
But to choose not to believe doesn't, if one is buying the evidence or not. The reasoning, not the faith, is the mechanism. It looks like the familiar error Theism makes - they project the way they think onto us. To see atheism as a sort of Faith. To suppose that we opted for a sort of preference as they did. And of course, when we present evidence that this is not so, they simply choose not to believe us.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-04-2016 at 05:11 AM..
I could have woken up today and decided that I didn't want to believe in the heliocentric model of the solar system. However, I do actually believe that. It's not a matter of what I want to believe, it's a matter of the evidence, what I was taught as a child, societal beliefs, brain chemistry, etc..
I could have woken up today and decided that I didn't want to believe in the heliocentric model of the solar system. However, I do actually believe that. It's not a matter of what I want to believe, it's a matter of the evidence, what I was taught as a child, societal beliefs, brain chemistry, etc..
Personally I believe the universe revolves around me. All my observations have led me to that conclusion and Einstein concurs.
I demand nothing, I merely make observations. Consciousness is a perfectly good label for consciousness. God is a perfectly good label for god ... which for most theists, is some kind of personal intelligent agent responsible for the creation and maintenance of reality, and which generally has some sort of claims of fealty and worship on humans. I address that god concept because it is the most pervasive and consequential, since it's not just a contrived synonym for other things that we already have perfectly descriptive and serviceable names for.
I admit, that this is a valid point. From one perspective, it may seem that in defining a word, you are creating more words - making it more complicated. But isn't that what dictionaries do? Should we toss out all dictionaries because we already have words for those - no need to add to it? No, when we speak of complex ideas like God, Love or Beauty - they are very subjective, so they're open to a wide variety of interpretations. It is even more essential, then to contemplate what it is we mean, and what it is we or others are trying to communicate. Can you realistically demand that just ONE definition be given to beauty or love? Of course not. Same thing with God. It represents something beyond words - but we are stuck with words in trying to logically understand and communicate what it is we consider as higher consciousness - Creative power etc.
Quote:
Sure they say those things, but also say that the unrighteous will know his wrath, that the righteous will be blessed by him with unmerited favor, and that he expects various oblations to be performed, expects reverence, obedience, and is displeased by various things like enjoying sex with the wrong persons or wearing mixed fabrics. You cannot cherry pick the nobler-sounding aspects of how god is defined, and conveniently ignore the widespread unsavory ones.
Here again you are selectively paying attention to some dogma and not others. Sure these religions talk about "the divine" that is "within you", some more than others, but they talk about a lot of other things too.
I recognize what might be called the divine within me, those transcendent qualities which might be conceptualized as my higher self or the better angels of my nature. But this does not require a personal interventionist god, and it has nothing to do with a conventional god-concept, but rather with our aspirations to be our best selves. Nor does it require me to afford belief to invisible beings attempting to manifest in my id.
Mordant, do you agree with all scientific theories?
Do you agree with all philosophies?
You can't agree with them all because many of them are conflicting.
Similarly, religious doctrines are writings of various perspectives - some of them conflicting. And I'd say, just as some scientific and philosophical ideas are less credible, so are some religious doctrines.
So, what are we supposed to do, you ask?
THINK for yourself. Consider what you read in light of cognitive distortions and logical fallacies as well as your own intuitive experiential background.
This is what I do - and why I see that although I may disregard some writings of people, there are certain universal truths - among all of the scriptures. "The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." This is logically, experientially and intuitively sound.
I admit, that this is a valid point. From one perspective, it may seem that in defining a word, you are creating more words - making it more complicated. But isn't that what dictionaries do? Should we toss out all dictionaries because we already have words for those - no need to add to it? No, when we speak of complex ideas like God, Love or Beauty - they are very subjective, so they're open to a wide variety of interpretations. It is even more essential, then to contemplate what it is we mean, and what it is we or others are trying to communicate. Can you realistically demand that just ONE definition be given to beauty or love? Of course not. Same thing with God. It represents something beyond words - but we are stuck with words in trying to logically understand and communicate what it is we consider as higher consciousness - Creative power etc.
Personally, you can call beauty and love whatever you want and I don't care. It seems weird to me to call it love, but that's your choice.
What I find a problem with is when you say "God exists because beauty and love exist therefore atheism is objectively wrong". Because you want to redefine God doesn't mean we're going to redefine atheism.
I'm not saying this is your point in any way, but it's been done so many times by a few members who shall be left unnamed.
I admit, that this is a valid point. From one perspective, it may seem that in defining a word, you are creating more words - making it more complicated. But isn't that what dictionaries do? Should we toss out all dictionaries because we already have words for those - no need to add to it? No, when we speak of complex ideas like God, Love or Beauty - they are very subjective, so they're open to a wide variety of interpretations.
I like to use words with precision, because I believe that precision matters. A tertiary meaning of "God" is "that which one considers of supreme importance" as in, "he worships the Chicago Cubs". It's a throwaway hyperbole. But I think it's irresponsible to use that definition in ways that dilute the primary meaning of "God" as generally understood because it creates the space for people to cheerfully talk right past each other. In fact I have no problem saying the some theists do so deliberately.
In any case atheism = without god = not affording belief in any deities. This in no way suggests that atheists disbelieve in consciousness, or existence, or the universe (or love, or beauty). So here again ... (un)belief or (lack of) religious faith is drawn up on the basis of the primary meaning of "God", which briefly stated, is the all powerful creator or supreme being (in monotheism) or a superhuman being with power over humans (for polytheism).
All that said, of course anyone can define their deity or concept of the Divine however they want, I'm not demanding they do anything other than what they want to. But don't expect me to engage in a meaningful conversation about meaningless word salads suggesting I can't disbelieve in the existence of god because of some unrelated matter such as me being conscious or because I can see the starry skies above or because I had some subjective experience of the hairs standing up on the back of my neck that I don't currently have an explanation for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Mordant, do you agree with all scientific theories?
You must be asking if I agree with all scientific hypotheses, because scientific theories are already establish fact and so I embrace them all. As for hypotheses yet to be established as proven explanatory frameworks (scientific theories) I have different levels of confidence in various ones being eventually proven true and recognize that they can't all end up proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Similarly, religious doctrines are writings of various perspectives - some of them conflicting. And I'd say, just as some scientific and philosophical ideas are less credible, so are some religious doctrines.
I can agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
So, what are we supposed to do, you ask?
THINK for yourself. Consider what you read in light of cognitive distortions and logical fallacies as well as your own intuitive experiential background.
Agreed in principle. And where data is insufficient to determine the probability of a thing being true, the logical default is not to afford it belief.
Where we might well differ is in how much weight we are willing to give intuition, and what issues are consequential enough to demand they fulfill a higher burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
This is what I do - and why I see that although I may disregard some writings of people, there are certain universal truths - among all of the scriptures. "The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." This is logically, experientially and intuitively sound.
Most generically, and with a minimum of begging of questions, I would say that subjective transcendence of the human condition can only be accomplished within the purview of one's own mind. And that while whatever works there for each individual is perfectly fine, it isn't normative, binding or applicable to anyone else.
I like to use words with precision, because I believe that precision matters. A tertiary meaning of "God" is "that which one considers of supreme importance" as in, "he worships the Chicago Cubs". It's a throwaway hyperbole. But I think it's irresponsible to use that definition in ways that dilute the primary meaning of "God" as generally understood because it creates the space for people to cheerfully talk right past each other. In fact I have no problem saying the some theists do so deliberately.
WADR to Gldn's views, God is and always has been the placeholder for "Why anything and everything exists."
I could have woken up today and decided that I didn't want to believe in the heliocentric model of the solar system. However, I do actually believe that. It's not a matter of what I want to believe, it's a matter of the evidence, what I was taught as a child, societal beliefs, brain chemistry, etc..
I don't think you followed my argument. To choose to not believe is a faith -based process. To those who go with the evidence -as you do - to choose to not believe is not what you do.
For sure, we trust a lot of what the experts tell us without checking. We trust the peer -review system, and anyone can use the 'publication' ploy to look authoritative. The 'slide -show presentation' gimmick is used by theism to pretend the stuff they believe is as valid as science.
Wher we have questions about either science or religion, we dig. And if it turns out that there are doubts,we keep digging and questioning.
But theism chooses to believe. Thy push away the doubts. Indeed I have an axiom "The only real sin is doubt". And they opt for faith - not evidence.
Though of course fishing around for 'evidence' (wrong or invented 'evidence' will do nicely) to support the faith is part of the fakery like theist publications and presentations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
Personally I believe the universe revolves around me. All my observations have led me to that conclusion and Einstein concurs.
You misunderstand what Einstein wrote. He didn't say the universe revolves around you, but around him. However, you are both wrong. It revolves around me.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2016 at 04:17 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
