I didn't choose not to believe in God.

Great Debates
1

It simply turned out that way. To make a choice about whether to believe in something or not implies that things depend on whether we believe them (or that we choose what is true and what isn’t). They don’t. As far as I know things are the way they are irrespective of what our beliefs are. If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there to hear it, it does make a sound, because ‘sound’ is vibrations regardless of whether there is a brain to interpret them nearby.

Even if I tried to believe in god it wouldn’t work because I just don’t believe, just like I don’t have 3 arms. That is just the way things happen to be.

So, if one day it turns out the dude does exist, and he says to me “Why didn’t you believe in me?” I can say, I had no choice. It wasn’t my fault, it’s just the way I happened to be.
I thought of this as I was drying from having a bath (yeah I’m weird. I think about ridiculous things at ridiculous times). It just occurred to me that the phrase “choose to believe” is ludicrous and egotistical.
I have put this in MPSIMS because it is not a great debate as far as I can tell, It is just a mundane pointless thing I thought about and decided to share. It’s not a new concept, it’s just something I probably haven’t thought about myself before.
well, er… Bye.

(I had more for this thread but in the time it took to get the computer on and the SDMB I forgot most of it)

2

I’m agnostic, with a strong leaning towards atheism, and I always figure if there is a God, I will point out this loophole to him as he prepares to send me to Hell.
Actually, if we were going to do things in a perfectly logical manner, we’d go out and get ourselves some religion just to keep our butts covered!

3

FUCK! (sorry) That was supposed to be an OP, not a reply in someone else’s OP!

4

Please disregard this. I have just made about 3 mistakes in succession. (I am laughing my ass off, If anyone keeps track of my recent posts they will see why)
What I MEANT to say in this thread was this…

Even though I don’t believe in god, I still have that damn habit of saying “oh, for god’s sake” or “oh god”. Every time, I catch myself in the act and feel stupid for saying it and being a non-believer.

5

Actually, I did. I was brought up Episcopal. I had questions that no one could or would answer. I started looking for the answers and after many years of study, the hard evidence was staring me in the face: organized religions are nothing more than a giant con game.

Needless to say, I was not pleased to find that so many people had lied to me for so long, and that so many other people were so gullible as to believe the lies. But there it is.

6

I want to keep this light because, as you say, it’s not a great debate.

I think you’re starting off with the wrong assumption. “To make a choice about whether to believe in something or not implies that things depend on whether we believe them (or that we choose what is true and what isn’t).”

But belief is more than about facts, it’s how you respond to the facts. If you believe your government always tells the truth and acts in your best interests, you’ll certainly vote differently than if you believe it’s full of greedy liars.

Even if the only difference in the way you live as a believer or non-beliver is that you look more kindly on the proponents of one side or another, that will cause the “butterfly effect” and will eventually have results.

If you don’t believe then you don’t believe. I’m not going to ask you to justify your position. But don’t try to look God in the face and say “you made me this way.”

7

OK, in that sense, believing in something or not believing in it can have an effect on whether it is true (it’s self fulfilling prophecy type thing)

But my point is, we can’t have a direct influence on something purely by believing or not believing it. I can’t make a third arm appear on my body just by believing it. My body is the way it is regardless of what I believe. Just as the world is the way it is.

I don’t believe in god, so I don’t believe I will ever have to look him in the face and say “You made me this way” My comment about “If it turns out he does exist” was a bit of a joke. Perhaps not funny, but I don’t think the scenario will ever arise.

8

To each his own, and I certainly respect your right to your beliefs or lack thereof…

However, I did choose to believe in God. There came a time when I was faced with living my life on the path I was on and extremely unhappy or deciding to make some changes and renew my spirituality. I chose to believe and I don’t regret it. That void was filled in my life once I did.

And a lot of organized religion for the most part is a con game. Full of people out for everything they can get from those who put their trust in them.

I choose not to put my faith in man because man will ultimately fail me. God hasn’t so far. :slight_smile:

9

Surely ‘Choose’ is an ability exclusive to our surface-level consciousness and our beliefs are deep down. Choosing what we believe is denying what we actually believe.

Isn’t it logically impossible to choose our beliefs?

Perhaps I am not makeing my point well enough. It just seems like choice is and should be limited to those things we can easily manipulate, such as choosing which desert to have. Choosing what we believe is surely lying to ourselves? Isn’t it??
I am not going to say this again because some of you believe you have chosen a belief and I don’t want to contradict you. But I can’t shake this logic.

10

Lobsang is absolutely right. To “choose to believe” is a self-contradictory expression. “Belief” is not about guessing.

Agnostics are simply craven atheists. They are not torn between equally rational arguments, they are simply struck by fear of the consequence of their true belief.

Pascal’s Wager is not logical. You can’t make an irrational decision rational simply by calling it so. If a spiritual advisor told you that the only way to eternal life was to jump off a tall building, would it be rational to do so? The argument would be the same. “If the advisor is wrong and I don’t jump I don’t gain anything, I just dismiss his claims. But…what if he is right. In that case I have everything to gain.” So you jump. Was that a rational decision?

The fact is that using the “logic” of Pascal’s Wager, you would have to believe every hypothesis which leads to salvation. And since the infinite possibilities would necessarily contain contradictions the philosophical stance is irrational and patently false.

“But what if…?” is not an expression of logic. It is an expression of desperate hope.

I find it hard to imagine a god who would determine the eternal fate of individual men, the god’s creations, simply because they chose to “bet” on his existence.

If I reveal that I arrived at the invalidation of Pascal’s Wager while sitting on the crapper will this thread remain in MPSIMS?

11

As an agnostic, I feel the need to disagree with you. Why is there always confusion about the status and ideas of agnostics? George H. Smith, who wrote the book “Atheism, the Case Against God” made a terrific blunder when he claimed that agnostics were actually claiming that god does exist by defining god as unknowable. Basically, agnostics were unknowingly sneaking god in the back door of their own the beliefs by saying that god has the quality of being unknowable. In other words, by saying the word god, they had made a claim to believe in god. This, along with the assumption that agnostics are weak-willed atheists, are two of the biggest misconceptions about agnostics. (The book, by the way, was billed as the Bible for Atheists, isn’t that a hoot?)

So, let’s clear up two things right now… Agnostics, in my understanding as an agnostic, claim simply that they lack the ability to know whether or not there is a god. It’s not a question of whether or not god is knowable, it is a question of whether or not we are able of even knowing if there is a god or not. Basically, I’m admitting that I’m incapable of knowing. Realizing one’s own failings does not make them craven. Actually, truth be told, there is another layer here that most people don’t recognize… Agnostics can still be split into atheist or theist. The atheist agnostic understands that he/she cannot know whether or not there is a god, but believes that there isn’t one. The theistic agnostic understands that he/she cannot know whether or not there is a god, but believes there is a god, and, further, understands that he/she is unable to understand god if god does indeed exist. I happen to be atheist-agnostic… It doesn’t make me weak-willed to admit that I am a subjective creature and unable to know even if there is an objective reality, much less what that objective reality would be like… Either way, whether or not there is a god, we can never know. So, I wouldn’t really call it being torn between two equally rational arguments, I would call it being torn between two equally irrelevant arguments.

I guess, finally, all I can really say is that it’s too bad that I care about all of this, because I could be an apathetic athiest agnostic…

12

I agree, Lobsang. I don’t believe that God or Gods exist, but i didn’t chose this belief, its just what i believe. Belief in something (for me anyway) isn’t a choice, its a consequence of your brain processing information and coming to a conclusion. I can’t decide to believe in god, and suddenly believe. I suppose i could decide to try to make myself believe in god, and seek evidence/arguments in favour of his existence, but then seeing as i don’t believe in him in the first place such as endeavor would seem like a waste of time, and i wouldn’t do it.

Ex Machina I’m not sure i agree with your argument though. Surely in your example, if you throw yourself off the building you definately lose x years of life, and possibly gain salvation. Whether it is logical or not for you to jump off the building depends on the probability you assign to god’s existence (and also the probability you assign to the advisor being correct). Maybe you need a little more time on the crapper to refine it… :wink:

13

Craven, eh? Thanks, but I’ll choose the reality: I simply don’t know. I’m not especially afraid of anything; if God exists as Christians purport, then He will, by all they know, forgive me as long as I’m sorry. If God exists as an alternate entity, I’m sure it’ll be interesting. I have no reason to fear anything because I simply don’t know. If no deity exists, then I have nothing to fear about any deity at all.

And what exactly is the consequence of my supposed (read: projected by you) belief? That there is no God? Why ever should that frighten me? According to some Christians I’m to burn in Hell forever. Wouldn’t the position that, since God does not exist, there is no Hell … wouldn’t that be favorable? That sounds less like fear of no God and more like fear of a vengeful God.

You should have noted its placement before beginning your post.

14

I feel the same way, I don’t believe I chose not to believe in god. I feel I was born that way. As far back as I can remember, I don’t recall ever really believing in god. I always put god in the same category is Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFO’s etc. In fact when I was young I actually believed in the last three more than god or Santa.

At certain points in my life I did attempt to choose to believe in god. I tried going to several churches. I tried to quit doubting and just accept it, the way I accept the sun will rise in the morning, I just couldn’t. I get my sense of awe and inspiration from nature not some old guy with white beard who concerns himself with who I do or don’t sleep with.

I do not feel their is a void in my life because I don’t believe in god. And I am tired of people saying that. I know for a fact that I am happier than many believers. You don’t have to be an atheist to have a void in your life. Though I do think my life would be a bit easier. I have lost a few relationships because I was honest about my atheism.

I have politely told people that I will not attend or be involved with any church service or functions, other than say weddings or funerals and the like. One woman I went out with said she understood and would respect my opinion. unfortunately she later admitted that it bothered her, and shortly after we broke up. I wish she would have been honest about her feeling from the start.

15

Ex Machina: “In 15 minutes I am going to crap a living full grown bull elephant.”

Craven Agnostic: “In spite of all of my life experience I have no way of disproving your claim, therefore it is as reasonable to assume that it will happen as to not happen. And therefore I am being intellectually honest in saying I just don’t know.”

I am an atheist. I have never seen one iota of support for the assertion of the existence of a theistic God, unless you accept an endless stream of arbitrary raionalizations. It is a fallacy that the burden is on the disbeliever to disprove an assertion. The truth is that the burden is on the one making an assertion to prove it. It does not change matters by simply claiming that skepticism is itself an assertion.

There is no rational support for the existence of god, and there is much rational support for the non-existence of a theistic God. Since believers are the definers of God, and the first article of definition is absolute existence, it is impossible to disprove existence. This, however, does not mean that it is rational to accept the possibility of existence.

“Agnosticism” is a very minor instance of theoretical atheistic nitpicking. The “inability to disprove” is an infintesimal consideration in the face of empirical evidence. The people who claim to be “agnostics” have enlarged the “nit” far beyond its importance.

T.H. Huxley coined the term agnostic. Shortly after dealing with the death of a young son he wrote these words to a friend, a Reverend Kingsley: "I neither deny nor affirm the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing in it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it…But the longer I live, the more obvious it is to me that the most sacred act of a man’s life is to say and to feel, 'I believe such and such to be true.’ "

The agnostics I know maintain their less-than-sacred stance of sitting on the fence and maintaining their sophomoric pose of according validity to both views. Huxley said in the same letter, “It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions.” And regarding the doctrine of immortality, “what is this but in grand words asking me to believe a thing because I like it.”

Huxley saying “I am an agnostic” is more akin to saying “I have a piece of lint on my shoulder.” For the craven agnostics the statement is heard as “I am split down the middle and conflicted.”

As for Pascal’s Wager, it logically leads to the acceptance of these two propositions: “If you believe in God you will achieve immortality” and “If you disbelieve in God you will achieve immortality.” Both can be arrived at in the infinite realm of hope and whimsy.

Cowards on the fence, that’s all I see.

You are a believer or an unbeliever. Period. There is no choice save for a condition of fearful, demented confusion.

16

Ah, thanks, I was wondering who was the arbiter of all this stuff. :smack:

Now, unless you have some sort of cite for “iampunha, you are not agnostic, you are a craven coward and your religious belief is demented”, I’ll show you to two options:

  1. Put those sort of comments in the Pit;
  2. Make a more cough academic go of this in GD, where I’ll happily explain my stance to you, should I find your OP … shall we say, more respectful than your posts here.

Unless and/or until you satisfy one of those three conditions, I reject wholesale the notion that my stance on this issue does not exist. Rather than believing God exists or does not exist, I simply do not know.

17

I see nothing wrong with anyone being agnostic. I think it is perfectly valid to simply not know either way whether god exists.
In a very pedantic very logical sense, we all should be agnostic. Because as brains disconnected from reality by our senses we cannot ‘know’ anything. We can only go as far as trusting what our senses deliver to the brain. And if agnosticism (word?) is literally not knowing then technically we are all agnostic.
Having said that, it is safe to assume that what our senses deliver to our brains is the truth. So if we’re not being pedantic, I atleast am an atheist.

Not only do our senses show that god isn’t there. but our logic tells us that the concept of God was almost certainly invented by man. But we can still only trust and not KNOW our logic is correct.

18

I highly suspect that how a person’s brain is wired depends on whether or not they feel a deep need to believe in God. My mother is very religious, while me and my dad feel little or nothing about the idea of any possible entity greater than ourselves. Every time I attended church, regardless of denomination, it just floored me how people could be into something that I could not possibly understand on an emotional level. I felt absolutely nothing at these places, regardless how hard I tried to believe.

It wasn’t until I gave up that I appreciated a significantly heightened sense of emotional and intellectual freedom.

I completely agree with the OP. I don’t think any of us “choose to believe”.

19

Uh… that first sentence should read “I highly suspect that whether or not someone feels a deep need to believe in God depends on how that person’s brain is wired”.

20

Agnosticism, agnostic, agnosticistic (don’t ask), etc. Here’s a not too academic cite for you.