Simple question for the hardcore born agains to answer...

Great Debates
81

FriarTed:

What a frightening religion you have created that somehow leaves you unable to distinguish between selfish actions and rationality!?Do you not follow the logic of the nontheist?Do you not see where we are coming from that, just as we are unable to choose to believe in fire-breathing dragons, we cannot bring ourselves to believe in gods for the exact same reasons?
What flaw in our reasoning or whole in our argument leads you to think it at all likely that we are simply looking for an excuse to “act irresponsibly”(re:defy a god we actually believe exists)?

82

It’s weird. It’s as if, as hard as it is for me to believe that people can choose their beliefs, it’s equally hard for some religious folks to believe that anyone can sincerely and genuinely not believe in gods.

Maybe we’re a different species or something.

Daniel

83

And if they are a different species then we have the right to KILL THEM!

Don’t we?

Screw it!I’m getting my gun!

84

Scylla:

Sorry to misrepresent your opinion, or position. I was using you as a sort of generic skeptic. I apologize.

The Ryan:

Well, I can’t be sure if the evangelists are right or wrong. I hope that they are showing you the best sort of demonstrations they can of the love God has for all mankind, and living their own lives as examples of the sort of kindness, humility, and self sacrifice that the Lord Himself would show you. If they are, then I think they are right, even if it isn’t changing your opinion. If they are hitting you with big heavy bibles, then I hope they stop. I hate it when they do that.

TVAA:

Seeking the answers to spiritual matters with scientific methods can be a problem. Perhaps you don’t find spiritual problems of sufficient interest to consider them. I did. And it was a problem, for me. It is for others, as well. It was to these people my words were directed.

everyone:

I don’t suppose for a moment that logic is the best tool for the nurturing of faith. I don’t think it is the destroyer of faith, either. It is a keen edged tool for examining the world around us, and our perceptions of it. But it is not reasonable, or even logical to assume that logical proof of the existence of God is inherently invalid, or untrue. It just isn’t all that important. I think the real logical proof would not use human logical patterns.

Human patterns go like this:

If one thing, then another.
If not this, then that.
That implies something.
Therefore, another thing.
Things happen.
If God is, then something else.
If there is no God, nothing else.
Something.
Therefore: God exists.

But the problem probably looks different from the divine perspective. The divine argument probably comes out shorter.

I AM
Therefore: whatever.

But it doesn’t look right, from where we sit. That could change.

Tris

85

Tris:

No prob. Just clarifying.

86

Latro- it’s not at all a new religion, it’s a valid tradition within the Christian faith- the Hope for Universal Salvation. And believe me, it does NOT encourage personal irresponsibility- the fate of being immersed in God’s Love & Justice while being out of harmony with God is very dire indeed- but it has a purpose, destroying all that is inconsistent with God & purifying all that is consistent with God so that all humans may be raised out of the ashes of sin to be the younger siblings of Jesus.

G’Skeptic- I said that there may well indeed be some whose experiences seem to negate God as either existing or caring. These people may well be incapable of believing. But I there are also some who aren’t incapable of believing, just unwilling.

87

The question being asked in this thread Friar Ted is whether belief(in God specifically) is chosen or not.No one has said that those who believe cannot choose to deny this belief vocally.What you posted has nothing to do with the fact that I(nor anyone else) cannot choose whether or not I find an existential claim such as “God exists” plausible.After hearing the claim and examining the evidence, if my mind says “That doesn’t sound right” or “It looks more like he believes to fill emotional/paychological needs than because of any rational justification” then there is nothing I can do about it aside from lie and say “I believe” when I really do not.

88

Lib, I know we’ve been all over this, but please remember that your ontological argument A) relied on modal logic, a form of logic that not everyone accepts, and B) didn’t prove the sort of entity that is commonly called a “god”, and certainly had nothing at all to say about a personal god.

In this scenario, the doctor does all the work, you can pay a fee and see if the result (sight) occurs. Nothing can make you believe the doctor will give you sight until he in fact does, the blind patient is merely willing to pay the doctor for the chance he’s right. That sort of religion would be no better than Pascal’s wager. Well, suppose you took the chance. There are plenty of folk around here who put all their trust in their religious peers and advisors, basically said “okay, show me”, and fulfilled their part of the bargain, and were not shown any god(s).

I understand your analogy in a more general way, though. It is sometimes curious to wonder “what are all those religious folk seeing?” But considering the vast number of people who have looked and not found, I’d say there’s a flaw in the Christian system there. If seeing is essential to salvation, as the Christians propose, then a just god would simply strike everyone blind like Paul on the road to Damascus, make sure everyone had a true chance to accept or discard that spiritual world.

89

RexDart

With respect to (A), are you aware that your computer uses it? With respect to (B), is it now uncommon to refer to God as the Supreme Being?

90

Good G – Gravy, can we please not get back into the modal logic ontological proof of God discussion again? Somebody revive one of the old threads if it’s that important, or start a new one.

It is only relevant to this discussion inasmuch as it’s been sufficient to convince some people that God exists, and insufficient to convince other people. It doesn’t, near as I can tell, answer the question of whether people can choose their beliefs.

Daniel

91

B) depends on what the definition of “being” is (cf.: pantheism.)

A) It’s relevant to the discussion inasmuch as i recall Lib’s modal argument relies on definitions of B(g) which I don’t agree with.
Since Lib has several times, IIRC, stated that B(g)=g, this would imply that one can modify one’s beliefs, if one is in a modal state wherein g. But my argument is that B(g)!=g, since often information is unavailable.

But yeah, I agree this could bog down this thread :::::self-flaggelates::::::

92

This comparison always irks me. Believing in the existence of something, and loving something, are totally unrelated.

In the movie Contact, Dr. Arroway’s theist boyfriend tries to imply that the standards of evidence for the existence of God should be the same, or at least on par with, the standards of evidence for the claim that Dr. Arroway loved her father. I know you weren’t trying to make the same point, Lord Ashtar, but belief in something and emotions for something are really separate issues.

(And, yes, you can love something without believing in its existence. Ask any lonely male comic book afficionado who’s fallen in love with Wonder Woman.)

93

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar

quote:

Originally posted by robertliguori
Hmm. Another question for the believers: If it’s a choice that can be made freely by anyone, can you stop? Here, spend a minute not believing in God.

Okay, how did that work out?

Try spending a minute not loving your mother.

How’d that work out for you?

The original OP was not about choosing to love something you already belive to exist, but whether you can choose to believe it exists in the first place.

If you want to use the ‘loving your mother’ analogy then the proper question to ask would be

“Try spending a minute beliving that your mother does’t exist”

How’d that work for you?

94

But the context of the OP suggests that he or she is asking about salvation based on a “belief” in God. As so many have noted throughout this discussion, it’s possible to believe that God exists but not have faith in that God (e.g. Satan will not be saved even tho’ he KNOWS God exists), so we’re talking about a belief that God is in charge, or that God loves you (just like your mom)–not just a belief in the existance of God.

This is probably a hijack, but since we have the attention of so many knowledgable folk, I’ll ask this question:

Why is it, if God exists and his love is the only salvation, that most (not all, but most) people believe in the god of their parents? That is, if you grow up in a Christian household, you believe in God and Jesus. Children of Jews believe in the “same” God but are still waiting for the Messiah. If you grow up in a Buddist household, you believe that salvation comes through meditiation (don’t correct me here, I’m tryin’ to make a point: Buddists believe because their parents did) and if you grow up in deepest, darkest Africa, Mumbo-Jumbo–the God of the Congo–is gonna hoo-doo you!

If there were a real in-charge-of-the-universe God, wouldn’t there be a movement away from multi-religionism to monotheism (an intentional mis-use of the term…I mean belief in just the one God, not belief that there is a single god)? Christianity exists mostly in places that it was brought, not places where it arose. I believe (oh, oh…there’s that word) that I could foster belief in Mumbo-Jumbo with some bread and asprin amongst those who have neither.

JThunder, I’m glad you’re doing better! However, I’m certain that Muslims and Daoists and Buddhists and Mumbo-Jumboists have made the same decision and stated that their faith in their beliefs has been the key to their survival. What makes your Christian God any different?

I hope you’ll take my point and not crush me on the details. I’m not a comparative religions specialist.