Choosing consequences ...

[Sher]

To keep another thread on topic, I am repeating what DivineOb asks here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=78323#post78323)
[...] does that person really "choose" the consequences of a failure to follow the god(s)? and answering:

Yup ... they certainly do.

Let's look at an example:

If a person ... let's call him ABC ... was presented with all evidence by loving parents that a drug is bad for him and will kill him if he does enough of it, but ABC ... who sincerely read all the literature, was subjected to many lectures which often included verbal illustrations of what the consequences would entail, and was often punished for minor infractions, but remained unconvinced by that overwhelming evidence ... chose to "do" that drug anyway and died ... doesn't that mean that ABC really choose the consequences of the failure? Does that make the parents, who warned ABC ... over and over ... about the consequences, unloving?

Let's see another example:

Person DEF is drowning ... and someone repeatedly brings a boat around, throws out tons of life rafts and lifesavers (those floating doughnut thingies), jumps in the water and dies themselves to save that person ... yet no matter the efforts of the lifesaver, DEF insists that she is not drowning, even as her head bobbles under for the final time. Does DEF really chose the consequences for failure? She has to feel that she is drowning when the water is running up her nose and she can't breathe ... yet she kept denying her savior who is trying to get her to safety, even after he died. Does that make the savior unloving when it is obvious that DEF wants to drown ... in fact must enjoy the act of drowning given the large effort that she made to fight off the savior who was trying to save her?

In this same way, God created an instruction book ... warning us of the dangers. He sent His only Son to die for our sins ... to take our place so that we can again fellowship with Him. He often thumps us on the head to see where we are erring ... and provided Christ as Intercessory ... all to warn us of those consequences of failure to follow His sovereignty ... He is more loving, I would submit, than any law enforcement agency ... more loving than any human parent because of His supreme justice ... and more loving and tolerant of us than He should be, IMO. It is the person's fault when he fails to recognize the need for a Savior ... and to pay the consequences for his own actions because he refused to do so.

Stupidity and proof of intent aren't a defense in any application of law ...

[cloaked_dagger]

Excellent point SherBear, I agree with you completely.:thumb:

[DivineOb]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78366#post78366)
SherBear:

To keep another thread on topic, I am repeating what DivineOb asks here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=78323#post78323) and answering:



Thanks for doing this. I was thinking of creating a separate thread myself :P.




Yup ... they certainly do.

Let's look at an example:

snip



I don't think your example really provides a good analogue to a person's search for god(s). I have never received clear and unambiguous evidence that god(s) exist (which was the whole point of my post). In your example (well, it isn't clear but I assume you mean for ABC to receive clear and unambiguous evidence that the drug will kill him). I have no reason to believe that the bible is true (and indeed, good reason to believe it is false), whereas in your example ABC received his evidence which had (presumably) been validated by medical authorities. That is, he had every reason to assume that it was accurate.




Let's see another example:

snip



This example is again not a clear analogue to a person's search for god's. In this example, the drowning person is again provided with clear and unambiguous evidence of drowning. Where is my clear and unambiguous evidence? Not only have I not been provided with it, but I have actively *looked* for it and failed to find it. Tell me what I should do to clearly tell that I am 'drowning' and I will gladly do what you say. I've prayed to the christian god before just asking for some unambiguous evidence that he exists and I was not given any. Now, I know there are 'explanations' for why I was not given the evidence I asked for, but in any case, the analogy you provided does not hold.

I can come up with replacement analogies for these two if you want, but the key difference between these analogies and the real world is that I have been presented with nothing close to unambiguous evidence for the 'dangers' I am facing, whereas the people in these analogies were privvy to such evidence.




In this same way, God created an instruction book ... warning us of the dangers.



As I said, I have no reason to believe that this book is true. And, as long as I have people telling me that this book says things which are patently false (such as that the earth is only 6000 years old), I have very good reason to believe that the rest of the book is false as well.

To temporarily bring it back to your first analogy, it would be like ABC's parents telling their child that all illegal drugs were going to kill him. It is no secret that marijuana, even if you take the most negative stance on it, is nowhere near as bad for you as, say, heroin. Since ABC knows his parents lied to him about marijuana being a risk for his death, why should he believe them about the rest of the drugs?




He often thumps us on the head to see where we are erring ...



And how do I clearly and unambiguously detect this thumping?




and provided Christ as Intercessory ... all to warn us of those consequences of failure to follow His sovereignty ... He is more loving, I would submit, than any law enforcement agency ...



Except that I can see and interact with the SDPD.




and to pay the consequences for his own actions because he refused to do so.



But you haven't shown this to be the case. I agree that if I have received clear and unambiguous warnings and evidence that a particular god exists, and have received clear and unambiguous information about the results of not turning to that god, then I agree that I have no excuse when 'judgement day' comes (though I would probably still maintain that hell is unjust). But, since I haven't received any of those, I don't see how I can be fairly judged according to that 'law'




Stupidity and proof of intent aren't a defense in any application of law ...

I would disagree. I bet if the state passes a new law and does an insufficient job of informing the populace of the law that the lawbreakers would be excused from their crimes. In any case, since the consequences of breaking God's law is are so great, we should hold the christian god to an even higher standard of evidence for him to justifiably pass judgement on those who break that law.

[Vorkosigan]

yet no matter the efforts of the lifesaver, DEF insists that she is not drowning, even as her head bobbles under for the final time. Does DEF really chose the consequences for failure?

What was DEF to do? She was standing on dry land, as evidenced by innumerable empirical studies and the hard feel of pavement under her feet, when this deluded idiot came up, pushing a boat but claiming he was rowing, and started bashing her over the head with a rotten board he described as a life preserver. Worse still, he then demanded money so he could transfer his attentions to others and ordered her to start hating her neighbors, who had the misfortune to do things with their ground beef that the boat-nut didn't like. DEF insisted that it was a paved road she was standing on, pointing to the dozens of people walking around unconcerned, but the poor boat-nut continued to claim that he was floating on water, rowing and that his rotten board was a life preserver even as DEF handed him a worm she had prised out of it. "That's no worm," said the boat-nut, "and anyway you picked it up off the ground...er...water." Shrugging, DEF strolled off, while boat-nut continued on his way, bashing more people over the head, and making life difficult with his violent, insistent, road-hogging ways. "It's my ocean!" DEF heard him shouting as he receded out of view. "What are you doing in it?" "What?" came the barely heard indignant screech. "This is not an ocean but a mountain, and I am skiing here....."

Vorkosigan

[Sher]

Today @ 10:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78430#post78430)
Vorkosigan:

What was DEF to do? :shrug: Not rely on insanity as a defense?

[Sher]

Today @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78427#post78427)
DivineOb:

Thanks for doing this. I was thinking of creating a separate thread myself :P.No problem. I didn't want to hijack the thread with a rabbit trail.
[...] I have no reason to believe that the bible is true (and indeed, good reason to believe it is false), whereas in your example ABC received his evidence which had (presumably) been validated by medical authorities. That is, he had every reason to assume that it was accurate.

What you I missing, IMO, is that the evidence exhists in both examples and IRL ... the issue is whether the PERSON finds them trustworthy, accurate, and listens to the evidence.
I can come up with replacement analogies for these two if you want, but the key difference between these analogies and the real world is that I have been presented with nothing close to unambiguous evidence for the 'dangers' I am facing, whereas the people in these analogies were privvy to such evidence.


As I said, I have no reason to believe that this book is true.

See? This is your subjective opinion on the evidence ... not the fault of the evidence itself.

In my first example, the drug user was presented with evidence that he chose to ignore. In my second example, the drowning victim was also presented with evidence she chose to ignore, even as the evidence was even more blatent ... in her face.

The reason for the two examples was this ... the first was one that illustrates those that have heard about God, not really knowing Him, but at least being presented with the evidences that exist ... the second example is more the example of the skeptic ... the person who has not only heard of God, but also has extensively studied God's word.

The point being, the evidence is there ... "evidenced" by those who have grabbed the life rafts ... who have read the the literature and listened to the lectures ... who realize there is a need for a Savior ... only there are those who still sit back and say "THAT'S not evidence ... nope, I don't see it, so it isn't there" :no:
To temporarily bring it back to your first analogy, it would be like ABC's parents telling their child that all illegal drugs were going to kill him. It is no secret that marijuana, even if you take the most negative stance on it, is nowhere near as bad for you as, say, heroin. Since ABC knows his parents lied to him about marijuana being a risk for his death, why should he believe them about the rest of the drugs? And what does a friend of ABC believe when a third friend, a pothead, smokes frequently, loses inhibition and has sex with someone who is HIV positive ... and later dies from AIDS? The pot didn't 'directly' kill the friend, ABC rightly claims ... but misses the point that if not for the pot, the friend might still be alive because of the avoidance of that bad, drug-influenced choice. Same as if ABC's parents counted alcohol as a drug, and the friend had died by drunk driving ... not directly from the alcohol, but indisputable the cause of the effect.
And how do I clearly and unambiguously detect this thumping?By opening your heart, your mind, your eyes, and your ears to the fact that God is thumpin' ya ... the same way anyone learns any truth.
Except that I can see and interact with the SDPD.And with God ... but that is another topic.
I would disagree. I bet if the state passes a new law and does an insufficient job of informing the populace of the law that the lawbreakers would be excused from their crimes. What governing body do you live under? Ignorance of the law is not a defense either.

... but I was referring to stupidity which is also very different. Stupidity is knowing the law, and intent ... doing whatever the person wants to do irregardless of the law.

Ignorance is not knowing the law .... and it is a form of stupidity if you want to acknowledge it as such, I guess because the person could have learned the law.
In any case, since the consequences of breaking God's law is are so great, we should hold the christian god to an even higher standard of evidence for him to justifiably pass judgement on those who break that law.Again, I refer back to the beginning of this post. If the evidence weren't present, no one would see it there. Since there are millions who do acknowledge its presence, that makes the very strong ... even airtight, I submit ... case that the evidence exists ... just that some ignore/deny the evidences.

Look at it this way ... the medical evidence exists that "drug X" will cause you to be an addict the first time you use it ... the medical community has affirmed this ... and millions avoid "drug X" ... but others don't. The evidence is still evidence ... the users just ignore/deny that it is such.

The life rafts exist and are evidence ... millions are saved from drowning ... but others look at the rafts and say they are Krispy Kreme doughnuts ... and drown while ignoring/denying the evidence that there isn't any glazed topping and millions of others are floatting to safety.

Open your heart, DivineOb ... relying not on man to tell you ... but on God to show you ... with your whole heart and begin open and humble ...

God Bless ... even if you don't believe :smile:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78366#post78366)
SherBear:
If a person ... let's call him ABC ... was presented with all evidence by loving parents that a drug is bad for him and will kill him if he does enough of it, but ABC ... who sincerely read all the literature, was subjected to many lectures which often included verbal illustrations of what the consequences would entail, and was often punished for minor infractions, but remained unconvinced by that overwhelming evidence ... chose to "do" that drug anyway and died ... doesn't that mean that ABC really choose the consequences of the failure? Does that make the parents, who warned ABC ... over and over ... about the consequences, unloving?

There is solid evidence about what drugs do to the human body. This can be proven scientifically.

Shame there's no evidence that your religious beliefs are based in reality, otherwise you might have a point!


It is the person's fault when he fails to recognize the need for a Savior

Why is it my fault that your religious beliefs seem like infantile delusions to me? What would you suggest I do to remedy this situation? Lie to myself?

Your arrogance is truly astonishing.


Stupidity and proof of intent aren't a defense in any application of law ...

Sort out your own stupidity before you judge that of others.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78466#post78466)
SherBear:
The point being, the evidence is there ... "evidenced" by those who have grabbed the life rafts ... who have read the the literature and listened to the lectures ... who realize there is a need for a Savior ... only there are those who still sit back and say "THAT'S not evidence ... nope, I don't see it, so it isn't there" :no:

The fact that indoctrinated individuals believe in God has nothing to do with the evidence, or lack thereof.

There is no evidence that God exists. Christians often talk of this 'evidence', as if it's rock-solid. But challenge them on it, and we get answers such as 'well... we exist!' and other such gibberish.

There are many muslims in the world. They've accepted the evidence for their faith. Why can't you? The evidence is out there, even if you choose to deny it. Obviously you're too happy with your life of sin to properly examine the evidence.

Paul

[DBoone]

I kinda goofed, I put this posting in the former thread when it really belongs here...

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=78468#post78468

Vorkosigan - I can appreciate your emotional response, and it may even be fair to say of some Christians, but it's an entirely biased view of what God is like and doesn't fit the analogy given at all. Read your Bible, bud.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78510#post78510)
lordsnooty:


Why is it my fault that your religious beliefs seem like infantile delusions to me? What would you suggest I do to remedy this situation? Lie to myself?Nope ... just prove the whole point of this thread by your answer ... that "that person really "choose[s]" the consequences of a failure" ... Thank you, Paul for affirming my point.

[Sher]

Anyway, back on topic ... and I would ask as originator that the responders discuss the main point, not dissect the analogies that I used as example.

We are discussing whether someone really "chooses" [to suffer] the consequences of a failure ... does lack of belief/active denial in something negate responsibilty? I don't believe that it does.

I believe we are responsible for our choices in life ... to kill or not to kill, to take drugs or not to take drugs, to believe or not to believe ... and if we are wrong, we suffer the consequences of that decision. We are just as guilty for things we don't do that we should, as we are for things we do that we shouldn't.

The answer to the point really is ... when we are forewarned that adverse consequences will happen if we do/don't do a certain thing, and we choose to ignore that warning for whatever reason we want to apply and do/don't do a certain thing anyway, we are choosing ... making an active choice.

So choosing to believe the evidence is false, choosing to believe the evidence is nonexistant, choosing to believe that the forewarning won't come to fruition, (... etc.) is still making a choice to suffer the consequences if the belief in the outcome is erroneous.

[Woman]

I find several problems with the analogies given, many of which have been aptly pointed out. Let's look at the first.


ABC is given literature with evidence regarding the possible deadly consequences of drug use.

ABC is given the Bible which tells him that unrepented sin will result in spiritually deadly consequences.

ABC's parents talk to him often and demonstrate their love to him. They let him know that they want him to avoid drugs because his death would break their hearts and they would be powerless to do anything about it.

God is silent. He does not communicate with ABC, but dozens of His representatives give him vastly conflicting information about which sins are deadly and which are not. They are also unclear about what the punishment of spiritual death is, but hell is mentioned a lot.

ABC looks around. He sees that some of his friends have gotten into drugs and it has ruined their lives Some have even died.

He also notices that everyone sins and sees no appreciable difference between the religious sinners and the non-religious ones.

ABC decides not to take drugs and lives a long healthy life.
He decides to become a Christian and lives a long, healthy life.

OR

ABC takes drugs anyway and either:
1. decides they are okay but moves on
2. becomes addicted, goes to rehab and gets his life back
3. eventually overdoses and dies(his parents are helpless to prevent this tragedy)

ABC remains an atheist/agnostic and either:
1. lives pretty much like everyone else.
2. dies and rests in peace throughout eternity,
3. dies and learns that he will reincarnate soon
4. is judged by the one true God/Jesus Christ and is thrown into a lake of fire (God is able to prevent this, but chooses not to)

A friend of ABC's who has watched him all his life concludes that:
1. he had loving parents who did all they could to prepare him for life.
2. God's love may be as real, but is more difficult to verify
3. drugs may or may not kill you.
4. religion makes little difference in the quality, length or success of earthly life.
5. what happens after we die is not known.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEF - This one can't really be addressed. If someone is indeed drowning, they know it. If they are not drowning and the people around them are delusional, they know it. For this one to make sense, drowning people would have to commonly believe they are on dry land breathing normally. This does not happen. A drowning person will struggle wildly to grasp anything which may be seen as a means of survival and they aren't particular about who is doing the offerring. Perhaps this could be one small way the analogy here could work. When someone is at the end of his rope so to speak, he will reach out to whomever offers the promise of something better.

[Woman]

It looks like our posts passed each other from the timing.

Otherwise I would have answered differently than refuting your analogies.

The basic question that I see here is this. Actions are one thing. Mental processes are another. One cannot choose to believe in something. It cannot be done.

Try very hard to believe that you will win the lottery this afternoon at 3:00. You won't be able to. Even if your life depended on it, you wouldn't be able to. If that seems silly then select anything else that you don't believe in and try , REALLY try to.

[DBoone]

DEF is most if not all of us at some point in our lives. Denial is the primary method for sin to maintain its hold on our lives. We are blind and insist that we see just fine, we are lame and insist that we're in perfect shape, and we're morally bankrupt and insist that we're so spiritual that we won't have any problem convincing God that we're good enough to get into Heaven, if we even believe in God that is.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78618#post78618)
Woman:

It looks like our posts passed each other from the timing.

Otherwise I would have answered differently than refuting your analogies.No problem, Woman. I just don't want to see us rabbit-trail onto something that is not the issue in this topic.
Actions are one thing. Mental processes are another. And our mental processes often affect our actions, although what those two statements had to do with anything is making me: :huh:
One cannot choose to believe in something. It cannot be done. I'm sorry, I strongly ... very strongly disagree. We can chose to believe that which is reality, or chose not to ... to ignore it, to delude ourselves into believing that something is, something isn't ... or that something didn't happen. I believe, based on reality, that I am a rape survivor. Other survivors/victims choose to ignore the reality that they were raped ... it remains unreported, unchallenged, "forgotten" by choice ... sometimes that is what they need to do to survive in this world ... but it is still a choice that is made ... and consequences follow ... for me, my choice to confront and move on caused me to begin healing ... for others, perhaps a sub/conscious dredging up of those memories when they get married ... affecting how they react to their spouse.
Try very hard to believe that you will win the lottery this afternoon at 3:00. You won't be able to. Even if your life depended on it, you wouldn't be able to. If that seems silly then select anything else that you don't believe in and try , REALLY try to. Sorry, Woman. Your cause/effects are screwy here. You are using a fallacy to make the choice to believe create reality ... which can't happen ... instead of addressing that someone can chose to, or not to, believe in the reality that already exists.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78633#post78633)
DBoone:

DEF is most if not all of us at some point in our lives. Denial is the primary method for sin to maintain its hold on our lives. We are blind and insist that we see just fine, we are lame and insist that we're in perfect shape, and we're morally bankrupt and insist that we're so spiritual that we won't have any problem convincing God that we're good enough to get into Heaven, if we even believe in God that is. That was actually the point of my second analogy ... glad to see someone got it :smile:

But what do you think about 'choosing', DB?

[Woman]

Sherbear,

The statement about actions vs. mental processes was addressing the fact that although one may choose to act as if one believes, one cannot truly believe unless the mind is convinced.

But I know you disagree. How do you account for the fact that hell is either a reality, a horrific place of endless physical torment or it is not...yet the belief in it is all over the place? If it is a simple fact that Mary had other children yet the entire Catholic church says she died a virgin, is this a choice? No, it's what they are taught.

I submit that in the majority of cases Christian belief is part of a child's upbringing and therefore they would have more trouble NOT believing than believing. A large number of converts come to Christianity at a point in their ives when they are destitute and desperate, and need to believe in something as they can no longer believe in themselves.

We just don't hear about atheists who are well educated and well read who pick up just the right book one day or hear just the right testimony (when their lives are whole) and suddenly convert to Christianity.

Back to this issue of a "thump on the head"...do you truly believe that God punishes us in this life?

I am not challenging this, just curious as I have not heard this belief expressed before so plainly.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78571#post78571)
SherBear:

Nope ... just prove the whole point of this thread by your answer ... that "that person really "choose[s]" the consequences of a failure" ... Thank you, Paul for affirming my point.

What are you talking about? You cannot choose to believe something you know to be a lie. I know your religion to be a lie. So I cannot - not will not - believe in it.

Paul

[DBoone]

I think I mentioned my views on choosing here...

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=78468#post78468

But in keeping with the thread that's presently running I think that people choose to believe all kinds of things, and those choices determine the course of their lives. If you believe that premarital sex is wrong then chances are you will be a virgin when you get married. Or if you believe that Charles Manson (boy have I justed dated myself) is the Christ then you're probably sharing a cell block with him as we speak.

The Bible says "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." (Proverbs something:something) In our society we place too little emphasis on what we believe, and look at the condition of our society as a result.

[DBoone]

<What are you talking about? You cannot choose to believe something you know to be a lie. I know your religion to be a lie. So I cannot - not will not - believe in it.>

Snooty - what are you talking about? We choose to believe lies all the time. The devil does this all the time, lying not believing the lie (you think the pusher smacks up?), but he's clever about it. He doesn't just lie outright he throws a little truth into the recipe to make it easier to swallow. He did that when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness.

That's how he gets Christians to believe new-age philosophies too. He gets a few quotes from Jesus that, out of context, seem to support something that is contrary to the Biblical faith.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78699#post78699)
Woman:

The statement about actions vs. mental processes was addressing the fact that although one may choose to act as if one believes, one cannot truly believe unless the mind is convinced.Okay, that makes a bit more sense to me now ... I was trying to figure out some sort of thoughts v. actions thing you had going ... and couldn't get it to reconcile to anything.

However, even after your explanation, I still fail to see how this is the foundation of the OP. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't "truly" believe (that the mind remains unconvinced), then choice is negated somehow? I mean, that is the original point that we are discussing ... choice, whether one can choose ... to suffer consequences for failure to follow ... or failure to believe, if you want to add that.

(BTW, an aside, but: Are you saying that you think that because belief CAN influence choice, that choice HAS to stand on the back of belief? Do you really believe that? Is your mind convinced? Or did you just make the choice to answer this thread based on the content and your life experiences that allowed you to have a point to make?)

Where does this type of reasoning put the agnostic? They are not sure one way or the other ... their mind is unconvinced, right? Do their choices not count, are they not responsible for their in/actions because they do not really believe anything one way or the other? Or are they still just as responsible for the choice of sitting on a fence as the person who know and makes the choice to believe or disbelieve?

And what of the person who is convinced that God doesn't exist? What happens when *** He returns and the person changes his mind (too late)? Does the person not bear the responsiblity for the choices he made prior to that mind change ... the ones for which he now has to face consequences?

But besides those instances, when do you determine when to believe something? When your eyes can see it? When your mind has finished processing all available data? When the sources are deemed trustworthy in your mind? Until that point, do you assert that you are not responsible for the choices that you make until your mind is made up ... until you believe something one way or the other? If so ... and this carries into other things besides critiques of Christianity, I would suggest keeping a lawyer on retainer. You may inadvertantly violate a law you do not believe in, or are not sure you believe in, and find yourself in need of legal representation :help: because no court that I know of will accept that as a plea ... "Not Guity by reason of unacceptance of the law ... I just wasn't sure if I believed it or not ... my mind was unconvinced."

As to your point regarding youthful knowledge and crushed adults being the only converts (a false assertion if I ever heard one), I would submit that people, wise people, strive to base their choices on beliefs ... beliefs that are made from the examination of trustworthy sources, beliefs that are fashioned after careful examination of the facts, beliefs that have matured beyond the childhood understandings of guardian angels and "babyfood" stories in the Children's Bible. Most people, if they are wise, will re-examine their beliefs that they learned as a child, or as an injured adult, often to see if new evidences are present that cause them to re-align those beliefs ... whatever they are. This is one reason for this forum ... for believers to discuss issues with each other ... and unbelievers ... and get all the knowledge that they can ... and share the knowledge that they have. For instance, I have moved away from many minor Christian issues that I learned (erroneously) as a child because my teachings came from the uninformed, it seems. People have shown me scriptures that show where I am mistaken ... and the Bible is the trustworthy source that I put higher than the mistakes of the humans who "taught" me those errors. For you, it may be a scientist ... or an English teacher ... or the faceless "voice" on the other side of your monitor :smile:

It isn't that I know everything that there is in the world and outside it, not by a longshot ... but neither does anyone else. We make choices based on what we know ... and what we trust. I believe the Source to be trustworthy and true ... and therefore, it doesn't make sense to me not to believe ... but either way ... belief or disbelief ... I would be responsible for my choices ... and the consequences of those choices.
I am not challenging this, just curious as I have not heard this belief expressed before so plainly. To this, and the other points you raised in the remainder: Perhaps you would like to address the other points that I made, before we move onto others points that really belong in another thread?



*** Gentle reader: feel free to insert if there if it will make you feel better ... but I will continue to speak as a Christian. If the only point you have to make is to criticize my beliefs, then your comments belong in the Janitor's Closet as a rant, not on this topic that is addressing a specific point. Thanks! :smile:

[Alien]

Today @ 03:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78817#post78817)
DBoone:
Snooty - what are you talking about? We choose to believe lies all the time. The devil does this all the time, lying not believing the lie (you think the pusher smacks up?), but he's clever about it. He doesn't just lie outright he throws a little truth into the recipe to make it easier to swallow. He did that when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness.


Here's what I think he's talking about.

People can't, generally, force an configuration of belief on to their own minds when their critical faculties tell them that the subject of the belief is false.

Sure, we can make bad interpretations of the evidence, or make an emotional selection of the evidence based on a pre-existing bias. Sure, some people suffer traumatic events that cause their minds to "shut down" in self defense. Sure, there are brainwashing, drug-induced delusions and straight-out insanity. BUT a normal, mentally healthy individual, not subject to extreme events, will not be able to MAKE himself believe something that is contrary to his assessment of the evidential facts.

That would be a form of self-induced insanity, surely?

The thrust of this thread is about the quality of the evidence, not willful disbelief.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78722#post78722)
lordsnooty:

What are you talking about? You cannot choose to believe something you know to be a lie. I know your religion to be a lie. So I cannot - not will not - believe in it. And as such ... it is your choice, right? And you are a responsible adult, right? So as such, you take responsiblity for your actions ... and your choices ... and you choose [to suffer] the consequences of your failure to follow God ... when God comes back, you will not be able to say that you didn't want to follow ... you exhibit here the choice, the adult assertion that you "cannot" believe in it, and therefore, do not follow Him.

Again, thank you for, once again, supporting my original point with your proof.

[DBoone]

That's what Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist, said about Christianity: "I don't want it to be true!" And yet somehow he thinks he's able to look at evidence without bias? Doesn't sound like that to me.

[DBoone]

<People can't, generally, force an configuration of belief on to their own minds when their critical faculties tell them that the subject of the belief is false.>

I can see the point of this statement, and I say thank God for preachers, because "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

It's inevitable that the unbeliever will find the Gospel alien to their thinking, but the entrance of God's word brings light, and illuminates our understanding.

When each of us hear the Gospel it takes a little time for its truth to sink in, and for some of us there is an issue of hardness of heart and elevating Human Reason above the Word of God. But in due time the heart resonates with the Gospel vibe, and people 'see the light' as the truth of God's Word becomes more apparent to us.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78851#post78851)
Alien:

BUT a normal, mentally healthy individual, not subject to extreme events, will not be able to MAKE himself believe something that is contrary to his assessment of the evidential facts.

That would be a form of self-induced insanity, surely?

The thrust of this thread is about the quality of the evidence, not willful disbelief. Well ... that is the direction that some are trying to take it. What the topic is actually intended to be about is responsibility for choices ... is a person responsible for the choice not to believe ...

I think it's summed up along the lines of that old cliche' ... um {searches memory banks}... "If God is omnibenevolent, how can He hold man responsible for not following Him, when He is unknowable?" ... or something similar ... I am not trying to build a strawman here ... but millions of Christians disprove the tenet that He is unknowable.

Evidences, reliable or not, should be the topic of a different thread.

What do you think, Alien? Should (reasonably sane) people be held responsible for all choices they make, even the choices to not do something, or not believe something?

[DBoone]

Thanks, SherBear. I have a tendancy to fly off the handle. Thanks for pulling me back to the center.

I believe that people should be held responsible for not believing something.

If you said the opposite it would sound wierd:

- people should not be held resonsible for not believing? If someone sincerely chooses not to believe something are we just going to say "That's okay dear, we're not taking you too seriously anyway."

- people should not be held responsible for believing? People are called on their beliefs all the time: "How can you possibly believe that?" In fact we love to isolate these people and publish their beliefs in the Skeptical Enquirer.

[Vorkosigan]

Vorkosigan - I can appreciate your emotional response, and it may even be fair to say of some Christians, but it's an entirely biased view of what God is like and doesn't fit the analogy given at all. Read your Bible, bud.

I read the Bible almost every day one way or another. And my "emotional response" to the hilariously silly opening post was dead on. Either Christians are deluded that the world is some hideous Manichean battleground between good and evil personified by the Canaanite Sky God YHWH and his evil counterpart, Satan; or they are right. Either it is ocean, or pavement. There is no middle ground here, DB, Christians will allow us none. When you point your "life preserver" at me, all I see is the barrel of a gun demanding I and everyone else think and act your way, and give you money to support your habit to boot. Your "love" looks like will-to-power to me.

Vorkosigan

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78854#post78854)
SherBear:
And as such ... it is your choice, right? And you are a responsible adult, right? So as such, you take responsiblity for your actions ... and your choices ... and you choose [to suffer] the consequences of your failure to follow God

I haven't 'failed' to do anything.


... when God comes back, you will not be able to say that you didn't want to follow ... you exhibit here the choice, the adult assertion that you &quot;cannot&quot; believe in it, and therefore, do not follow Him.

That's right. I simply cannot believe it. This isn't a choice, however. I cannot decide to believe it, because I can't see that it could possibly be true.

If I'm wrong, and God exists, then I'll apologise when I see him, just before he casts me into the firey pit of eternal torment (because he made me such that I could not believe in him based on the crappy evidence he provided).


Again, thank you for, once again, supporting my original point with your proof.

You don't seem to be listening. At all.

Paul

[Sher]

Today @ 11:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79150#post79150)
lordsnooty:

You don't seem to be listening. At all.I'm sorry you feel that way.

I have posted regarding a specific topic … and ignoring attempts to either ridicule me personally, or to divert this topic to things I wasn't discussing, aside ... I think I have read your posts carefully enough to "listen" to what you are saying.

I extrapolate, from your statements, that you think Christianity to be a lie and therefore, you assert that you cannot choose to believe it, because you cannot chose to believe a lie …

(actually you can, as I illustrated … but back to your point)

… Ignoring for the moment your assertion, without any provided proof, that "my religion is a lie" ... I use the verb “think” in that extrapolation because the verb you used, “know", just doesn’t fit the other things you are saying … you don't really know ... you have based an opinion on what you believe to be true ... I say this because if you really “knew” something, you wouldn’t be conflicted about it … as you are in your posts …

… in one post you claim no evidence exists, yet in another you say the evidence is crappy. In one post you basically say that Christians are delusional for believing because it is all a lie, then in another post you leave open the possibility it ‘could be’ true when you say “If I'm wrong, and God exists, then I'll apologise when I see him” … You seem to be of two minds, arguing that you are only of one negative one

… this indicates that you don’t really know … you think … you have chosen to believe that it all isn’t true ... and that choice is what you take responsibility for as an adult ... which is the point here.

If you believe I am still missing your point, please provide an example or an analogy that will clarify your point ... thanks.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79181#post79181)
SherBear:
I have posted regarding a specific topic … and ignoring attempts to either ridicule me personally, or to divert this topic to things I wasn't discussing, aside ... I think I have read your posts carefully enough to &quot;listen&quot; to what you are saying.

Sure, I've been trying hard to de-rail this thread! :huh:


gnoring for the moment your assertion, without any provided proof, that &quot;my religion is a lie&quot;

You have asserted throughout this thread - without any provided proof - that your religion is true, and that unbelievers are stupid or ignorant.


in one post you claim no evidence exists, yet in another you say the evidence is crappy.

No evidence exists that can verify the bible - the bible being the only evidence of the existence of God. That's what I meant...


In one post you basically say that Christians are delusional for believing because it is all a lie, then in another post you leave open the possibility it ‘could be’ true when you say “If I'm wrong, and God exists, then I'll apologise when I see him” … You seem to be of two minds, arguing that you are only of one negative one

Not at all, the latter was merely for the purpose of example. The Christian God is a very silly idea, and he certainly does not exist. But I am still allowed to say 'if he does exist...' for the purposes of constructive discussion.


this indicates that you don’t really know … you think … you have chosen to believe that it all isn’t true ... and that choice is what you take responsibility for as an adult ... which is the point here.

No, I have chosen no such thing.

Allow me to demonstrate.

You are in town. There you see a group of people hanging around a mall, talking to strangers. One of them approaches you and tells you about his belief that the moon is made of cheese. He tells you that they are the North American Moon Cheese Society.

They inform you that if you can honestly and truly believe that the moon is made of cheese, that they will give you $1000. If you cannot believe it, he says they will kidnap you and torture you forever.

Could you really, honestly believe that the moon was made from cheese under these circumstances?

After all, these people have evidence. Complicated (but obviously insane) mathematical formula that they've used to work out the cheesy mass of the moon, and 'evidence' of government coverups.

Could you choose to sincerely believe anything so stupid? If not, then you would have to accept your fate. After all, you chose not to believe, and being an adult, you must take responsibility for your choices. Your unpleasant fate would be your fault and yours alone.

Paul

[Sher]

Today @ 09:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79309#post79309)
lordsnooty:

Sure, I've been trying hard to de-rail this thread! :huh: Please re-read what I said, instead of taking offense at something I didn't say ... I didn't say *you* have been derailing the thread ... but that I was listening to you in the midst of that happening.
You have asserted throughout this thread - without any provided proof - that your religion is true, and that unbelievers are stupid or ignorant.No, I have been responding from the basis of believing that God is truth to a question that was asked regarding choice, and responsiblity by extension, and the comment about being stupid was regarding the analogy... how stupidity isn't an allowable excuse to avoid responsiblity in choice.
No evidence exists that can verify the bible - the bible being the only evidence of the existence of God. That's what I meant.I understand you feel that way, I disagree, but discussion of that belongs in another topic. The point was you contradict yourself.
Not at all, the latter was merely for the purpose of example. The Christian God is a very silly idea, and he certainly does not exist. But I am still allowed to say 'if he does exist...' for the purposes of constructive discussion.Yet, again, that indicated that you do not KNOW for sure ... you allowing any possiblity into your discussion shows that you only think that that you know, from what you perceive to be a lack of evidence. Either way, you do not negate responsiblity for your choice to disbelieve ... which, again, is the whole topic of this thread.
No, I have chosen no such thing. Allow me to demonstrate. [...] Could you choose to sincerely believe anything so stupid?Not from the evidence that you say is provided. Not having the capability, personally, to go to the moon, I have to take the trustworthy evidence provided by NASA and chose to believe them over this group.
If not, then you would have to accept your fate. After all, you chose not to believe, and being an adult, you must take responsibility for your choices.That's right. I choose not to believe them ... and it is my responsibility to report them to the authorities to protect myself from their threat of kidnapping.

The problem with your analogy is that unlike your example group, only an insane group of Christians would threaten to kidnap and torture you ... and they wouldn't be representing Christianity ... they would be more akin to the Muslim militants who extend the concept of jihad to acts of terrorism ... or the leaders of the Inquisitions who twisted the Word of God to be something it isn't.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79435#post79435)
SherBear:Not from the evidence that you say is provided. Not having the capability, personally, to go to the moon, I have to take the trustworthy evidence provided by NASA and chose to believe them over this group.

But do you see that your disbelief is not a choice? You do not 'choose' to disbelieve that the moon is made of cheese. You are literally incapable of such belief.

You are aware that your knowledge of science (as provided by NASA) is far more reliable than the word of a bunch of cranks.


The problem with your analogy is that unlike your example group, only an insane group of Christians would threaten to kidnap and torture you ...

Not really, since most fundamentalists claim I am going to hell. What's the difference? You're saying it's right and just that I should go to hell because I choose not to believe - even though we have shown that you do not 'choose' what you believe in that way.

Paul

[Sher]

Today @ 01:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79458#post79458)
lordsnooty:

But do you see that your disbelief is not a choice? You do not 'choose' to disbelieve that the moon is made of cheese. You are literally incapable of such belief.Sorry ... you are just wrong. I am capable to make the decision to believe what is the truth ... and what is not ... and that is choice ... to choose: "To form a final judgment; to decide, to determine" It is my judgment based on the facts that the group were quacks and the moon is not made of cheese ... based on the more trustworthy evidence of NASA verses the nontrustworthy evidence of the group.
You are aware that your knowledge of science (as provided by NASA) is far more reliable than the word of a bunch of cranks.Yup ... just what I am saying ... and I chose to believe NASA.
Not really, since most fundamentalists claim I am going to hell. What's the difference? You're saying it's right and just that I should go to hell because I choose not to believe - even though we have shown that you do not 'choose' what you believe in that way. No you have asserted as much ... you have not proven it. Wise men believe, and choose, based on the stronger evidence. You believe the evidence to be stronger against Christianity ... as you have asserted there is no evidence for Christianity ... and therefore, you have made the choice to not believe, to not follow. It is as simple as that.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79474#post79474)
SherBear:
Sorry ... you are just wrong. I am capable to make the decision to believe what is the truth

The evidence indicates to the contrary.


Wise men believe, and choose, based on the stronger evidence.

There is no evidence that the writings within the bible are true.

If you know otherwise, then please present it. But you will not, because no such evidence exists.


You believe the evidence to be stronger against Christianity ... as you have asserted there is no evidence for Christianity ... and therefore, you have made the choice to not believe, to not follow. It is as simple as that.

Yeah, I made the choice not to become insane by forcing myself to believe something that I know not to be true :no:

Could you choose to stop believing? Just like that? Could you click your fingers and sincerely say that you no longer believed in God?

Belief is not as simple as just making a choice. I know this is how you justify to yourself the horrors of having people sent to eternal torment in hell, but I'm afraid it simply isn't true.

Paul

[sandlewood]

Today @ 10:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79474#post79474)
SherBear:

Sorry ... you are just wrong. I am capable to make the decision to believe what is the truth...

I think what lordsnooty was saying there was that you could wake up tomorrow and say to yourself “Today, I think I will choose not to believe that god exists.” But that wouldn’t work because you would still know that you really do believe that he exists.

It’s the same with atheists. We cannot just choose to believe that god exists. We see no evidence that any such god exists. So we cannot just wake up one day and decide “I think I will start believing in the Christian god today.” This is one reason why no form of threat like Hell or promise like Heaven makes any difference. It is one reason why Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79519#post79519)
lordsnooty:

There is no evidence that the writings within the bible are true.You are not stating your belief here; you are making a statement as a fact. I could just as easily assert that there is no evidence that the writings within the Bible are false ... If you are going to assert something, you should do it with supporting facts ... but please do it in another topic ... this one is NOT about evidences of whether the Bible is true or not ... it is about whether we choose to believe and thereby choose to suffer the consequences of those choices.
If you know otherwise, then please present it. But you will not, because no such evidence exists.I will not go into it here ... ... no matter how much tauntology you use .. because it is not my intention to divert the topic from its original point to discussions about said evidence.
Yeah, I made the choice not to become insane by forcing myself to believe something that I know not to be true :no: And that was your choice ... to both "know" a/k/a believe it not to be true ... and to not force yourself to believe it ... or even the choice not to provide any proof to your accusations.
Could you choose to stop believing? Just like that? Could you click your fingers and sincerely say that you no longer believed in God?No ... because as I said, intelligent people base their choices and beliefs on examination of fact ... not instant, emotionally-based choices ... or taunting atheists :tongue:
Belief is not as simple as just making a choice. I know this is how you justify to yourself the horrors of having people sent to eternal torment in hell, but I'm afraid it simply isn't true.Sigh ... this whole thread was in response to someone who isn't (I believe) a Christian .. not a justification to myself. DivineOb asked a question ... and I moved that part of the discussion not to hijack another thread ... you really exhibit that you have some issues, ya know?

Belief does come from making choices ... choice to believe (or not) ... choice what to believe (or not) ... choice of what to do with that belief (or not).

Definition of Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something i.e., making the choice to accept it and be convicted in it.

Definition of Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe i.e., choosing to refuse to believe

Definition of Know: To perceive and recognize the meaning of; to distinguish

Each of these definitions support my side. To accept something, you have to choose to accept it first. To refuse to believe something, you have to choose to refuse it. To know something, you have to first choose to examine it and perceive it.

Put it this way ... if you have a belief or disbelief ... that is not by choice ... you are claiming to be brainwashed into that belief or disbelief ... you are claiming that you have it without choice ... and that is a whole different concern.

[Sher]

Today @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79531#post79531)
sandlewood:

I think what lordsnooty was saying there was that you could wake up tomorrow and say to yourself “Today, I think I will choose not to believe that god exists.” But that wouldn’t work because you would still know that you really do believe that he exists.And what I am replying is that I could wake up tomorrow (unlikely, but possible) and something could cause me to question that belief. I could then make the choice to look for reasons not to believe ... and choose to accept those reasons over the ones I currently hold as a believer ... the result would be the choice to be an atheist. For support of this, ask any of the skeptics that attempt to deconvert Christians ... they are asking that Christian to make a choice to believe their rhetoric.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. The result of choice to study is gained knowledge. The result of choice to workout is toned body. The result of choice to believe or not is a belief system.
It’s the same with atheists. We cannot just choose to believe that god exists. We see no evidence that any such god exists. So we cannot just wake up one day and decide “I think I will start believing in the Christian god today.” This is one reason why no form of threat like Hell or promise like Heaven makes any difference. It is one reason why Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work. However, you examining the evidence led you to that belief, right? You chose disbelief over belief ... as I said in the last post to Paul ... "otherwise, it is brainwashing".

[sandlewood]

SherBear, I understand what you are saying. But based on what you have written, it seems to me that you don’t quite get what DevineOrb or lordsnooty are saying. However, I don’t know if I can think of another, better way to say it. I can give it one more try and if I fail I’ll have to leave it there.

After examining evidence, one makes a choice as you say. But even before making a conscious choice, the evidence has made its impression on you and has swayed you one way or the other. So in a sense, choice is not so much a conscious thing as it is merely a formal declaration of an unconscious thing. You cannot choose to believe something you want to believe but don’t believe. If God is benevolent and if Heaven is a perfect place, I might really want for them to exist and so I might attempt to choose to believe they do. But still I know that I don’t. It is because the evidence (or lack of it) has already made its impression on me. I didn’t choose it; it chose me. So this is the original problem that DevineOrb is talking about. That we are going to Hell for not believing that a god exists. I could wake up tomorrow and try to convince myself that a god does exist. But I wouldn’t really, really believe that I believed it. And that is because of the effect the evidence has had on me.

[Woman]

Sherbear,

At first I thought you were not really understanding what others were saying here.

Belief is the result of: data processing, evidence, intellect, prior knowlege and the ability to discriminate. (and in many cases of indoctrination) It has nothing to do with "choice."

One can choose to gather more data, examine more evidence and compare our thoughts with others. This will influence belief. Or, one can choose to read and listen only to those things which reinforce a current belief system. (something I'd never do)

The problem is that when a Christian insists that ONLY their scripture is true and that anything else which seems to contradict it is either in error or is a product of Satan, all pretense of logic and intellect fly out the window.

That the church actively discourages research into other philosophies and world views is a CLUE.

If belief were a choice then no amount of exposure to other religions or systems of thought would have an affect.

Belief is not a choice though. Agnostics and atheists do not read the Bible, see that it is the truth and make an odd arbitrary decision to NOT believe. That is just silly.

If belief were a choice, the faithful would never doubt. But individually almost all will tell you that they do.

If belief were a choice, then everyone would choose to be an optimist.

I am not saying that because belief is NOT a choice that it means any actions which proceed from that belief are somehow exempt from consequences. As in your example, if I think (believe) a law is unjust and choose to disobey it, I'm still going to jail. The point is, the threat of punishment may keep me from disobeying the law in the first place, but it can't change my mind about thinking it is unjust.

You seem to believe that non-Christians' minds all work the same as yours up to a point...and then inexplicably, they willfully and stubbornly decide that they don't want Christ to be Lord. Not only is that illogical and un-true, in many cases it's the exact opposite. I have known atheists who would give anything to believe as they once did. I can recall quite clearly that as I discovered so much of what I had been taught to be lies, I was very disappointed. But, belief is not a choice.

It just isn't.

Oh, I noticed that you don't seem to believe in guardian angels anymore. Pick up a copy of Signposts (a Christian publication) sometime and you'll see that millions of Christians do. In fact, the angel phenomenon in the last 20 years has gained huge support in the Christian community. Reports of angels intervening on their behalf are a daily occurance. Several reports of angels taking on the appearance of pets and causing miracles have been published. Of course demons have also supposedly come in the guise of angels, neighbors, pets and even family members.

I cannot believe these reports. It's not that I don't choose to. How about you?

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 04:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78914#post78914)
SherBear:
Well ... that is the direction that some are trying to take it. What the topic is actually intended to be about is responsibility for choices ... is a person responsible for the choice not to believe ...

On re-reading your original post, I agree, that is what you want us to discuss. The reliability of the evidence does come into it though, not as a discussion point concerning the truth of the matter, but as a possible argument in mitigation in some hypothetical court. I'll expand on this below.


What do you think, Alien? Should (reasonably sane) people be held responsible for all choices they make, even the choices to not do something, or not believe something?

The following is based on the assumption, for the sake of argument, that there is a God that will consign people to heaven or hell based on their sincere belief, or the lack thereof, in His existence. (This is oversimplified, but hopefully you know what I mean).

OK, lets return for a moment to your statement that ignorance is no excuse under the law. I agree with you that this is the case under US law (actually I know it to be the case in the UK, I assume it is here also). Strictly, if the relevant authority designates a certain section of road as having a given speed limit, then you can be found guilty of speeding even though no signs are posted. I recall a case where someone (unofficially!) had removed the signs and the motorist was still convicted.

So, strictly speaking, if God makes a rule that ignorance is no excuse then He will enforce that rule. Thus (I'll leave the "choice" argument aside for the moment) if someone dies lacking the requisite belief, then he will indeed be held responsible for his mental state.

Why though, does this rule apply under human law? Two reasons spring to mind. The first is purely pragmatic. If ignorance were to be allowed as an excuse, then anyone could get off anything by stating that he didn't know about the law, and a clever lawyer could make it stick. There is also the case of culpable negligence. One of the definitions of manslaughter is "causing someone's death by behaving in a reckless manner in circumstances where the defendant ought to have known the risks involved" (my words, not a legal quotation).

Lets now move on from human law to that of God. What I will now discuss is not whether God enforces the "ignorance" rule (it seems plain from the Bible that he does) but whether he is morally justified in doing so. This question is prompted by your use of the word "should". "Should" implies a moral judgement.

I gave two reasons for the human rule of law. The first does not apply to God, so can be discarded. He can know absolutely whether someone was genuinely ignorant of the law.

The next, however, may apply. Is there enough good evidence for the existence of God that the subject should reasonably have come to the correct conclusion? (See, I told you it would come down to evidence). Under human law there is the concept of a "reasonable" person, against which the defendant is measured. Thus someone can claim that it seemed perfectly safe to him to run down a crowded street discharging a firearm in random directions, but the jury would correctly conclude that a "reasonable" person would disagree. God can also apply this rule, IMO, in that He can impose a standard by which we can be judged, but He also has the advantage that He can know absolutely if someone is mentally impaired or if circumstances truly prevented that person from obtaining the evidence.

So, my conclusion is that God is only morally justified in damning someone for disbelief if ....

1) There is truly sufficient evidence available for a reasonable person to come to the correct conclusion.

2) The evidence is actually available, this decision being made on an individual basis.

3) The individual is mentally capable of evaluating the evidence.

I don't know what the Christian stance is on #3; Atheists and Christians certainly disagree on #1 an #2.

It also seems unreasonable to me to condemn someone based on a sincere conclusion about a simple matter of fact even when that conclusion is incorrect. But that may be the subject of another thread.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79580#post79580)
sandlewood:

I could wake up tomorrow and try to convince myself that a god does exist. But I wouldn’t really, really believe that I believed it. And that is because of the effect the evidence has had on me. Okay ... I am listening to you ... but you are presenting here the irrationality of choice from emotion wants and needs ... whether really wanting it to be so would, or wouldn't, make it so. Again, speaking from the given that one is sane, this confuses cause and effect.

I am speaking about rational decision, not decisions made from emotional needs and want ... where what we really want to believe doesn't have any affect on what we do believe from evidence ... I am speaking about informed choice. Atheists look at much of the same evidence Christians look at ... yet you choose who is more trustworthy ... who you will believe ... it is a choice ... a final choice of what to believe after a series of choices along the road. You may say to yourself that it was your only choice, and for you that may indicate a lack of choice ... but that doesn't really make it so. I read the Bible, and commentaries and histories that give insights to the life and times, as well as skeptical literature, and I believe that the Bible is trustworthy ... you believe that it is not. By my choices in who is trustworthy, my belief in Christ and Christianity is solid ... by your choices, your disbelief in those evidences leads you to deny Christ as a viable choice ... but again ... still a choice.

I can say there is only one choice ... pro-life ... that human life is present from the very beginning and no amount of literture has convinced me otherwise ... but if I had a young teenage daughter who got pregnant ... I may find that I really, really want to take the easy way out ... to rid our family of the pregnancy that will ruin that teen's childhood. However, that want does not negate the belief that it is murder for me ... that no matter what I really, really want ... the evidence is clear to me. However, the choice that I would make ... pro-life ... is still one of the two choices available to me ... even if the other is untenable in my eyes ... and as such, my family would have to live with the consequences of that decision ... that choice.



Guys ... I'm floating alone here for the moment ... so let me regroup and read over the subsequent postings and I will try to give one final summary post to you all so that I don't continue just repeating myself. (:huh: ... am I really the only Christian here who belives that people choose to believe or disbelieve? :help:)


Today @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79597#post79597)
Woman:

At first I thought you were not really understanding what others were saying here.No ... I understand ... I disagree.

Belief is the result of: data processing, evidence, intellect, prior knowlege and the ability to discriminate. (and in many cases of indoctrination) It has nothing to do with &quot;choice.&quot;Okay, I think I covered this in my last post ... but belief is the result of all those things ... but it is also the result of choices along the way while doing those things ... the choice to believe the data one reads ... the choice to believe the interpretation of the evidence ... the choice on how to apply that prior knowledge ... and as you said ... the ability to discriminate ... coupled with the choices ... discrimination is defined as "Choosing selectively"!

I'll come back to the rest ... save to say that you were attending the wrong church if it discouraged studying other religions ... it is encouraged by any that I have attended ... to better understand who you are talking to.

[Alien]

A further thought on the subject of choice ....

There is a form of belief that can truly be seen as choice. That is where the truth of the matter is not clear. Where the evidence seems to support either conclusion roughly equally, or the validity of the evidence may be in doubt, we may indeed choose to accept one or the other viewpoint. This choice may be based on intuition, emotional factors, or a decision that there is marginally more evidence one way or the other, while retaining a healthy amount of doubt, coupled with a readiness to change one's choice if further evidence emerges. Sometimes this kind of choice is forced by circumstances ... turn left or right? You have to choose one if there's no time to stop.

However, this type of "belief" is not, as I understand it, what is required by God for salvation. An absolute belief is what is required, with any grey areas filled in with faith. I can't imagine God accepting "Well, I looked at all the evidence and my considered opinion was that it was marginally more likely that you existed, so I went to church every Sunday on that basis. So, which way is heaven?" :)

It is that kind of absolute belief that is not a choice.

[Woman]

Woman:

Belief is the result of: data processing, evidence, intellect, prior knowlege and the ability to discriminate. (and in many cases of indoctrination) It has nothing to do with "choice."

Sherbear:

Okay, I think I covered this in my last post ... but belief is the result of all those things ... but it is also the result of choices along the way while doing those things ... the choice to believe the data one reads ... the choice to believe the interpretation of the evidence ... the choice on how to apply that prior knowledge

I am amused that you accept my brief explanation of some of the things that cause one to "believe" and yet when you modify it you cannot refrain from using "choice to believe." However, I do understand what you mean.

If I were a juror and conflicting testimony were presented by Saddam Hussein and Billy Graham I would "choose" to believe Mr. Graham. That sounds like a no-brainer. But we also have to consider things that happened along the way to court. I am a literate American. Do you suppose that an illiterate Iraqi would view the evidence in the same way? No. He would "believe" Saddam. Did either of us really have a "choice?"

So, now we bring prior experience into the equation. Suppose that as a child my Sunday school teacher was a sweet woman who made learning fun, really loved the kids and came to visit when my Mom was sick. Do you think her teachings would have more weight, unconsciously & years later, than if I'd had a Sunday school teacher whom I once saw steal money from someone's purse? Now either, both or neither of these teachers may have been speaking the truth, but the impression would have been made, the experience stored and it would become a permanant if tiny piece of my decision making process in the future. Multiply that by a million and you begin to get an idea of how diverse our life experiences are. And they will all have an effect on what we believe. Mix in cultural, ethnic, and family histories and you have a sub-conscious that may be weighted toward logic and science or toward religion and the supernatural.

Then there is the basic personality factor. Some people are insecure and easily swayed by others. Early exposure to strong atheism or dogmatic religion by their friends and classmates may have a powerful effect on what they believe.

In any case, belief is not a choice. So, to answer your initial question, should belief have consequences? Well, most beliefs, if they lead to decisions or actions will have natural consequences of one kind or another. If the forecast is for rain and I leave my umbrella home I might get wet. (if it rains) But based on our local weatherman's history, I'll take that chance unless it looks cloudy.

[Sher]

To continue ... now that I have had some sleep ...


Yesterday @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79597#post79597)
Woman:

One can choose to gather more data, examine more evidence and compare our thoughts with others. This will influence belief. Or, one can choose to read and listen only to those things which reinforce a current belief system. (something I'd never do) Me neither ... one can only make an informed choice when one examines the available information ... for any choice to be made. After that choice is made ... we can continue to examine other information ... but no one can claim a lack of bias to the processing of the other information.
The problem is that when a Christian insists that ONLY their scripture is true and that anything else which seems to contradict it is either in error or is a product of Satan, all pretense of logic and intellect fly out the window.Not really ... When a non-Christian finds something that they know to be true ... they also use that to gauge other information they process ... You believe the Earth revolves around the sun, right? All other information you process ... all other theories about the universe ... would be gauged against that belief ... and if it contradicted that belief ... that you know to be true ... you would choose to dismiss it as quackery.

:::breaks to scarf down some homemade nachoes:::


That the church actively discourages research into other philosophies and world views is a CLUE.I addressed this above ... no church that I have ever attended discourages this ... in fact, it is encouraged ... because it aids in relations with other cultures and religions.
Belief is not a choice though. Agnostics and atheists do not read the Bible, see that it is the truth and make an odd arbitrary decision to NOT believe. That is just silly.I agree ... it is shouldn't be an odd arbitrary decision ... but rather an informed one from study ... but as I said before ... the choice first comes to dismiss the Bible as an authoritative resourse ... which leads to the choice to be an agnostic or atheist.
If belief were a choice, the faithful would never doubt. But individually almost all will tell you that they do.Uh ... huh ... :huh: So if I have steak for dinner ... and express doubt ... thinking that perhaps I should have had chicken ... having the steak wasn't a choice? See how that relates ... and is silly to say? Having doubt ... concerns that you made the right decision ... or that you processed the information correctly ... is the epitome of being concerned whether you made the RIGHT choice.
If belief were a choice, then everyone would choose to be an optimist. Already covered ... this is confusing cause and effect. And BTW ... one can choose to be an optimist ... the choice becomes the self-fulfilling prophecy. Because they decide to be an optimist ... to look at the world from that viewpoint ... they will actually become happier ... and actually become the optimist they are striving to be. Ask any psychologist ... thought colors outlook ... change your method of thinking ... change your actual outlook ... ever hear "if you can believe it, you can be it" ... this doesn't mean that we can believe ourselves to be something that is physically impossible ... but that, again, thought colors outlook.
I am not saying that because belief is NOT a choice that it means any actions which proceed from that belief are somehow exempt from consequences. As in your example, if I think (believe) a law is unjust and choose to disobey it, I'm still going to jail. The point is, the threat of punishment may keep me from disobeying the law in the first place, but it can't change my mind about thinking it is unjust.Okay ... I'll give you that ... you can disagree with the law, thinking it is unjust ... even if it is for your own good ... which the Law of God is ... but you still make the choice to follow that law or not ... and that was my point about stupidity not being an excuse ... I am not talking about ignorance which is not knowing the law ... but actually knowing the law and disregarding it anyway because you disagree/think it doesn't apply/want to do something that is illegal ... that is stupidity ... and is not/should not be an excuse allowed by the lawgiver/Lawgiver.
You seem to believe that non-Christians' minds all work the same as yours up to a point...and then inexplicably, they willfully and stubbornly decide that they don't want Christ to be Lord.I do believe that some think that way ... but not all. What I am saying is that those who don't believe arrive at that choice for various reasons ... but it is still a choice ... maybe it is one colored by a hypocrite ... maybe it is one refused because of anti-Christ bias ... maybe it is one that is uninformed and colored by another religion or an atheist/skeptic ... or maybe they just are so embroiled in a sinful behavior that they can't possibly see past it to a need for a Savior ... to have to answer to someone for that sin. That isn't for me to judge ... but I can still make the observation from the bleachers.
Oh, I noticed that you don't seem to believe in guardian angels anymore.I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said, "[...] matured beyond the childhood understandings of guardian angels and "babyfood" stories in the Children's Bible." {emphasis added} When we are young, stories of guardian angels are usually these cherub-like creatures who simply protect us from harm. As we mature, we learn that there are many different kinds of angels ... messengers, guardians, etc. ... and that the guardians can also protect us from ourselves, as well as others ... giving messages of needs to turn away from a sinful behavior so that we can become more like Christ. That is maturing beyond ... childhood learning.

Heb 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

[*snip because it addresses something I didn't say*]

I cannot believe these reports. It's not that I don't choose to. How about you? Yes ... I choose to believe that they could have happened because I also choose to believe the evidences that some things could/n't happen ONLY by supernatural intervention. You chose to not to believe the reports for whatever reasoning/bias/evidence prevents your choice to believe.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 07:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79656#post79656)
Alien:

You have to choose one if there's no time to stop.There is also the choice like my steak/chicken example ... say you have all the evidence that chicken is better for you ... but you really, really like steak ... so you choose the steak dinner ... even knowing that eating too much steak will harm your body because you have high cholesterol as it is .... and you have a heart attack. Do you shake your fists at the cow? Or do you realize that you made bad choices?
It is that kind of absolute belief that is not a choice. Ah ... "but faith comes by hearing" ... the choice is made ... and the faith fills in the gaps of where we cannot not KNOW with the 100% absolute certainty ... which is not probable for most things we humans experience ... you cannot be 100% absolutely sure that God doesn't exist, can you? Not if you are honest with yourself ... your choices led you to the decision to be an atheist ... but you can't be sure that your faith in that decision isn't misplaced ... you can only hope that you are right ... and that is false hope to me ... but that is me ... because I have made the choice that God is trustworthy ... and just because I don't really know what Noah did on the ark for that whole year ... doesn't mean that I throw away the whole scriptures as untrustworthy. When there is something that can be ambiguous, I err on the side of trustworthiness ... that God is truth and that I either don't understand ... or don't know. Others err on the side of untrustworthiness ... for whatever reason. I think this is a bad outlook ... to be so biased against something that you don't allow that you can't know everything there is ... and that it is okay not to know.

[Sher]

[i]Yesterday @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79708#post79708)
Woman:

In any case, belief is not a choice.Well ... I think I have fully addressed why I disagree with this ... I will only be repeating myself to continue to argue this point.
So, to answer your initial question, should belief have consequences? Well, most beliefs, if they lead to decisions or actions will have natural consequences of one kind or another. Okay ... well that is the whole thing I was trying to speak about ... that beliefs are by choice ... and as such have consequences ... either bad or good. We make our choices in life ... and those choices affect our lives ...

As I said ... without choice ... we admit to being brainwashed ... to be going through life saying that we had no choice ... we believe because we have to believe. :shrug: I don't get it ... but maybe that is just me.

Thanks for a good discussion.

[Gavin]

Dear Woman,


Actions are one thing. Mental processes are another. One cannot choose to believe in something. It cannot be done.

Keep in mind that "believing" means more than mere intellectual credence in Scripture. Jesus used "believing in him" synonomously with "coming to him"

John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

Blessings,
Gavin

[lordsnooty]

If you honestly think you reached Christianity by an honest examination of the evidence, then you're lying to yourself, quite frankly.

[Jaltus]

If you honestly think you reached Atheism by an honest examination of the evidence, then you're lying to yourself, quite frankly.

[Jaltus]

lordsnooty,

Hopefully, as you can see, my statement is as biased and ignorant as your own. If you don't see that, it is because you don't want to and are so inculcated by your belief system (or non-belief system or whatever you feel like calling it today) that you miss the fact of each person being conditioned by presuppositions.

Welcome to the 21st century! There is no such thing as an unbiased point of view.


Unwarranted Generalities
Christians think Atheists are too afraid to believe in a god since it would invalidate their life and make them accountable.

Atheists believe Christians need an emotional crutch and are afraid of science.

Warranted Generalities

Atheists see no evidence or need for a god, there is no fear of a divine being, just a complete lack of need for one to fit what we experience into what we should believe.

Christians believe that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and that Atheistic science assumes Naturalism, which is a religious stance.

Hopefully lordsnooty can stop looking down his nose and start looking into his brain. Presuppositions are everywhere, and there is no such thing as taking a belief stance without bumping into them.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80125#post80125)
Jaltus:

If you honestly think you reached Atheism by an honest examination of the evidence, then you're lying to yourself, quite frankly.

Nah. I am able to form conclusions on my own without being indoctrinated.

Paul

[Epoetker]

If you honestly think you reached Christianity/atheism by an honest examination of the evidence, then you're lying to yourself, quite frankly.

Perhaps it holds true for reaching it for the first time. But what about staying in it after exhaustive arguments and experiences for both sides have been collected and analyzed? At that point, you most definitely have a large choice in the matter.

In fact, the freedom to make this decision grows over time. It's why we characterize some ages as intellectually "innocent" and "mature." It's why we have that whole (mostly fruitless, in my view) debate about whether children can receive salvation before the age of "comprehension."

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80181#post80181)
Epoetker:
Perhaps it holds true for reaching it for the first time. But what about staying in it after exhaustive arguments and experiences for both sides have been collected and analyzed? At that point, you most definitely have a large choice in the matter.

I retract my earlier comments, they were made in anger.

However, I do believe that examining the evidence isn't usually of much use, because the human brain is adept at filtering information that would force us to reacess religious belief.

Also, many sources of apologetics or 'Christian science' are full of outright lies and deception which do not help the ability to make informed decisions.

Paul

[Alien]

Today @ 10:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80070#post80070)
SherBear:
There is also the choice like my steak/chicken example ... say you have all the evidence that chicken is better for you ... but you really, really like steak ... so you choose the steak dinner ... even knowing that eating too much steak will harm your body because you have high cholesterol as it is .... and you have a heart attack. Do you shake your fists at the cow? Or do you realize that you made bad choices?

This is not a parallel example. In your example I have two beliefs, both based on evidence and neither arrived at by choice. The first is that chicken is a healthier food than beef. The second is that I prefer the taste of beef to that of chicken. I then make a choice to favor short-term pleasure over long-term health.

If the subject were salvation, the beliefs would be that I had examined the Bible and other evidence and become convinced that accepting Jesus was to my long-term benefit. I would also know (from experience) that I enjoy certain kinds of sin. I might then make a choice to sin rather than accept Jesus. The choice though is not about belief, but preference.

That is not a typical atheist scenario though, despite what many Christians assert. We examine the evidence and quite honestly conclude that what the Bible says is not correct. So its not a case of deliberately choosing damnation because sin "tastes" good.

Are you going to address my points about the morality of God's judging us for our beliefs?

[Sher]

Today @ 03:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80181#post80181)
Epoetker:

In fact, the freedom to make this decision grows over time. It's why we characterize some ages as intellectually &quot;innocent&quot; and &quot;mature.&quot; It's why we have that whole (mostly fruitless, in my view) debate about whether children can receive salvation before the age of &quot;comprehension.&quot;
Right, Epoetker! Because before a certain age, the child is too immature to make an informed decision to active follow, or not ... to rationally choose what they believe ... why some choose to leave the church at a certain age when they are mature (or hopefully mature) enough to make up their own mind ... they decide, or choose, what they believe ... and it is also why some people come to Christ at a later age ... even when they have no background of Christianity in their life ... they choose to follow Christ because the alternative no longer makes any sense.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80278#post80278)
Alien:

This is not a parallel example. In your example I have two beliefs, both based on evidence and neither arrived at by choice. The first is that chicken is a healthier food than beef. The second is that I prefer the taste of beef to that of chicken. I then make a choice to favor short-term pleasure over long-term health. {emphasis added} How is it not a choice??? :huh:
That is not a typical atheist scenario though, despite what many Christians assert. No ... it is a strawman you built to knock down. I was simply talking about the choice of eating beef over chicken ... even after examining the evidence ... the choice was made to eat the beef.
Are you going to address my points about the morality of God's judging us for our beliefs? No, I'm not.

[DBoone]

< When you point your "life preserver" at me, all I see is the barrel of a gun demanding I and everyone else think and act your way, and give you money to support your habit to boot. Your "love" looks like will-to-power to me. >

Vorkosigan -
I'm not going to argue with you over something that you see. All I can say is that if you are willing to see more than that, God is definitely more and so much more than what you think of Him or His Church. Try looking at God with the eyes of love, because that is how God sees you.

[Woman]

This is so well said that I wish I'd said it!

Alien

This is not a parallel example. In your example I have two beliefs, both based on evidence and neither arrived at by choice. The first is that chicken is a healthier food than beef. The second is that I prefer the taste of beef to that of chicken. I then make a choice to favor short-term pleasure over long-term health.

If the subject were salvation, the beliefs would be that I had examined the Bible and other evidence and become convinced that accepting Jesus was to my long-term benefit. I would also know (from experience) that I enjoy certain kinds of sin. I might then make a choice to sin rather than accept Jesus. The choice though is not about belief, but preference.

That is not a typical atheist scenario though, despite what many Christians assert. We examine the evidence and quite honestly conclude that what the Bible says is not correct. So its not a case of deliberately choosing damnation because sin "tastes" good.


sherbear asks: {emphasis added} "How is it not a choice???"

Alien said 1. his belief in the evidence that chicken was healthier and 2. his preference for the taste of beef were not choices. The choice to eat the steak, of short term pleasure, was of course all his and he accepts the responsibility for that. It's very simple.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80663#post80663)
Woman:

Alien said 1. his belief in the evidence that chicken was healthier and 2. his preference for the taste of beef were not choices. The choice to eat the steak, of short term pleasure, was of course all his and he accepts the responsibility for that. It's very simple.
And even repeating it ... as if that negates choice ... doesn't make it so.

Alien examines evidence that chicken is healthier than beef and the converse ... so he makes the choice to believe the evidence that says chicken is healther.

Alien has a preference for beef ...which is also a choice ... he chooses beef over chicken.

preference n. 1.a. The selecting of someone or something over another or others. b. The right or chance to so choose. c. Someone or something so chosen. See Synonyms at choice.

What is so hard to understand about this? That it is a choice?

As for the rest ... I have already answered Alien, telling him how he built a strawman out of what I said ... saying it "really" meant something else I didn't say ... but maybe you haven't read that far yet.

[Woman]

Sherbear,


I think you are perfectly clear about what he meant. I also think you agree that the fact that you dislike spinach and prefer corn on the cob is NOT a CHOICE!

But you're so far out on the limb now - you've no where else to go. You must continue to insist that atheists are somehow just stupid and short-sighted!

When I was an atheist, it was becasue everything I knew, all my experiences in and out of church, all the examples I saw and all the reading I did led me to that single conclusion.

If it makes you feel good to say you believe that atheists actually think Christianity makes sense but decide, just for fun to deny, defy and burn in hell for eternity...then enjoy the feeling.

I do find this quote by you most interesting though!

sherbear:

Christianity had to make sense to me before I chose to believe it.

Belief is not a choice. No matter how many times or how many ways you say it, it's a temporal function which is very complicated. Much more complicated than simple preference, which you also want to call a choice. The next time you order pizza with no anchovies, try to pretend it's a "choice" that you prefer it without and not some function of your taste buds.

Honestly, I don't understand why this issue is so difficult for some of you to comprehend. Is there a deeper meaning? Is it necessary for your world view that atheists somehow consciously reject God? Why? Would it make you happier if it were true?

:shrug:

[Socrates]

Woman to Sherbear:But you're so far out on the limb now - you've no where else to go. You must continue to insist that atheists are somehow just stupid and short-sighted!

When I was an atheist, it was becasue everything I knew, all my experiences in and out of church, all the examples I saw and all the reading I did led me to that single conclusion. I can't imagine what could have led you to a conclusion which is a universal negative, "No god exists".Is it necessary for your world view that atheists somehow consciously reject God? Why? Would it make you happier if it were true? It has nothing to do with what SherBear or I think or whether anything makes us happy. It is a clear revelation from God's Word that atheism is foolish (Psalm 14:1) and has no excuse (Romans 1:20 ff.).

[Sher]

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80686#post80686)
Woman:

I think you are perfectly clear about what he meant. I also think you agree that the fact that you dislike spinach and prefer corn on the cob is NOT a CHOICE!
Why you insist on saying that I agree with something that I have denied over and over is beyond me. The fact that I like one veggie over another is preference ... see synonym at CHOICE ... I noticed you didn't address that preference is synonomous with choice.


But you're so far out on the limb now - you've no where else to go. You must continue to insist that atheists are somehow just stupid and short-sighted!

Yes ... and I could falsely assert the same thing about you ... but make it Christians. Alien used the word that is synonomous with my point ... not me. You are the one trying to ignore that it means the same thing, evidently ... trying to claim I have a problem ... and puncuating it with things I never said ... nice use of ad hominem there, Woman ... attack me instead of proving your point.


When I was an atheist, it was becasue everything I knew, all my experiences in and out of church, all the examples I saw and all the reading I did led me to that single conclusion.

And guess what ... drawing a conclusion is making a choice ... a final choice after a series of choice ... see these definitions:

conclusion: "A judgment or decision reached after deliberation. See Synonyms at decision"

deliberation: "Discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue"

decision: "The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration ; The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind."

Again ... the very process of choice ... consider all sides (choose what to believe) ... make a decision (pass judgment on those sides) ... draw a conclusion (choose which is the most probable to you based on what you have considered) ...

... and then you still try to pretend that it isn't a choice :huh:


If it makes you feel good to say you believe that atheists actually think Christianity makes sense but decide, just for fun to deny, defy and burn in hell for eternity...then enjoy the feeling.

If it makes you feel good to spin straw into gold ... have at it ... but it still doesn't prove your point.


I do find this quote by you most interesting though!

Perhaps you would like to post that in context and with a link to where I posted that ... instead of picking it out. But my answer to you is Why? Why do you find it most interesting ... Because it proves that I made a choice ... by careful examination of evidence ... an informed choice after a series of choices? Are you trying to say that you make choices that make no sense to you? Or are you just trying to read something into what I said that isn't there?


Belief is not a choice. No matter how many times or how many ways you say it

:zzz: oh sorry ... were you actually going to prove those assertions? Or just continue to berate me?


it's a temporal function which is very complicated.

Oooo ... perhaps, if you really understand what you are talking about, you would like to explain it to us in non-complicated terms.


Much more complicated than simple preference, which you also want to call a choice. The next time you order pizza with no anchovies, try to pretend it's a &quot;choice&quot; that you prefer it without and not some function of your taste buds.

Next time I order a pizza, I will know that it is a choice to order it without because no one here likes them ... but if i had a guest who did, it would be my choice to honor them ... and just pick the fishes off.


Honestly, I don't understand why this issue is so difficult for some of you to comprehend. Is there a deeper meaning? Is it necessary for your world view that atheists somehow consciously reject God? Why? Would it make you happier if it were true?

I could ask you the same things ... I answered a question posed by someone ... and you and the others shot off how it isn't a choice ... is there a deeper meaning ... does it make you happier to believe that you had no choice in the matter ... does it ease you mind, therefore, to be able to blame God later by saying you had no choice to believe what you do? Are you so brainwashed that you can't think for yourself and make choices?

See how this false accusations directed at a person benefit nothing in the conversation?

[Woman]

Soc,

I know you think I am much too clever to have been an atheist...:teeth: but I swear I was. And I think more people are agnostic than will admit.

I think a direct experience of the Divine is about the only way to convince people who think like I do. And the way I think is part of my personality, experience, education, genes, etc. NOT a choice.

OK - So it's part of Christian doctrine then to believe that atheists are foolish. Why didn't someone just come out and say so? If that's all it is then why get so worked up about their opinions? If my religion said that I was so believe Christians are all fools, I'd ignore them.

Fortunately my spiritual world view allows me to embrace all or to avoid individuals by reason of their character, never their beliefs.

Anyway, did you read my post about the John Woodmorappe book?

[Woman]

Soc,

I know you think I am much too clever to have been an atheist...:teeth: but I swear I was. And I think more people are agnostic than will admit.

I think a direct experience of the Divine is about the only way to convince people who think like I do. And the way I think is part of my personality, experience, education, genes, etc. NOT a choice.

OK - So it's part of Christian doctrine then to believe that atheists are foolish. Why didn't someone just come out and say so? If that's all it is then why get so worked up about their opinions? If my religion said that I was to believe Christians are all fools, I'd ignore them.

Fortunately my spiritual world view allows me to embrace all or to avoid individuals by reason of their character or actions, not their beliefs.

Anyway, did you read my post about the John Woodmorappe book?

[Socrates]

Woman (any reason for posting twice? :huh:):I know you think I am much too clever to have been an atheist ... :teeth: Yep that must be it :brow: ... but I swear I was.Now you've REALLY confused me -- not I don't know what to think :hrm: I think a direct experience of the Divine is about the only way to convince people who think like I do. That's up to Him then.And the way I think is part of my personality, experience, education, genes, etc. NOT a choice.Did you choose to write that? :shocked:Anyway, did you read my post about the John Woodmorappe book?Was there more than one? I gave you :thumb: when you said you were reading that and Abolition of Man.

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 03:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80293#post80293)
SherBear:
{emphasis added} How is it not a choice??? :huh:No ... it is a strawman you built to knock down. I was simply talking about the choice of eating beef over chicken ... even after examining the evidence ... the choice was made to eat the beef.

Woman seems to be prepared to continue knocking her head against this particular brick wall. I'm not. At least she seems able to understand what I was getting at ....

I asked if you were going to address my other points, which I spent some time setting out for you (in response to a direct request from you), and you replied:


No, I'm not.

Then I'm outta here.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80939#post80939)
Alien:

Then I'm outta here. I'm sorry if you thought that was too direct an answer, Alien. I wasn't saying it that way to be insulting.

However, I did say several times that as the originator of this topic, I had no desire to address anything other than the original point, and asked that this be respected in the responses. Moving to whether God is morally right is a different topic, IMO, and I didn't want to rabbit trail to that. I was, and am, only interested in discussing choice here.

[Epoetker]

However, I do believe that examining the evidence isn't usually of much use, because the human brain is adept at filtering information that would force us to reacess religious belief.

Whoa whoa whoa WHOA! Are you saying the human brain is evolutionarily wired to be religiously dogmatic? Might we at least consider that this dogmatism may be just a subset of a larger tendency to hold onto cherished ideas, religious or non?


Also, many sources of apologetics or 'Christian science' are full of outright lies and deception which do not help the ability to make informed decisions.

Hur dee hurr hurr sameforatheismespeciallyonphilosophyandhistory hurr hurr...

[Nowhere357]

lordsnooty:[/i]

Your arrogance is truly astonishing.

Sort out your own stupidity before you judge that of others.

Paul, this kind of crap is hurting our cause. Even if/when deserved. Please try to stop it. :)

[Sher]

Today @ 11:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86369#post86369)
Nowhere357:

Paul, this kind of crap is hurting our cause. Even if/when deserved. Please try to stop it. :)

Snooty retracted them (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=80232#post80232) and apologized already, Nowhere.

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 07:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86477#post86477)
SherBear:
Snooty retracted them (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=80232#post80232) and apologized already, Nowhere.

Yes, I do apologise for those remarks. I felt - incorrectly - that the post I was replying to had been intentionally inflammatory.

Paul

[KingDavid8]

I just started reading this thread, and would like to put in my three cents (inflation, you know).

I agree that belief isn't a switch that one can turn on and off at will. No atheist can suddenly decide to be a Christian, any more than a Christian can suddenly decide to be an atheist. However, one can choose to consider the evidence for the other side. An atheist can suddenly decide to consider the evidence for Christianity and the existence of God, and this choice could lead to a belief in Jesus. And a Christian can suddenly decide to consider the possibility that neither God nor Jesus exists, and this choice could lead to a belief in atheism.

There are those on both sides who say, "I've already looked at the evidence. I'm convinced I'm right and they're wrong. Nothing can change my mind." I feel sorry for them. I used to be an atheist who thought that way. Eventually, I decided that if I was right, I wanted to know I was right. And if I was wrong, I wanted to know I was wrong. And by closing my mind to any other possibility, I was never going to know either way. I was very comfortable in my atheistic beliefs, but I wasn't comfortable with the idea that IF God and Jesus were for real, my own attitude was shutting them out to me. And while the process took me about eight years, I did eventually come to believe in Jesus. And even now that I believe in Jesus, I have no problem questioning my faith, and giving honest consideration to the opposing evidence. Doing so has actually strengthened my belief in Jesus and allowed me to see through many of the deceptions of the modern-day church.

I encourage each and every one of you - Christian, agnostic, atheist, or whatever - to honestly question your beliefs. If your beliefs are true, you have nothing to fear by doing so. And if your beliefs aren't true, wouldn't you want to know?

David

[DBoone]

David that is the clearest explanation I've ever heard for the nature of belief and putting our beliefs to the test. We can all pretty much just say g'nite 'cause there's nothin' left to say.

[Woman]

KingDavid8

I just started reading this thread, and would like to put in my three cents (inflation, you know).

I agree that belief isn't a switch that one can turn on and off at will. No atheist can suddenly decide to be a Christian, any more than a Christian can suddenly decide to be an atheist. However, one can choose to consider the evidence for the other side. An atheist can suddenly decide to consider the evidence for Christianity and the existence of God, and this choice could lead to a belief in Jesus. And a Christian can suddenly decide to consider the possibility that neither God nor Jesus exists, and this choice could lead to a belief in atheism.

There are those on both sides who say, "I've already looked at the evidence. I'm convinced I'm right and they're wrong. Nothing can change my mind." I feel sorry for them. I used to be an atheist who thought that way. Eventually, I decided that if I was right, I wanted to know I was right. And if I was wrong, I wanted to know I was wrong. And by closing my mind to any other possibility, I was never going to know either way. I was very comfortable in my atheistic beliefs, but I wasn't comfortable with the idea that IF God and Jesus were for real, my own attitude was shutting them out to me. And while the process took me about eight years, I did eventually come to believe in Jesus. And even now that I believe in Jesus, I have no problem questioning my faith, and giving honest consideration to the opposing evidence. Doing so has actually strengthened my belief in Jesus and allowed me to see through many of the deceptions of the modern-day church.

I encourage each and every one of you - Christian, agnostic, atheist, or whatever - to honestly question your beliefs. If your beliefs are true, you have nothing to fear by doing so. And if your beliefs aren't true, wouldn't you want to know?

David

Well said! As someone who was Catholic as a child, then agnostic/atheist and now a (don't know what you call what I believe in) maybe a Dieist, I am still very interested in all things spiritual and try like heck to remain open minded.

[Nowhere357]

SherBear:[/i]

Snooty retracted them (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=80232#post80232) and apologized already, Nowhere.
Yes he did, I missed that, my bad, I apologize.

[Nowhere357]

KingDavid8:
I encourage each and every one of you - Christian, agnostic, atheist, or whatever - to honestly question your beliefs. If your beliefs are true, you have nothing to fear by doing so. And if your beliefs aren't true, wouldn't you want to know?

Good post, and great advice!

[Nowhere357]

SherBear:[/i]

To keep another thread on topic, I am repeating what DivineOb asks here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=78323#post78323) and answering:

Yup ... they certainly do.

Let's look at an example:

If a person ... let's call him ABC ... was presented with all evidence by loving parents that a drug is bad for him and will kill him if he does enough of it, but ABC ... who sincerely read all the literature, was subjected to many lectures which often included verbal illustrations of what the consequences would entail, and was often punished for minor infractions, but remained unconvinced by that overwhelming evidence ... chose to &quot;do&quot; that drug anyway and died ... doesn't that mean that ABC really choose the consequences of the failure? Does that make the parents, who warned ABC ... over and over ... about the consequences, unloving?

I disagree with your conclusion - let me look at your examples, and try to identify where we diverge.

In the first example, the person was in "denial". Sort of like "it can't happen to me". Certainly he pays for his decision, and also the parents weren't unloving.

I think this example fails. First, the man was not disbelieving due to lack of evidence, he was choosing to ignore solid and valid evidence. Close to 100% of the experts in the field would agree his behavior was dangerous.
This is not the case with God. The idea that God requires us to "choose" Jesus is not held by close to 100% of the religious experts, when we include all religions.

Second, the parents did all they could for the addict. If they could have removed the addiction then they would have. They would even have restrained the man, if possible, until the worst of his withdrawals were over.
This is not the case with God. If He wished us to really know about him, I see no reason that we would have doubt, assuming His nature is anything near omnipotence.

If someone is sent to hell for not believing, that is God's choice, and not the persons. Who besides the mentally ill would make such a choice?


Person DEF is drowning ... and someone repeatedly brings a boat around, throws out tons of life rafts and lifesavers (those floating doughnut thingies), jumps in the water and dies themselves to save that person ... yet no matter the efforts of the lifesaver, DEF insists that she is not drowning, even as her head bobbles under for the final time. Does DEF really chose the consequences for failure? She has to feel that she is drowning when the water is running up her nose and she can't breathe ... yet she kept denying her savior who is trying to get her to safety, even after he died. Does that make the savior unloving when it is obvious that DEF wants to drown ... in fact must enjoy the act of drowning given the large effort that she made to fight off the savior who was trying to save her?
This one is a little unclear to me. Is DEF commiting suicide (and lying about drowning so they'll leave her be) or is she just really mentally unstable?
At any rate it's not the fault of the savior. If the woman was mentally unstable, then it's not really her fault; if she was commiting suicide, then she choose to ignore (and resist!) the attempts to save her. But she had no doubt that the potential savior was there, and trying to help.

This is not the case with God. There are for many people very real doubts that there exists a Savior, trying His best to help. It's not a matter of ignoring the lifesaver, it's a matter of being unaware of the lifesaver.

From this POV, it's not adequate to point to the Bible; pointing at a book does not make it true. Lots of people point to lots of books!


In this same way, God created an instruction book ... warning us of the dangers. He sent His only Son to die for our sins ... to take our place so that we can again fellowship with Him. He often thumps us on the head to see where we are erring ... and provided Christ as Intercessory ... all to warn us of those consequences of failure to follow His sovereignty ... He is more loving, I would submit, than any law enforcement agency ... more loving than any human parent because of His supreme justice ... and more loving and tolerant of us than He should be, IMO.
The Book was written by man. The idea that it is divinely inspired is very debatable. To use your example, the lifesaver seems to have sunk, because many people cannot see it. That's not the fault of the savior, of course, but it does imply he's not the creator of the universe!


It is the person's fault when he fails to recognize the need for a Savior ... and to pay the consequences for his own actions because he refused to do so.
Here's a counter example, to try and make my point clear:

A mugger demands "your money or your life!", and for whatever reason, I resist. I get shot and killed. Is it fair to say I "chose" to die?

A better example:

A sniper sets a death-trap on the right-hand fork. The traveller, not knowing of the sniper, chooses the right-hand path, triggers the trap, and is killed. Is it fair to say that the traveller "chose" to die?
Note the sniper could leave ambiguous clues, which evaded the traveller, for whatever reason. Does that change the situation?

Sherbear, I've tried to answer your post honestly and openly. Thanks for the opportunity. :)