Disbelief Is Not A Choice

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


What do you mean by "it?"

reply to post by Dasher


"these things"
.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Ah, "the inner working of many aspects of "logic" or "ideas."

Well, a good example is the acceptance that I am an animal.
Along with that is that I am an animal that considers eternal things.
In this, I see that my animal frame is dirty and covered in decay.
The ritual of baptism, and even our normally daily ritual of bathing/showering speaks to the fact that we are living in decay.
But we can also see that Truth is eternal. If the entire universe was destroyed, it would remain true that we communicated to each other. It may not be provable as animals often require proof to "believe," but truth is outside of subjective thought and belief is mostly an excuse for the blind. The last part of the previous sentence is a very big concept. It would leave the scope of this post.

John 10:24-27
The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
Joshua answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me,
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

("believe," in the context above, is not regarding blind belief, but is specifically correlated to a gift of faith in previous verses I will paste below)

John 10:1-3
“I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

He calls his own sheep by name.

So anyone telling you that they either obtained spiritual understanding by physical action, or personal will/choice is a thief and a robber. Spiritual understanding is a gift.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 9:11-15
(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

And it is important to remember, that by our nature, we are decaying and temporary beings both physically and spiritually. For us to commune with the spiritual things and move on into the eternal, the ultimate washing away of our spiritual decay is provided by God and is spiritual also.

reply to post by Dasher


Thanks. Before I try to engage all of that, and since you predicated your explanation on many bible verses, I have to ask why I should use the Bible as any sort of reference?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well, I gave you the verses to refute the ideas fed to you by what is normally a large percentage of Christians, not to specifically evangelize.

If I were to talk to you as a friend to share my understanding with you, the conversation would likely not go towards scripture references until you understood other issues better. For example, I would point out cause and effect and how it correlates to a lack of empirically free will. I would discuss how Truth is eternal. I would discuss how our bodies are an integrated system and that it is nonsensical to think that any decent sized code-base would assemble itself. I am also very fascinated in sharing our decaying nature relative to how our minds are able to dwell on eternal things.

I do understand you may reject all these things, in which case, we'd probably never get to any scriptural references. The Word of God is Truth, not the bible. So I would share that with you and turn the bible if it ever came to showing you the history of the spiritual Children of God.


Don't believe those who put makeup on their decay, or those who deny that there are eternal things.
Life is alive. We are the living dust. We are the godly animals. Well, we might be.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by seachange
I believe the difference is scale. Atheists perceive either next to none or no evidence of God's existence. Agnostics perceive some evidence of God's existence but not enough for a positive affirmation. Theists perceive plentiful evidence of God's existence. That sounds right to me

Kind of, but not exactly. This is a common misconception: that agnostics are a kind of middle ground between atheism and theism.

Atheism and theism are matters of belief. Agnosticism and gnosticism are matters of knowledge.

Do you believe in god(s)? Yes - you are a theist, No - you are an atheist
Do you know that god(s) exist? Yes - you are gnostic, No - you are agnostic

So, one can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist or any combination of the above.

That is a great set of definitions, except that people actually use the terms differently. Someone who believes God does exist but does not know god exists generally would deny being agnostic. I believe the most commonly used used meaning is the atheist-agnostic-theist scale. Furthermore, while I do see a use in the definition set you present, I'm not sure I see how its superior to using the atheist-agnostic-theist scale. Its also useful to know people's degree of belief.

Originally posted by Hawkwind.

Originally posted by 547000

Most atheist ask why they cannot find God. As an ex-atheist I can say most do not seek God. You have to seek Him with all your heart. I

In other words, believe hard enough and you will believe, like self brain washing. If you have to 'choose' to believe in something then that belief is not natural when it comes to these kinds of issues. It's not like choosing a favourite brand name either. The only true belief is belief that comes natural, choice should have nothing to do with it.

In other words have some humility and give the belief in God a fair shake, because only by believing in the possibility that He may exist will you be able to mean when you pray to Him to show you He exists. If you won't take the first step you will find squat. If after seeking for Him you don't find Him you lose nothing, but if the first step is necessary and you never take it you will lose everything.

reply to post by Dasher


Thanks, Dasher, for taking the time to talk to me about your thoughts and insights. In short, I'd say I mostly agree with your principles but seem to mostly disagree with your assertions. I think we can still be friends though . But I sincerely appreciate someone giving me their honest feelings in a respectful way.

Originally posted by seachange
That is a great set of definitions, except that people actually use the terms differently. Someone who believes God does exist but does not know god exists generally would deny being agnostic. I believe the most commonly used used meaning is the atheist-agnostic-theist scale. Furthermore, while I do see a use in the definition set you present, I'm not sure I see how its superior to using the atheist-agnostic-theist scale. Its also useful to know people's degree of belief.

It's not a matter of superiority, it's the proper definition of the terms. Colloquially, the terms are widely misused. As such, when people engage in philosophical discussions about them using improper definitions means a flawed premise and it results in a lot of problems for everyone.

Originally posted by 547000
In other words have some humility and give the belief in God a fair shake, because only by believing in the possibility that He may exist will you be able to mean when you pray to Him to show you He exists. If you won't take the first step you will find squat. If after seeking for Him you don't find Him you lose nothing, but if the first step is necessary and you never take it you will lose everything.

I am willing to give the God hypothesis a fair shake, however, I require (we all should) demonstrable evidence that any deity exists before we proceed. The suggestion to believe first without evidence, then begin "searching" not only indicates a preexisting belief in a deity, and employs a number of fallacies, but will also be an impossible task for any critical thinker employing a reasonable set of standards for objective evidence.

In other words have some humility and give the belief in God a fair shake,

I realize youre being diplomatic and gracious, but I wonder, would you give my assertion that 2+2=5 a fair shake as well?

reply to post by Dasher

The Word of God is Truth

Who is this 'god' fellow anyways? can you define his/its properties?

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I was raised Christian, I studied for myself and came to the conclusion that well.... Let's just say, I am agnostic now.

I think it's a matter of semantics. If you studied psychology and came to a conclusion (based on your studies) that women marry someone who reminds them of their father, would you say you made a choice to believe that? Or is it that your belief is a result of your study?

You didn't CHOOSE to be an agnostic. You chose to study for yourself. You studied the situation and your beliefs CAME OUT OF your study. You didn't choose them, they came about as a result of your research and logical mind.

For example, would you be able to CHOOSE the opposite conclusion? Could you wake up tomorrow and, without further study, choose to believe the Christian story again? Perhaps further study would change your mind, but it's not like one day, you just choose to believe something different than you've always thought. It takes something more than simple choice to generate real belief.

You are not born with religion though. It is something you are taught and many people change their minds, choose to switch religions because they think that one makes more sense... etc....

Yes, they change their religion because it makes more sense, according their their BELIEFS, which already exist. Their beliefs are not chosen. One chooses the religion that best match their beliefs.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


In other words, you can close your eyes and not see, but if you open them, you cant choose not to see.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Wow, I wish I had put it that simply and precisely. I'm a woman of many words.

But yes, the choice is not to believe, the choice is to search. The beliefs come out of that.

Awesome post but I gotta disagree with you on this one. I hope this will not initiate a holy war.

One chooses the religion that best match their beliefs.

I dont think 99% of people chose their religion. (any studies on this would be helpful to me as im totally pulling that number out of my arse.) I think 99% of people have religion imposed upon them brutally during their childhood. Those evil, crafty Jesuits had it right - give them a child till they are 6 and they own them for life.

The enormous amount of propaganda and fear directed at kids to induce religious irrationality is a testament to the human beings default position being atheist. If kids were born religious and irrational, no such weight of fearful fairytales, told in maddening repetition, would have to be set upon them, as they would naturally gravitate towards believing in jebus. No, kids have to be *broken* in order to accept such madness, with their natural and logical thoughts being reduced to an inconsequential corner of their mind that cowers and shakes before the irrational Juggernaut that is 'god'. Untold suffering and conflict is the result.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Awesome post but I gotta disagree with you on this one. I hope this will not initiate a holy war.

One chooses the religion that best match their beliefs.

I dont think 99% of people chose their religion.

In many respects I agree with both of you. Sometimes the religions we participate in can result from a choice and other times not. Disbelief, however, seems to not be a matter of choice at all. The disbelief of any unestablished or falsified claim is not derived from a choice but by acknowledgement that a claim has not met its burden of proof. But I'm preaching to the choir...

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I dont think 99% of people chose their religion.

I'm making a distinction between BELIEFS and RELIGION.

I agree that children are basically indoctrinated into a specific religion by their parents and society. But as one grows up and starts questioning what they've been taught, they may find that their BELIEFS go better with Christianity than Judaism. So, they may choose to convert to a different religion. But the BELIEF in a deity (and the whole story of creation, etc), which is different than religion, is what actually drives the choice, not the other way around.

Many believers convert to various religions (choice), or get out of religion altogether, trying to find the place that suits their beliefs.

No holy war necessary.

right. there are many different flavors of irrationality.

Disbelief is not a choice, belief is not a choice, in fact there is no choice in anything. Can anyone choose the way they feel about something in any given moment? The feeling arises but who put it there? When it is present it is too late to not feel it.