Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zippy · 07-31-2002, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:
Hi Zippy,

I referred Eudaimonist to the thread in E of G about choosing to believe where I have posted some of my thoughts on this.

Yes, I did look there - but it didn't really cover the issue quite as well as I would have liked.

You seemed to be saying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that your 'belief' depends upon not using your critical faculties properly. For instance, you refer to 'choosing' whether to accept or disregard evidence. Evidence should be weighed upon its merits, and not discarded because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. At least that's my view.

Quote:

But - in the middle of my own life I have the confusing issue of not knowing how much choice I had over getting mentally ill to the point of being psychotic...of wondering whether I could have prevented it or not. Some would assume no - but, to me, it's complex.

The human mind is a very curious thing. If God designed it, he did a really weird job on it.

Paul

GeoTheo · 07-31-2002, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zippy:


Wrong. Even the overwhelming majority of Christians do not choose - their religion is something forced into them. It's not something they 'choose' to believe in.

Paul

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Zippy ]

How do you know this? I don't know any Christians who were forced to be one. Unless you are reffering to the Calvinist doctrine of "irresistable grace".
I do not believe that one can be a Christian without choosing to believe in Christ. That is called individual soul liberty. Before you say I am just committing the fallacy of saying "such and such is not a TRUE Christian" I think you should adress the fact that I do not hold to a minority opinion. One must choose Christ. It is a common expression that God has no grandkids.

HelenM · 07-31-2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Zippy:

You seemed to be saying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that your 'belief' depends upon not using your critical faculties properly.

For instance, you refer to 'choosing' whether to accept or disregard evidence. Evidence should be weighed upon its merits, and not discarded because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. At least that's my view.

I didn't intend to imply that we should choose based on what fits in with our current beliefs rather than based on the merits of the evidence. If we all chose the former way none of us would ever change any beliefs; I'd call that 'closed-minded'.

Perhaps I was unclear because I still think that we accept a new concept according to whether we believe it is supported by evidence or not.

I mean, aren't you just shifting the problem back a bit because, in the end we make a judgment based on whether we believe the evidence supporting something is valid or not. And/or whether we believe the source is trustworthy.

Do you see what I'm saying?

But in no way did I mean to imply that we ought to accept only what fits in with our current beliefs. Someone who approaches information that way is never going to move closer to the truth even though he/she at least, I suppose, is not moving further away.

The human mind is a very curious thing.

It sure is!

love
Helen

Mageth · 07-31-2002, 10:52 AM

GeoTheo...

I once had an interesting discussion here on II with a theist who insisted that we never choose god, he chooses us, and he backed it up with scripture.

This seems to be a major point of dissention in Theology. I won't bother arguing it with you; I'll let some predestinationalistic theist do that if one so wishes.

HelenM · 07-31-2002, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

Hey Helen,
You are pretty smart.
I liked your answer a lot.
In Christ
Ted
P.s.
I used to be Theo the Logian
I used to get annoyed at you but I realize it was pride on my part.

Hi Ted

Thanks for what you said...

I have problems with pride too...amongst other things...

I thought maybe I was a bit pushy but it seems that Mr Darwin took it ok - I was glad about that

love
Helen

TooBad · 07-31-2002, 10:54 AM

Let's assume that belief is a matter of choice. And let's assume that atheists and all other non-Christians are actually mistaken, and that both God and hell are real.

Even given these assumptions, the idea that honest, intelligent and well-meaning people may be thought to merit eternal torment simply because they choose the wrong belief seems to me an irredeemably ferocious one.

Attributes such as "boundless love" and "infinite mercy" must surely be stripped of all recognizable meaning, if they are to be reconcilable with so morally repugnant a doctrine.

Zippy · 07-31-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

How do you know this? I don't know any Christians who were forced to be one.

How many Christian parents bring up their kids with no religious education, instruction, indoctrination or coercion?

Quote:

I do not believe that one can be a Christian without choosing to believe in Christ.

The indoctrinated do believe, I'm quite sure of that. But they only believe because it's what they've been told to believe since they were tiny children. Therefore choice is not really the issue. They 'believe' many years before they have the ability to question that belief.

We see the odd case of someone turning away from a lifelong religion, but often this is the result of some form of emotional trauma. Most children that are taught to believe something when they are young, continue to believe it until they die.

Paul

GeoTheo · 07-31-2002, 11:06 AM

Zippy,
I am not being terse or sarcastic, when I say that
it must have been a long time since you frequented a church. Many many kids leave home and stop attending. I would say it is the exception rather than the rule to keep going. According to your logic Church attendance throughout North America and Europe would be booming. When in fact it is rapidly declining.

Zippy · 07-31-2002, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Zippy,
I am not being terse or sarcastic, when I say that
it must have been a long time since you frequented a church. Many many kids leave home and stop attending. I would say it is the exception rather than the rule to keep going. According to your logic Church attendance throughout North America and Europe would be booming. When in fact it is rapidly declining.

I'm not talking about church attendence though, I'm talking about belief in God.

Paul

GeoTheo · 07-31-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zippy:


Wrong. Even the overwhelming majority of Christians do not choose - their religion is something forced into them. It's not something they 'choose' to believe in.

Paul

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Zippy ]

Am I misquoting you? You said Christians.
Though I agree Church attendance is not believed by Christians to make one a Christian, mere belief in a God is not believed to make one a Christian either.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2002, 10:50 AM	#23
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Originally posted by Zippy: You seemed to be saying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that your 'belief' depends upon not using your critical faculties properly. For instance, you refer to 'choosing' whether to accept or disregard evidence. Evidence should be weighed upon its merits, and not discarded because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. At least that's my view. I didn't intend to imply that we should choose based on what fits in with our current beliefs rather than based on the merits of the evidence. If we all chose the former way none of us would ever change any beliefs; I'd call that 'closed-minded'. Perhaps I was unclear because I still think that we accept a new concept according to whether we believe it is supported by evidence or not. I mean, aren't you just shifting the problem back a bit because, in the end we make a judgment based on whether we believe the evidence supporting something is valid or not. And/or whether we believe the source is trustworthy. Do you see what I'm saying? But in no way did I mean to imply that we ought to accept only what fits in with our current beliefs. Someone who approaches information that way is never going to move closer to the truth even though he/she at least, I suppose, is not moving further away. The human mind is a very curious thing. It sure is! love Helen

07-31-2002, 10:52 AM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	GeoTheo... I once had an interesting discussion here on II with a theist who insisted that we never choose god, he chooses us, and he backed it up with scripture. This seems to be a major point of dissention in Theology. I won't bother arguing it with you; I'll let some predestinationalistic theist do that if one so wishes.

07-31-2002, 10:54 AM	#26
TooBad Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Oblivion, UK Posts: 152	Let's assume that belief is a matter of choice. And let's assume that atheists and all other non-Christians are actually mistaken, and that both God and hell are real. Even given these assumptions, the idea that honest, intelligent and well-meaning people may be thought to merit eternal torment simply because they choose the wrong belief seems to me an irredeemably ferocious one. Attributes such as "boundless love" and "infinite mercy" must surely be stripped of all recognizable meaning, if they are to be reconcilable with so morally repugnant a doctrine.

07-31-2002, 11:06 AM	#28
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Zippy, I am not being terse or sarcastic, when I say that it must have been a long time since you frequented a church. Many many kids leave home and stop attending. I would say it is the exception rather than the rule to keep going. According to your logic Church attendance throughout North America and Europe would be booming. When in fact it is rapidly declining.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.