Is belief a choice?

[Justin108]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

[ttruscott]

...

Well, what does God's Plan of Salvation say about all this? What is the purpose of all this? We weren't created to be perfect were we? We were created to have choice and to experience for ourselves the consequences of following God's Wisdom and ... failing to follow God's wisdom. The entire thing is meant to be a learning process.


...

The learning process from sinful to perfectly holy and loving has an end...

Scriptures tell us that we were created to love and worship perfectly in truth and to be holy. This can only be achieved by free will choice to become a person able to achieve that.

After we did so choose (the elect), some of us rejected GOD's plan to damn HIS eternal enemies (the ones who rejected such a life) so earth and each programmed life was created to bring the sinful elect back to HIM.

After we are perfectly holy and loving I assume we will explore this huge universe as a playground with GOD as a companion or why the extravegance of it all?

Peace, Ted

[Goat]

I would throw away my dignity and integrity if I start acting like a child and believing in superstitious religious nonsense. So for me, there is no 'choice'. I just don't believe because it makes no sense, it cannot be believed by a thinking person, so it's not really a choice to be made.

That is why children don't believe. Because it makes no sense. Children can think but they are not yet mature enough to understand .

Actually, it is the other way around. Children quite often believe without question. it is only when you are mature enough you can challenge what you have always been taught.

[Clownboat]

That is just it, I shared with you a non-denominational source, one based on Bible quotes. It is the basics as shared by all denominations. We all have grace and we all teach the same thing, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, even Mormons. They differ a bit in emphasis and detail, but the main picture is remarkably similiar across the board.

Denying that is simply denying it for the sake of denial. Its simply making a mountain out of mole hill.

Nothing personal, but I think we disagree that god's plan of salvation is similar from one denom to the next.
- For example, some believe you are saved by faith.
- Others, saved via baptism.
- Some believe in original sin, some don't.
For more info: http://www.netbiblestudy.net/denominations/

Either way I think we have discussed this enough and readers will need to decide on the degree of variance.

Now, show me just ONE that has a vastly different version of God's Plan of Salvation. What you are saying is because we have slight differences in detail that we should therefore ignore a major tenet of Christianity ... one that answers the question you asked.

See above.

Why bother asking a question if you have already decided you will ignore the answer?

Please don't blame me if I find your statements inaccurate or none persuasive.

If the Bible is wrong as you say, then what is the purpose of Jesus? The Apostles? Why would he teach what he taught? Do what he did?

The Bible was written by man. I don't know the purpose of Jesus. I assume he was taking over where John the Baptist left off. The apostles had a religion to start. I cannot say for sure what Jesus actually taught or why. I would assume it had to do with the wealth disparity going on and he was trying to reach out to the poor (the rich could afford "Temple practices").

And you substituted 'why' with sex rather than purpose. I believe I was very clear in asking about purpose over procreative origins. If not, then let me make that clear again.

Before I can comment on that, you need to show me that the reason Jesus was on this planet was any different than why you are I are here. You so far have been unable to do that, so I am going with "sex" is the reason he was born for now.

It means the period Scholars, people with Ph.D's, have repeatedly examined the evidential record and found it to be remarkably strong. In short, the evidence for Jesus, using EXPERT opinion, is strong.

This is a logical fallacy of arguing from authority. I also disagree that the evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible is strong, but I also previously stated that even I agree that he was most likely a real person. Later additions by the church to Josephus's writings and claims of "Christ" which many people qualify as "Christ" do not cut it.

Those scholars who deny, namely Wells, have been repeatedly ripped apart by ACTUAL period scholars. In short, the story of Jesus, to the best ability of greatest historical minds, is perceived as remarkably accurate.

Imagine a follower of said religion making this blanket statement. Call me shocked.

Why would I reject first person accounts of these miracles from guys that are proven, in what we can verify, to be telling the truth? There are some things that we simply cannot verify. Why assume clearly honest men are lying?

I assume you are either lying or misinformed. Prove that the gospels are first person accounts and I will retract my claim. If you can't, please retract yours.

Its good enough for billions today and the unanimous opinion of period scholars. I'd say that makes it pretty strong.

Argument ad populum. Another logical fallacy.

Attempting to explain to you the historical record and what God's Plan of Salvation is ... is upsetting to you?

Not in the least. Try to stick to the debate.

We don;t all get the same spiritual gifts brother, but I will tell you that one of them is discernment - the ability to spot what is good and what is not.

More claims I could challenge, but I will leave this alone for now.

You are not the subject of this discussion, please take yourself out of it. I have no intention of discussion - you - but rather theology. If you cannot discuss this subject without it being personal, then perhaps it is best we simply stop?

Please stick to the topic at hand. I don't need this to be about me and never claimed this is about me.

Yes, like the Christian doctrine that Jesus will:
- Bring about 1000 years of peace?
- All the Jews will return to Israel?
- Set Israel up as a nation.
- Will rule on earth.
- Will destroy the Assyrians.

Israel was a Nation. The Assyrians are gone. And as you know the process on the rest evolving. he was born in Bethlehem, by a very round about method, to a virgin, and met many, many other criteria for being named the messiah.

Now tell me,
- did all the Jews return to Israel because of Jesus?
- Did he set Israel up as a nation?
- Did he rule on earth?
- Did he destroy the Assyrians?

He did fulfill the Bethlehem and lineage requirements, just like millions of other humans have through history. Wow!

Lots of people were born to virgins in Bethleham in the year zero - in the middle of a tax migration? Really?

First of all, I don't believe anyone has been born of a virgin, and that was not my claim.
Please show me a prophecy that says the Messiah will be born of a virgin. Let's see just how much you think you know.

When you say Sin is our concept, then the question become what atheists, or whatever you want to call yourself, call it when people lie? Its the same thing.

It's called lying. You call lying a sin, that is why it is your concept.

Once again, period scholars and billions of people disagree. Evidence actually supports the narrative of Jesus.

Another logical fallacy.

Does it make you feel better to think that we are stupid or something?

I think you are stupid? I thought you did not want this to be about me, stop claiming what I think please brother.

I don;t. I trust the opinion of period experts. I trust my own analysis. I trust the fact that serious scholars have looked at eh narrative of detractors like this and thoroughly destroyed them.

As evidence in this thread, you trust logical fallacy (arguments ad populum).

And how would he make a permanent record of his words in the year 30-40AD?

Written language comes to mind. Do you think the gospels were written in 30 - 40AD or something?

And it doesn't take theologians to read the book does it?

I said interpret didn't I, not "read".

So now you reject our Bible because you think we all interpret the book as literalists? Even though it contains known parable?

No, I reject if for other reasons. Please stop making claims about me. You said it yourself, you don't want this to be about me.

[Justin108]

As requested by KingandPriest in a pm, I am resurrecting this topic.

Is belief a choice?

[KingandPriest]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

What is a belief. It is the acceptance of a statement or evidence to be true. Acceptance and rejection is a conscious decision.

When a person is presented with a certain amount of evidence supporting a statement, they have to make a decision to accept or reject that evidence. We call that belief or disbelief.

A person does choose what they believe in. There are people all over the world who do not believe in the big bang theory. There are people who do not believe (accept) the evidence of an old universe. The refusal to accept evidence is a decision. For some it is a decision to reject because the evidence is insufficient. When non-theists ask for evidence of God, they typically respond to any evidence that is provided, that the evidence is not sufficient to "make them believe".

In their minds, the evidence is not sufficient to accept as true. Acceptance and rejection are decisions.

Can a person believe that grass is green? Yes, they can choose to accept the mental picture as sufficient evidence. We make decisions all the time based on what information we deem acceptable. We then use these beliefs to support additional decisions down the road.

Decision A, leads to Decision B. This is how our minds process decisions so quickly. We train ourselves to rely on the decisions (beliefs) we previously made.

Most people do not check the skematics and integrity of every chair before they sit on it. They had an experience of sitting on a chair and it supported their weight. This experience led to a decision that when the person goes to sit on another chair, they will trust (believe) that the chair can hold their weight. It was the experience/evidence of Decision A (to sit on a chair) which informs and supports future decisions B, C, etc to believe that the chair will support your weight.

When this system of decisions is broken, we go back to Decision A and become skeptical. If a person sits on a chair and it collapses, we then make a new decision to test a chair before sitting on it. Until a certain confidence is gained, we remain skeptical. After sitting on a new chair long enough or sitting on multiple chairs, Decision B, C, etc will be altered by Decision A.

[Justin108]

What is a belief. It is the acceptance of a statement or evidence to be true. Acceptance and rejection is a conscious decision.

Your argument rests on the notion that acceptance of truth claims operates in the same way as, say, accepting a job offer. My OP demonstartes it does not. If I offered you money to sincerely believe I was George Clooney, would you sincerely believe I am George Clooney?

Can a person believe that grass is green? Yes, they can choose to accept the mental picture as sufficient evidence.

What you're describing is imagination. It's easy to imagine purple grass, but the ability to imagine it is not the same as actually believing grass is purple

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 76 by Justin108]

Your argument rests on the notion that acceptance of truth claims operates in the same way as, say, accepting a job offer. My OP demonstartes it does not. If I offered you money to sincerely believe I was George Clooney, would you sincerely believe I am George Clooney?

Is acceptance a decision or an innate autonomic process. When a person accepts a truth claim, it is a decision. In general, we don't need to consciously decide to breath. Our bodies can perform this task without any initial decisions of the mind. Like a machine, certain parts function on autopilot. The task of acceptance is not automatic like a heartbeat or breathing. Acceptance always begins with a decision. Even if the decision was made 50 years ago, it began with a decision. Otherwise, it would not be called acceptance.

Yes, accepting a truth claim is just like accepting a job offer. The difference is that some truth claims are brought to the mind during early stages of development. Children are asked to accept some claims earlier than they are expected to make a decision on accepting a job. Babies often make decisions to accept or reject new foods. As they grow older, some of these decisions remained ingrained in their mind. If they rejected vegetables as a toddler, they will most likely reject vegetables as they grow older. The decision is reinforced and becomes what we call a belief. Without decisions, beliefs cannot exist.

I can make a decision to believe you are George Clooney to receive payment. When the money is in my hands or account, I can then make a decision to reject this claim. I can also choose to believe that you have gone through the process of a legal name change. This is another decision I can accept or reject. People choose to have gender reassignment surgeries. Even with hormones and surgery, some choose to ignore the effects and call the person by there birth gender. It is a decision made to believe or not believe that a person can truly change genders. You may choose to accept the effects of hormones and surgery, while another person chooses to dismiss this evidence as insufficient.

What you're describing is imagination. It's easy to imagine purple grass, but the ability to imagine it is not the same as actually believing grass is purple

What I described was the decision to accept the imagination as true. When people are touted to have hallucinated, they often need to be convinced that the experience was not a part of reality. They have to decide whether to accept their experience as true, or the statements of those around them. Often we decide that those around us must be telling the truth if everyone is in agreement except oneself. This also allows us to be tricked in some instances. Prank shows have taken advantage of this, by having a person experience something real, and have everyone around them act as though nothing happened. So even though the event did happen in reality (not a hallucination) they feel as though it did not occur because everyone is telling them it did not occur. They make a decision to believe the actors over the genuine experience.

The same way our decisions can help us, they can be used against us.

[Justin108]

Is acceptance a decision or an innate autonomic process.

It depends on the situation. For a job offer, it's a decision. For belief, it's an autonomic process

When a person accepts a truth claim, it is a decision.

Address my OP. Would you sincerely believe I am George Clooney?

Otherwise, it would not be called acceptance.

You're arguing semantics

Babies often make decisions to accept or reject new foods.

Any baby would immediately reject it if you were to feed them sand or a stick. This means this process of rejection has an obvious automatic component. No one chooses what they like.

I can make a decision to believe you are George Clooney to receive payment.

You are either a liar or you and I function on completely different ways. This may explain why you are a theist and I am not. You may have the ability to choose to sincerely believe whatever comes to your mind, but this is an ability that I do not possess and I suspect many other people lack this ability as well.

When the money is in my hands or account, I can then make a decision to reject this claim.

This seems to me like you'd just be lying about believing. Anyone can claim "Yes, I believe you are George Clooney" but to actually believe it is an entirely different matter. The scenario you're describing seems more like you lying about your belief rather than actually believing I'm George Clooney.

Do you believe the Holocaust happened? If so, why?

I can also choose to believe that you have gone through the process of a legal name change.

Don't twist my scenario. Unless this was not clear before, the George Clooney I am describing in my OP is the same George Clooney to star in Gravity, Oceans Eleven, etc.

What I described was the decision to accept the imagination as true.

Again, I do not have this ability. It is simply impossible for me to imagine something and then convince myself that it is literally true. You may have that ability but myself and most skeptics I know do not possess this ability

When people are touted to have hallucinated, they often need to be convinced that the experience was not a part of reality.

There is a drastic difference between imagination and hallucinations. If they were the same, no one would take LSD. Why take a drug when you can just sit and imagine things to have the same effect? Hallucinations and imagination are not the same thing. Not even close

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 77 by KingandPriest]
What you said doesn't make sense and is contrary to what I have experienced.

Accepting a claim is not a task.
Accepting a truth claim is not like accepting a job offer, or accepting food. The latter two are actions, not beliefs.
You cannot make a decision to believe someone is George Clooney.
Nor can you make a decision to reject that claim.
You cannot choose to believe that one had gone through the process of a legal name change.
People choose to have gender reassignment surgeries, that is an action one takes, but that is not relevant to whether someone can choose a belief.
One cannot decide to accept their experience as true, or the contrary statements of those around them.
One cannot decide to believe those around us to be telling the truth.
Having someone one tricked into believing they are hallucinating using actors, is not a decision to believe the actors over the genuine experience.

I found your claims to be utterly bizarre.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 78 by Justin108]

Is acceptance a decision or an innate autonomic process.

It depends on the situation. For a job offer, it's a decision. For belief, it's an autonomic process

Can you provide of an example where acceptance is autonomic. No decision making or mental (mind) capacity required. You do not need the mind for your heart to pump blood to your body. Yes the brain controls the autonomic processes, but we don't refer to this automatic process when we speak of the mind. The mind is conscious. Autonomic processes are not conscious.

Please provide an example where belief is autonomic (unconscious).

Address my OP. Would you sincerely believe I am George Clooney?

Is there a scientific method to test sincere belief. Even with our most advanced brain scanning equipment, we cannot discern when a person sincerely believes something or not. Decisions are not tangible. We see the effect of decisions based on the statements people make or the actions they take. But there is no process available to humanity to determine when a belief is sincere. We know by the actions people take.

Would I sincerely believe you were George Clooney? No. I would make the decision that your statement does not match the evidence presented. I reject because the evidence is contrary to your statement.

If you had a mask on, and a voice synthesizer that matched his voice, and made the same statement, I would probably believe because the evidence supports your statement. We make decisions to believe or not believe based on the evidence presented. Insufficient evidence, will lead to no acceptance and no belief.

Sufficient evidence leads acceptance which leads to belief.

You're arguing semantics

I was, so lets skip the semantics for now.

Babies often make decisions to accept or reject new foods.

Any baby would immediately reject it if you were to feed them sand or a stick. This means this process of rejection has an obvious automatic component. No one chooses what they like.

I am not sure if you have ever had children or it has been a long time so you don't recall, but babies often pick up things like dirt or sticks and put them to their mouth. If I gave a baby a stick, some babies would accept it as food because they trust their parent. They learn to trust parents and make decisions to based on this trust. In some cases, the baby is given a food it does not like and the infant learns distrust. Future decisions on whether to accept or reject food are based on the trust gained.

If you argue that trust can sometimes be decisions and other times automatic, I can agree here. But belief is the decision on what to accept as true or false.

You are either a liar or you and I function on completely different ways. This may explain why you are a theist and I am not. You may have the ability to choose to sincerely believe whatever comes to your mind, but this is an ability that I do not possess and I suspect many other people lack this ability as well.

This seems to me like you'd just be lying about believing. Anyone can claim "Yes, I believe you are George Clooney" but to actually believe it is an entirely different matter. The scenario you're describing seems more like you lying about your belief rather than actually believing I'm George Clooney.

Don't twist my scenario. Unless this was not clear before, the George Clooney I am describing in my OP is the same George Clooney to star in Gravity, Oceans Eleven, etc.

I have answered genuinely above. I only wrote this to show how difficult it can be to ascertain whether a person believes or not. As humans it is difficult to discern whether a persons beliefs are genuine or not.

Do you believe the Holocaust happened? If so, why?

Yes, I believe the holocaust occured because there is enough evidence to corroborate the event taking place. I make a decision that the evidence is sufficient (more than sufficient if you ask me) and believe it did happen. I have never visited the site of the old World Trade Center. Do I believe a plane flew into the buildings over 15 years ago? Yes, I accept the corroboration of video evidence and eyewitness testimony. 500 years from now, this story will seem unlikely to those individuals in the future. They have to make a decision whether the remaining evidence (who knows what evidence will still be available that far in the future) is enough to believe these events took place.

For some, the evidence may not be sufficient and some people will refuse to believe the holocaust or 9/11 occurred. This is also true for the historical record surrounding Jesus. For some, the evidence is sufficient, and for others it is not. We make decisions based on evidence. These decisions to accept or reject are what belief is predicated upon.

Again, I do not have this ability. It is simply impossible for me to imagine something and then convince myself that it is literally true. You may have that ability but myself and most skeptics I know do not possess this ability

Again, I do not have this ability. It is simply impossible for me to imagine something and then convince myself that it is literally true. You may have that ability but myself and most skeptics I know do not possess this ability

The strength of this ability is what separates visionaries from those who end up working for them. A visionary like Steve Jobs began with an imaginary object. The first mac computer, iPod or iPhone began as figments of someones imagination. They convince themselves that these ideas and imaginations can be true. They do not give up until the end product matches what was in their imagination. This is not only true for inventions but also business. An idea is just a real object that does not exist yet. The cell phone, the internet, or smart cars did not exist 100 years ago. Someone began with an idea (non tangible imaginary object) and continued searching until the idea manifested.

Skeptics typically suppress this ability and are typically not able to achieve a great success because they refuse to engage this ability. Is is those who embrace this ability who have made great contributions to science. Einstein embraced this where his skeptics did not. If you say you do not have this ability then, you are either dead or the least imaginative person in the world. To devise a plan (even a daily activity plan) requires engaging some aspect of imagination.

For example, you can plan to go to the grocery store later today. The thought is a figment of your imagination. Later that day, you accept that thought as true and navigate to the store. You made a decision to accept the thought from earlier today. You can also change your mind and reject that thought due to new information. The thought make a plan for the day is a part of your imagination. You imagine which store, what time and the route you will take. In reality, we rarely ever match everything in the way we planned or thought. We may match 90%, 95% and even 99.99%, but it is very rare to match 100% of plan or thought.

There is a drastic difference between imagination and hallucinations. If they were the same, no one would take LSD. Why take a drug when you can just sit and imagine things to have the same effect? Hallucinations and imagination are not the same thing. Not even close

I did not say imagination and hallucinations were the same. Hallucinations and imagination are very similar. The difference is the factors which control the hallucination. The similarities help us understand the difference between a real decision and an automated decision.