Choosing to believe

Agreed.Yes, it all seems to stem from upbringing / past experiences / what we've learnt.Now for the hard part:How can you possibly objectively show someone that their life's experiences have led them down a slippery slope if the very reason they resent any other view is because it's based on objectivity? Perhaps you can't. Perhaps there is a subjective method to begin the process of aligning another's thought process towards being open to a more reliable system?I've often pondered that maybe that was religion's purpose in the very beginning. Although nothing's coming to mind right now... I often run into 'chapter and verse' that seems more like helpful tips in the direction of critical thinking rather than support for the supernatural. It certainly would be ironic.Oh, sorry, don't mind me, I've started to ramble horribly off-topic

is it not that the "belive" function IS different for everyone , the way in which the action of beliving is carried out is a method build up by each individual , from life experince , education , training et al . Beliving is not a simple single process, but a complex action , that is made up of many parts all competeing with each outer to make the whole "belive" function .might it be possible to brake down the "belive" function into components and thus see how each person version of the "belive "function is made up .?

I agree with all of this for the most part. I'm a bit sceptical of the "many parts all competing with each other" aspect. Not that I don't think it's true, but I think that's a general statement and I'm not sure if I agree with your specifics about it or not. Probably do, and for the purpose of moving forward I'll just say I agree with it. Yes, I do think this would be possible. And I think it's even practical when dealing with someone who's open minded about objectively looking at their beliefs or feelings.But I don't think this is very practical with those who have a grudge against being objective. These people resist looking at why they have their thoughts and feelings. They find the idea of "breaking down" and examining their beliefs revolting, and sometimes even blasphemous to what they believe. This is what I was trying to refer to as "the hard part" in my previous message.How can you break down someone's "belief" function into components to show them anything when it's their very belief function that's actually telling them that such breaking down examination is horribly immoral to do?

arh but no one said life was going to be easy my son , how ever , i think it is also important to realise that such poeple are also found in the research scientist community , you can find cases of them clinging to "their" theory even when better supported theroies are overturning long held views .
I personaly have me people who seem open minded about 99% of things but are totally closed about one particular belief .as has been said before ...people are a problem .. well thats what i choose to belive . Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

Yes. Religion certainly does not have a monopoly on such people. I'm sure that given the right circumstances, I too am like this. I just hope that I'm able to open my eyes when given the opportunity to learn. Agreed. I said "the hard part", not "the impossible part" I still wonder if perhaps there may be anything worthwhile from attempting a subjective method to breaking down someone's belief function (if it can even be done subjectively...) when they refuse adamantly against objective rationale.I think this will be my next conundrum to mull over on sleepless nights

This is the home of religion, in large measure I think. Or of the Red Queen's "six impossible things before breakfast". It is an entirely human and understandable prediliction: we strive to limit ambiguity. We often seek out explanations for questions that provide a comfortable cushion against an uncaring universe. The more deeply, personally troubling the question (or the more intractable) - "Is this lifetime all I've got? Why am I here? - the more likely we will to seek for an emotionally satisfying answer. Regardless of whether there is any actual evidence to support that answer.I think the common creationist whinge about science being constantly changing its collective mind may stem from this. Science simply doesn't provide certainty. Some people have less tolerance for ambiguity than others, evidently. What I find mildly amusing in all this is that if your Cult of Ignorance crowd would simply stop ranting long enough to take a hard look at what science actually does, they'd find that science is endeavoring to accomplish the exact task they take it to, erm, task for: it seeks, through comprehensive, cautious, step-by-step methodology, to reduce ambiguity - to answer those intractable questions. Whether we are attempting to discern the foundational underlying principles that govern ecological succession or using the most sophisticated instruments yet invented to look deep into space and back into time to see the reflection of the Beginning, science as a whole is an attempt to reduce uncertainty (and identify our "place" in it all) by discovering the answer to "life, the universe, and everything". Science is an enterprise that in the final analysis seeks to identify the Ultimate Truth (or at least figure out if such exists). Isn't that what the religious folks want? No, unfortunately. Could you resend? I'll try and give you an alternate email in chat tonight if I have a moment.

resent:And I could not agree with you more.Personally, as a Creationist, I do believe that GOD created all that is seen, and unseen. All Science is doing is trying to determine HOW that was done.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You often say that many "Biblical" Christians are dishonest. For example, lets look at this guy, a biblical christian whom I just now found on the internet--Bishop Jim LoweHe fervently teaches that the "Word" will not return to us void---if honestly pursued and applied. This is, as you say, a world of teaching based strongly on emotion and experience. There is little logic.

quote:

---

KEYS TO THE HUNDREDFOLD RETURN

​

1. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
a. Here it says God’s word is alive and active
b. A thing that is alive can reproduce itself. The word of God is alive and will reproduce in the life of a believer everything God has purposed for it to do
Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
c. The word is so powerful Jesus had this to say regarding it
Mark 4:23-25 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear. Consider carefully what you hear, he continued. With the measure you use, it will be measured to youand even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.

​

This parable is repeated in three gospels and by meaning in John 15

​

Mark 4:1-8 Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water’s edge. He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times.

​

Mark 4:13-20 Then Jesus said to them, Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? The farmer sows the word. Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a cropthirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown.

---

I am at a point where I question whether the Bible is inerrant. Thus I am not being dishonest if I use a scripture to make a point. I don't simply believe that redactors changed the Bible to fit their own biases and stuff like that. There is no conclusive evidence either way. What I will honestly admit is that I myself have my own personal bias. I want GOD to love me enough that He favors me. I believe that Jesus death,burial and resurrection are very important for the state of humanity today. I am confused about the doctrine of Original Sin. I am beginning to question that premise. Question--if we take original sin out of the equation, does that alone change the importance of the death, burial and resurrection theology of much of the church today?

quote:

---

The word of God is alive and will reproduce in the life of a believer everything God has purposed for it to do

---

What do you think that means?

Perhaps. But to me, the largest mistake made by the church was when the Council of Nicaea decided to deify Jesus. By in essence making Jesus god and essentially merging the two entities together (whom were previously distinct), it actually diminished the sacrifice.Jesus being a honest and true mortal actually makes his sacrifice far more profound and makes his suffering and desire to die for his beliefs that much more relevant. The moment he is deified, it takes away from the action.

So are you claiming that God didn't raise him from the dead?

Joining the conversation late, as usual, apologies Let's start at the beginning of your argument. You said that you find phrases like "choose to believe" puzzling because to you, belief is always based on coming in contact with satisfactory evidence.Here is how merriam-webster defines "belief:" So here we see that belief in response to evidence is only one of the many definitions given for belief. That may actually answer your question right there: Theists use the phrase "choose to believe" because, by definition, that is what belief is. You are choosing to put trust in something. This may or may not be upon examining evidence.It is curious, however, the merriam webster's first three definitions include the word "feeling," suggesting that belief is rooted in personal conviction rather than a decision made using critical thinking. In my experience, it has included both Regards!- RaphEdited by Raphael, : No reason given.

I think that you are confusing the belief with how the belief is arrived at. None of the definitions even mention a conscious decision to believe, which is the point of this thread.

So you chose to believe that fire is hot?

perhaps i felt heat from it, though i never actually touched it. so...yes.