God should understand

[Ubon]

If a person does not believe in God or Jesus or in the Bible and its content, how are they responsible.

An all knowing God who can judge you and read your thoughts should understand why you dont believe and what led to your lack of beliefs.

knowing now why you dont and what led to your lack of beliefs he should understand that you have reason to doubt, there could be several reasons, surely looking within he would see why and in doing so be in no moral position to condemn someone who does not believe.

An intelligent God would judge on merit rather then specific practices, certain religions pray a certain way or dress a ceetain way as they believe they are damned if they dont, do you really think if you take off your religious headwear your screwed.

An Intelligent God would be looking at the Religions, judging on merit alone and smiling with amusement at the many and varied customed that probably achieve nothing in Gods eyes.

 

[Enoch07]

If a person does not believe in God or Jesus or in the Bible and its content, how are they responsible.

An all knowing God who can judge you and read your thoughts should understand why you dont believe and what led to your lack of beliefs.

knowing now why you dont and what led to your lack of beliefs he should understand that you have reason to doubt, there could be several reasons, surely looking within he would see why and in doing so be in no moral position to condemn someone who does not believe.

An intelligent God would judge on merit rather then specific practices, certain religions pray a certain way or dress a ceetain way as they believe they are damned if they dont, do you really think if you take off your religious headwear your screwed.

An Intelligent God would be looking at the Religions, judging on merit alone and smiling with amusement at the many and varied customed that probably achieve nothing in Gods eyes.

Because it's your choice. Nobody is forcing you to accept or deny Jesus. You chose either of these of your own free will.

 

[Jedster]

If a person does not believe in God or Jesus or in the Bible and its content, how are they responsible.

An all knowing God who can judge you and read your thoughts should understand why you dont believe and what led to your lack of beliefs.

knowing now why you dont and what led to your lack of beliefs he should understand that you have reason to doubt, there could be several reasons, surely looking within he would see why and in doing so be in no moral position to condemn someone who does not believe.

An intelligent God would judge on merit rather then specific practices, certain religions pray a certain way or dress a ceetain way as they believe they are damned if they dont, do you really think if you take off your religious headwear your screwed.

An Intelligent God would be looking at the Religions, judging on merit alone and smiling with amusement at the many and varied customed that probably achieve nothing in Gods eyes.

Seems to me that it is only the fundamentalists of certain religions that believe the 'all knowing God' is not intelligent and demands we 'believe or else!', even if we never heard of said God..
What a hellish mindset.
IMO

 

[HonestJoe]

Because it's your choice. Nobody is forcing you to accept or deny Jesus. You chose either of these of your own free will.

Nobody can choose what they believe (or don’t). Belief is a subconscious conclusion based on your individual experiences, knowledge and mind-set. If someone presents a new proposed reality to you, you will reach a conclusion on whether you believe it is true or not (and your certainty in that conclusion) instinctively. That conclusion may change in the face of further information or more consideration but you can’t simply choose to believe the complete opposite.

That’s why some people talk about losing their faith – they don’t want to stop believing and would continue to do so if they could choose but they simply can’t. Equally, I’m sure there are plenty of people who would like to believe for various reasons, and will even go through the motions of a faith or religion but deep down they don’t believe and can’t force themselves to do so.

 

[Enoch07]

Nobody can choose what they believe (or don’t). Belief is a subconscious conclusion based on your individual experiences, knowledge and mind-set. If someone presents a new proposed reality to you, you will reach a conclusion on whether you believe it is true or not (and your certainty in that conclusion) instinctively. That conclusion may change in the face of further information or more consideration but you can’t simply choose to believe the complete opposite.

That’s why some people talk about losing their faith – they don’t want to stop believing and would continue to do so if they could choose but they simply can’t. Equally, I’m sure there are plenty of people who would like to believe for various reasons, and will even go through the motions of a faith or religion but deep down they don’t believe and can’t force themselves to do so.

Your misunderstand me. I never said it was easy.

As you stated people can change their minds when presented with new information or consideration. Whether they chose to consider it or not is their choice. Just as people who don't really believe go through the motions trying to force it. The same could be said for some who feel drawn to God but resist it. Either way it is a choice.

 

[HonestJoe]

Your misunderstand me. I never said it was easy.

I never said it was difficult. I said it was impossible by definition. Belief and choice are to entirely different and incompatible concepts. We can’t choose what we believe.

We can indeed choose whether to seek out new information or to think more deeply on what we have but regardless of the information we have, the ultimate conclusion we reach regarding our perception of reality is not under our conscious control. We can try to “force” or “resist” those beliefs all we like but that can only ever be lying to ourselves, it will never change what we actually believe deep down.

Far from a misunderstanding I think there is a common misrepresentation (unintentional I’m sure) in the terminology you used. You talk about choosing to “accept or deny Jesus” but that carries the implication that Jesus does exist (and specifically as you believe) and there is merely a choice whether to accept that fact or not. The question was whether a person believes in the existence of God and Jesus (as a divine being) at all. If they don’t, the question of “accepting” Jesus is meaningless.

 

[Enoch07]

I never said it was difficult. I said it was impossible by definition.

You contradict yourself now.

That conclusion may change in the face of further information or more consideration

 

[HonestJoe]

You contradict yourself now.

Not at all. I’m saying we can influence (though not entirely control) the information we have access to but with any given set of information, we can’t choose the conclusion. We have no direct control over our beliefs.

If I’m standing in front of you holding an apple in each hand, your conclusion is going to be that I have two apples. You couldn’t make yourself believe I only have one apple and you couldn’t make yourself believe I have five apples with no other information. If you searched my pockets and found another three apples I had hidden, you couldn’t choose to still believe I only have two apples. You’d probably believe I have five apples, though your confidence would depend on how effective your thought your searching was.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

If a person does not believe in God or Jesus or in the Bible and its content, how are they responsible.

An all knowing God who can judge you and read your thoughts should understand why you dont believe and what led to your lack of beliefs.

knowing now why you dont and what led to your lack of beliefs he should understand that you have reason to doubt, there could be several reasons, surely looking within he would see why and in doing so be in no moral position to condemn someone who does not believe.

An intelligent God would judge on merit rather then specific practices, certain religions pray a certain way or dress a ceetain way as they believe they are damned if they dont, do you really think if you take off your religious headwear your screwed.

An Intelligent God would be looking at the Religions, judging on merit alone and smiling with amusement at the many and varied customed that probably achieve nothing in Gods eyes.

I think he understands your position, but he doesn't care about your opinions. Unfortunately for God it's ether his way or the highway. Not that a good thing or anything.

 

[Enoch07]

Not at all. I’m saying we can influence (though not entirely control) the information we have access to but with any given set of information, we can’t choose the conclusion. We have no direct control over our beliefs.

If I’m standing in front of you holding an apple in each hand, your conclusion is going to be that I have two apples. You couldn’t make yourself believe I only have one apple and you couldn’t make yourself believe I have five apples with no other information. If you searched my pockets and found another three apples I had hidden, you couldn’t choose to still believe I only have two apples. You’d probably believe I have five apples, though your confidence would depend on how effective your thought your searching was.

You believe whatever you makes you sleep better at night. LoLz goodbye

 

[Skwim]

If a person does not believe in God or Jesus or in the Bible and its content, how are they responsible.

In a very true sense they're not, but some folk, primarily your unthinking fundies, can't see that, and simply accept their Biblical reading that such unbelievers are responsible and are destined for hell. I say, let them believe whatever they wish as long as they don't bring it to bear on anyone else.

An all knowing God who can judge you and read your thoughts should understand why you dont believe and what led to your lack of beliefs.

One would certainly hope so, but for your unthinking fundie, his concept of god doesn't allow for such a thing. It's all black and white, just as it's written in the Bible. (The writers of the Bible were obviously no more astute than they are.)

.

 

[Quintessence]

Not at all. I’m saying we can influence (though not entirely control) the information we have access to but with any given set of information, we can’t choose the conclusion. We have no direct control over our beliefs.

There's been research done demonstrating that certain humans are incapable of visualization. I find this mind-boggling; I can't comprehend being unable to visualize. Similarly, it seems some people are also incapable of paradigm shifting. This, I find equally mind-boggling. Somewhat less mind-boggling is the tendency for people to assume that their abilities universalize to every human on the planet. I don't know who this "we" is you're talking about, but I'm not part of your "we," apparently.

 

[Ubon]

Because it's your choice. Nobody is forcing you to accept or deny Jesus. You chose either of these of your own free will.

yes you say free will yet the Bible is basically saying accept or your damned.

thats not exercising your rights to free will, thats like a bouncer saying leave the bar or i will beat you but the choice is yours.

not really free will when its threatening.

 

[Enoch07]

yes you say free will yet the Bible is basically saying accept or your damned.

thats not exercising your rights to free will, thats like a bouncer saying leave the bar or i will beat you but the choice is yours.

not really free will when its threatening.

If I tell you that standing on rail road track will get you killed eventually. Is that a threat? No, I am informing you of danger. You have the choice to avoid that danger or not. The choice is yours either way, nobody is forcing you to do anything. It's your life, your choice.

 

[Ubon]

very different because we are given free will then punished for exercising it by the God who gave it.
he gave free will and when someone chose to follow something else he punishes them, he throws them on the tracks.
perhaps he failed to present himself properly causing so many to disbelieve and that should not be the persons fault.
If he simply came out of hiding then the issue of believing or not would be solved.

If I tell you that standing on rail road track will get you killed eventually. Is that a threat? No, I am informing you of danger. You have the choice to avoid that danger or not. The choice is yours either way, nobody is forcing you to do anything. It's your life, your choice.

 

[Enoch07]

If he simply came out of hiding then the issue of believing or not would be solved.

That will be resolved in the future. But for now faith is required. I wouldn't try to convert you or anything of the likes. But I would ask you just keep an open mind is all.

 

[HonestJoe]

There's been research done demonstrating that certain humans are incapable of visualization. I find this mind-boggling; I can't comprehend being unable to visualize. Similarly, it seems some people are also incapable of paradigm shifting. This, I find equally mind-boggling. Somewhat less mind-boggling is the tendency for people to assume that their abilities universalize to every human on the planet. I don't know who this "we" is you're talking about, but I'm not part of your "we," apparently.

I don’t know what practices or procedures you’re referring to here but my position is based on basic definition of words. Beliefs are subconscious conclusions. If a person somehow actively chooses a specific conclusion, that isn’t a belief by definition. I’m not saying that is impossible (though I’m sceptical), only that it should be recognised as a distinct concept. I also continue to make a clear distinction between choosing what evidence to consider or how to approach that evidence (which is what the things you mention sound like to me) and directly choosing the conclusion.

The main issue I have with the idea that beliefs are an active choice is that it supports the accusation that anyone who doesn’t believe in a particular god or faith is choosing to go against the “truth” and can be presented as a willing opponent or enemy, something history regularly shows us can lead to horrific consequences. This applies equally to those who do have a faith as it does to those who don’t.

 

[Quintessence]

Beliefs are subconscious conclusions. If a person somehow actively chooses a specific conclusion, that isn’t a belief by definition.

What you're saying makes more sense with this context, but you are the first person I've seen use that definition for a belief. After checking several standard dictionaries, "subconscious conclusions" aren't mentioned anywhere in any of them; I even checked the Oxford English Dictionary because I have easy access to it. Where did you come by this unusual understanding of beliefs?

I'm pretty sure there's a different word for what you are calling beliefs. It's not coming to me right now. The closest I am thinking of right now is "schema" from the field of psychology, but that's not quite it...

The main issue I have with the idea that beliefs are an active choice is that it supports the accusation that anyone who doesn’t believe in a particular god or faith is choosing to go against the “truth” and can be presented as a willing opponent or enemy, something history regularly shows us can lead to horrific consequences.

Fair enough. I use different methods of reconciling that issue. By pretty much calling that perspective out for what it is... haha.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don’t know what practices or procedures you’re referring to here but my position is based on basic definition of words. Beliefs are subconscious conclusions. If a person somehow actively chooses a specific conclusion, that isn’t a belief by definition. I’m not saying that is impossible (though I’m sceptical), only that it should be recognised as a distinct concept. I also continue to make a clear distinction between choosing what evidence to consider or how to approach that evidence (which is what the things you mention sound like to me) and directly choosing the conclusion.

The main issue I have with the idea that beliefs are an active choice is that it supports the accusation that anyone who doesn’t believe in a particular god or faith is choosing to go against the “truth” and can be presented as a willing opponent or enemy, something history regularly shows us can lead to horrific consequences. This applies equally to those who do have a faith as it does to those who don’t.

That's why acknowledging our personal belief, faith as such, is so important- whatever that faith may be, including atheism-

we agree, declaring 'unquestionable truth' is dangerous, anyone with different beliefs becomes a 'denier' even 'intellectually inferior', 'justifying' that the truth be forced on them. That's where the trouble always begins is it not?

On horrific historic consequences; atheist states like USSR, North Korea, Communist China, killed more people in a single generation than all the religious conflicts in the history of humanity combined- no this was not explicitly 'in the name of atheism' but people openly having personal faith in a higher power stood in the way of these regimes

 

[HonestJoe]

What you're saying makes more sense with this context, but you are the first person I've seen use that definition for a belief. After checking several standard dictionaries, "subconscious conclusions" aren't mentioned anywhere in any of them; I even checked the Oxford English Dictionary because I have easy access to it. Where did you come by this unusual understanding of beliefs?

I don’t see how it could be anything else. If you have a set of information leading to a particular conclusion, you can’t choose not to know some of that information or tell yourself of something not in evidence. The conclusion just is. Unless the information you have access to alters in some relevant way, that conclusion will remain fixed.

I'm pretty sure there's a different word for what you are calling beliefs. It's not coming to me right now. The closest I am thinking of right now is "schema" from the field of psychology, but that's not quite it...

Maybe we’re getting to caught up on terminology here. My point remains that I couldn’t simply decide that I think God exists, even if I wanted to and a theist couldn’t simply decide that they think God doesn’t exist. Telling me (and all other non-believers) that I’m denying or refusing God and all I have to do is flick a metaphorical switch in my head to accept him is a lie, and a potentially dangerous one at that.