"Interacting with 'Angry Atheists'"

Originally posted by FMF
You won't get him to agree to anything. He is a spammer. And a passive-aggressive. He's just trying to wind you up. See: twhitehead's initial response & answer.

I know, but I'm being lazy, doing absolutely nothing worthwhile, so why not browse on my Ipad and keep a Grampy Bobby thread going for a while.

I'll stop when I have to go to the bathroom. Mind you, I have a big bladder.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I know, but I'm being lazy, doing absolutely nothing worthwhile, so why not browse on my Ipad and keep a Grampy Bobby thread going for a while.

I'll stop when I have to go to the bathroom. Mind you, I have a big bladder.

🙂

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I applaud your optimism :-)

Just think. If it were lodged in the back of the mind, like a splinter, it could end many an unpromising train of thought, like:

"I had better go warn the heathens that they need to choose Jesus, or else."
"But hmm, then they'll bring up that whole 'belief is not a choice' thing."
"And then I'll have to deal with that, somehow, if I wish to save their soul."
"But hmm, I can't seem to think of an example where people actually choose what they believe."
"Damn. My head's starting to hurt. I never realized evangelism involved this much work."
"I wonder if there's anything good on TV."
(cancels thread)

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Belief or lack thereof is not a choice.

Rinse and repeat.

To believe or not believe some proposition P might not be directly voluntary, but consider whether we can voluntarily put ourselves in situations in which a belief about P might change. Trivial examples abound, such as deciding to add a column of numbers so that we come to believe what their sum is.

In like manner, one could go to church, study scriptures, etc. and in time, come to a belief (either for or against theism.)

Only strong determinism defeats this voluntary route to belief formation.

Some discussion of Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism is at http://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/

Originally posted by JS357
To believe or not believe some proposition P might not be directly voluntary, but consider whether we can voluntarily put ourselves in situations in which a belief about P might change. Trivial examples abound, such as deciding to add a column of numbers so that we come to believe what their sum is.

In like manner, one could go to church, study scriptures, ...[text shortened]... tion.

Some discussion of Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism is at http://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/

JS, thanks.

Originally posted by JS357
To believe or not believe some proposition P might not be directly voluntary, but consider whether we can voluntarily put ourselves in situations in which a belief about P might change. Trivial examples abound, such as deciding to add a column of numbers so that we come to believe what their sum is.

In like manner, one could go to church, study scriptures, ...[text shortened]... tion.

Some discussion of Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism is at http://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/

This is true, but consider what prompted my post:

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

You've examined the scripture and considered the claims of Christ. The sovereignty of God and the free will of man coexist; He does not coerce man's volition. Therefore, I respect your self determination and choice to believe in Christ or to reject the eternal life He made possible in favor of an eternity separated from God. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey [the command to believe in] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36

Clearly, GB is stating the only issue here is believing in gosh, not whether or not I make an effort to be in a place where my beliefs might be changed.

Regardless, believing is still not a choice. It should also be noted that to go to church or read the bible is for most people also not a choice. Most behave according to how they were raised.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Just think. If it were lodged in the back of the mind, like a splinter, it could end many an unpromising train of thought, like:

"I had better go warn the heathens that they need to choose Jesus, or else."
"But hmm, then they'll bring up that whole 'belief is not a choice' thing."
"And then I'll have to deal with that, somehow, if I wish to save the ...[text shortened]... angelism involved this much work."
"I wonder if there's anything good on TV."
(cancels thread)

Yep, this might happen. Let's reminisce about this when a freezing hell is littered with flying pigs.

;-)

Originally posted by Great King Rat
This is true, but consider what prompted my post:

[b]Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

[i]You've examined the scripture and considered the claims of Christ. The sovereignty of God and the free will of man coexist; He does not coerce man's volition. Therefore, I respect your self determination and choice to believe in Christ or to reje ...[text shortened]... d the bible is for most people also not a choice. Most behave according to how they were raised.[/b]

I understand GB's approach and I think he is not being rational about this question.

It sounds like you are leaning toward determinism as underlying people's choice about attending church and reading scripture.

I agree, to believe or not, is not a direct choice, but I believe the point stands. IF we have choice about anything, we can choose to put ourselves in situations where our beliefs will change. The link provides simple examples. A more rational theist than GB would acknowledge the difference you are pointing out, and would possibly be more effective at "saving souls" than he is. But I don't think he is motivated to save souls.

What if God exists? Whether or not you or your family and friends think God exists isn't the issue at the moment.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
What if God exists? Whether or not you or your family and friends think God exists isn't the issue at the moment.

Well, then God exists. Now what?

Originally posted by JS357
Well, then God exists. Now what?

What if an Omnipotent and Sovereign God exists and has something to do with each of us being here on planet earth?

Originally posted by JS357
To believe or not believe some proposition P might not be directly voluntary, but consider whether we can voluntarily put ourselves in situations in which a belief about P might change. Trivial examples abound, such as deciding to add a column of numbers so that we come to believe what their sum is.

In like manner, one could go to church, study scriptures, ...[text shortened]... tion.

Some discussion of Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism is at http://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/

Sure, we have this sort of indirect control. We can try to steer our consumption of evidence such that we get only evidence for what we would like to believe. However, if any counter evidence seeps in and convinced us, we are stuck with the belief we do not want.

It makes sense to blame someone for not reaching the correct belief IF, and only if, they did not make a good faith effort to examine the evidence.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"Interacting with 'Angry Atheists'"

Comments?[/b]

1. Read what you have posted carefully.
2. Read it again - get help with any words you do not understand.
3. Read it again - take notes.
4. Pick one point you are confident you can discuss.
5. In your own words create a new thread on that point.

Good Luck

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
What if an Omnipotent and Sovereign God exists and has something to do with each of us being here on planet earth?

What indeed.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sure, we have this sort of indirect control. We can try to steer our consumption of evidence such that we get only evidence for what we would like to believe. However, if any counter evidence seeps in and convinced us, we are stuck with the belief we do not want.

It makes sense to blame someone for not reaching the correct belief IF, and only if, they did not make a good faith effort to examine the evidence.

This opinion-confirming selectivity in sources of information seems to have exploded in the internet and multimedia age. Confirmation bias, I think it's called.

It makes sense to take measures to assure that the maker of bad or harmful decisions bears the cost of the consequences. I suppose that's blame.