Spirituality FAQ

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Q: Do people choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians?

A: Yes. Human Volition won't be denied (by place of birth, social or economic status).

Actually, the answer is "No" - people cannot choose to be atheist or christian. We already covered this earlier in the FAQ.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Actually, the answer is "No" - people cannot choose to be atheist or christian. We already covered this earlier in the FAQ.

Dawkins chose atheism and made an exquisite borderline observation about its relationship to theism. 11/1/2009 on Imus: "Neither me nor my girl believe in God or marriage, so there's not gonna be a big church wedding... I always say I don't know. Even Richard Dawkins a man whose name has become synonymous with atheism says he puts a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being absolute certain there is a god and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't, and he says even he's a 6.9. Because no one knows for sure what's out there." (Famous Quotes by Atheists & Scoffers) Also, David Hume chose atheism and devoted his entire life to studying his belief and writing treatises on it. On what basis of fact do you deny these historical realities?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Dawkins chose atheism and made an exquisite borderline observation about its relationship to theism. 11/1/2009 on Imus: "Neither me nor my girl believe in God or marriage, so there's not gonna be a big church wedding... I always say I don't know. [i]Even Richard Dawkins a man whose name has become synonymous with atheism says he puts a scale of 1 to 7, ...[text shortened]... elief and writing treatises on it. On what basis of fact do you deny these historical realities?

On the basis that we do not choose our beliefs. We come to them through evaluation of our experiences, of evidence; through our reasoning and intuition.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
On the basis that we do not choose our beliefs. We come to them through evaluation of our experiences, of evidence; through our reasoning and intuition.

I think the point is that even with all these things you mention and more, the ultimate decision to believe in God and Christ or not is your choice. Those factors may make your choice easier, but you have free will and can choose to believe and become a Christian or not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think the point is that even with all these things you mention and more, the ultimate decision to believe in God and Christ or not is your choice. Those factors may make your choice easier, but you have free will and can choose to believe and become a Christian or not.

I understand the point, but I disagree with it. You do not choose to believe.

Forget the cliches that have been pounded into your head by preachers and think about it for a bit.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I understand the point, but I disagree with it. You do not choose to believe.

Forget the cliches that have been pounded into your head by preachers and think about it for a bit.

Okay, I will think about it for awhile. But right now I understand that my education, training, experiences, and abilities in reason and logic does have a lot to do with me choosing Christianity and creation over atheism and evolution, but I don't feel forced into believing it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, I will think about it for awhile. But right now I understand that my education, training, experiences, and abilities in reason and logic does have a lot to do with me choosing Christianity and creation over atheism and evolution, but I don't feel forced into believing it.

Well, if so, the question is then, did you choose your education, training, experiences, and abilities in reason and logic?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
On the basis that we do not choose our beliefs. We come to them through evaluation of our experiences, of evidence; through our reasoning and intuition.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
On the basis that we do not choose our beliefs. We come to them through evaluation of our experiences, of evidence; through our reasoning and intuition.

If and when a courtroom jury evaluates the evidence through reasoning and intuition and finally renders a verdict: "We find this man innocent" or "We find this man guilty" do they not make a choice in the process of their deliberations?

Does not a young man date several women before making a comparative evaluation based on his romantic experiences, evidence of reciprocal attraction, reasoning and male intuition before making the major choice: "Yes, I believe Cynthia rather than Chloe is the woman I desire for my life partner and to whom I shall propose marriage this weekend"?

How much more so do we evaluate and reason when the gravitas of the decision is to choose between one of two addresses for our soul's eternal destiny? No one forces anyone to choose theism or agnosticism or atheism or Christianity or some religion... we all make that pivotal decision all by ourselves. If we make the wrong decision there is no patsy, no scapegoat, no animosity target, no one to take the full weight of responsibility except our own rational process and free will.

Originally posted by JS357
Well, if so, the question is then, did you choose your education, training, experiences, and abilities in reason and logic?

I choose some and some was forced on me.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]On the basis that we do not choose our beliefs. We come to them through evaluation of our experiences, of evidence; through our reasoning and intuition.

If and when a courtroom jury evaluates the evidence through reasoning and intuition and finally renders a verdict: "We find this man innocent" o ...[text shortened]... no one to take the full weight of responsibility except our own rational process and free will.[/b]

A courtroom juror may choose to vote for a 'guilty' verdict even though he believes in his heart that the defendant didn't do it. He chooses the verdict, but not the belief.

Yes, a young man chooses to propose to a woman. This example isn't really germane, because the word 'believe' is being used in a different way.

I can choose to act to steer my soul's eternal destiny if I believe there is both a heaven and a hell. However, if I do not believe in either heaven or hell, then the question becomes nonsense.

The key distinction is belief vs. action. I can decide how to act, but not what to believe. Let's use a more straightforward example.

If I stand in a road and let a car hit me at 80mph, I believe I will suffer injury and likely death. I cannot just choose to believe I am invincible and can survive the car. I am convinced by the overwhelming evidence at hand. I have been in car crashes and seen them, both in person and on TV. Every single time a car hits something at a high speed, damage occurs. I cannot choose to disbelieve it no matter how hard I try. You might as well ask me to choose not to think that 2+2=4.

Now, I can choose to act - I can stand on the highway and shout 'bring it on!!' to oncoming traffic, but I'll be thinking 'oh crap, I'm going to die!!' right before I get hit. I will not be able to bring peace to my final moments on earth by choosing to believe that I will live, no matter how much I wish I could, or how hard I try to will myself to believe it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I choose some and some was forced on me.

.. evidently not grammar lessons...

Originally posted by LemonJello

you cannot seriously be suggesting that the codes of conduct applied by all groups of people are initiated for the sake of these people.

Did I suggest that? Oh that's right: no. In fact, I already made it explicitly clear that I think the "codes of conduct" you are talking about (in the vein of descriptive ethics or, basically, anthrop ...[text shortened]... or any of his main theses or arguments thereof; and has nothing to do with the topic at issue.)

They all arise endogenously. This continues to be the obvious source of your confusion.
Again, no such confusion exists, except perhaps in your mind.
Let's try a different tack.

We blink, breathe and perform a few other functions completely without any thought given to the acts. Involuntary acts. In the case of a few of these acts, we can override the body's control and voluntarily perform the functions ourselves, e.g., blinking, breathing, swallowing.

Of the body's involuntary acts, none of them can cause death on their own. Each of them serve to keep the body intact, healthy and productive. However, we are able to voluntarily stop some of the acts if their normal function could lead to harm or worse. One example: we stop breathing when submerged beneath water.

According to the way most people consider morality, there is an inner light which informs us of how we should (ought to?) act among others. There is also an overt morality which is imposed upon the society in a lowest common denominator style. These two don't always agree, obviously, in the same sense that some states might allow certain activities which the federal government forbids.

If morality was entirely endogenous, there'd be no need for the enforced morality--- which clearly exists and at least up to this point has been historically necessary.

In comparison of the body's involuntary and voluntary actions, you seem to be describing morality as an involuntary action, whereas I am describing it as both involuntary as well as voluntary. Correct me if I have that wrong.

Contrary to what you implied, he doesn't promote your ridiculous claim that God's nonexistence points to nihilism -- only someone who has no education with secular ethics would make such a daft claim.
I did not imply any such promotion.
I'm not super familiar with moral fictionalist, but I do know that Joyce himself described his position as a moral nihilist.
He does so in the conclusion to the book you suggested, The Evolution of Morality.
Not sure why that bothers you so much.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
A courtroom juror may choose to vote for a 'guilty' verdict even though he believes in his heart that the defendant didn't do it. He chooses the verdict, but not the belief.

Yes, a young man chooses to propose to a woman. This example isn't really germane, because the word 'believe' is being used in a different way.

I can choose to act to steer my ...[text shortened]... I will live, no matter how much I wish I could, or how hard I try to will myself to believe it.

The Holy Bible says that a third of the angels of God choose to believe the lies of Lucifer (Satan) and follow him rather than God. Surely the angels were eyewitnesses to the creation and knew that evolution was a lie. So are you saying that even though they believed in creation that they choose to follow Satan anyway?

If that is the case, then I can better understand why there is no redemption for Satan and the fallen angels. On the cross Jesus asked the Father to forgive those that crucified Him for they knew not what they do. Satan and those demons should have known what they were doing.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
On the basis that we do not choose our beliefs. We come to them through evaluation of our experiences, of evidence; through our reasoning and intuition.

So you claim it is not a choice, but rather a justification.

Usually justification comes after a choice is made, yes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says that a third of the angels of God choose to believe the lies of Lucifer (Satan) and follow him rather than God. Surely the angels were eyewitnesses to the creation and knew that evolution was a lie. So are you saying that even though they believed in creation that they choose to follow Satan anyway?

If that is the case, then I can be ...[text shortened]... for they knew not what they do. Satan and those demons should have known what they were doing.

You *cannot* place your dividing line and say, "Those on this side believe in Creationism and therefore follow God, and those on that side believe in Evolution and therefore follow Satan."

That's more than a little self-serving, and just as obviously wrong.