The Role of the Unrepentant Skeptic

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like while an individual can "use logic and make a cognitive decision" to reject the supernatural, the individual can only "use logic and make a cognitive decision" in generating rationalizations after accepting the supernatural. Even if it were a step-wise process, they would still be rationalizations.

So is accepting the supernatural a choice or not?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So is accepting the supernatural a choice or not?

Seems like while an individual can make a rational choice to reject the supernatural, he cannot make a rational choice to accept it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like while an individual can make a rational choice to reject the supernatural, he cannot make a rational choice to accept it.

So you are saying everyone who believe in God doesn't do so by choice? How would you know that since it seems you don't?

Originally posted by Eladar
If the great grandparent did not exist, you would not exist. Ripping up the weed would also uproot wheat.

This is how Jesus said it...

From Matthew 13

24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’

Originally posted by dj2becker
Ok let's say a believer presents you 'evidence' of their beliefs. You are saying that you cannot weigh up the evidence, use logic and make a cognitive decision about whether you accept or reject what they are saying? Is that correct?

In many or most areas subject to opinions or judgement calls, yes. But I don’t think one can somehow just just "decide" to adopt superstitious beliefs in this way.

I think some sort of shift towards a feeling that something is true without it being based on conscious reasoning has to occur or be experienced in order for someone to start attributing events to supernatural entities and phenomena.

Originally posted by FMF
In many or most areas subject to opinions or judgement calls, yes. But I don’t think one can somehow just just "decide" to adopt superstitious beliefs in this way.

I think some sort of shift towards a feeling that something is true without it being based on conscious reasoning has to occur or be experienced in order for someone to start attributing events to supernatural entities and phenomena.

Well since you don't believe in God your opinions about how people do start believing in God don't have any experiential relevance. If you did believe in God maybe your opinions could be true about your particular belief in God.

At least we can agree that a person can weigh up evidence, use logic and make a cognitive choice to reject the supernatural.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you are saying everyone who believe in God doesn't do so by choice? How would you know that since it seems you don't?

I'm saying that it's not a rational choice.

Perhaps it'll help if we go at this a different way.

Take Christianity for example. Seems like most Christians speak of their "faith" and will readily acknowledge that it is a faith based system of belief. In effect, they trust in their beliefs DESPITE the lack of evidence. It's not a rational choice. However, this doesn't seem to stop many from generating rationalizations in an attempt to "justify" their beliefs to themselves and others.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm saying that it's not a rational choice.

Perhaps it'll help if we go at this a different way.

Take Christianity for example. Seems like most Christians speak of their "faith" and will readily acknowledge that it is a faith based system of belief. In effect, they trust in their beliefs DESPITE the lack of evidence. It's not a rational choice. How ...[text shortened]... m generating rationalizations in an attempt to "justify" their beliefs to themselves and others.

So in essence you are saying everyone that believes in God is irrational? Wow. Would you say Sir Isaac Newton for example was irrational?

Most Christians I know say that their faith is based upon reason.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So in essence you are saying everyone that believes in God is irrational? Wow.

Most Christians I know say that their faith is based upon reason.

ThinkOfOne referred to a lack of evidence.

Can you provide any evidence of God or Jesus?

Originally posted by chaney3
ThinkOfOne referred to a lack of evidence.

Can you provide any evidence of God or Jesus?

What kind of evidence would you consider?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well since you don't believe in God your opinions about how people do start believing in God don't have any experiential relevance. If you did believe in God maybe your opinions could be true about your particular belief in God.

Well my perspective is based on the experience of having been a believer in God for the better part of three decades, and the experience of losing that faith; it's also based on living among believers and non-believers my whole life long and countless years spent discussing the nature of faith and belief with all manner of people, including people who have lost their faith, people who have found it again, and people who have changed their religion.

So your unilateral declaration that my perspective and opinions "about how people do start believing in God don't have any experiential relevance" ~ while it might edify you to seek to now disqualify me in such a way ~ it strikes me as a bit weedy in terms of discourse.

Originally posted by FMF
Well my perspective is based on the experience of having been a believer in God for the better part of three decades, and the experience of losing that faith; it's also based on living among believers and non-believers my whole life long and countless years spent discussing the nature of faith and belief with all manner of people, including people who have lost ...[text shortened]... to seek to now disqualify me in such a way ~ it strikes me as a bit weedy in terms of discourse.

I find it hard to believe that you have never weighed evidence and used logic to reach a cognitive decision about any of your beliefs about God, the Bible, Christianity etc.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What kind of evidence would you consider?

Well, it seems that basing one's beliefs on what is written in the Bible could be considered "faith", in that you are trusting the words are divine, and have been translated properly through time.

Any evidence other than the Bible? Specifically to God and Jesus, and not just a Creator.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I find it hard to believe that you have never weighed evidence and used logic to reach a cognitive decision about any of your beliefs about God, the Bible, Christianity etc.

Like I said, I see it as being more a process of realization and not a decision, and, as such, different from decisions made about non-superstitious and non-supernatural things.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I find it hard to believe that you have never weighed evidence and used logic to reach a cognitive decision about any of your beliefs about God, the Bible, Christianity etc.

Meanwhile, I find it easy to believe that you have grown up with and/or found yourself believing in God, the Bible, Christianity etc. and that in situations like this you like to talk about how you have "weighed evidence and used logic to reach a cognitive decision" about your beliefs.