"What are the temporal and eternal..."

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why not? You decided to not believe something you believed, so how would coming to believe something you didn't believe be any less congruent? I didn't believe it but then later I did believe it. This doesn't mean I believed and disbelieved it at the same time.

I gradually realized that there was, for example, no credible evidence pointing to the divinity of Christ. There was no "decision". It was a process over a long period of time as tenets fell by the wayside as a result of scrutiny and reflection. Do you believe you can choose ~ that is to say, make a decision ~ to believe something that you quite simply do not believe to be true?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Sure, we agree; it's a process before deciding not unlike the process before deciding to become a believer in Christ. And then having decided to become an agnostic or atheist, "What are the temporal and eternal benefits..."?

Well, I still wouldn't call that process a decision - it's more an evaluation. I think we can choose to examine only certain types of evidence in hopes that we will become convinced of the desired conclusion. But, judging from experiences of frustrated Christians who have tried for years to believe in God and failed, I conclude that even that does not always work.

But let's push that semantic quibble aside and focus on possible benefits of the change you described (regardless of how that change came about).

I can think of some benefits:

1. Temporal: One removes the banal motivation of following a powerful being watching from above and focuses in on what really matters in making moral decisions: the ethical value of the action itself. In other words, whether I believe in God or not, I still have the same fundamental reasons for moral action. I avoid lying to people because it creates mistrust. I do not steal because it is wrong to take something that's not mine. I do not punch people who annoy me because it is wrong to use violence to solve problems, etc. etc. All of these actions inflict more harm than is justified by the end I'm trying to attain.

The "do right or else God will ____ " threat was just a distraction from the real reasons I have for acting rightly (and the sense of guilt I get when I fail to do so).

2. Eternal: most accounts of a divinely-run afterlife are fraught with injustice: Salvation is accorded to people not by any self-merit whatsoever, but instead cronyism with the guy in charge of heaven; moral people who fail to buddy-up to the heaven-master get tormented forever, etc. etc. etc. So, remove the divine overlord of the afterlife, and there is a chance that one might find justice there after all.

Originally posted by FMF
I gradually realized that there was, for example, no credible evidence pointing to the divinity of Christ. There was no "decision". It was a process over a long period of time as tenets fell by the wayside as a result of scrutiny and reflection. Do you believe you can choose ~ that is to say, make a decision ~ to believe something that you quite simply do not believe to be true?

There must be a reason why someone would not believe something, just as there must a reason why someone would believe something they didn't previously believe. You make it sound as though all decisions are made arbitrarily, and based only what someone wants to believe.

Were you assuming GB meant someone could both believe and disbelieve something at the same time? Or were you simply trying to find a contradiction where no contradiction exists?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Were you assuming GB meant someone could both believe and disbelieve something at the same time? Or were you simply trying to find a contradiction where no contradiction exists?

Grampy Bobby frequently makes the assertion that one has to simply make the decision to believe in Christ and one is "saved". I have never made any reference to the notion that someone "..could both believe and disbelieve something at the same time", this is something you have introduced. The claim that one can somehow choose to 'believe in Christ' when one does not [and when the necessary convincing evidence is not available], does not ring true ~ psychologically or philosophically. And yet Grampy Bobby's entire 'ministry' here sometimes seems to be wholly reliant on this assertion that non-believers can simply decide to believe. It's not a contradiction so much as - what seems to me to be - a total misconception of the nature and cause of belief.

Originally posted by lemon lime
There must be a reason why someone would not believe something, just as there must a reason why someone would believe something they didn't previously believe. You make it sound as though all decisions are made arbitrarily, and based only what someone wants to believe.

Do you believe someone can just go ahead and make a decision to believe something when they quite simply do not see any justification for believing it? Remember this is an ideology that asserts that immortality is the reward for simply believing something and some kind of ghastly eternal torment/torture is the punishment for the thoughtcrime of being unconvinced by supposed evidence; in light of this, this clumsy, false-note-sounding cod-psychology stuff about deciding and choosing to believe something one doesn't, does not seem to be intellectually or spiritually commensurate with the enormity of the imagined consequences. It basically sounds rather primitive and half baked and could only work, in my view, when preaching to the choir.

Originally posted by FMF
Grampy Bobby frequently makes the assertion that one has to simply make the decision to believe in Christ and one is "saved". I have never made any reference to the notion that someone "..could both believe and disbelieve something at the same time", this is something you have introduced. The claim that one can somehow choose to 'believe in Christ' when one does ...[text shortened]... n so much as - what seems to me to be - a total misconception of the nature and cause of belief.

I have never made any reference to the notion that someone "..could both believe and disbelieve something at the same time", this is something you have introduced.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"agnostics and atheists": some reject the concept of an after life; some think it may be a possibility which they are unable to empirically or rationally prove or deny; some accept the possibility with a measure of concern.

Originally posted by FMF
The question I asked you was 'Have any of the atheists you've met believed in an "after life"?' Would your answer be a yes or a no?


Atheists do not believe in an afterlife.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Atheists do not believe in an afterlife.

Of course they don't, so one wonders why Grampy Bobby is being so evasive after having been asked about this. What "eternal benefits" does he imagine atheists perceive? Perhaps his OP was just half baked and spontaneous. Perhaps that is why he is unwilling to discuss it properly.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
@divegeester: "Bunni wae"

The meaning of life the universe and everything...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0eDCYZAIvAo"
___________________________

"The meaning of life the universe and everything..." is revealed in the Word of God and no where else.

No it's not. It revealed in cinema science fiction.

🙄

Originally posted by FMF
Do you believe someone can just go ahead and make a decision to believe something when they quite simply do not see any justification for believing it? Remember this is an ideology that asserts that immortality is the reward for simply believing something and some kind of ghastly eternal torment/torture is the punishment for the thoughtcrime of being unco ...[text shortened]... ds rather primitive and half baked and could only work, in my view, when preaching to the choir.

I believe it's a waste of effort to ask atheists about an afterlife, or try convincing them that belief in God is not simply an arbitrary decision. When I was an atheist this wouldn't have meant anything to me... but not all atheists think exactly alike, just as not all Christians think exactly alike.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I believe it's a waste of effort to ask atheists about an afterlife, or try convincing them that belief in God is not simply an arbitrary decision. When I was an atheist this wouldn't have meant anything to me... but not all atheists think exactly alike, just as not all Christians think exactly alike.

Why do you choose to address this to me and not to Grampy Bobby who is engaged in implying and asserting things about 'atheists', 'decisions' and the 'after life'? What "eternal benefits" do you think Grampy Bobby imagines atheists might perceive? Why are you telling me - and not Grampy Bobby - that "it's a waste of effort to ask atheists about an afterlife"?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I believe it's a waste of effort to ask atheists about an afterlife, or try convincing them that belief in God is not simply an arbitrary decision.

Isn't this what FMF and BDP are saying? That belief is not a "decision".

Originally posted by FMF
Why do you choose to address this to me and not to Grampy Bobby who is engaged in implying and asserting things about 'atheists', 'decisions' and the 'after life'? What "eternal benefits" do you think Grampy Bobby imagines atheists might perceive? Why are you telling me - and not Grampy Bobby - that "it's a waste of effort to ask atheists about an afterlife"?

I don't tell him this for the same reason you are free to say whatever it is you want to say to whoever you want to speak to. If you have a problem with who is saying what to whom that's your problem, not mine.

Also, GB doesn't consistently misrepresent what I've been saying... in fact, I can't remember him ever doing that.

Originally posted by divegeester
Isn't this what FMF and BDP are saying? That belief is not a "decision".

Acting on a belief is what constitutes and gives meaning to having made a decision. Saying you believe something but not demonstrating it by what you do is not belief... it's lip service.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't tell him this for the same reason [b]you are free to say whatever it is you want to say to whoever you want to speak to. If you have a problem with who is saying what to whom that's your problem, not mine.[/b]

What prevents you from addressing criticism of an idea to the person who is propagating the idea ~ where you instead address it to someone who has reiterated it in order to disagree with it? It's a very common ~ and interesting ~ kind of behaviour on the part of Christians in this community.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Acting on a belief is what constitutes and gives meaning to having made a decision. Saying you believe something but not demonstrating it by what you do is not belief... it's lip service.[/b]

Do you then believe that belief in Christ alone is NOT enough for "salvation" and that there must be demonstrations of belief and acts/good works too?