1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSo when it comes to your beliefs you never accept or reject things, "on the basis of evidence and the plausibility of the logic and arguments" as you just claimed to do?
One cannot "decide" or "choose" to believe in claims about supernatural things that one simply does not believe in.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI can accept evidence if it's worthy or convincing ~ in fact, if it is, I think it just happens rather than being a decision. This can lead to changes in belief. You have offered me nothing in the way of convincing evidence, plus the fact that you have a mental map and demeanour that surely nobody would admire or seek to emulate. So it is highly unlikely that my beliefs are going to change as a result of talking to you.
So when it comes to your beliefs you never accept or reject things, "on the basis of evidence and the plausibility of the logic and arguments" as you just claimed to do?
On the other hand, perhaps one day I will come to realize that what you were saying was believable after all. Perhaps some other kinds of evidence will emerge and they will have some kind of cumulative effect. I will continue to listen to people ~ although I doubt whether any of the main retail religions I have encountered have anything much to offer. In the meantime, you seem to think that your assertions hold some some spiritual or intellectual weight, in and of themselves, but they don't.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have a gut feeling that there my be some higher source but there are absolutely no details about it ~ him ~ her ~ them that I can claim to "accept" or that I can communicate to anyone else and ask them to "accept". As I have explained, I am unable to "accept" any claims you have made about "God". My gut feeling is not based on evidence and the plausibility of the logic and arguments. It is more like an instinct, or a hunch, or perhaps a superstitious feeling.
You accept there may be a God, not based on the basis of evidence and the plausibility of the logic and arguments, but on a gut feeling.
I do wonder if it's something hard wired into me, and perhaps all of us, by which I suppose I mean 'put there'. But it can hardly be described a theory that I "accept". Nor do I think it matters whether you "accept" it or not.
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFI can accept evidence if it's worthy or convincing ~ in fact, if it is, I think it just happens rather than being a decision.
I can accept evidence if it's worthy or convincing ~ in fact, if it is, I think it just happens rather than being a decision. This can lead to changes in belief. You have offered me nothing in the way of convincing evidence, plus the fact that you have a mental map and demeanour that surely nobody would admire or seek to emulate. So it is highly unlikely that my ...[text shortened]... ssertions hold some some spiritual or intellectual weight, in and of themselves, but they don't.
You are still the one that decides
1. whether or not something qualifies as evidence
2. whether or not it is worthy or convincing
Two people can see the same evidence, one may be convinced the other one may not.
You have offered me nothing in the way of convincing evidence,
I offer you evidence, you decide whether it is convincing (logical) or not, based on certain thought processes that you make. Or do you never think about anything that someone says?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf something, by its very nature, is believable to someone, I have no doubt that someone will end up believing it. If it's not, then no "decision" can turn an inability to believe something... into a situation where that thing is believed. By the same reckoning, if someone realizes they do actually believe something, then I don't think they can somehow "decide" or "choose" not to believe it.
[b]I can accept evidence if it's worthy or convincing ~ in fact, if it is, I think it just happens rather than being a decision.
You are still the one that decides
1. whether or not something qualifies as evidence
2. whether or not it is worthy or convincing
You have offered me nothing in the way of convincing evidence,
I offer you evidence, you decide whether it is convincing (logical) or not.[/b]
While people can choose to look at evidence or decide to try something out - and experience or materials - I think, especially when it comes to highly abstract and deep down things like spiritual ideas or faith, these things come about by way of realizations rather than decisions.
You are a Christian. I don't think you decided to be one. I think you realized you were one. I doubt you could decide to become an unbeliever ~ just as I didn't decide to become an unbeliever.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou are entitled to think what you want. If you think I can decide to have Christian beliefs again, then why don't you show me how such a "decision" might work by deciding to have Muslim beliefs for a month. Then get back to me on it, and I'll take a look at how you managed to make that choice. Of course, it won't work. You didn't choose to have Christian beliefs ~ it's something that happened to you ~ it's something you realized was true and was a fact about yourself. And, of course, you can't choose to be a Muslim.
...Or do you never think about anything that someone says?
Originally posted by FMFHow can something, by its very nature be believable to one person and not to another?
If something, by its very nature, is believable to someone, I have no doubt that someone will end up believing it. If it's not, then no "decision" can turn an inability to believe something... into a situation where that thing is believed. By the same reckoning, if someone realizes they do actually believe something, then I don't think they can somehow "decide" ...[text shortened]... oubt you could decide to become an unbeliever ~ just as I didn't decide to become an unbeliever.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBecause of the reality of the human condition, because of the sheer diversity of spiritual beliefs and mind maps, and because of the very nature of the sort of ideas, aspirations, theories and "evidence" involved in approaching metaphysical aspects of who we are.
How can something, by its very nature be believable to one person and not to another?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBy the way, when you ask lumpen, lumbering questions like this, I start to think (yet again, as I have done on occasions before) that you're just taking the piss.
How can something, by its very nature be believable to one person and not to another?
Originally posted by FMFYou can't seriously think that 'acceptance' and 'rejection' of highly abstract and deep down things like spiritual ideas or faith happens by way of 'realizations' rather than 'decisions'. It would mean a total lack of rationalization.
If something, by its very nature, is believable to someone, I have no doubt that someone will end up believing it. If it's not, then no "decision" can turn an inability to believe something... into a situation where that thing is believed. By the same reckoning, if someone realizes they do actually believe something, then I don't think they can somehow "decide" ...[text shortened]... oubt you could decide to become an unbeliever ~ just as I didn't decide to become an unbeliever.
