format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Cannot or will not? We have already established people can easily deny things. The issue here is a matter of acceptance or will.
I don't know whether the "cannot or will not" insinuation this is the suggestion that I've seen many theists make that perhaps atheists, or in this case non-muslims are in denial, too stubborn or are refusing to accept Islam out of pride, or some other vice - but it remains merely a prejudice rooted in a black and white - us vs. them mentality if so.
Irrespectively, denial is not what I am talking about here. If you are in denial of something you don't really believe it anyway. You're not being sincere. People go into denial due reality conflicting with what they would like to be true. If belief was a matter of complete choice, as is claimed - then people would simply
not go into denial in the first place at all.
But you are only viewing half of the equation; the reward side. When you put both together, there is justice.
I thought I was being accused of viewing the punishment side too much last time?
Irrespectively,
how is there justice if everything in the equation is looked at? How can torture for incorrect thoughts and conclusions be valid, even if there is a wonderful reward for the correct thoughts and conclusions?
No, he was quite clearly trying to make a parable to Do you believe in the existence of God. That's why he said in point 7 God does something unjust.
He was making a point against the concept of hell. His argument was that belief is not motivated by choice, but by the conclusions you come to in life from a specific observation of natural phenomena and knowledge gained. He used the 1+1=2 analogy to demonstrate how you cannot forgo belief in something you understand to be true and then went on to contend how torture for thought should be considered immoral.
Which brings me right back to quiz example I mentioned earlier: Is it unfair on a conceptual level for a person who failed a test to be entitled to a crappy low paying job compared to someone who passed the test and got a better high paying job.
Any consequences of failing a test leading to a bad job are
not set in stone. It is a passive consequence of a performance-based society which values those that might be more effective than those who are not. These are not punishments, and any self-respecting society that values people tries their utmost to ascend those weaker, and less intelligent than others to leading comfortable lives.
There is no talk of torture. There is no talk of the government actively punishing those who fail the tests. There is no suggestion of an infinite response, or a response of a lifetime. There is only failure at accomplishment.
Therefore you can chose your beliefs.
?
How do you get from me informing you I am
not arguing against the concept of belief to your assumption that I have conceded that beliefs are motivated by choice? Does not follow.
Especially since I had said originally that people who change their religious beliefs change on the basis of new information and
not through choice.
And I am arguing belief is a choice. That's why I gave the example of converts/reverts to a religion. But you said no they aren't making a choice of beliefs, it's all cognitive yadda yadda.
And you haven't addressed this.
Why not? Do you imagine apostates of any religion just suddenly decide one day that they are going to forgo all acquired knowledge? Do you not think that perhaps they go through a lengthy period of time of attempting to reconcile their beliefs with reality until they eventually realise they cannot do so and release themselves?
Do you imagine that people who convert to a religious ideology do so for the same reason that they felt like trying a new flavour of ice-cream? Or do you not think that perhaps they have over time, come across new information that they have been convinced represents a truth of a specific ideology? Sure, there can be coercien and manipulation employed by overzealous preachers (evangelical christianity, scientology) - but they only convince people that they
ought to change their beliefs. They only convince people that they should develop a confirmation bias. Those that convert through others often drop out quicker than those that move from themselves.
Every time I say xyz is a belief you say it's something else. If all you want to do is contradict everything I say, fine you win. I have no desire to continue, for the third time, this conversation.
Uh, no.
This is the third time you've stated that I am arguing against beliefs. I am
not. I am arguing that belief is not a choice.
I'm not saying that choice is whimsical. I am saying one does choose to accept things and thus believe in them (because of those things you mentioned). Ergo, one chooses their beliefs.
How can you 'choose to accept things'? What does that even mean?
Did I 'choose' to accept that it is the 10th of February 2010 today?