Belief and Responsibility

[Skavau]

I don't know what you are saying.

That sir, is because I made a typo. My apologies. I meant to ask:

"But you appear to have missed the point, if you understand that 1+1=2 is factual can you actually 'choose' to forgo that understanding and begin to claim that it is not?"

Theoretically, you can chose to believe anything and everything. Practically, we go with the flow e.g peer pressure, conformity etc.

Actually, you haven't given a convincing argument that you can choose to believe anything and everything. You have merely claimed that it is so.

Do you accept 1+1=2?
Two outcomes:
Yes
No

By belief I am referring to acceptance.

Right.

So do you think it is possible for me to forgo my understanding of 1+1=2 and suddenly claim that it is false?

Some don't have the same info/life experiences I do. I.e they've only been told +1=
Others do have the full info but reject and mock it instead. I.e they've been told 1+1=2, they just won't accept it.

So (considering this simple analogy of 1+1=2) you believe that there are people out there who know there is a God and that Islam is true, but then decide to arbitrarily mock and reject it? What do you imagine could be their motivation?

And do you think there are people who think Christianity is true, and mock/reject it?

If I have presented to you the logistics of 1+1 = 2 and you say no it isn't (arguments akin to stick my fingers in my ears and say la la la) you are being obtuse. You plus revision equals passing your exam. If you don't accept that and then don't revise, you fail the test.

What does this have to do with my question? We don't torture people who fail exams. We don't send them to a pit of annihilation for eternity. They can always try and go for it again. What a ridiculous parody of education.

There's nothing wrong with the obtuse guy's memory or brain functions, it is simply a matter of acceptance. The one who accepted 1+1=2 got the reward (or passed the test, because he revised!). The one who rejected that got a punishment (failed the test because he didn't revise) - he thought he was being clever, no he was being obtuse and failed.

Actually, we don't inflict punishment of people who are obtuse, lazy or lacking faculties in their subject of study. No self-respecting educational establishment would ever do anything like that.

 

[Skavau]

The person looks at 1+1=2, he see's the arguments for and against and then CHOOSES which he deems to be more correct. He can believe anything but has CHOSEN to believe what he thinks is more correct by looking at what makes sense to him.

No.

He is convinced. You are half there. You say that he decides based on what he "thinks is more correct" - but what you think is more correct is not a judgment you come to based on arbitrary choice. What you think is correct comes from your observation of the evidence and your understanding that you have gathered in life.

If I look outside of my window in the morning (you've not addressed this by the way) and observe that it happens to be raining - do you seriously think that I can be led to sincerely believe that it is a bright sunny day outside?

My own perspective on this is no - I cannot. I could sarcastically claim that it is sunny. I could joke that it is sunny, I could even in general sit in denial and claim that it sunny. But if I have already been convinced it is raining I cannot change my beliefs on the matter until convinced that the weather has actually changed.

You are looking at it after the choice is made and trying to confuse matters. Saying to the man AFTER he has seen that 1+1=2 is the choice which makes most sense, you ask him to choose not to believe it - the implication being that he does not have free choice if he cannot change his belief. This is incorrect because belief is based on fact.

It is the way to demonstrate that belief is based on being convinced of things, and not an arbitrary flip-flop as people here like to pretend it is. If, for any reason I cannot be led to believe something is not true - then I cannot claim that my belief in that something something wholly of my choice.

Ever wonder why the word 'stubborn' exists? It would have no credibility as a term if belief was a complete choice.

If I flip a coin and it lands heads you would say "oh there was no chance because it landed heads". You are looking at it after the fact.

That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I am talking about the nature of belief, not coin-flipping.

I don't know about the last question because I am not the judge, but we can change the question slightly and see if you think a similar way outside of religion. For example, we all know murder is wrong, therefore if someone commits murder they can't be thinking straight. By your logic just the fact they commited the murder removes all blame from the murderer. He was honest and sincere in the murder but its ok, he just misinterpreted some key info.

If they're not thinking straight, then we can just isolate them from society until we are convinced that they are no longer a threat to other people. Murder is a direct threat to the well-being of a community. We do not isolate murderers from society because of revenge - but because they pose a direct impact to other people.

Belief or nonbelief is hardly something comparable to that. In addition, what murderers do we mercilessly torture for their entire lives? What murderers do we force to live in everlasting agony?

and you say there's no choice

What grounds do I have to distinguish the claims of Muslims over the claims made by all other religious beliefs from a skeptical perspective?

 

[aamirsaab]

...
"But you appear to have missed the point, if you understand that 1+1=2 is factual can you actually 'choose' to forgo that understanding and begin to claim that it is not?"

Yes, it is called denial. People do it every day.

So (considering this simple analogy of 1+1=2) you believe that there are people out there who know there is a God and that Islam is true, but then decide to arbitrarily mock and reject it? What do you imagine could be their motivation?

No, I said they got the full message i.e they were told 1 + 1 = 2 i.e they were told to revise for the exam. They chose to reject it and thus failed the exam.

What does this have to do with my question? We don't torture people who fail exams. We don't send them to a pit of annihilation for eternity. They can always try and go for it again. What a ridiculous parody of education.

The concept is pass or fail.

Exam has a limited time, usually one day, but the reward or punishment can be seen as you get a good job or you get a crap job.

If you didn't revise for your exams and you fail as a result, you get a crap job.

If you do revise for your exams and you pass, you should be entitled to a (better) job that someone who failed isn't.

You are arguing that the one who didn't revise and thus failed shouldn't get a crap job, because apparently that isn't fair or just.

Actually, we don't inflict punishment of people who are obtuse, lazy or lacking faculties in their subject of study. No self-respecting educational establishment would ever do anything like that.

And we don't reward those who pass with paradise, either.
The point I am making is pass or failure. The analogy only goes so far because we are comparing the outcome of a school test with the outcome of a life test, in the interest of argument. But, that's the inherent problem with anologies.

 

[Dagless]

" On no soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns." 2:286.

So God has committed himself to not punishing people for things they cannot do and believing Islam is not something someone can do by choice. So if they happen to be unconvinced then God has agreed not to punish them since they are incapable of otherwise. The MAIN POINT with this verse is that we have a clear of idea of what God is Supposed to do (unless you bite the ultimate bullet and say God can lie because he is God)

You are doing what a lot of non-believers do, and that is taking a verse out of context. Before this verse it was said that Allah knew everything in believers hearts and whether they acted upon it or not they would be judged. The believers then became very worried because if this was done they feared nobody would pass the test. THEN this verse (2:286) was revealed. It was a verse for those already believing (I'm sure those more learned than myself can give an even more detailed explanation). Even without this explanation though, it has been stated throughout the Quran that the biggest sin is not believing in the oneness of God.

Believing is a choice based on information. Everything is a choice based on information. If you can't accept that then how can you say anyone chooses anything?

Ferown:



So you think that people can just choose to believe that the Sun does not exist? Convincing precludes choice. Either I am convinced and I don't admit it or I am convinced and I do admit it or I am unconvinced but I don't consciously say to myself "I will not believe this even though it appears to be true". It's impossible. You can easily test out my argument by trying to choose to believe that there is a bogeyman in your closet. Try it. If you can't choose to believe that then my argument is sound.

How does convincing preclude choice? You are given information which you then process to come to a conclusion. Either the information convinces you or it does not convince you. Your mind chooses if you are convinced or not.
The information that the sun exists is overwhelming for most people because you can see the sun, you can feel the sun, etc. Therefore the evidence against the Sun existing is less than that for it existing. Most people would agree that it exists.

Your example is a very black and white one. How about belief there is life on other planets? This is a more uncertain one. Some people see the facts and say yes they believe there is life on other planets, while others see the same facts and say no there probably isn't life. Each person saw the same facts, and each person made up their own mind. It was their decision. It was their choice.


If you do not agree with this then you do not agree there is choice in anything... which again leads to you believing crimes are not a persons fault.

 

[Dagless]

No.

He is convinced. You are half there. You say that he decides based on what he "thinks is more correct" - but what you think is more correct is not a judgment you come to based on arbitrary choice. What you think is correct comes from your observation of the evidence and your understanding that you have gathered in life.

It's the same thing. You are half there. I agree that what you think is correct comes from evidence and understanding (although some is hardwired too).

If I look outside of my window in the morning (you've not addressed this by the way) and observe that it happens to be raining - do you seriously think that I can be led to sincerely believe that it is a bright sunny day outside?

My own perspective on this is no - I cannot. I could sarcastically claim that it is sunny. I could joke that it is sunny, I could even in general sit in denial and claim that it sunny. But if I have already been convinced it is raining I cannot change my beliefs on the matter until convinced that the weather has actually changed.


It is the way to demonstrate that belief is based on being convinced of things, and not an arbitrary flip-flop as people here like to pretend it is. If, for any reason I cannot be led to believe something is not true - then I cannot claim that my belief in that something something wholly of my choice.

This is a bad example because you can confirm its raining by going outside or simply sticking your hand outside the window. If you are trying to say that you see and feel it raining even though its not then there is some kind of mental problem and you cannot be held responsible for knowing the weather.

Maybe you want God to stand in front of you so you can believe without doubt? Humans can work out things without needing an actual demo to see if they are viable or not. You can imagine the sunshine and compare it to the rain.

That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I am talking about the nature of belief, not coin-flipping.

It is an analogy to show that you are picking up the argument after the choice has been made. I also think 1+1=2 is a misrepresentation of the argument because it is an absolute demonstrable thing of the material world.

Belief or nonbelief is hardly something comparable to that. In addition, what murderers do we mercilessly torture for their entire lives? What murderers do we force to live in everlasting agony?

Prison is merciless torture. Death row is merciless torture.

What grounds do I have to distinguish the claims of Muslims over the claims made by all other religious beliefs from a skeptical perspective?

You base it on the facts. Facts meaning that which can be proven (or disproven) outright in a demonstrable way and that which can be proven or disproven through logic.

 

[Skavau]

Yes, it is called denial. People do it every day.

Being in the state of denial would not exist if belief was, as you claim entirely motivated by choice. When someone is in denial of something, they are going through cognitive dissonance. They are having problems connecting something they want to believe is true, with something they are being led to believe (through evidence) is true.

No, I said they got the full message i.e they were told 1 + 1 = 2 i.e they were told to revise for the exam. They chose to reject it and thus failed the exam.

Is this a direct parallel to what you think non-muslims have been told? That we have been told that Islam is true, and must work from there? We reject this, and we are deserving of whatever happens from then on?

If this is so, then it is incomparable to the overused exam analogy.

The concept is pass or fail.

Exam has a limited time, usually one day, but the reward or punishment can be seen as you get a good job or you get a crap job.

There's no punishment for failing an exam. Nor reward. Only potential opportunities and loss of opportunities.

If you didn't revise for your exams and you fail as a result, you get a crap job.

If you do revise for your exams and you pass, you should be entitled to a (better) job that someone who failed isn't.

You are arguing that the one who didn't revise and thus failed shouldn't get a crap job, because apparently that isn't fair or just.

No, I am not arguing that. I am stating that the examination analogy that has been proposed by some here in order to 'justify' punishment for belief or non-belief is a horrific parody towards education and is not even comparable to what is being proposed.

Again: We don't torture people who fail exams. We don't send them to a pit of annihilation for eternity. They can always try and go for it again.

And we don't reward those who pass with paradise, either.
The point I am making is pass or failure. The analogy only goes so far because we are comparing the outcome of a school test with the outcome of a life test, in the interest of argument. But, that's the inherent problem with anologies.

The analogy doesn't do 'justice' (no pun intended). There is nothing in human history that can be declared with the declaration that punishment in the afterlife is or can be acceptable for certain things.

 

[Skavau]

It's the same thing. You are half there. I agree that what you think is correct comes from evidence and understanding (although some is hardwired too)

So you agree? What we believe is true is formulated from our own understanding of things that are true?

This is a bad example because you can confirm its raining by going outside or simply sticking your hand outside the window. If you are trying to say that you see and feel it raining even though its not then there is some kind of mental problem and you cannot be held responsible for knowing the weather.

No it isn't a bad example. I could use almost any example on things we passively accept as true and demonstrate the same thing. You have just, by dismissing my example - confirmed my example. You have just conceded that no, you cannot be led to believe that it is not raining when you can observe that it is.

So where in this factor is belief an actual choice?

It is an analogy to show that you are picking up the argument after the choice has been made. I also think 1+1=2 is a misrepresentation of the argument because it is an absolute demonstrable thing of the material world.

Right. How obvious it may seem to you does not matter. The point is, and always was that someone who understands it to be true cannot at will forgo that understanding and declare that it is not.

Prison is merciless torture. Death row is merciless torture.

Prison is not merciless torture. Prisons ought to exist purely for the humane seperation of troublesome members of society. Death row can possibly produce psychological torture for some - but indeed neither are setup to insist upon or encourage torture.

Hell, according to Muslims generally is. And many seem to feel that it is good for it doing so.

You base it on the facts. Facts meaning that which can be proven (or disproven) outright in a demonstrable way and that which can be proven or disproven through logic.

Right.

So what if I come to conclude that perhaps Christianity is factual? Or Hinduism?

 

[Lynx]

You are doing what a lot of non-believers do, and that is taking a verse out of context. Before this verse it was said that Allah knew everything in believers hearts and whether they acted upon it or not they would be judged. The believers then became very worried because if this was done they feared nobody would pass the test. THEN this verse (2:286) was revealed. It was a verse for those already believing (I'm sure those more learned than myself can give an even more detailed explanation). Even without this explanation though, it has been stated throughout the Quran that the biggest sin is not believing in the oneness of God.

Believing is a choice based on information. Everything is a choice based on information. If you can't accept that then how can you say anyone chooses anything?



How does convincing preclude choice? You are given information which you then process to come to a conclusion. Either the information convinces you or it does not convince you. Your mind chooses if you are convinced or not.
The information that the sun exists is overwhelming for most people because you can see the sun, you can feel the sun, etc. Therefore the evidence against the Sun existing is less than that for it existing. Most people would agree that it exists.

Your example is a very black and white one. How about belief there is life on other planets? This is a more uncertain one. Some people see the facts and say yes they believe there is life on other planets, while others see the same facts and say no there probably isn't life. Each person saw the same facts, and each person made up their own mind. It was their decision. It was their choice.


If you do not agree with this then you do not agree there is choice in anything... which again leads to you believing crimes are not a persons fault.

No I think I have a choice to either pick up the ball infront of me or not pick up the ball infront of me. What I am saying we don't have a choice in is what to believe or not to believe. When we are convinced we don't consciously say 'okay I will choose to believe now'. I posed a challenge to you earlier and this can easily solve the argument; find an absurd belief and choose to believe in it. If you can't then you've proven my point. I won't hold my breath.


Aamir:

Of course you pick your beliefs! You are capable of thought, right? Or am I talking to a robot here.

Some people love the 1st Transformers movie, yet at a script/core level it sucks.

edit: the fact that you yourself apostacised from Islam, indicates you did pick a belief!

So, here's the challenge I posed to Ferown; choose to believe that Transformers 1 has a good script. Tell me when you're in sincere belief of that statement. If you can't then you've proven my argument to be sound.


As a general statement to everyone...you can easily test out my argument and try to choose beliefs you normally don't believe in. If you find that you are unable to start believing in something then you shouldn't be disagreeing with my argument here! Simple as that !

 

[aamirsaab]

Being in the state of denial would not exist if belief was, as you claim entirely motivated by choice. When someone is in denial of something, they are going through cognitive dissonance. They are having problems connecting something they want to believe is true, with something they are being led to believe (through evidence) is true.

What?
People lie and deny because they actively chose to. They read something or heard something they didn't like, refused it was true and believed otherwise.

Is this a direct parallel to what you think non-muslims have been told? That we have been told that Islam is true, and must work from there? We reject this, and we are deserving of whatever happens from then on?

If this is so, then it is incomparable to the overused exam analogy.

As I said before, not everyone has been told Islam is the truth. So obviously it is not always the case. But, to those who have been presented Islam in its entirety, then yes one would be deserving of whatever happens from then on!

No, I am not arguing that. I am stating that the examination analogy that has been proposed by some here in order to 'justify' punishment for belief or non-belief is a horrific parody towards education and is not even comparable to what is being proposed.

Again: We don't torture people who fail exams. We don't send them to a pit of annihilation for eternity. They can always try and go for it again.

And you can always try and go for the religious test again, you have until you die. Average life span in the UK is around 50; plenty of time to decide whether or not Islam is true.

The analogy doesn't do 'justice' (no pun intended). There is nothing in human history that can be declared with the declaration that punishment in the afterlife is or can be acceptable for certain things.

Yet the OP decided to base it on 1+1=2. Throw me a bone here.

So, here's the challenge I posed to Ferown; choose to believe that Transformers 1 has a good script. Tell me when you're in sincere belief of that statement. If you can't then you've proven my argument to be sound.

It has a good script because Optimus prime gets to kick major decepticon ass. He kills Bonecrusher with a freakin sword AFTER chasing him 20 miles in his bad-ass truck form ON A MOTORWAY!!!!

Oh and Jazz, man he is the coolest melon-farmer this side of cybertron. He calls a decepticon a punk, and then kicks him. Then, he takes on Megatron, who is 3 times his size, all by himself. But then megatron breaks him in half. I was so sad, I cried.

There's so much action and bombastic sounds in transformers, it literally made me **** my pants.

At times I was happy and at times I got emotional. This movie had it all, 5 stars.

It doesn't matter if you don't agree with me, this is what I believe. Plus, you cannot prove the (lack of) sincerity in my comments.

As a general statement to everyone...you can easily test out my argument and try to choose beliefs you normally don't believe in. If you find that you are unable to start believing in something then you shouldn't be disagreeing with my argument here! Simple as that !

I chose to stop believing you are an apostate and simply an imposer.

Wow it worked!

Counter-argument: if what you say is true that belief is not a choice, please explain the converts/reverts to a religion who are quite clearly making a choice to believe in such religion.

 

[Skavau]

What?
People lie and deny because they actively chose to. They read something or heard something they didn't like, refused it was true and believed otherwise.

Yes, you can choose to lie and deny things. But being in denial of something is not the same as sincerely disbelieving or believing in something.

What you describe above here is simply a confirmation bias.

As I said before, not everyone has been told Islam is the truth. So obviously it is not always the case. But, to those who have been presented Islam in its entirety, then yes one would be deserving of whatever happens from then on!

Presumably that means very few non-muslims then.

And you can always try and go for the religious test again, you have until you die. Average life span in the UK is around 50; plenty of time to decide whether or not Islam is true.

Average life span in the UK is up to 80.

But anyway, you can decide, sure - but what motivation do you have for someone who is not a muslim, not interested in religion and sees no particular relevance of any religion at all. How could you convince them to spend a lifetime gaining a confirmation bias for Islam until they convince themselves it is true?

(And by the way, if you could just 'choose' to believe anything - then your suggestion that people have to work to get to Islam like in an exam would not be necessary. People could believe at the drop of a hat).

Yet the OP decided to base it on 1+1=2. Throw me a bone here.

I was referring to the school examination analogy.

The 1+1=2 analogy is simple enough for what it needs to do. To demonstrate that you cannot just believe what you like, for any reason.

Counter-argument: if what you say is true that belief is not a choice, please explain the converts/reverts to a religion who are quite clearly making a choice to believe in such religion.

That's not a counter-argument.

If someone changes religius belief that have seen new things in their life that make them convinced that said religious belief is valuable, necessary, desirable or infallible. Or all four.

I myself, could not just become a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Scientologist because I am not convinced that the claims of these religions (cult is the latter) are actually true. I cannot become convinced of these religions until I see empirical evidence or a logical argument demonstrating their validity. I could at best develop some confirmation bias (a desire for one of those beliefs to be true) and begin looking for evidence to confirm those beliefs - I would however only be fooling myself and would eventually end up going into cognitive dissonance.

By the way, cognitive dissonance is what apostates go through. They find they can no longer connect their belief system with reality, so they begin trying to find out how they can. On failure, they go into cognitive dissonance and eventually they concede and apostate from their belief system. Both reverting to a religion or leaving a religion come from a change in understanding of the world. They are not motivated by arbitrary choice, or frivolous interest.

 

[aamirsaab]

Yes, you can choose to lie and deny things. But being in denial of something is not the same as sincerely disbelieving or believing in something.

What you describe above here is simply a confirmation bias.

Look, you don't believe in the existence of hell right. So there we go, you chose to not believe in it. I do believe in hell - I chose to accept that concept.

But anyway, you can decide, sure - but what motivation do you have for someone who is not a muslim, not interested in religion and sees no particular relevance of any religion at all. How could you convince them to spend a lifetime gaining a confirmation bias for Islam until they convince themselves it is true?

The only motivation I have in such a case would be to save that person from the torment of hell, which I believe does exist.
How I would convince them would be through my actions i.e following the practices of Islam. If they are still not convinced, then it is no longer my problem as far as I am concerned. Some people just won't be convinced.

It's like a person who drinks alcohol even after his doctor has told him drinking this stuff will kill you. There's only so much he can do.

(And by the way, if you could just 'choose' to believe anything - then your suggestion that people have to work to get to Islam like in an exam would not be necessary. People could believe at the drop of a hat).

All that determines whether or not you go to paradise in Islam is the belief in God and His messengers. That's how simple it is.

The exam suggestion was merely an example of answering a question: do you believe in Allah and His message? Only difference this had to 1+1=2 is that this one included an outcome, whereas OP had no outcome but was trying to compare with one that DID. Ergo, OP argument fails as an analogy.

The 1+1=2 analogy is simple enough for what it needs to do. To demonstrate that you cannot just believe what you like, for any reason.

It does not do what it needs to do. 1+1=2 analogy has no good or bad outcome. The closest comparison would be an exam because that includes a good or bad outcome dependant on the answer! Remember, we are comparing this to the religion test, where the outcome encorporates good and bad. So 1+1=2 does not work unless it has a good or bad outcome avec the exam version!

That's not a counter-argument.

Yes it is. You are just contradicting everything I say. Perhaps you are in denial?

If someone changes religius belief that have seen new things in their life that make them convinced that said religious belief is valuable, necessary, desirable or infallible. Or all four.

It is still a belief!

...By the way, cognitive dissonance is what apostates go through. They find they can no longer connect their belief system with reality, so they begin trying to find out how they can. On failure, they go into cognitive dissonance and eventually they concede and apostate from their belief system. Both reverting to a religion or leaving a religion come from a change in understanding of the world. They are not motivated by arbitrary choice, or frivolous interest.

All this is semantics. A belief doesn't have to be true or false - it is what it is: a belief!

 

[Skavau]

Look, you don't believe in the existence of hell right. So there we go, you chose to not believe in it. I do believe in hell - I chose to accept that concept.

Okay. Although as you know, I would dispute whether I 'choose' to not believe in hell.

That's not what is entirely being disputed at the moment. The topic is about the nature of belief, and whether it can be considered a choice.

The only motivation I have in such a case would be to save that person from the torment of hell, which I believe does exist.
How I would convince them would be through my actions i.e following the practices of Islam. If they are still not convinced, then it is no longer my problem as far as I am concerned. Some people just won't be convinced.

It's like a person who drinks alcohol even after his doctor has told him drinking this stuff will kill you. There's only so much he can do.

Okay

All that determines whether or not you go to paradise in Islam is the belief in God and His messengers. That's how simple it is.

Well, if we were to focus entirely on the original post's complaint: that determination is completely unfair due to the fact that people's beliefs are determined by their understanding of the world. People, in most instances simply cannot be convinced that Islam is true. They cannot change this until they see sufficient evidence to convince them.

To then set up a criteria by which those unconvinced will suffer is indeed, and I know we've argued semantics over this before - is the proposal of thought-crime. You can be punished for not believing. Your fate lies based on your belief(s) (or lack of).

The exam suggestion was merely an example of answering a question: do you believe in Allah and His message? Only difference this had to 1+1=2 is that this one included an outcome, whereas OP had no outcome but was trying to compare with one that DID. Ergo, OP argument fails as an analogy.

Again, to propose that someone be punished for eternity for what they believe or don't believe is something that is wholly incomparable to anything we have produced in real life.

And no, Lynx produced the 1+1=2 analogy to show that you cannot believe things arbitrarily. He was making a point on the nature of belief.

It does not do what it needs to do. 1+1=2 analogy has no good or bad outcome. The closest comparison would be an exam because that includes a good or bad outcome dependant on the answer! Remember, we are comparing this to the religion test, where the outcome encorporates good and bad. So 1+1=2 does not work unless it has a good or bad outcome avec the exam version!

Huh?

Lynx was proposing, in his syllogism that beliefs are not choices and that due to this it is unfair to punish or condemn people for their beliefs. You appear to have completely misread what he was trying to say.

It is still a belief!

I never said it wasn't.

Do you even know what my argument is? I am arguing that belief is not a choice, not that belief does not exist.

All this is semantics. A belief doesn't have to be true or false - it is what it is: a belief!

Huh?

I was explaining how belief is not motivated by whimsical desire - and how if it was, then cognitive dissonance wouldn't exist.

 

[Dagless]

So you agree? What we believe is true is formulated from our own understanding of things that are true?

Yes and no. Most beliefs are formed through understanding, but understanding itself is not based only on events from life as you wrote (imo).

No it isn't a bad example. I could use almost any example on things we passively accept as true and demonstrate the same thing. You have just, by dismissing my example - confirmed my example. You have just conceded that no, you cannot be led to believe that it is not raining when you can observe that it is.

I gave you a better example; which was life on other planets. This cannot be demonstrated either way and yet people can still base a belief on it.

This thread is going nowhere, so lets just cut it down to one statement:

If you don't think belief in God is a personal choice, how can you say anything is a personal choice?

(Ironically the above choice is also a personal choice).

My evidence that it is a personal choice is that your mind (which is you) has looked at the evidence and decided for it or against it. Therefore it is your choice. What is your response to this? Take religion out of the equation if you like.

 

[aamirsaab]

...
Well, if we were to focus entirely on the original post's complaint: that determination is completely unfair due to the fact that people's beliefs are determined by their understanding of the world. People, in most instances simply cannot be convinced that Islam is true. They cannot change this until they see sufficient evidence to convince them.

Cannot or will not? We have already established people can easily deny things. The issue here is a matter of acceptance or will.

To then set up a criteria by which those unconvinced will suffer is indeed, and I know we've argued semantics over this before - is the proposal of thought-crime. You can be punished for not believing. Your fate lies based on your belief(s) (or lack of).

But you are only viewing half of the equation; the reward side. When you put both together, there is justice.

Again, to propose that someone be punished for eternity for what they believe or don't believe is something that is wholly incomparable to anything we have produced in real life.

I know, but at least on a conceptual level the example works. The point was to illustrate the positive and negative outcomes.

And no, Lynx produced the 1+1=2 analogy to show that you cannot believe things arbitrarily. He was making a point on the nature of belief.

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.

Lynx was proposing, in his syllogism that beliefs are not choices and that due to this it is unfair to punish or condemn people for their beliefs. You appear to have completely misread what he was trying to say.

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.

I never said it wasn't

Therefore you can chose your beliefs.

Do you even know what my argument is? I am arguing that belief is not a choice, not that belief does not exist.

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.

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.

I was explaining how belief is not motivated by whimsical desire - and how if it was, then cognitive dissonance wouldn't exist.

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.

 

[Lynx]

If you don't think belief in God is a personal choice, how can you say anything is a personal choice?

Perhaps that's where you are missing the point of the argument; you realize that beliefs are not actions, right?

Anyway, the thread has a simple solution: everyone start believing in Unicorns. The Muslims here are convinced that they are capable of choosing to believe in unicorns (what mastery of their minds!). If you can't you should be accepting my argument as logical truth.

Someone earlier tried with the Transformers example and clearly failed, Lol. We can't determine whether or not you sincerely believe in Unicorns after you've tried out the test but you yourself know whether you believe in Unicorns. If you can't believe in Unicorns, then you have no reason to disagree with my OP.

The argument is ironclad.

That's HOW ridiculous it is to believe in a HELL based on simply believing or not believing in something. It's a poor understanding of psychology to say people 'choose' not to believe.

 

[Skavau]

Yes and no. Most beliefs are formed through understanding, but understanding itself is not based only on events from life as you wrote (imo).

Understanding is influenced by confirmation bias (which is motivated by desire, or 'choice'). I should ask you on this - why do you think cognitive dissonance exists by the way?

I gave you a better example; which was life on other planets. This cannot be demonstrated either way and yet people can still base a belief on it.

Okay. So?

It certainly is not known whether there is life on other planets. People that base a belief on this do so out of them being convinced that it is likely that in the expanse of the universe - there exists life in part of it. These people are more often than not (excluding specific cults, and self-appointed extraterrestrial experts) are willing to, with new information change their position on it. And vice versa with people who reject the existence of life outside of Earth.

For both, new information on their understanding of reality is what formulates their beliefs. I mean, what is the point of 'belief' in itself if it does not mean anything? If indeed one can arbitrarily change their viewpoint (as is being claimed here) then beliefs are nothing but frivolous statements.

This thread is going nowhere, so lets just cut it down to one statement:

If you don't think belief in God is a personal choice, how can you say anything is a personal choice?

(Ironically the above choice is also a personal choice).

Indeed.

That is the bigger question, and one only exceptional cognitive scientists could shed some light towards. The argument here (or my argument here) is that belief has to, in order to mean something, be more than just a 'personal choice'. I would imagine that your belief in Islam is much more than that. I don't know how devote or knowledgable you are with it - but I believe I am entitled to say that your belief in it simply makes it impossible for you to suddenly arbitrate that it is not true. I would perhaps go further and suggest that you rather want Islam to be true and that you are delighted, or content that you have knowledge and/or belief that it is true. Could anything convince you otherwise? If not, why not? If so, how?

It has not been argued against yet, that we can sincerely forgo our beliefs on reality and contend them as false. The only argument I have seen is simply a reassertion that belief is a choice.

My evidence that it is a personal choice is that your mind (which is you) has looked at the evidence and decided for it or against it. Therefore it is your choice. What is your response to this? Take religion out of the equation if you like.

The argument never was about religion. Lynx was stating that due to belief is not being a choice, you ought not be held accountable for having incorrect information (as is the claim of the Islamic afterlife).

 

[Dagless]

Perhaps that's where you are missing the point of the argument; you realize that beliefs are not actions, right?

Anyway, the thread has a simple solution: everyone start believing in Unicorns. The Muslims here are convinced that they are capable of choosing to believe in unicorns (what mastery of their minds!). If you can't you should be accepting my argument as logical truth.

Someone earlier tried with the Transformers example and clearly failed, Lol. We can't determine whether or not you sincerely believe in Unicorns after you've tried out the test but you yourself know whether you believe in Unicorns. If you can't believe in Unicorns, then you have no reason to disagree with my OP.

The argument is ironclad.

That's HOW ridiculous it is to believe in a HELL based on simply believing or not believing in something. It's a poor understanding of psychology to say people 'choose' not to believe.

You're clearly not reading what has been said throughout this thread. Beliefs are based on information and fact. I do not believe in unicorns because there is no evidence to support it. I believe there are no unicorns because that is the conclusion I have come to after looking at the evidence. I believe in a God because I have looked at the evidence, I have read the Quran, it persuades me that yes there is a God. These are all my own choices.

If your argument held up and nobody could choose anything then everyone would believe in the same things and make all the same choices. You cannot seem to grasp that different people can believe different things by looking at the same evidence, and that it is their own choice.

 

[Skavau]

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?

 

[aamirsaab]

....
Anyway, the thread has a simple solution: everyone start believing in Unicorns. The Muslims here are convinced that they are capable of choosing to believe in unicorns (what mastery of their minds!). If you can't you should be accepting my argument as logical truth.

What utter nonsense. You chose to believe things. If it is a cognitive process - it is a choice!

Someone earlier tried with the Transformers example and clearly failed, Lol. We can't determine whether or not you sincerely believe in Unicorns after you've tried out the test but you yourself know whether you believe in Unicorns. If you can't believe in Unicorns, then you have no reason to disagree with my OP.

How did I fail? I showed you exactly that people CAN choose their beliefs (even if they are stupid!). I further demonstrated this with reverts and converts.

Did leaving Islam turn you into a retard by any chance?

The argument is ironclad.

Which bloody one? You used 3 interchangeably whenever someone disagreed or disproved you.

That's HOW ridiculous it is to believe in a HELL based on simply believing or not believing in something. It's a poor understanding of psychology to say people 'choose' not to believe.

Remind me again why you are debating with muslims on a forum about a concept you don't believe in?

Oh what's that I see? A unicorn!

You are a the biggest troll I have ever encountered.

 

[Dagless]

Understanding is influenced by confirmation bias (which is motivated by desire, or 'choice'). I should ask you on this - why do you think cognitive dissonance exists by the way?

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread there are people who are not religious who revert to Islam based only on the facts, therefore confirmation bias doesn't hold up. If anything the bias is to reject.
Did I say anything which indicates cognitive dissonance?

Okay. So?

It certainly is not known whether there is life on other planets. People that base a belief on this do so out of them being convinced that it is likely that in the expanse of the universe - there exists life in part of it. These people are more often than not (excluding specific cults, and self-appointed extraterrestrial experts) are willing to, with new information change their position on it. And vice versa with people who reject the existence of life outside of Earth.

I don't disagree with any of this.

That is the bigger question, and one only exceptional cognitive scientists could shed some light towards. The argument here (or my argument here) is that belief has to, in order to mean something, be more than just a 'personal choice'.

Everyone is an exceptional cognitive scientist. You either believe we are responsible for our own actions or you don't. Its that simple. It seems to me you don't, and its a belief I see as incorrect.

I would imagine that your belief in Islam is much more than that. I don't know how devote or knowledgable you are with it - but I believe I am entitled to say that your belief in it simply makes it impossible for you to suddenly arbitrate that it is not true. I would perhaps go further and suggest that you rather want Islam to be true and that you are delighted, or content that you have knowledge and/or belief that it is true. Could anything convince you otherwise? If not, why not? If so, how?

I, and most Muslims, base their belief on fact. If it could be shown without doubt that it was wrong then our viewpoints would change. I don't think anyone would dispute that. The appeal of Islam is that it makes sense.

The argument never was about religion. Lynx was stating that due to belief is not being a choice, you ought not be held accountable for having incorrect information (as is the claim of the Islamic afterlife).

Yes, and I say it is a choice, and have stated my reasons. Our difference of opinion in this matter could be added to my list of reasons since we have both seen the same evidence but differ on belief of which is correct.
Its not incorrect information because 2 people could recieve the same information but one may believe and one may not. Their reasoning mechanism is who they are. You are trying to say that the reasoning mechanism is 100% a product of their environment/upbringing and so they cannot be held responsible for it, but this is not the case. If it were the case we wouldn't have criminals.