You Don't Choose What To Believe In

[ninetailschris]

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

ninetailschris said:
There a difference between guts and being stubborn you have described the latter.

If someone chooses to be stubborn that's there fault because they have the ability to not be.

If you believe in fairies no other reason than you believe in them that's not guts that being stubborn or duillusional.

You confused the terms around to where your point its pretty incoherent. By the way why did you pretend that "guts" decisions is considered crediable by God? This assumes way to much to give and actually contradictions the whole idea of Christianity.

"
that we get to choose whether we want to follow him or not. This obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretations: Some think that following God's message (i.e. being a good person to your fellow human beings) is the most important part, others put close- or even equal value in believing that God himself actually does exist, or even that believing that he does exist is a must if you want to enter his kingdom after you have died; given that you have been acknowledged of his existence, of course."

I want to focus on this piece real quick.

One: What do you mean by get to choose? You mean like make conscience decision? Or God says it ok not believe in him?

Two:God's message is to do good but that isn't the most important part. That would be the remember Jesus atonement and that through Jesus we can see salvation. There is more to it but I want to keep it short.

Three: more then just believing in God.

Four: if you had knowledge of God's existence and you still rejected him that's not called guts that's called being stubborn. I believe you poorly use the word guts.

Really nothing left to respond to because most of it is just repeating yourself based incorrect data leaving to a false conclusion.

The gut thing is really a point of why would God be angry/doom them based on them doing something wrong based on there current understanding in which I covered with him before. If he saying a guy flat out ignores the evidence because it contradicts what they currently believe than that's being stubborn and is the reason fault as many have overcome this everyday in there lives. If he goes with the latter I have to say cry moar because that's not a good excuse.

Just to clarify: Do you think I am stubborn just because I am well aware of the concept of God and have been taught about Christianity, yet still don't believe in him? I mean, there is no empirical evidence supporting his existence, so to me it seems like not believing in him is a default position. My guts tells me that there are no supernatural beings, and that it takes empirical evidence or indications for me to believe in something's existence. I would be more stubborn if I defied those feelings and decided to worship God anyway, as I see it.

And it's not like atheists are aware of God's existence yet are stubborn enough to ignore that knowledge. More like they are aware of how God is supposed to be like and don't believe in his existence.

If we link this to be OP, that person seeking the Jewish god would be stubborn if he kept trying to make himself believe that that god existed despite having no faith after all that effort. It is not the other way around.

One: I meant that people are aware of the concept of God and supposedly would be able to choose whether they want to believe in him or not.

Two: Well, all believers have different opinions on that matter.

Three: -''-

Four: How would anyone possibly be aware of God's existence? We don't even have any scientific evidence suggesting that he exist.

 

"If he saying a guy flat out ignores the evidence because it contradicts what they currently believe than that's being stubborn"

That seems more like a stance that a guy who believes in everything mentioned in the Bible would make.

1st sentence.

acknowledging God and being a former-Christian are two different things.

acknowledging God is to know he exist. I corrected you here and if you would have noticed that you would understand your question would have fallen under ignorant not stubborn. If you knew God existed and then said they he doesn't exist because it conflicted with what you personal believe on things that called being stubborn.

"empirical evidence "

here is the contradiction in your point of the topic you said based guts and know your saying empirical evidence you using terms that are the exact opposite. Going by gut has nothing to do with empirical evidence because its based on a feel something that isn't empirical which you described yourself in your own paragraphs. You have to put together something coherent together, is it based on guts that God shouldn't judge people or empirical evidence because as much as you try to combine words they are polar opposites.

But on the topic of there being no empirical evidence please define yourself because you have a bad history of not knowing your terms or using them in a incorrect manner. Please respond to this so can respond correctly.

3rd sentence: That is contradiction based on what your pior saying was. You said earlier that even if evidence contradicted what he you believed that your guts matter more than the actual evidence and that God shouldn't judge because our guts take over. Remember your fairy example? You are flip flopping around on should God not judge us based on guts or because of the evidence or lack therefor of. You keep saying oh evidence matters than but no he should not base because of guts not realizing that you are contradicting yourself based on poor wording.

4th sentence: Its almost like your poking at your words. Saying basing that its based on the evidence not your gut at all because your deciding factor isn't or ever was your gut it's the evidence. Evidence isn't based on the gut feeling and at this point your only using the phase "gut" so that it doesn't seem like you missed use it. Your last sentence basically destroyed your own argument.

"One: I meant that people are aware of the concept of God and supposedly would be able to choose whether they want to believe in him or not."

See that's so big different points then if only know of the concept of God that doesn't mean you acknowledge him that means you have idea of God. When I say I acknowledge God I'm saying "oh I know he exist" just like I acknowledge your existence.  If you mean in casual way like I heard of him or I know the idea of God you should have phased it better. Because in the bible to acknowledge God is to know he exist. 

"Two: Well, all believers have different opinions on that matter."

It's not a opinion if you go to anyone that has PH.D in the philopsophy of religion or theology they will tell you it's not able being good. But even beyond that there is quotes from Jesus in bible that specifically say no one is "good" but only God. This isn't debate able unless your a fundismentalist or just flat out ignorant of the teachings. Heck I'm not even bring up the atonement and why you would have uneducated in the topic to even suggest it would be about being "good". It's as much as a opinion as someone claiming the reason God stopped on the seventh day was because he tired even though it says he stopped because he was finished. If you think it's a opinion please tell me about the atonement and how/why it was so important in the first place. 

"Four: How would anyone possibly be aware of God's existence? We don't even have any scientific evidence suggesting that he exist."

historical evidence or even arguments that could have deductive reasoning based on certains facts based on our knowledge of the world or other reasoning. By the respond of science only evidence that is called scientism which is self-refuting if your suggesting that's the only way.

One can also could claim based on personal testimony (not use as an argument) based can believe to know God for these reasons like a event.

But even deist can say I know God(not Christian)  but still know based on what they know of the world. I'm using know in the sense of personal conviction based on facts that appear to you which is reality in a sense. 

"That seems more like a stance that a guy who believes in everything mentioned in the Bible would make."

sounds like someone I know that claim it's a contradiction on God if a human does something against what God encourages. Man that guy was stubborn! 

But all seriousness if someone reads the bible poorly and does no research on the backgrounds of bible Christian or not you are stubborn to believe you have a clue on what your talking about. 

In conclusion, you need to fix your definitions with terms like guts and empirical. God judges based on your knowledge not your guts because you said it's based on what facts and information the person has on them not there guts because ultimately your judged on your information.