Oklahoma Joes Fundraiser Kerfuffle

[Gaspar]

simply claiming it does not equate believing it. Belief comes from life experiences telling you something is true.  Something in your life had convinced you that it is reality. The example of language comes from you being told your entire life that this is the English language, and you will continue to belief that until information you see as factual comes along to contradict that, at which time you may begin to question it, and eventually, possibly, start to belief otherwise, but not by choice.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Interesting.  It seems you put much faith in the existential experience manifesting your beliefs devoid of any choice, even though the interpretation of experience requires choice. As Sartre put it, "we are condemned to be free."

I can certainly respect your position, however the argument of how you form your beliefs without exercising choice simply does not compute, in fact it goes against existential analysis.

"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism." --Sartre

Read Being & Nothingness, after a couple of hours, you will be able to argue with yourself over the color of the sky. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Read Being & Nothingness, after a couple of hours, you will be able to argue with yourself over the color of the sky. 

Like I said...sky is green, grass is blue....

[custosnox]

Interesting.  It seems you put much faith in the existential experience manifesting your beliefs devoid of any choice, even though the interpretation of experience requires choice. As Sartre put it, "we are condemned to be free."

I can certainly respect your position, however the argument of how you form your beliefs without exercising choice simply does not compute, in fact it goes against existential analysis.

"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism." --Sartre

Read Being & Nothingness, after a couple of hours, you will be able to argue with yourself over the color of the sky. 

You are obviously a lost cause on this, but no matter how you spin it, you cannot choose what you believe, and know that you just sound like an idiot when you tell an atheist that they choose not to believe.  In any case, I'm done with this back and forth.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are obviously a lost cause on this, but no matter how you spin it, you cannot choose what you believe, and know that you just sound like an idiot when you tell an atheist that they choose not to believe. 

That is an absolutely amazing statement if you really believe it!

[Gaspar]

That is an absolutely amazing statement if you really believe it!

He can't help it.  He has no choice in the matter.

[Townsend]

Maybe, like the OK Joe's owner, you should leave religions and lack of, out of the conversation.

[heironymouspasparagus]

He can't help it.  He has no choice in the matter.

I have had a fairly "busy" life, and the older I get the harder it is to truly be amazed!  Or even mildly surprised....

It would be really interesting to meet custosnox and visit for a while...that belief would truly amaze me!

[Gaspar]

I have had a fairly "busy" life, and the older I get the harder it is to truly be amazed!  Or even mildly surprised....

It would be really interesting to meet custosnox and visit for a while...that belief would truly amaze me!

It seems that he is a devout atheist who bases his beliefs on faith rather than analytical reasoning or choice. 

He is, however the first atheist I have ever encountered who is willing to discount free will and logical deduction as the basis for his belief system, which makes him a bit of an enigma.

[custosnox]

It seems that he is a devout atheist who bases his beliefs on faith rather than analytical reasoning or choice. 

He is, however the first atheist I have ever encountered who is willing to discount free will and logical deduction as the basis for his belief system, which makes him a bit of an enigma.

You really don't know very many atheists, do you?  Do a little checking around, because, quite frankly, there are a large number of us who are tired of this "you choose what you believe" tripe.  Seriously, think about it for a bit.  I tell you that I have an invisible, purple unicorn in my backyard that only I can see or interact with.  Do you believe me?  No.  Why?  Because logic tells you that it is far more likely that I'm off my rocker and imagining things (or lying).  That isn't a choice, it's a matter of facts being presented.  If you really think it's a matter of choice, then choose to believe me.  Make that choice to believe that I have an invisible, pink unicorn in my backyard.  Oh, and saying you believe isn't the same thing as actually believing. 

And something else on that, a great many atheists who de-converted did not do so willingly.  Most wanted to believe in the mythology they grew up with, because it gives you a sense of comfort.  They just couldn't do it anymore.  Here is a good example of how that happens. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magazine/from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader.html?pagewanted=all

[Gaspar]

You really don't know very many atheists, do you?  Do a little checking around, because, quite frankly, there are a large number of us who are tired of this "you choose what you believe" tripe.  Seriously, think about it for a bit.  I tell you that I have an invisible, purple unicorn in my backyard that only I can see or interact with.  Do you believe me?  No.  Why?  Because logic tells you that it is far more likely that I'm off my rocker and imagining things (or lying).  That isn't a choice, it's a matter of facts being presented.  If you really think it's a matter of choice, then choose to believe me.  Make that choice to believe that I have an invisible, pink unicorn in my backyard.  Oh, and saying you believe isn't the same thing as actually believing.  

And something else on that, a great many atheists who de-converted did not do so willingly.  Most wanted to believe in the mythology they grew up with, because it gives you a sense of comfort.  They just couldn't do it anymore.  Here is a good example of how that happens.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magazine/from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader.html?pagewanted=all

Not trying to be in any way offensive.  I just don't understand you're rather unique resistance against free will.  Perhaps most of the atheists I know are atypical.  

It is usually impossible to debate an atheist because theists must resort to faith, and that breaks down under logical analysis. At the very core of atheist philosophy is the acceptance of logic over faith.  From the Sophists of ancient Greece who first began to challenge the fables of the gods to the existential movement in Europe, the concept of religion (or lack therof) is based on individual choices made as a result cultural upbringing, social status, logical deduction, education, and experience.  If you argue that becoming an atheist is not a choice, than the same must hold true for becoming a Christian, or Scientologist, or Pagen.  

Here is my difficulty.  I do not believe that anything just happens.  I believe that there is always cause and effect.  I suppose it is my logical weakness, as a result of an almost disastrous Philosophy major from TU.  Thank Dog, I had a professor that guided me elsewhere.  I am extremely familiar with the Atheist argument(s).  The Thiest is typically the one that will argue his/her faith based on ultimate truth, beyond our comprehension or knowledge (at which the debate can go no further because logic and faith do not mix).  The Atheist, on the other hand, has all of the tools of science, psychology, reason and logic on his side.  He has made the choice not to believe in a deity because he realizes there is no basis for that belief in science, and he recognizes and rejects the psychology behind those that do believe as superstition.  Ultimately it is the theiest that believes they are guided by fate or the hand of God, and their beliefs come from their particular diety.  For the atheist to accept such determinism is illogical.  

Here is your opportunity to clarify.  If you can answer the question "Why are you an Atheist?" then you have made a choice, just as Christians, Jews, Wiccans have made a choice if they can answer the same "Why are you a _______?"  Even though they may argue to the contrary.  If however, if your answer is simply "I don't know why I am an Atheist, I just am." than this discussion is truly over.

Note: I am not trying to debate you on religion, that is silly.  My purpose is to debate the existence and exercise of your free will.  You have posed a logical cupcake that I cannot ignore, by calling me an idiot for my implying that you have free will.  I simply want you to acknowledge that you are indeed free to choose how and what you believe in, or do not believe in.  I can't understand why that is so difficult?

[Red Arrow]

I tell you that I have an invisible, purple unicorn in my backyard that only I can see or interact with.   Make that choice to believe that I have an invisible, pink unicorn in my backyard. 

Well, is it purple?  Is it pink?  I think you can't be sure since it is invisible.

[BKDotCom]

You are obviously a lost cause on this, but no matter how you spin it, you cannot choose what you believe, and know that you just sound like an idiot when you tell an atheist that they choose not to believe. 

I choose to look at the evidence / lack thereof.    So yes, I choose.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Seriously, think about it for a bit.  I tell you that I have an invisible, purple unicorn in my backyard that only I can see or interact with.  Do you believe me?  No.  Why?  Because logic tells you that it is far more likely that I'm off my rocker and imagining things (or lying).  That isn't a choice, it's a matter of facts being presented.  If you really think it's a matter of choice, then choose to believe me.  Make that choice to believe that I have an invisible, pink unicorn in my backyard.  Oh, and saying you believe isn't the same thing as actually believing. 

Pink unicorns are a belief choice I would have to make.  If you believe it, then you believe it - something impinged on your consciousness such that you "see" a pink unicorn... you mind accepts whatever evidence it has arranged within itself to believe that.  You had to have something make those neural connections - you were not born believing there was a pink unicorn in your backyard - you didn't know what they were, nor did you have a backyard at birth....not your own, anyway.

[rebound]

Here is my difficulty.  I do not believe that anything just happens.  I believe that there is always cause and effect.  I suppose it is my logical weakness, as a result of an almost disastrous Philosophy major from TU.  Thank Dog, I had a professor that guided me elsewhere.  I am extremely familiar with the Atheist argument(s).  The Thiest is typically the one that will argue his/her faith based on ultimate truth, beyond our comprehension or knowledge (at which the debate can go no further because logic and faith do not mix).  The Atheist, on the other hand, has all of the tools of science, psychology, reason and logic on his side.  He has made the choice not to believe in a deity because he realizes there is no basis for that belief in science, and he recognizes and rejects the psychology behind those that do believe as superstition.  Ultimately it is the theiest that believes they are guided by fate or the hand of God, and their beliefs come from their particular diety.  For the atheist to accept such determinism is illogical.  

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Rush (Freewill)

Sorry, all talk of free will had me humming that song while I was catching up on the thread.  Great paragraph above, and as someone who considers himself a laissez faire atheist it's one of the best synopses of the thought process I've read in a while.  I also think (rather than believe) that "there is always cause and affect".  Everything that happens within our universe is a result of prior actions, causes, etc. The issue, I think, is whether there is a Reason (with a capital "R") behind all things that occur.  The theist looks for a plan, while the atheist accepts randomness.

Good discussion.

[custosnox]

Not trying to be in any way offensive.  I just don't understand you're rather unique resistance against free will.  Perhaps most of the atheists I know are atypical. 

It is usually impossible to debate an atheist because theists must resort to faith, and that breaks down under logical analysis. At the very core of atheist philosophy is the acceptance of logic over faith.  From the Sophists of ancient Greece who first began to challenge the fables of the gods to the existential movement in Europe, the concept of religion (or lack therof) is based on individual choices made as a result cultural upbringing, social status, logical deduction, education, and experience.  If you argue that becoming an atheist is not a choice, than the same must hold true for becoming a Christian, or Scientologist, or Pagen. 

Here is my difficulty.  I do not believe that anything just happens.  I believe that there is always cause and effect.  I suppose it is my logical weakness, as a result of an almost disastrous Philosophy major from TU.  Thank Dog, I had a professor that guided me elsewhere.  I am extremely familiar with the Atheist argument(s).  The Thiest is typically the one that will argue his/her faith based on ultimate truth, beyond our comprehension or knowledge (at which the debate can go no further because logic and faith do not mix).  The Atheist, on the other hand, has all of the tools of science, psychology, reason and logic on his side.  He has made the choice not to believe in a deity because he realizes there is no basis for that belief in science, and he recognizes and rejects the psychology behind those that do believe as superstition.  Ultimately it is the theiest that believes they are guided by fate or the hand of God, and their beliefs come from their particular diety.  For the atheist to accept such determinism is illogical. 

Here is your opportunity to clarify.  If you can answer the question "Why are you an Atheist?" then you have made a choice, just as Christians, Jews, Wiccans have made a choice if they can answer the same "Why are you a _______?"  Even though they may argue to the contrary.  If however, if your answer is simply "I don't know why I am an Atheist, I just am." than this discussion is truly over.

Note: I am not trying to debate you on religion, that is silly.  My purpose is to debate the existence and exercise of your free will.  You have posed a logical cupcake that I cannot ignore, by calling me an idiot for my implying that you have free will.   I simply want you to acknowledge that you are indeed free to choose how and what you believe in, or do not believe in.  I can't understand why that is so difficult?

Trying to go deep into this using a phone isn't something I care to try, so I'll just respond in brief.  First, let me say I seem to be very emotionally charged on the subject, something I've only recently realized, which makes it difficult for me to not go down the crazy track here and there, so I'll beg your indulgence at those tines. 
On the subject at hand, I do not discount freewill, only that believing or disbelieving is not a choice, but rather an end result of the acceptance of evidence. Where the choice plays a part us if we choose to accept certain things as evidence, out if we choose to analyze the matter.  Even a lot of that, however, is determined in a lot of preexisting factors that effect the psyche. But, in the end, if the evidence you accept does not support a point, than you simply cannot believe it. So you can not choose your beliefs, but you can choose what you expose yourself to that can effect those beliefs.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2