I will assign Zeno and Madnak at 0.75 each. Now (0.75 * 0.75) = 0.5625 so it seems we are getting diminishing returns on our investment. So it is time for some of the forum to pull their money out of the Intelligent Atheist Credit Union and instead invest in the Vatican Bank -

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Bank).


From the above link:

"The Vatican Bank is said to be a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990's, the Bank had invested somewhere over US $10 billion in foreign companies. In 1968 Vatican authorities hired Michele Sindona as a financial advisor, despite Sindona's questionable past. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family's heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation "Mabusi". This laundering was accomplished with the help of another banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge."


This shows that it is always wise to hire the best.


As an aside, I used multiplication to get a value of 0.5625 wits. If one wished to use simple addition then the sum would be 1.5 wits [(0.75 + 0.75) = 1.5]. I leave it to the reader to decide which of us is the half wit.


Now, I have better things to do with my time. Good DAY!

-Zeno

you made the thin claim, now explain.

Clearly the multiplication. One smart person can get things done, ten smart people just argue all day.

I don't have time for another massive free will thread.

Belief is a choice to some extent.

Example1: Mother is presented with a picture of her "perfect" kid shoplifting. Her response, I know this picture is fake my kid would never do this it.

Same mother sees a the same type of picture of one of her kids friends she doesn't like shoplifting. Her response, I knew that kid was no good from the start definatly a thief.


Example2: Father is present with compelling evidence that his son is stealing from him. The evidence is presented in a closed folder. The father says, my son would never do such a thing and takes the folder and burns it without opening the folder thus not allowing himself to recieve evidence that could possible change his view of his son.


I would say example2 is the most common. I think people choose what they want to believe by this option the most by refusing to view or avoiding information that might cause them to change their world view.

i.e. D.S is told by notready, this is the best book/piece of information on why you should be a christian. D.S. says, it is a waste of my time i don't see a point of reading or view it because its not likely it will make a difference.

Meanwhile, D.S. will spend 100 times the amount of time it would take to go through the good information picking off weak arguements and bad information presented.

Clearly, He has the time to go through the good info and he doesn't care about wasting time cause he does that already beating down poor arguements which do not need to be addressed anyways. I would say, such actions are a choice not to believe.

Thanks very much for the link sir, never heard of this and it looks informative.

I'm presupposing free will, or, if you need to be awkward, I'm discussing the extent to which our experience of belief is consistent with the illusion of free will people typically experience.

It's true that this kind of case represents a conscious decision made which potentially affects the beliefs an individual holds. But only in a particular sense - returning to the radiation/cancer example, it's true that if I avoid areas with high levels of radiation, then I'm far less likely to contract cancer - obviously, it still can't be said to be voluntary when I do contract cancer after such exposure.

I see what you're saying, but this doesn't show actual volition - could the mother choose to believe that her child is a shoplifter? Could she choose to believe the other kid isn't? Because the factors informing her belief in each case are obvious, doesn't make them the product of volition.

A stronger example, in the vein of DS' above. But it seems more like consciously avoiding some stimulus precisely because the stimulus may result in a response (change of belief) which will both be undesireable and impossible to control - hence necessitating the avoidance!

It's kind of paradoxical. It's only a 'choice not to believe' if we're aware that the new information will make us change our beliefs. At which point we must have the information, so our beliefs must change. If we only fear that our beliefs will change, it's far less clear, and doesn't represent a 'choice not to believe' any more than folding a draw represents 'a choice not to hit the flush', if you know what I mean.

Intresting... Say, fear or some other feeling does lead us to pursue or avoid information that directs our beliefs.

Then the next question is can we control our feelings?

If we can't control feelings how can i blame a guy that gets so angry he hits his wife?

Like I say, I'm presupposing free will, or at least granting the persistence of its illusion. Though you're jumping from 'feeling' to 'action' in a way that's not wholly clear, even if we iron that out, we'll have ended up somewhere the thread didn't really want to be...

Believing, a choice? Really? How did this become a matter of serious debate? OK, I'll humour it.

Yes, of course, believing is a choice. However, beliefs themselves aren't purely choices. They're learned and developed - philosophized and constructed even - but not on/off binary operations. A person's worldview can be construed as a set of beliefs about the world and the way in which it operates (and how we operate in it), for example. We're not born with beliefs, and they certainly aren't impulses. Believing isn't feeling, even though discussions about beliefs almost always involve a lot of emotions. Believing is a conscious decision. The rationale behind those decisions are, for the most part, idiosyncratic (unique to the individual). With religion the reasoning is shared amongst members, though not necessarily identical (this is where you have sect divisions). With miscellaneous beliefs, such as gambling superstitions, the beliefs are personal and never identical (lucky shirts and shoes).

One example of believing being a choice is the Atheist. Another example is a religious convert. You could say that Atheists are converts away from their former religion. That's clearly a choice. I want to reiterate the distinction between belief and believing, because it might be overlooked. There's the concept (belief) of God, and then there's the choice of agreeing (believing) or disagreeing (disbelieving).

Belief is a gift. Only the most spoiled get to choose what they get for their birthday.

Sigh. All claim, no game.

i think this can be said rather concisely:

While we cannot choose what we believe we can influence the evidence we see to impact our beliefs one way or the other.


edit: just to give example, as hard as i wish if there is a truck coming towards me if i am a rational person then i cannot choose to believe the truck won't hit me. in the same way i don't think i chose not to believe in god, i just exposed myself to evidence which influenced my beliefs. had i never exposed myself to any text on religion but those of judaism i'd probably still be jewish.

I think it is very convienent for athiest to say that believing is NOT A CHOICE. They now if htey believe that balaony have an excuse for not believing.

They cannot believe is their excuse it is genetic or some other crazy idea/statement.

I find it very hard to believe that people I think are somewhat intelligent can make such retarted statements as they have no choice in what they believe.

They either are using the same word believe that I am using and HAVE A DIFFERENT defintion of it or they are really blind.

Here is just a very simple example: If you were to pick up the New York Times and read what was written on the page in black and white lettering. Lets say that a well know jounalist wrote the story, "President Obama, filed for divorce today, he ran off with Hillary Clinton to Africa to start a new family, he denounced his presidency because he was under way to much pressure to make sound decisions".

Now when you read this you have two choices

#1 Believe that what the jounalist wrote is TRUE or
#2 Not Believe that whst the journalist wrote was true.

YOU get to make a decision on what YOU PERSONALLY ACCEPT AS TRUE. You get to decide if you believe the story or not.

I did not say that the story was true or false, I just said you get to decide IF YOU BELIEVE if the story us true or false. This is your choice.

Pletho

fyp
#3

fyp
#4

Sigh is right, yet I still find myself taking this semi-seriously. Are you telling me that the fact that you're Atheist now was completely out of your control? That you had no choice in the matter? That it was determined to be anyway?

If yes to any of those questions, then that is your own belief. DUC? Your belief would then be that you had no choice in the matter of believing whatever it is that you believe now, hence you will not be swayed and this thread becomes nothing but hot air.

Renege that. This whole forum is mostly hot air anyway, so carry on.

You are missing the point.

Assume you are a logical thinker. Meaning that given information you will always come to the conclusion that is the most logical answer to the best of your minds ability as your belief.


So your belief, is a result of your logic ability and the information put into it.

So the idea is- You choice of belief is no more a choice than that of say a calculator. If i punch in 2 plus 2, the calculater really "choose" to output 4 it is the only result it can put out. So given your mind and information put in it, you have a natural result that comes out which isn't a "choice" but a result.

That being said, human beings are more than calculators i think.

So to show beliefs are a choice, you have to show that there is more to humans than logic and sensory inputs.

Thats why i think it is important to bring the "heart" into the equation, feelings, attitudes, emotions, moral disposition.. so that beliefs is not just like in the pure logic + info in then result out model.

"Coming to a conclusion" is making a decision. That's what I've been trying to say. Since nobody has perfect knowledge, the blanks are filled in by beliefs.

Yes, it's a result (of many things, including feelings and logic). I already mentioned that earlier. This result finally comes to a decision, which is the conclusion reached.

This comparison is seriously flawed. A calculator doesn't choose to enter "2 add 2". It doesn't function autonomously and it doesn't think. There are defined operants and variables: "2" and "+". If only reaching a belief was that clear-cut.

You think correct.

What? Choices are made as a result of sensory inputs and processes. Here's the kicker: they're not all processed the same way, because no two brains are alike, and so the outputs may be very different. What tastes good to you may be vomit to me, and what sounds reasonable to me may be hogwash to you.

Beliefs, like the game of poker, are about incomplete information. We make our decision based on all of the information available. Even religious revelations don't reveal everything. If they did, supposedly we'd be the masters of the universe, yet we still don't know how itching occurs, let alone the true nature of God.

"Since nobody has perfect knowledge, the blanks are filled in by beliefs. "

Not true, incomplete information is filled in by the best logical guess given the information you have.


"This comparison is seriously flawed. A calculator doesn't choose to enter "2 add 2". "

The simlification is perfect give my assumptions previously written down.

You can show that you "choose" what information you recieve either. Sure you can say, I choose to read that book, but that only pushes back the question.. You choose to read that book, because that was logical result of the information you had presented to you that caused to to proceeded with the action, it was a result not a choice.


"What? Choices are made as a result of sensory inputs and processes. Here's the kicker: they're not all processed the same way, because no two brains are alike, and so the outputs may be very different. What tastes good to you may be vomit to me, and what sounds reasonable to me may be hogwash to you."

Clearly, your brain doesn't seem to mind contradiction its own logic from one post to the next. While I find such antics absurd.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I'm cautious of what I say, so that there is no contradiction. It's usually miscommunication. If there's a misunderstanding, I do my best to clarify.

Anyway, I had my fill with the thread.

In words of Flynn.

Sigh. All claim, no game.

Since nobody else took this one on...

Pletho,

Could you choose to believe that Allah is the one true god?

(and just so the conditions of this question aren't arbitrary, assume it means that you start today and will believe this for the next 5 years)

Yes, I could choose to believe to stop believing that the God I believe in is not the true God and switch if I wanted to.

Will I? No. This is my choice.

Believing is a freewill choice.

I explained it so simple that a child could understand it, so if you all did not understand that and still want to argue with me about believing being a choice then I will have to highly suspect you understood my expanation and do not want to agree out of pride, spite or you simply do not want to agree even though it makes sense by your own freewill choice because it is something I wrote and you would have to admit you are wrong (pride)....

One other factor that could be involved, you are not as smart as you all think you are could be the problem, maybe you need to retake some basic elementary classes that have to do with reading.

Pletho

1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

God doesn't want people to be smart in worldly ways, why are you trying to get everyone to sin.

Does the fact that I haven't chopped my own legs off mean I am wholly responsible for the fact that I have legs? Does not changing my name by deed poll mean I named myself?

I first questioned the reality of god when I around nine or ten, maybe eleven, when I first heard there were people who "didn't believe in God" - it had always seemed before as though everyone knew it was real. I kicked around from position to position, here believing and there not. I even have memories of specific turning points. They don't feel like decisions. Even though this was determined far more by reasoning, memories of falling in love seem more similar to these memories than memories of decisions I've made.

Suppose there was a person who exposed themselves to every possible "path to god" they could conceive of or discover. What if none of their explorations result in belief? Or what if a person witnessed an event that most people (we'll say we have special knowledge of this) would consider 'a miracle', and still does not believe? Is it still a choice?

I really wish I'd made it clear in the OP: I don't want this to be about free will. I don't care if we have free will, I don't really know what "unfree will" is, and the persistence of its illusion is apparently universally intersubjectively real so for my purposes it doesn't matter if we have free will or not.

Non sequitur. Because I have no choice, doesn't mean it won't happen. If the only wholly volitional element is choice of exposure, I think I broke that barrier starting the thread, no?