"If God didn't exist... "

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Yes, within the boundaries of governing laws and moral code as set forth in the Freedom Principles of "The Ten Commandments" (given to protect the human race and insure its perpetuation). Morality is Horizontal and applies to the entire human race. Spirituality is Vertical and a matter of individual choice. Many upstanding citizens will be separated fro ...[text shortened]... r own negative volition, having rejected His Grace Gift of Salvation through belief in Christ.

I think that belief formation, at the moment the belief is formed, is involuntary. I believe its being involuntary is necessary for survival. I could elaborate on this but won't.

However, to the extent we have free will at all, I believe we can deliberate and choose to put ourselves in situations that bring about beliefs we might not otherwise have.

So the negative volition you speak of isn't, IMO, a simple matter of being faced with facts and refusing to believe them, it is a more complicated choice of being willing to look for information that might change one's beliefs.

There is a term for this in politics. Selective something or other. For example, people who will only watch Fox news (on the right) or MSNBS (on the left) are willing themselves to receive information that will not change their beliefs.

The same is true of religion.

Originally posted by JS357
I think that belief formation, at the moment the belief is formed, is involuntary. I believe its being involuntary is necessary for survival. I could elaborate on this but won't.

However, to the extent we have free will at all, I believe we can deliberate and choose to put ourselves in situations that bring about beliefs we might not otherwise have.

So t ...[text shortened]... s to receive information that will not change their beliefs.

The same is true of religion.

If we accept the premise that truth and falsehood (regarding all information presented as accurate) coexist, would it be reasonable to conclude that during our lifetimes on earth we will apprehend and assimilate varying amounts of each? Then, doesn't the question become: what are we using as the absolute standard for each category of information?

Originally posted by Penguin
You do seem to have odd and somewhat meaningless interpretation of the words horizontal and vertical. You have used them in the "ancient dilemma" thread as well and had to explain them.

The 10 commandments are specific to a subset of the Abrahamic religions and would be difficult to follow if you lack belief in that particular god. The first 4 would be particularly tricky.

--- Penguin.

Please define the words 'horizontal' and 'vertical'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You asked:

Why not ignore them, rather than become irritated and/or threatened by them?

There are a surprising number of irritating/threatening things that you can get away with within the law. Many of these have been listed in this thread.
Sometimes the best way to deal with it is to discuss the issue with such people to try and convin ...[text shortened]... law.
But the law is a method of last resort, surely there are better ways to handle most cases?

"If God didn't exist, [but some went against the grain in believing He did] what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him? -JV" Why not ignore them, rather than become irritated and/or threatened by them?"

... offers a socially applicable alternative (as on this forum). In it doesn't presume to deal with external legalities or actions you think people may be getting "away with within the law". So, why not ignore them? They're provocative. Why?

Originally posted by LemonJello

"If God didn't exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him?"

What a strange question. Bobby, you are none too adept at clarifying what exactly 'faith' entails in this sense, but I assume by "putting one's faith in..." you are talking about some active, volitional process. Well, persons car ...[text shortened]... eped in false, delusional ideas; what possible difference would that make? 🙄🙄

"What a strange question. Bobby, you are none too adept at clarifying what exactly 'faith' entails in this sense, but I assume by "putting one's faith in..." you are talking about some active, volitional process." (LemonJello)

Absolute Confidence (with the firm expectation of favorable results). It's "elpis" in the Koine Greek. (Bobby)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"What a strange question. Bobby, you are none too adept at clarifying what exactly 'faith' entails in this sense, but I assume by "putting one's faith in..." you are talking about some active, volitional process." (LemonJello)

Absolute Confidence (with the firm expectation of favorable results). It's "elpis" in the Koine Greek. (Bobby)

It's rather painful to watch how your characterization of 'faith' keeps changing willy-nilly without rhyme or reason. First you said (in another thread) that 'faith perception' is "belief in a person, place or thing without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational process"; then you went on (in the same thread) to blatantly contradict that by implying that 'faith perception' is some sort of process whereby you attribute supernatural agency to explain worldly phenomena based on your experiences; then you went on to say (in the same thread, iirc) that faith is basically a volitional process through which you "choose" beliefs in some manner that accords with your hopes (through a process that seems rather indistinguishable from the logical fallacy argumentum ad consequentiam); now you say 'faith' is "absolute confidence (with the firm expectation of favorable results)". Gosh, given this record, one might be inclined to think you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and that you're just making it all up as you go along. At least try to pick just one story and stick with it. Your last go seems no less idiosyncratic than the previous ones, though, since 'faith' as it is commonly employed does not require or imply "absolute confidence" or psychological certainty.

Anyway, given your most recent clarification, it appears the question in the OP as you intended it reads something like "If God didn't exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their absolute confidence (with the firm expectation of favorable results) in Him?"

Well, as one obvious sort of example, don't you think "absolute confidence" could crystallize into resoluteness with respect to, say, courses of action? If so, is it really that difficult to envision that this sort of 'faith' could translate to possible differences, totally irrespective of the question of whether or not, in fact, God exists? So, I would say it's still rather a strange question.

I see you also didn't bother to answer my question. If I have "absolute confidence" that I ought to kill your loved ones in their sleep and do so; what possible difference could that make? If I have "absolute confidence" that I ought to help your loved ones in a time of great need and do so; what possible difference could that make? Do you really need to take the time to figure out whether or not God exists to answer these questions? 🙄

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
So, why not ignore them? They're provocative. Why?

Because their behaviour can be harmful to themselves and others.

Do you want me to list examples?
Let me list a few, but it is by no means exhaustive:
1. A strong suppression of scientific advancement where it is seen to be in conflict with religion.
2.The suppression of women's freedoms and education in Muslim countries. (often not against the law).
3. Political support for religious reasons. Ie people vote for a candidate based on his religion or his support for Israel etc.
4. Division of society due to religion. In areas with two main religions a division arises and this may often lead to conflict. The segregation itself may not be illegal.
5. The wasting of resources on religion. This includes both time and money.

Originally posted by LemonJello
It's rather painful to watch how your characterization of 'faith' keeps changing willy-nilly without rhyme or reason. First you said (in another thread) that 'faith perception' is "belief in a person, place or thing without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational p out whether or not God exists to answer these questions? 🙄

"It's rather painful to watch how your characterization of 'faith' keeps changing willy-nilly without rhyme or reason." (LemonJello)

Abject ignorance of the Koine Greek fails to recognize the limitations of English. There are Four Conditionals, whereas we have One: "If". Similarly, our word 'faith' has several usage distinctions which include 'Verb' and 'Noun'; along with the matter of 'Person' or 'Object'; 'Source', 'Mood', 'Tense', etc. Your implacability remains a bar to meaningful conversation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because their behaviour can be harmful to themselves and others.

Do you want me to list examples?
Let me list a few, but it is by no means exhaustive:
1. A strong suppression of scientific advancement where it is seen to be in conflict with religion.
2.The suppression of women's freedoms and education in Muslim countries. (often not against the law ...[text shortened]... ay not be illegal.
5. The wasting of resources on religion. This includes both time and money.

"Because their behaviour can be harmful to themselves and others." (twhitehead)

No different than a chess game. If a move's against the rules, object.
Otherwise, respect your opponent's freedom to choose to self destruct.
You're in charge of twhitehead's volition, not LemonJello's or mine.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
No different than a chess game. If a move's against the rules, object.
Otherwise, respect your opponent's freedom to choose to self destruct.
You're in charge of twhitehead's volition, not LemonJello's or mine.

A chess game has little or no consequences, and the object is of course to win.
If you truly respect everyones freedom to choose to self destruct, does that mean you never try to persuade others that they may be wrong? Why are you even conversing in this forum? Why do you keep starting threads on the topic of the future of souls? Why not simply respect our freedoms and keep quiet? Methinks you are a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"It's rather painful to watch how your characterization of 'faith' keeps changing willy-nilly without rhyme or reason." (LemonJello)

Abject ignorance of the Koine Greek fails to recognize the limitations of English. There are Four Conditionals, whereas we have One: "If". Similarly, our word 'faith' has several usage distinctions which include 'Verb' ...[text shortened]... Tense', etc. Your implacability remains a bar to meaningful conversation.

I'm talking about 'faith' as you intend the term in discussion. Just consider the previous thread that I mentioned, in which you "clarified" your usage of the term in at least 3 different and contradictory ways with respect to the same instance of usage. Talk about a "bar to meaningful conversation"!

Anyway, I'm not implacable in such discussion. Just start making some actual sense; and just start providing substantive response to rebuttals and calls for clarification, etc; and I'll be happy. It's reallly your own laziness to properly ground discussions (discussions that you presume to initiate in the first place) and your inability or unwillingness to engage in substantive discussion that bars meaningful conversation. Like, you took the time to clarify (sort of) what you mean by 'faith' here; but I see you still haven't bothered to address the substance of my response to the original question in the OP. I provided at least a couple hypotheticals that are apt, and I see nothing of substance forthcoming from your end.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Because their behaviour can be harmful to themselves and others." (twhitehead)

No different than a chess game. If a move's against the rules, object.
Otherwise, respect your opponent's freedom to choose to self destruct.
You're in charge of twhitehead's volition, not LemonJello's or mine.

Otherwise, respect your opponent's freedom to choose to self destruct.

Did you not read what twhitehead wrote? He said "Because their behaviour can be harmful to themselves and others." (my emphasis). You should already know this because you quoted it yourself in your own post: he's purporting to provide instances of "possible difference" that apply to multiple parties. So, your response above is a real head-scratcher....

EDIT: Anyway, since you already implied that one ought to object if a move is against the rules (which I guess in context means that the destruction extends to others too and not just the agent doing the destruction), you've already conceded the point. So why did you act like before that one should just ignore it? Now you're saying one should object rather than ignoring it. Which is it?

Originally posted by LemonJello
It's rather painful to watch how your characterization of 'faith' keeps changing willy-nilly without rhyme or reason. First you said (in another thread) that 'faith perception' is "belief in a person, place or thing without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational p ...[text shortened]... out whether or not God exists to answer these questions? 🙄

... beginning to wonder if you worship your own brain.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Otherwise, respect your opponent's freedom to choose to self destruct.

Did you not read what twhitehead wrote? He said "Because their behaviour can be harmful to themselves and others." (my emphasis). You should already know this because you quoted it yourself in your own post: he's purporting to provide instances of "possible d ...[text shortened]... t ignore it? Now you're saying one should object rather than ignoring it. Which is it?

Morality and Spirituality are not synonymous.
You will appreciate neither as long as your circular reasoning
feeds on itself, causing it to become lifeless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A chess game has little or no consequences, and the object is of course to win.
If you truly respect everyones freedom to choose to self destruct, does that mean you never try to persuade others that they may be wrong? Why are you even conversing in this forum? Why do you keep starting threads on the topic of the future of souls? Why not simply respect our freedoms and keep quiet? Methinks you are a hypocrite.

The behavior of those whom we have responsibility for or care about may cause us concerns, which require degrees of intervention. Parental authority often trumps a child's volition prior to emancipation. This exception doesn't negate the principle of the primacy of self determination. Though you may extol the merits of e2-e4 to a son or daughter or friend, all may prefer g1-f3 or a2-a3. Respect their selfhood. There's a time to open your pie hole and a time to zip it. "hypocrite"?