If I would have

@josephw said
"Believing" isn't a matter of choice.
Obviously one doesn't choose to believe without knowing something is true.
Choosing to believe without knowledge is ignorance.
A choice made without knowledge is folly.
Believing blindly is worse than not believing at all.

It says in the Bible that "we walk by faith and not by sight."

It would be ignorant to suggest that that m ...[text shortened]... hat we chose to believe blindly without a cause?

The Spirit cannot be measured by physical means.

"Choosing to believe, or believing to choose doesn't make any sense if it's done without sure and certain knowledge."

Agreed. So what is to be done with the unbeliever who has weighed up the knowledge available and does not consider it sure and certain? As they can not force themself to believe in something, are they destined for eternal damnation?

I don't think an omniscient God would have it so.

@fmf said
Ah this old chestnut. Your understanding of the human condition would have you believe that people who are unconvinced of certain claims about supernatural things can simply sidestep their disbelief and choose to believe them?

Like trying to believe 2*2=5. I just can’t sidestep the fact that the universe is not 6,000 years old. So why should I try to get myself to believe that God must have a Grand Plan which justifies every moment of human suffering. If Stauffenberg had succeeded, he would have deprived the world of …. what? The satisfaction of letting Stauffenberg’s intended victim blow his own brains out?

@josephw said
"Believing" isn't a matter of choice.
Obviously one doesn't choose to believe without knowing something is true.
Choosing to believe without knowledge is ignorance.
A choice made without knowledge is folly.
Believing blindly is worse than not believing at all.

It says in the Bible that "we walk by faith and not by sight."

It would be ignorant to suggest that that m ...[text shortened]... hat we chose to believe blindly without a cause?

The Spirit cannot be measured by physical means.

Really?

Please explain to us then, what is the evidence your faith is based on?

I'm sure the atheists would love to know.

Not holding my breath for the proof-of-God model.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
"Choosing to believe, or believing to choose doesn't make any sense if it's done without sure and certain knowledge."

Agreed. So what is to be done with the unbeliever who has weighed up the knowledge available and does not consider it sure and certain? As they can not force themself to believe in something, are they destined for eternal damnation?

I don't think an omniscient God would have it so.

Who is asking for sure and certain knowledge?

@josephw said
You once believed, then you chose not to. Apparently you believed before you had evidence to the contrary.

then you chose not to

Incorrect.

I realized I didn't.

I didn't choose.

@josephw said
First you believed without evidence, then you believed not, based on some new evidence.

I was at one time convinced. When one believes without evidence, or without the evidence that others need, it is called faith. I lost my faith gradually as I realized I was less and less convinced that it was true. Eventually I realized the faith was gone. It wasn't the result of a choice or decision to not believe.

@josephw said
I'm curious to know what evidence it is you have that proves the resurrection of Jesus is false, because you once believed based on evidence that you now find to be false.

No one is required to prove the resurrection of Jesus is false. The question is: am I convinced it's true? My answer is no. Your answer is, yes, you are convinced.

@josephw said
There appears to be evidence of cognitive dissonance.

No, not when I had faith. And not now that I have lost it. There was no cognitive dissonance back then and there is none now. However, during the drawn out process of losing my faith, yes, there were times when I had inconsistent thoughts and beliefs with regard to what I was no longer convinced by and what I was still convinced by.

@kellyjay said
Who is asking for sure and certain knowledge?

Joseph said:

"Choosing to believe, or believing to choose doesn't make any sense if it's done without sure and certain knowledge."

@josephw said
"Believing" isn't a matter of choice.
Obviously one doesn't choose to believe without knowing something is true.
Choosing to believe without knowledge is ignorance.
A choice made without knowledge is folly.
Believing blindly is worse than not believing at all.

It says in the Bible that "we walk by faith and not by sight."

It would be ignorant to suggest that that m ...[text shortened]... hat we chose to believe blindly without a cause?

The Spirit cannot be measured by physical means.

'Obviously one doesn't choose to believe without knowing something is true.'

If you know something is true, you don't need belief.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
"Choosing to believe, or believing to choose doesn't make any sense if it's done without sure and certain knowledge."

Agreed. So what is to be done with the unbeliever who has weighed up the knowledge available and does not consider it sure and certain? As they can not force themself to believe in something, are they destined for eternal damnation?

I don't think an omniscient God would have it so.

"So what is to be done with the unbeliever who has weighed up the knowledge available and does not consider it sure and certain?"

What then can another say? Should I be so arrogant as to say I have such information to impart that would add to your knowledge, that would provide certainty?

This is where it gets dicey. We're both exposed to the same information and knowledge, in a general sense, so how is it that our perceptions engender opposing perspectives?

We share the same physical senses. We perceive the same world. So where is God? Obviously God is not perceived by physical means.

You may then think it's crazy, or at least a delusion of the mind for any number of reasons; psychoanalytically speaking. (Not my department)

I'll take a stab at answering the question. "Where is God?"

God is not dead.

No lack of, or amount of knowledge or information can change that. God isn't non-existent because someone does or doesn't have enough knowledge or information to believe He lives.

It seems apparent to me that knowledge isn't enough.
God is experienced.

"As they can not force themself to believe in something, are they destined for eternal damnation?"

That's a tough one to answer. If "eternal life" is the opposite of "eternal damnation", and if life is given by the one that created life, but an individual refuses to acknowledge the one that gives life, then what remains after one rejects the life giver?

Simple logic don't you think?

"I don't think an omniscient God would have it so."

That's not necessarily a rational conclusion, as you are not omniscient.

When an omniscient being speaks, to raise an objection would be the epitome of folly.

That is, if such a one exists!

@josephw said
I'm not "criticizing" unbelievers. I'm being critical of the matter with regards to the process of the reason for or against belief.

If one finds reason for or against belief, then I want to know why.

I know why I "get it". Why don't you?

Seems the OP made a plain statement. I'm sure you "get it" in that sense, but why should I be critical(judgmental) of you if you d ...[text shortened]... t.

Isn't this the Spirituality Forum? Am I not allowed to reference that thing below the surface?

Please bear in mind that the choice of Spiritual Path is deeply personal to some people and they might not want to share all the reasons they do or do not believe.

I'm not saying that's me. I feel fairly clear about why I do not believe things like the OP.

Recently, I'm less clear that arguing about my lack of belief does anybody any good. I think some of you long standing theists could guess my critiques of the OP without my making them, simply because we've had these same arguments so many times. And I could guess some of your reasons for rejecting them, etc.

@suzianne said
Really?

Please explain to us then, what is the evidence your faith is based on?

I'm sure the atheists would love to know.

Not holding my breath for the proof-of-God model.

"Please explain to us then, what is the evidence your faith is based on?"

You too? Interesting that you seem so sure of what it is that atheists would love to know.

And I'm sure you have some witty qualifying retort.

I would have thought you'd know what faith is based on.

Perhaps you could share what it is you think faith is based on.

And in case you've forgotten I'll give you a clue. It's not based on, by and large, what you hear in the pages of this forum.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Joseph said:

"Choosing to believe, or believing to choose doesn't make any sense if it's done without sure and certain knowledge."

He was talking about blind faith or faith with cause?

@bigdogg said
Please bear in mind that the choice of Spiritual Path is deeply personal to some people and they might not want to share all the reasons they do or do not believe.

I'm not saying that's me. I feel fairly clear about why I do not believe things like the OP.

Recently, I'm less clear that arguing about my lack of belief does anybody any good. I think some of you long stand ...[text shortened]... these same arguments so many times. And I could guess some of your reasons for rejecting them, etc.

I hear you.

I would say I'm striving for greater clarity, but not at the expense of stepping on someone else's personal Spiritual Path.

We all have the right to believe as we will, otherwise then, there would be no such thing as free will.