If I would have

@josephw said
Before I believed I wasn't sure, then I chose to believe when, after learning the truth, I experienced the new birth.

Before you believed, you were not convinced. Then you realized that you were. So now you are convinced that you have "learned the truth" and have "experienced the new birth".

@josephw said
Aspiration? Deeply seated? What are you talking about?

I am talking about faith in supernatural things.

@josephw said
One does decide to believe. Otherwise one is just an automaton.

One does decide to believe.

One tealizes. One doesn't decide.

@josephw said
Choosing and deciding are the acts of a free will.

So are doubt and realization.

@josephw said
"If you know something is true, you don't need belief."

That doesn't seem logical.

Belief, or unbelief, requires an object, or the lack there of. In the case of your statement above, "something true" is the object. "Knowing" something is true, belief then follows, whether for or against, but the results is belief, or unbelief.

In the end, one chooses belief or ...[text shortened]... r or not a thing is true of false.

Otherwise it's not a choice, but blind obedience to ignorance.

Well, you may not see the logic, but the logic is irrefutable.

We are not talking here about an 'object' such as a table, which setting aside existential discussion as to whether anything actually exists, is there for all to see and drink a cup of tea on.

The 'object' to which you refer is a supernatural being, which cannot be seen, or proven to exist, but can only be imagined. There is no 'evidence' for any god, save the written word, which is notoriously unreliable.

In other words there is no 'knowledge' that a god exists, there is only belief, which is the other side of the coin entirely, and never the twain shall meet, and an atheist such as myself will say that all religion is indeed blind obedience to ignorance.

@fmf said
No. I was never deceived and I have never suggested I was. "Ignorance" had nothing to do with my beliefs back then, just as it has nothing to do with my lack of faith now.

I made an objective observation. Not meant as an accusation.

When someone is convinced of something to the degree that they choose to believe in it, but later finds it isn't true, then it is only logical to assume they were tricked, fooled, and or deceived by an idea that proved to be false.

And I don't think you understand the biblical meaning of faith.
You appear to be using the term as a verb, as though it's a switch you can turn on or off.

Of course I could be mistaken. 😜

@indonesia-phil said
Well, you may not see the logic, but the logic is irrefutable.

We are not talking here about an 'object' such as a table, which setting aside existential discussion as to whether anything actually exists, is there for all to see and drink a cup of tea on.

The 'object' to which you refer is a supernatural being, which cannot be seen, or proven to exist, but can ...[text shortened]... et, and an atheist such as myself will say that all religion is indeed blind obedience to ignorance.

I see your logic. Well put, except it's riddled with your opinion.

I appreciate the feedback as I am always looking for new ways to produce an irrefutable logic. I will look more closely at your last paragraph.

@fmf said
One does decide to believe.

One tealizes. One doesn't decide.

At some point in the equation one will make a decision.

One believes one way, then after reexamination of available information one decides to believe in another way.

@josephw said
I made an objective observation. Not meant as an accusation.

I made an objective observation

No, you did not. Both of us are making subjective observations.

@josephw said
At some point in the equation one will make a decision

No, that rings false, psychologically speaking. "At some point in the equation", when it comes to belief in the supernatural, people will realize that they are either convinced or unconvinced ~ and not "make a decision".

If they are convinced, then they will not be able to decide to be unconvinced. If that's what happens one day to their belief, it will come to them as a realization.

@josephw said
One believes one way, then after reexamination of available information one decides to believe in another way.

Maybe this is true with regard to, say, interpreting the readings from a possibly faulty temperature gauge or weighing competing claims about how many Gazan children have been killed in the last 50+ days.

But this is not how the mind works with faith.

What the temperature gauge indicates and what the Israelis claim about the casualty figures are not supernatural phenomena.

@josephw said
When someone is convinced of something to the degree that they choose to believe in it, but later finds it isn't true, then it is only logical to assume they were tricked, fooled, and or deceived by an idea that proved to be false.

I was not tricked, fooled, or deceived by anyone. I had faith in the things you have faith in. But later I realized I had lost that faith. There was no deception or trickery of any kind involved.

@josephw said
And I don't think you understand the biblical meaning of faith.You appear to be using the term as a verb, as though it's a switch you can turn on or off.

No. I have been using "faith" as a noun.

@josephw said
"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.

Why are you choosing not to answer?

Can you prove God exists? Then it is not 'evidence'.

@josephw said
I see your logic. Well put, except it's riddled with your opinion.

I appreciate the feedback as I am always looking for new ways to produce an irrefutable logic. I will look more closely at your last paragraph.

There's no opinion about it. You and I could meet on either side of a table and enjoy tea and biscuits together, and I'm sure we would agree that existential discussion notwithstanding, the table exists. So that's my bit done, and now I ask you to prove that your god (or any god for that matter) exists. Gods and tables are different.

The tea and biscuits are on me.