Trying to "reason" yourself out of a situation you're "gut"

tells you is dangerous can get you killed.

Real science admits that they cannot detect spiritual things. Alluding to superiority, because you poopoo all things spiritual, shows a paucity of soul.

Outside of fools pushing for theocracy, it should be none of your damn business. Further, if you spout that shit to independents, and they sniff out your progressive-ism, you have dissuaded a potential dem for life.

Faith is not an excuse, it is a choice. That you have EXACTLY the same evidence as they, makes you cynical, not superior.

Withholding belief in a claim and believing in its opposite are entirely different things. No idea what the OP believes or not but I'm just waiting for somebody to reject the null hypothesis personally.

And thinking that shows a paucity of soul is rather presuming that the null hypothesis on souls has already been rejected, no?

calling any faith simply an excuse. I have seen things far in excess of nature in my lifetime. And, I see the paucity of history to hang your hat on. We all have to figure it out on our own. BUT, the Jesus meme, or empathy/compassion, is far too widespread, not to have some message about human nature. Further, MOST of what you would call the opposite of religion, is exemplified in the teachings of Jesus. Much of Occupy rests there. Much of Feminism too. Equality for minorities, etc etc. Even if you dismiss the divinity hokum, there still is showing all sorts dignity and respect. You could all catch a lesson, if not a hero.

Of course you have.

Like..?

I was a small boy, rock hunting, on a rock beach, in Palos Verdes, with my grandmother. I looked down, and a rock stuck out to me. So, I picked it up. Then, about a half mile down the beach, I noticed another odd rock. So, I picked it up. When I got back to Grannys pad, I looked at the rocks. Low and BEHOLD, the two odd rocks fit together, perfectly. The odds of that are too astronomical to compute.
All of nature FITS. Too perfectly not to have a FORCE that is in opposition to dishevel and disorder. No, not an anthropomorphic BEING, but a persuasion of the material world. Working at the genetic etc level.

So to suppose an intelligent or supernatural or spiritual "Force' that made you find them is a presumption of yours not based on anything in reality.
Why would the Universe have you find the rocks? Perhaps finding rocks like this is vastly more likely than you thought it was?
Seems you are taking a meaningless anecdote and making a giant leap of explanation for it.
It is a human thing to find patterns where none exist.

God's apparently too busy helping football players win games and healthy, happy kids find matching rocks on the beach.

and consider something far more intrinsic as to how the universe works in terms of energy and events--not persons. But I guess you must keep the old idea because it continues to supply you with a handy target. If you had the same approach to science, you would still think the earth was flat.

If you understood that the vast majority of believers do not share your view of god, but instead the one I am commenting on.

I have plenty of evidence against your impersonal, nebulous god too. Start another thread if you want to talk about it.

LUCK, or odds not being the end all in all cases. Near misses on motorcycle, on and on.

I find myself mostly a deist. But, the works seems to function for most of us without monkeying with it.

The greatest SIN, are those that suppose that God will intervene in our destruction of the functioning of our life support facility.

And even if they are "astronomical" there is still a chance. The odds of winning the lottery are horrendous. Yet someone wins it at some point. Is that the mark of some greater design?

I am not quite sure what to make of it, but I have stupendous and reproducible parking karma, I kid you not.

I am a very courteous and thoughtful driver, but I'm not saying those things are connected. All I can tell you is that if you want to find a parking space in a place where there is rarely a space to be found (say, Manhattan) and you want it right in front of the place you are going, get me to drive you there.

And if you want proof that there is no such thing as karma, look no further than Dick Cheney.

It is no accident, that those that TAKE, isolate themselves from humanity. They had better. Karma is the reaction to their haughty entitlement, and imbalance of competition to cooperation.

Or George Bush, for that matter. Or Mitt Romney. Or any wealthy fortunate son who has spread nothing but pain to others yet has been rewarded with a long, comfortable life of privilege.

Do tell me more about karma. *snort*

Would you pay it?

He lives a live of luxury and privilege.

Has a wife and family who evidently care for him.

Has received preferential treatment for healthcare services to extend his life past what any normal person with his heart condition would.

How is Dick suffering? How are George Bush or Mitt Romney suffering? What price are they paying?

In fact, most of your asserted privileges, I would forego.

Many Christians murmurred, that the heartless get goodies, and they thought they should suffer.

And the answer was, and it confirms my deist assumptions, " God made the sun to shine upon the just and the unjust alike. Now in death? Christianity is the smug reaction to the Dicks. Eternal damnation for the Dicks. And not a damn thing they could do about it.

I asked you specifically how Dick Cheney, George Bush, or Mitt Romney are suffering for all the nastiness they have brought into the world.

And now you start saying things that ALSO go against the idea of karma. "the heartless get goodies" "the sun shines upon the just and the unjust"

Eternal punishment after death is not karma. So are you defending karma or not? Please stay on topic.

Were competition the ultimate goal, cooperation would earn you eternal torture, not cooperation.

Got it.

Karma can work on many levels, but as a deist, I prefer it operating organically, and supporting compassion and cooperation. Wholly a human thing. You want to make it special miracle fodder.

You have none.

will get you branded a jerk? And have most of those you meet saying infracatory prayers for your comeuppance? That hubris is as old or older than greek tragedy? That every special person/celeb, will have all of us watching intently all that they endure? Hoping for fail.

Karma is alive and well, even if God is dead.

I bet it weighs heavily on him every day.

Would you want to be him?

We may assume he's unhappy because so many of us greatly dislike the man, but that's just our projecting our negative feelings about him onto him. So would I want to be him? No, but is that because I think he is a miserably unhappy person? no.

His medical problems alone are a nightmare.

At any rate, I don't think karma is an absolute thing at all.

A voodoo queen in New Orleans once told me to never wish evil on anyone because it would come back to hurt me threefold. Good advice, whatever the case, imo. This was part of instructions I was given when I honestly believed that my ex-husband had put a hex on my house. I know it seems silly, but I did what she said and everything started working again.

I suspect that Alberto Gonzales' dreamt he was a coelacanth last night.

Do you take your tea with maple syrup?

You should understand how real Karma is, as well as anyone here. Say something positive and you usually get positive feedback, while negativity has a tendency to bite you in the ass. Ask Cheney how many heart attacks, shunts and bi-passes it takes to feel good, or you might just study his smile.
What goes around comes around, like the planets, galaxies, universe. Has nothing to do with a deity. Karma means different things to different people. From simple cause and effect for most westerners to reincarnation for Hindus, Buddhist and Sikhs. Take your pick.

Many Western cultures have notions similar to karma, as demonstrated in the phrase what goes around comes around. The concepts of reaping what you sow from Galatians 6 , violence begets violence and live by the sword, die by the sword are Christian expressions similar to karma. Some observers[who?] have compared the action of karma to Western notions of sin and judgment by God or gods, while others understand karma as an inherent principle of the universe without the intervention of any supernatural being. In Hinduism, God does play a role and is seen as a dispenser of karma. (See Karma in Hinduism for more details.) The non-interventionist view is that of Buddhism and Jainism. The secular Western view is that of a deterministic universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

The metaphysical type spoken of earlier (good parking space karma) and the sociological kind (be a dick to people and they won't like you).

But each individual has her own concept of Karma. It comes in lots of spiritual flavors too. Take your pick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

We know what Cheney is responsible for in the "goes around" department. He clearly hasn't even come close to receiving back what's supposed to "come around."

And what you describe is not karma, but a basic guideline of human interaction. And even that isn't universal, because with a suitable support structure you can be as nasty as you want to be (Bush, Romney) and be patted on the back for it.

Still waiting for evidence.

Pick your flavor of Karma if you like, or choose not to. Whatever turns you on. It's only a word. Take it or leave it.

Fred Phelps, don't you worry about having to justify your hatred of homosexuals. It's your belief - go for it!

Republicans, never you mind about having to show us that trickle-down works. It's your personal belief - whatever turns you on!

Not me. If you don't like homosexuals, keep it to yourself. If you don't like people of faith, keep it to yourself. Start yapping about it and you'd better have something solid to back it up. Good luck.

I'm fairly sure that trotsky was pointing out the folly of the position you've been arguing and not stating his own beliefs.

I was immediately berated by multiple people even after I pointed out the grammatical correctness. However, I even went back and edited my post to remove it and replace it with the clearly third party "one."

That was rather civil of me, wouldn't you say?

Are you capable of being as civil? Will you edit your post that tries to slander me by implying I hold certain positions?

You should be thankful to those who brought it to your attention.
Which post of mine are you referring to? Send a link and I'll take a look.

Scroll up. It's just a few posts up this subthread. See if you can find your own uncivility.

You replied to it. You ignored the question I asked, but acknowledged the edit.

Others here were yapping about karma, but since they don't have to back it up, why do Phelps and other Republicans?

What's with that? What do you care if someone believes in Karma? Karma is a wonderful barometer of the soul, however one wants to define soul. Yes, I believe I have a soul, as do many atheists. It's existence necessitates no deity of any sort, nor is one desired.

Because I don't believe, I am entitled to ask for evidence. Especially when someone is promoting their beliefs as truth.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

I'm not going to drag your ugly condescension into the thread - please just answer my question. Thanks.

Prove it.
I believe you are not entitled to ask for any evidence unless someone is claiming the beliefs to be facts, such as the existence of Noah's Ark, the creation of the universe etc.. Whether Jesus said certain things or performed certain acts is pure hearsay and cannot be proven one way or the other. So those beliefs are based on opinion, not facts. So what? You have a right to disagree with anyone's opinion, but asking for evidence is ridiculous. What do you expect, a video of the crucifixion?

Except now you are trying to portray me as a horrible mean person because I asked someone to back up what they said. You've interjected and said more than your share and made sure to berate and insult me in the process. I've come to expect that from you, for whatever reason. How about you let the other person speak for themselves now?

If you need to get one last dig in at me, I understand. Go for it.

Couldn't find anyone of faith selling their personal beliefs as facts. Maybe you could point to it for me.

If you want to go Clintonesque and try parsing the word "is," be my guest.

But the typical reading of that sentence indicates a statement of fact.

Now will you let that person speak for themselves, or do you have more scorn to throw at me?

What's the big secret? Can't you just point to it and stop the silly game?

Never mind, it's your Karma, which shouldn't bother you, as you don't believe in Karma. Good luck with that.

I figured you had at least read it to that point. My mistake, and I humbly apologize.

I jumped into a sub-thread about karma, which was started by cbayer.
I had not read all the other threads. I'm sorry you feel that I'm lecturing and berating you, but I have a huge aversion to negativity and rigid thinking. Your humility is very refreshing.

But if you are going to bring that belief into the public sphere, then you should be prepared to provide a valid justification for it, or to admit that there is none (which isn't necessarily a horrible thing). Otherwise, may as well just keep it to yourself.

The belief itself is harmless. Only when it is used to influence the actions of others does it fall into dangerous territory.

My issue with Karma is that people always seem to relate it to things going well...I admit that I have commented on my own "Craigs List Karma"...I give away things on Craigslist that I could feasably sell for $30 or so, and in return I seem to be on the receiving end of some really great things on Craigslist for free that could easily be sold for $30 or more (same with Goodwill, etc).

However, I try to remember that the idea Karma also has a bad side, too, and that when bad things happen to people, it's because they are suffering some Karmic retribution. That's a great idea when I think of people who are so evil and toxic (child molesters that are impaled on fence posts, etc), but what about the 3 year old with 75% burns on their body....is that karma? Or the lady who is hit head-on by a drunk driver...karma? bad luck? My own horrid health news...what evil am I being asked to atone for?

I guess I equate my opposition of Karma with my opposition of the Death Penalty---neither can ever be applied justly or fairly, and innocent people will always be caught up in them, so I cannot support either one with a clear conscience.

I have good parking luck too. Is it Karma? Is it just one of those things that happens in life? Is a good parking space the best that "the universe" can offer in an otherwise mundane life?

If you don't get a good parking space, is that proof that the universe is displeased? Or maybe the other person driving with good parking Karma left the house 5 minutes before you did....


You and I both have seen I'm sure in our own profession just the most bizarre things....there was a news story of a girl who was in a car with her parents and as they were driving just out of the blue an otherwise healthy tree just fell over and fell on the car and the only part of the car that was damaged was where the little girl was sitting and she died immediately. Why? Was there a purpose? As astronomical the odds of 1) an otherwise healthy tree falling without wind or weather to cause it to fall 2) a car driving by at that exact time 3) the tree hitting the car at the exact time the car was traveling under the tree 4) the tree hitting the space in the back of a car where a young child was....all of those are pretty strange odds, and all odds lined up to make this young girl lose her life. Was that karma? bad luck? universe displeased? I tend to think it's just one of those things. One of those things about life that makes life "life". A bunch of odd things. If the tree fell 5 seconds earlier, or 5 seconds later, or if the car had gotten that red light.....

?

I don't think of karma as absolute, just little rewards (and punishments) for behavior. It's probably all coincidence, but at times something bad will happen and it will cause me to reflect on my recent behavior.

As I am never the best I could be and sometimes just downright ugly, a little bit of bad karma can give me the opportunity to make small changes in the way I am treating other people. When good things happen, I don't generally take it as an excuse to behave badly, but the opposite is certainly true.

As to the tragedies that happen, I can't invoke karma at all. The horrible things we have both seen that have happened to really good people can't have anything to do with karma (or a god or anything like that, imo).

Basically I don't think it's a real thing, but an opportunity to assess things. However, my parking karma is wicked good and if it goes away, I am going to consider some serious changes, lol.

Hope you are doing well, Heddi, and glad to see you back around. I hope your *karma* is flowing positive.

So I'm making Channa Masala, and some rice in the rice cooker. I cleaned the fish tank...watching a Queen Concert. I'm doing okay> More better days than bad days these days, which is nice (I know my husband appreciates the squelching of the water-works).

I got my basic keelboat certification last week....

You are certainly in a great place to do it. Maybe a captain's license at some point? Do you plan to race? Cruise?

so we'll putz around on the 25-footers for a while, take some more classes over the next few years...prob move back to Fl or the east coas at some point and use the boat as a live aboard and just fart around the Atlantic seaboard and Caribbean....


that's the plan this week

I just need to learn how to gybe without decapitating my first mate :-/

We spent a year looking at boats before buying this one. It is the perfect combination of a blue water cruiser and home.

And it's a great way to live.

The boom is the most dangerous thing on a boat, but you will get it.

once we rescue his decapitated head from the waters of puget sound....Oh look, a harbour seal is balancing it on his nose...

I use the same unnamed "force" you do. I used logic and reason to question your premise.
What you see as proof, I see as a person trying to confirm an idea that has no evidence. Based on misunderstood anecdotes.

S = k log w



nope!

and I guess supernatural in a natural process. First off, some info, first, salt water doesn't erode rock except mechanically(beating it down), its not like fresh water with dissolved acids etc. that "eat" through rock. Hence why sea caves have distinct characteristics versus terrestrial caves.

You were at a rocky beach, and the first rock "stood out" to you as a child, so I'm assuming its composition and structure was different than the surrounding rocks? Is that correct? If so, then that rock was most likely "foreign" to that area. Given the info you provided, I don't find it astronomical that you would find an additional rock of same composition and structure as the one you found a half mile down the beach. Nor would it be too odd that they fit, as you put it, perfectly, most likely they traveled to that beach as one rock, and then due to most likely wave action, collided with a harder rock, breaking into 2 or more pieces that, due to currents, etc. were moved a half mile apart from each other, when they washed up on the beach.

Of course the other explanation is that your imagination ran wild when you found two odd rocks that you thought fit perfectly together, but actually didn't. This I find more likely.

The "Golden Rule" is not unique to Jesus.... or any religion.

It is an expression of altruistic behavior... which surely evolved long before we were human. It most likely starts with caring for young...or watching over eggs or something like that. Maybe even when single cells started to congregate and specialize.

There is simply no way, not for all the money I could never spend, that I could have faith in God right now. I cannot "choose" it. My brain simply refuses it as, at best, wishful thinking.

Faith is not a choice.

Closing yourself to the possibility of a force that is part and parcel of nature and physics, aint highminded. To assert that all that is came about entirely organically, from a point of singularity, to open into the panoply of materials and processes, is a choice. So is faith.

Faith is not a choice. I can't "choose" to to have faith in something I don't believe exists for whatever reason. It's completely nonsensical to argue differently.

Glad to see you've come around on the issue!

Your PROOF, is a simple tautology. You cannot believe in what you do not believe. Faith, is NOT belief in what you do not believe.

Given that faith is dictated by belief, and belief is not dictated by choice, then faith is not a choice. So once again, I'm very glad you've come around on this issue.

does not preclude belief INFLUENCED, by choice. Even if that choice, is self meditation. Nor is it "a priori", or self evident.

As well as the conclusions we draw from what we study. You'll not hear argument from me on that.

from a point of singularity, to open into the panoply of materials and processes, is a choice.

*******

That's not THE choice! The choice is merely to follow the evidence.

Are you saying it is something you're born with, like ethnicity, skin color, some genetic trait?
Do you have faith in your statement being true?

You are an atheist, correct? When did you make the conscious choice to no longer have faith? Because I can tell you no such choice was made on my part. It was a long, slow process involving the shifting of my beliefs as I thought and studied on the subject. There was no "I'm just not believing anymore" moment. I found that I DIDN'T believe anymore, and I couldn't really pinpoint when exactly it even happened.

My mother taught me to say a couple of prayers at bedtime, which I was OK with up to the age of seven. It had been told that Jesus was the son of God and that God saw and heard everything and had created everything, including me. Sounded OK until I started going to Sunday school at age six. Didn't last long. I asked too many questions and was basically expelled. It was a normal C of E Sunday school, nothing extreme, but I couldn't get my head around the miracle stuff. Couldn't figure out why the Son of God needed to prove himself and why weren't we all the children of God. That kind of stuff. So, my parents, who were not religious but thought some kind of religious grounding was OK, sent my brother and me to a Congregationalist Sunday school, which was a little better, but I still had the same questions and stopped going after a few months. No further interest until I was about thirteen and wanted a social life. So, I started attending church to find friends. Dull vicar (C of E), so I switched churches and started attending another in the next village (also C of E). Loved the vicar (and his 2 daughters), very liberal, cool guy. I liked him so much, I made a conscious choice to believe, got confirmed, became a server at communion 3 times every Sunday. I believed, but wasn't totally convinced. Then, one Sunday, the vicar delivered the most scathing sermon I've ever heard, criticizing his own congregation for their hypocrisy and he was right. I remained friends with him, but stopped attending.
My "belief" in God was never more than a metaphor. I always perceived God as a concept like infinity. Pointless trying to prove or disprove either. Spirituality is a whole other thing.

Point is, choices don't have to made in moments of revelation. They can be the result of endless years of doubt and indecision, but they are still choices.
If I tell you I've seen a UFO, it is your choice to believe it or not. If you see a UFO, it is also your choice to believe it and/or interpret it.

"Point is, choices don't have to made in moments of revelation. They can be the result of endless years of doubt and indecision, but they are still choices."

This is true, but not in the context of belief. If you tell me you saw UFO, I'm not going to "choose" to believe you or not. I'm going to either believe you or not based on my own previous experience, knowledge, etc., as well as the evidence you have provided.

Belief is not really a process we have direct control over. At best we can control some of those things that influence our belief (like what we study).

By definition belief is about something unprovable, one way or the other. It is based on faith. If you believe I saw a UFO, I think you would base your belief on what you already know, including my credibility. You would have faith in me or not. Friendships and marriages are based on this concept. We choose to believe based on our individual experiences. If Moses were my brother, whom I trust implicitly, and he told me about his encounter with a burning bush, I would believe him. If I saw the burning bush I would not believe, I would know. Knowledge is not a choice.

I mean, your example doesn't even work as a proof for that position. Yes, my belief is going to be based on what I know and what I know about you. I said as much in my post. But where is the conscious choice you are implying exists come into play?

Check this out: http://laicite.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/belief-is-not-a-choice/

And my favorite excerpt:

Of course there are alternative options. Many people believe they are safer carrying guns around. Others believe the exact opposite. There is no hard evidence either way. Many people believe homosexuality is a choice, many don't and many on both sides are homosexual. We base our beliefs (not absolute truths) on evidence and personal experience. I see a bowl of fruit and believe it will be tasty, then I bite it and find it's plastic. I made a choice based on the evidence. I was wrong. Happens every day.

...ability to choose between beliefs. You are pointing out the options and saying people "choose" to believe one way or another, but that's not really how it works. You either believe something is true or you don't. You can't choose to believe something is true if you believe it isn't, not unless you want to be self-delusional. Thus a choice doesn't really exist. HOW you reach the belief takes can be complex, and some choice can be involved insofar as what fields of study you choose to investigate and other such factors, but when it comes down to the belief itself, choice doesn't come into play.

They worship, knowing the future. Always have. It is paramount, to be able to predict where that spear goes. What that comet MEANS. Part of that quest to KNOW cause and effect, is anything that might interfere with that direct chain of events. Or God. Part of that, is a hope that bad people suffer some loss. All human, all reasonable. Out of that, comes our written heritage of religious guidance books. From that, comes the justification for all manner of faiths. Understandably, many of them clash for turf, again, an human response. Many die in the shakeouts. With further scientific evidences, more people choose to forgo any belief in anything affecting cause and effect. They CHOOSE to believe in pure cause and effect. Many still choose to believe in a force that can moderate cause and effect by will alone, and on mass scale. One that is above simply, cause and effect.

All choices. All, having adequate PERSONAL verification, TO THEM, for their choice.

For real contrasting verification of my assertion. Witness a cult member that has his/her verifications screwed with. They CHOOSE to double down on their faith. Forcing their choice, against hard evidence against. Happens everyday. In non cult members lives too.

Further, witness those playing slot machines. They stroke them, lick them, anthropomorphize them. We think the universe SHOULD choose us for reward, thus, lottery.

I'm sorry, but your examples run into the same issues that ST's did. Choosing to ignore evidence does not equate to choosing to believe, because in my experience the choice to ignore the evidence wasn't much of a choice either. They believed so strongly in something that any contrary evidence automatically had to be false. What lead them to such a state is another discussion all together, but to say that conscious choice is the primary factor here is simply not true.

Like I've said before, there IS choice in the areas surrounding belief, but once it comes to the belief itself (and thus faith), choice basically evaporates (unless, as was pointed out by a previous poster, the choice is on a topic which the subject is in a state of 100% ignorance of).

Choose to believe that the Bildebergers collaborated with the Illuminati to fake the 9/11 attacks so they could destroy the last remaining evidence that Prince Phillip had Diana killed.

If it's as simple as a choice, then surely you can choose to believe the above statement.

To prove your point, just choose to believe it, think about it and make a post along those lines in Creative Speculation.

Shouldn't be too hard, and when you're done, you can choose to stop believing it and go back to being your old self.

I'll present you with an intellectual exercise to make my point, but first, we must establish two things.

1. The meaning of faith. In the context of this post, "faith" does not necessarily carry a religious overtone. While I usually like to be precise in how I use the word "faith," and dislike the colloquial usage embodied in the statement "I have faith in my abilities," for this one post I will admit that it does not matter which definition of "faith" you use, the end result is the same.

2. The meaning of the word ignorant. People often take offense to the word "ignorant" and equate with pejoratives like "stupid." In the context of this post, "ignorant" means exactly what it was intended to mean when the word was coined: Possessing no knowledge of the subject in question. We are all born generally ignorant, and while we all work to correct that problem, every human being on this earth is still ignorant about a great many things.

With that out of the way...please take a look at the following three premises.

Premise A: The brake system on a brand new car to be sold, that no one has ever driven before, will bring that vehicle to a halt.

Premise B: If I throw a softball into the air high enough, it will never come down.

Premise C: There is a race of beings living somewhere in the universe who are exactly like those depicted as "Q" in the Star Trek TNG television series.

How do we react to each of these premises? Well, to start with, we have solid evidence (repeated ad nauseum) for A and against B. Therefore, even when told to reserve judgment until I see with my own eyes, I (John Q. Public) will have faith in A and not in B.

But what about C? We have absolutely no evidence either way. I am completely ignorant as to the probability of this premise being true or false. Now I have an opportunity to choose whether I have faith.

(As a side note, if your reaction to Premise C was "false", then you will perhaps understand why so many atheists refer to it as the "default position.&quot

My point: When presented with a premise, faith is not a choice unless one is ignorant.

Knowledge is not a choice. Faith is the choice to believe in something, that although unproven, the believer wants it to be true so much as to have faith in that belief.
Your premises are built on probabilities.
A. Being new doesn't guarantee the brake line doesn't have air in it. But you get in and drive it and don't test the brakes till you hit the first stop sign. That's faith in the God Techno.

B. If you throw the softball high enough it won't come down. Problem is you, personally, are not able to throw the baseball high enough, but if you could....

C. I'm not familiar with your analogy, but again the probabilities of it being so are extremely remote, but who knows absolutely. Maybe there are Trekkies out there who believe it and if it makes them happy, fine. It's their choice to believe it.

Ignorance abounds, but I don't encounter too much around here. The ignorance I do see more of, is ignorance of the differences between liberal progressive theists and our mutual nemesis, the fundies.

We call it faith because it is belief without empirical evidence. Somebody would not place faith in something they don't believe exists. So how does one find themselves believing something? Well, we were just talking about that in a different thread.

Faith/belief are not choices because one would not have faith in something they didn't believe existed, and one cannot choose to stop believing something exists if they are convinced of its existence. If they at some point find themselves over the years convinced of the opposite, then their belief will change with no conscious choice being involved on their part, and the faith will simply cease to exist because its foundation, the belief, has been removed.

It is my choice. Maybe this will help.

You say you choose to trust your doctor over your lawyer. If you believe that this is a conscious decision, then choose differently. Just try it.

I choose who to trust, when to trust, how to trust, what to trust and why to trust. I make all these choices based on my knowledge and experience. The more information I have to process increases the probability of my making a better choice. I base that choice on what I want the end result to be. If my goal is good health I will probably place more faith in my doctor, if my goal is to successfully defend myself in court, then I will place my trust in my lawyer and if my goal is spiritual solace, then I may seek out a guru or priest or just someone I respect on that level, or I might just meditate instead. Those are all my choices. I make them every day and will continue as long as I am able.

If people want to believe in rubbish, then that is their choice and their business. And that includes those who think they have no choice. I see them as extreme robots living in a 2 dimensional reality. There is little difference, in essence, between the compulsive believer and the compulsive cynic, the first buys everything from Fox News to Messiahs to supermarket tabloids and the second doesn't even buy his own reflection. Fortunately, most of us fall somewhere in between in that strange place we call reality.

A choice with only one option you can chose without deluding yourself is not choice at all. You can call it a choice all you want, but it is not a choice.