Comments on CAN YOU CHOOSE YOUR BELIEFS?

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to CAN YOU CHOOSE YOUR BELIEFS?

Gheeghee

I do not reject it. I accept that such is what people believe about God. I do not believe it and I find much of what people believe about God to go against the Biblical version of God as presented in the Bible. I study it and ask question about it because it is a large part of our society and to better understand man and human nature it helps to better understand the beliefs of man.

posted by kooka_lives on February 19, 2005 at 3:46 PM | link to this | reply

Logic?  You reject everything everyone tells you about God, then can't figure out why none of your questions about God go unanswered?  HMMMM, is this logical?

posted by Gheeghee on February 18, 2005 at 11:41 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

"More excuses, more venom, STILL no logic, still no support, still no real evidence that you know what you are talking about."

I must assume that you are admitting this about yourself. I already know I use pure logic since I have used such in every comment I have made here, I state my support and I have very clearly shown my evidence. You however have yet to do any of that. I make no excuses nor do I have any venom in my comments.

You have danced around my question about your beliefs it would seem.

Answer the questions:

Did you choose to believe in God?
When and how did this choice come about if you did choose.

Can you really just decided on a whim to stop believing in God?

Stop dancing around trying to discredit me and make me look bad and try of focus on the point at hand here.

posted by kooka_lives on February 15, 2005 at 3:06 PM | link to this | reply

More excuses, more venom, STILL no logic, still no support, still no real evidence that you know what you are talking about.

posted by Gheeghee on February 15, 2005 at 8:51 AM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

The typos have nothing to do with my need to write. You are trying to create something that is not there. If you wish to keep the typo thing going I shall have to just ignore it because it really is a feeble attempt at proving nay kind of point.

Next time you see a typo be respectful and show integrity and just mention that one might wish to reread their post. It was a piss poor way to try to prove your point if that really was what you were trying to do. I highly doubt it since you did not even try to link the two idea until now.

posted by kooka_lives on February 14, 2005 at 4:25 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

Self-imposed does not mean you have a choice. I keep trying to explain this to you. My guess is that you want it to be a conscious choice so that you can try to claim that all people need to do is take a leap of faith. That way you can sleep better at night thinking you are right. There is no choice. I know this for a fact because I know what having a choice is and I truly have yet to meet anyone in my life who has made a conscious choice as to what their beliefs are.Did you choose to believe in God? When and how did this choice come about if you did choose.

Can you really just decided on a whim to stop believing in God?

I never choose to not believe in God. I just realized one day that I did not. I have seriously looked at the idea of trying to believe in God and I keep finding it impossible. Every time I look at the possibility of God I keep hitting all the pure logic that clearly shows me that there is no God. The more I look into the possibility of there being a God the more proof I find that there is not one.

posted by kooka_lives on February 14, 2005 at 4:21 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

"if you're not being true to yourself as a writer like you claim, why should I believe your claim that you're being true to yourself about what you believe?"

I am being very true to myself as a writer. I write ideas. I create worlds. I get people thinking. Typos are not being untrue to myself. That is very clearly ' "defining a concept to suit your argument" on your part there.

You really might wish to go and read that link you had to the argument page. So far you have gone and done more of those no-nos than I have.

posted by kooka_lives on February 14, 2005 at 4:14 PM | link to this | reply

MayB

Yes, you have a mind to make choices, but when it comes to faith, if that faith is a true belief, you never once made a conscious choice to believe that way.

I have never chosen to follow a path of my beliefs. I have no choice. My beliefs are who I am and what I am about. To believe that I am choosing to follow them would say that my true self is nothing at all.

If faith really were just a choice, then people would never be as passionate about it as they are.

I did not choose to be a writer. I did not choose to have green as my favorite color. And I did s choose to be an atheist. All of those things are who I am and are what I am drawn to.

It does not mean they are inflexible at all. New knowledge and experience change people and can change beliefs and such. Btu at no point can one just sit back and make that change willingly. Do you really believe that if you wished it you could just stop believing in God? ALthough that is an assumption that you believe and I apologize if I am wrong there. But if you are a believer, look at your belief and tell me when you made a conscious choice and it you believe that all ti will take for you to stop believing would be to choose not to.

I know I can not just choose to believe in God.

posted by kooka_lives on February 14, 2005 at 4:10 PM | link to this | reply

Now that is funny

"defining a concept to suit your argument is a blatant lack of disrespect for the English language."

First off that is just said that you are trying to keep this going in such away.

Second you have time and time again done just that to defend your views. Just look at you play with the word 'like'. Stop being hypocritical. That has got ot be about the most annoying part of this.
You really do not believe your farts stink do you.

I am starting to get irritated because now I have to waste all my blogging time on you right now. So I am sorry if any of my posts today have typos in them. I do not have time to proof read them because I have to reply to someone's juvenile attempts at discrediting me.

posted by kooka_lives on February 14, 2005 at 4:00 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

I admitted I made typos. At what point have I ever not admitted to my mistakes. I am very much saying they are my mistakes. My problem is how you are using the fact that I made mistakes. If you had shown one ounce of integrity and just mentioned that I made a few typos and might wish to fix the piece up, you know, be constructive about it, there would have been no problem. Instead you use me making typos as a way to discredit me and make me look bad. You are very much focusing on the typos as a reason people should not read my stuff.

posted by kooka_lives on February 14, 2005 at 3:56 PM | link to this | reply

I wrote:  "defining a concept to suit your argument is a latent lack of disrespect for the English language."  "latent" should read "blatent."  Sorry for the error.

(See how that's done, Kooka?  Taking responsibility for an error without excuse or mudslinging?  See how important that one miniscule typo can drastically change the meaning of my comment?  EVERY error is important to a writer true to himself/herself.)

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 10:25 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka: 

You claim that you have no choice in being a writer.  Yet here you are, choosing every day to post without even bothering to AT THE VERY LEAST run spell check.  Being a writer is as much A CRAFT as it is a creative outlet which requires a level of discipline.  You admit that you rush, don't proofread, post between activities at work, and blame these things for your mistakes, not your lack of discipline or attention to detail.  Your lack of disrespect for the craft of writing by not disciplining yourself in the craft is not being true to yourself as a writer.

The errors deteriorate your point only so far, though.  You choose to make claims without doing anything to back them up in the body of your work, then later find yourself backpedaling and slipping into a fallacy when what you've written is called into question.  You then display no intention of changing or growing in your craft, shoving the responsibility of your bad writing on your readers by telling them it's up to them to figure out what you mean.  Not taking responsibility for what you write is an example of being untrue to yourself as a writer.

You make the statement in defense of your post, "If you wish to make it imposed, then it is fully self imposed. Kind of like how my favorite color is green, yet I really had no choice over what my favorite color is."  Isn't something that's self-imposed just another way of saying a chosen path, ergo a choice?  You've imposed a favorite color upon yourself?  Isn't that a choice?  Selectively defining a concept to suit your argument is a latent lack of disrespect for the English language, another sign that you're not being true to yourself as a writer. 

If you're a writer, ALL meanings of words are relavent, and must be considered BEFORE choosing.  Once it's on paper, the reader can take it any way they read it.  Yet it was only after I presented the definition that you pointed out specifically what meaning of the word "like" you actually meant when you used it to illustrate your circular logic regarding favorite colors.  Either this is a backpedal or you did not bother to choose your words carefully.  If you don't attempt to write as clearly as possible, choosing the words that say precisely what you mean, you are not being true to yourself as a writer.

If you claim to be true to yourself as a writer, you would take great pains to minimize any lack of understanding on your reader's part, and each article will be closer and closer to an ideal if for nothing else but respect for the craft of writing you "have to do," you instead make excuses, rationalize and backpedal, then have the nerve to claim that it's up to the reader to figure out what you are really trying to say.  Your actions do not match the words you write, therefore one can easily conclude that you are not being true to yourself as a writer.

I can only think of one question at this point:  if you're not being true to yourself as a writer like you claim, why should I believe your claim that you're being true to yourself about what you believe?

It's you that discredits yourself.  All I did was point it out to you.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 10:19 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka Lives, it is difficult to concentrate on concepts on their merits when mistakes in the writing get in the way. As writers we should strive to remove all obstacles to understanding.

"As for you beliefs of choice, you are wrong. You do not have a true choice."

I have a mind and I make my choices and am thinking about some of these choices every day. Your view comes across as inflexible and so it is probably difficult for you to appreciate that others are true to themselves when they re-evaluate their beliefs every day. Every day we choose to continue with our past beliefs or to change. You suggest that our surroundings and circumstances determine our beliefs - of course that has an impact but it also leaves us open to change as well.

posted by Azur on February 13, 2005 at 9:16 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

I never said I did not make typos or that I ma justified in making typos. I do not like making typos at all and I do believe that I need to improve there. All of this I have said several times throughout this load of BS of yours. You are sitting here on a high horse trying to judge me and discredit me. You are making it sound as though you are so very perfect in your writing and so should be listened to above me.

Okay, I have got to take a break and help my boys to bed. I have to make them a priority over blogging you see. I know you will keep on trying to discredit me and keep as far away from the true subject of the post as possible in you attempts to make me look bad and convince my readers I not worth reading. I at least know my readers ar smart enough to see the context of the post being more important than few minor typos. They are more concerned with ideas and concepts and so will look to that before they take in consideration your typo issue.

I obviously give my readers much more credit than you do.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 8:22 PM | link to this | reply

And Gheeghee

Your motivation is very clear here. I need assume nothing.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 8:16 PM | link to this | reply

Yes, it comes standard with Windows Office 2000.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 8:16 PM | link to this | reply

Can you really say you do not post anything at all with typos in it?" This is called Begging the question:

"Begging the question. Begging the question means assuming a claim that is in question. This evades the question of whether or not the claim is true. One of the most common ways to beg the question is to attack the character of an opponent rather than presenting evidence for a claim: Name calling."

(from "Fallacies in Arguments, or How Arguments Go Wrong")

See here, the claim is "I write in an error free manner." Instead of taking that back and saying, "OK, you got me," you instead attack.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 8:16 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

You would have ahd to have an amazingly strange spell check that said 'can not' should be 'cannot', 'ma' (Which is a word) should be 'am', 'that' should be 'there', 'which' should be 'that'. Those are grammatical issues, not spelling and much of it is not rules be recommendations. 'Can not' is every bit as acceptable in use as 'cannot' after all.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 8:15 PM | link to this | reply

gheeghee

No my statement was very clear if you remembered what you had written.

I said "Remember you made a mistake in claiming that a spell check would catch those typos."

There is only one time in the whole of this comments section ("PS, Kooka: If you run spell check, it will remove the errors that I highlighted for you") where you said such a thing and it was very clear as to where you were directing your comment to. My reply was very clearly directed at that since I had explained that I had run that very same post through a spell check.

Either you had no clue what you were saying or once more you were trying to just discredit me over addressing the real issue.

If there is any confusing it is because you seem to not be paying attention at all to what you have said. Looking through what has been said I have been very clear as to what I was talking about, unless you are having some kind of conversation in your head that I am not part of.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 8:11 PM | link to this | reply

"Gheeghee is very much trying to use the fact that I make typos as a reason to discredit me and convince others that I am not worth listening to." your assuming my motivation is duely noted.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 8:00 PM | link to this | reply

"Are you saying you have no idea what comments you have left me and what those comments were talking about?"  Perhaps you need me to explain the questions I asked you further, as this is not what I was saying:

Are you talking about typos in the Bible in this comment? (I asked this question because your statement was unclear, and I'm not a mind reader.)  In other words, are you saying in said comment that I stated or indicated that spell check would catch the typos in the Bible? (I asked this qualifier question to let you know specifically what information you were unable to get across in your writing)  If so, in which comment or post did I state this fact? (I asked this question only if the answer to both the first question and it's qualifier was "yes.")

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 7:58 PM | link to this | reply

MayB

I agree with you about typos and I do not leave them in on purpose. When I have the time I do proof my stuff, but even then I will miss a few. I am not a very good editor at all. I am aware of this and know that it is a skill I need to work on. The point however is that one should not be judge as much by the mistakes of the writing as the concept of what is written. Gheeghee is very much trying to use the fact that I make typos as a reason to discredit me and convince others that I am not worth listening to.

As for you beliefs of choice, you are wrong. You do not have a true choice. Though you are right that family and other situations can influence how you end up believing, at no point does person who has strong , true beliefs choose those beliefs. If you are true to who you are those beliefs will just be what is right for you and what fits your life best. I have yet to find a single person who can claim to truly have chosen their beliefs. They believe as they do because they believe as they do. At no point did they choose to believe that way. It is just what made the most sense to them and fit who they were. Beliefs more or less just happens.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 7:54 PM | link to this | reply

How do you think I found those errors? SPELL CHECK.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 7:49 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

Are you saying you have no idea what comments you have left me and what those comments were talking about?

You said "PS, Kooka: If you run spell check, it will remove the errors that I highlighted for you."

That was the comment I was talking about.

And I love it that once more you are trying to just discredit me. You went and found quote that you are now using to try and claim that I must not be a good writer. It once more has nothing to do with the subject matter and everything to do with trivial things that you wish to bring up in order to get people to not trust my way of thinking. You do not wish for one moment to try and really debate the subject of the post. You are so busy dancing around the issue in a juvenile attempt to make me look bad.

I have countered you every time you have talked about the idea and now you seem to not be able to go anywhere with it. yet instead of having the integrity to either conceded or present a new counter point, you are focusing on discrediting the writing and ignoring the idea. Are you waiting for a chance to talk to your religious leader maybe? Or maybe surf around the internet to find someone else's ideas so that you can try to counter with that? If you wish to disprove my ideas then focus on the idea and not on the trivial aspects of my writing. As I have said, even the greatest writers miss typos. I ma far from being a great writer right now, I will admit that. And unlike you I am willing to admit that my farts stink. I am working on bettering myself as a writer and if I felt you were being constructive in your comments I would be respectful. You have how ever made it clear that you are not pointing out my typos to be helpful, but to discredit. Can you really say you do not post anything at all with typos in it? I have news for you, your farts most likely do stink, no matter how much you try to deny it.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 7:47 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

I have already many times shown that my thoughts are error free. You do not see this because you wish to find all the errors you can, even the smallest ones that are not truly part of the throughout itself. Look back on your comments here. You really have not once addressed the subject of the post, btu instead have looked for the most trivial of things to use to try and discredit me. You have not proven my thoughts to be flawed at all, just my writing.

I do believe that all my readers are important (Please read some of my other blogs where I have addressed them directly and apologized for times when I ma unable to reply to all of their comments and when I have apologized for my habit of leaving in typos.), just not as important as other aspects of my life. When I have time to really work on a post I have few is any typos. In general however I can not afford to make proof reading my posts a priority in my life. I have a family that has to come first. I have friends and responsibilities that are more important. Blogit is something that I do for enjoyment and so it can not be anything I take too seriously if it might get in the way of doing truly important things. That means that if I am blogging when other more important things come up I will post a unedited post, and I have thrown up some really poorly edited pieces when all I had time for was the write the thing and post it. I know very much what my priorities in life need to be.

If I could make a real living of of Blog it you would see a drastic change in the quality of my work here. But since it is not a career and most months barely pays for itself, I can not consider it as important as you seem to think I should.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 7:36 PM | link to this | reply

Typos are very distracting. You can choose to read back over material and to use a dictionary. Spell-checks are helpful but not to be relied upon. You can choose your beliefs although strong influences from family and community may make it difficult to see that.

posted by Azur on February 13, 2005 at 6:54 PM | link to this | reply

dial quick, Kooka.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 6:37 PM | link to this | reply

"Remember you made a mistake in claiming that a spell check would catch those typos." "those typos?"  Are you talking about typos in the Bible in this comment?  In other words, are you saying in said comment that I stated or indicated that spell check would catch the typos in the Bible?  If so, in which comment or post did I state this fact?

"If readers find typos in your writing, they are likely to think that you are a careless person, according to a recent Writing911.com web poll. Nearly half of all respondents, or 46% selected “careless” as their top choice, followed by “uneducated” at 24% and someone who “works too fast” at 17%. More than 100 people voted in the poll."  (from Writing911.com's writing tips, May, 2004 issue, http://www.writing911.com/newsarchive/05-04.htm)

"Good writers go back over their work to find and correct those mistakes before their readers see them." (from Writing911.com's writing tips, May, 2004 issue, http://www.writing911.com/newsarchive/05-04.htm)

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 6:36 PM | link to this | reply

"I do not have time to fully proof read before I post...Blogit is not worth that much of my time." Excuses, excuses. If you are such a dedicated writer, EVERY reader you have should be important.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 5:45 PM | link to this | reply

"My thoughts are error free."  This fact remains to be seen.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 5:43 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

No, you do not always have a choice. It is ego and ignorance for someone to believe that. I do not believe you are that niave.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 5:05 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

My five year old's favorite color is red. He likes it, but he did not choose it. He has no idea why he likes it, but he just knows he does.
Also, the definition you picked is not the accurate one for the use of 'like' there. You are trying to pick and choose here in order to make what you desire to be the definition be the one that fits what you wish to prove.
The fact is this is the definition that fits with the way I used the word 'like'.

2 a : to feel attraction toward or take pleasure in :

You are just trying to say that the one meaning that you wish to focus on (Which is clearly a meaning that does not fit here) is the one that should be used. That is lying not only to everyone else, but to yourself as well. Read the examples under the meanings and you will see that you are very far off by trying to claim that was the meaning I was using there.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 5:04 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

My thoughts are error free. Typos are error, but not to the thoughts. The thoughts are clear if one wishes to see past the minor mistakes that all beings make, unless of course you are perfect and your farts do not smell. What you are picking at are not part of the greater picture. You are trying to find the small, meaningless flaws that most over look. You are seeking those flaws because all you can do is attempt to discredit me instead of facing the ideas I very accurately and flawlessly express. Otherwise you would not need to point out any little things that you feel might make someone doubt what I say.

I do not have time to fully proof read before I post. I skim through it and try to catch what I can, but there are always mistakes made, since unlike you I must not be perfect. I know the ideas do not contain errors because I am aware of what I am saying. The typos are not from my thought, but from the simple factor that mistakes are made. I make very few all in all really. If I gave up my life and spent time proof reading, then I might be able to catch more, but Blogit is not worth that much of my time.

I never said you should be responsible for my mistakes, just intelligent enough to be able to correct it in your mind. Instead of having to be told what a typos really means, you should have enough common sense and ability to think for yourself that small typos are meaningless. But if you truly lack the ability to think for yourself and be abel to mentally correct any such minor and unimportant mistakes, then I would highly recommend reading nothing at all, since even those who try hard to not make such mistakes very often do. After all it is very well documented that there have been a number of Bibles (And these were suppose to be written with God's guidance even) which have had typos in them. Man in general no matter how had he tried makes mistakes. It is pure arrogance to claim otherwise and to try to point out such insignificant mistakes in any kind of attempt to discredit a person.

Remember you made a mistake in claiming that a spell check would catch those typos. Most of my posts if I wrote them at work end up going through two different spell checks and there are typos that get through the cracks. In this case I think I wrote this at home, so it went through only one spell checker which did not catch them obviously.

Be a bigger person and look to the ideas if you wish to debate me and not the meaningless typos.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 4:56 PM | link to this | reply

YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 4:42 PM | link to this | reply

"I know my favorite color is green and I never chose it.  I just have always liked green."

Let's take a look at the word "like," shall we?

Main Entry: 1like Pronunciation: 'lIk Function: verb Inflected Form(s): liked; lik·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lIcian; akin to Old English gelIc alike transitive senses 1 chiefly dialect : to be suitable or agreeable to <I like onions but they don't like me> 2 a : to feel attraction toward or take pleasure in : ENJOY <likes baseball> b : to feel toward : REGARD <how would you like a change> 3 : to wish to have : WANT <would like a drink> 4 : to do well in <this plant likes dry soil> <my car does not like cold weather> intransitive senses 1 dialect : APPROVE 2 : to feel inclined : CHOOSE, PREFER <leave any time you like>

(definition from www.m-w.com)

"to feel inclined: CHOOSE (HMMM!), PREFER."  In light of this definition, your statement contradicts itself.  Is a contradiction like this an error?

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 4:32 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka, is "I present my thoughts in a very logical and error free manner" not your own comment? 

Are typos errors?  Are misspellings errors?  Are "grammatical errors" errors (since the word "error" is in the name of this particular type of error, this answer should be obvious)?   Did you make at least one of these in your post? 

Is your statement therefore true or false?  If your earlier statement was true, why did you feel the need to backpedal and further explain yourself?  Why didn't you state what you REALLY meant regarding your position on being error free to begin with?

" I can not type as fast as I think and if I write at work the automatic spell check often corrects words for me the wrong way."  Are you saying here that you don't proofread before you post and depend on something other than you to think for you?  If your answer is that you in fact do not proofread, how do you know that you haven't made other errors in your writing?

"Just learn to be intelligent enough to figure out small typos."  Why should I be responsible for your mistakes?  You're the one that made them.

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 4:19 PM | link to this | reply

Experience

I very much believe in self.  I believe in self above all things except family and friends, which I put as being equal to self.

I have seen no proof at all the God created a thing.  I have seen no proof at all that there is a God.

Good and evil are manmade concepts.  Nature holds no good or evil in it.  Being aware is the only way for good or evil to be.

Such things are faith related.

The comment itself really did not fit with the idea of this post.  I am unclear if you even read the post.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 4:15 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

I am guessing you just are not grasping this whole thing.

You do not have a choice at all.  There choices are there, but you are not in control of them. Who you are and how you think are going to work without you being aware of it to choose which beliefs work best for you ans which ones you will follow.  No one sits back and goes through all the religions and looks at the pros and cons of the beliefs and decides which one has the mathmatical best beliefs. 

I have pointed out several expamples of this logic.

Do you a have favorite color?  I would guess you do since most people do. Although you have tried to make it very clear that such resoning is wrong and that I should not look at simple logic (Athough I have yet to be proven wrong when I have done so), but I shall still go with such logic here.

Did you sit back and look at all the colors that wrere out there and say 'I think I shall go with (Whatever color) as my favorite? No! unless of course you wish to lie to me here.  There is no one who has gone and looked through all the colors and did research and really got down to which color works best as their favorite.  They jsut had one and there was never a true chocei involved.

I know my favorite color is green and I never chose it.  I just have always liked green.

Now favortie colors do sometimes change as the people change, but they still are not choosing, even though there is a choice.

Same with religion.  There are choices and people's beliefs do change as they grow and see the world diffrently and are presented with different ideas.  But they still at no point really choose a thing.  They have no choice but to follow the path that fits them best.

I never chose to not believe in God.  Who I am and the way I view the world choose for me.  I never put any thought into untill I realized I did not believe.  I then went through and looked at all the information and saw the full picture of why I did not believe. It had just never made sense to me at all and until I became aware of my beliefs I was unaware that it did not make sense to me.

The only area where there is anything like a choice that can be made is when a person chooses what information to believe in.  But this comes after the choice of thier beliefs.  Once someone has figured out their beliefs they will then choose to not litsen to information that does not agree with thier beliefs. That is about the most active a choice they make, and even that they have little control over, as you and others have very clearly shown by not litsening.

There is no level at which anyone makes as true choice about their beliefs. The only poeple who woudl claim such are those who live in denial and wish to cast the illusion of choice on themselves when they know they have none.  This also can be used to try and say that others are just misguided and can choose to change their beliefs.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 4:10 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

WOW!!!

Talk about being as petty as possible If all you are going off of is my typos, then you have nothing at all. Your have just shown very clearly that you care not about proving me wrong but completely about discrediting me. The thoughts themselves are error free. If they were not, then you would not have to be so petty and work so hard to find ways to discredit me. Instead you would be able to debate me and show the true errors of my thoughts.

I make typos. I admit it. I am a horrible editor of my own stuff.

I really don't care. If all you are doing is trying to discredit me through typos then you are showing just how weak your position is.

For the record I do run through spell checks and those typos are missed. Also, can not is just as valid as cannot. That is really a weak way to try and discredit me. I can not type as fast as I think and if I write at work the automatic spell check often corrects words for me the wrong way.

Just learn to be intelligent enough to figure out small typos. I will read well known published authors and see typos. Either the author made the typo or typist did, but professionals do make typos and since I am being paid nothing close to a professional wage for my wiring here, I am not too concerned with my typos. I am much harder on myself when it comes to pieces that I am trying to sell.

posted by kooka_lives on February 13, 2005 at 3:00 PM | link to this | reply

yes ghee ghee

we agree

the choice is out there -- that's the point and maybe we are saying the same thing here.

but there are people that simply just believe -- they do not seek the choice -- and in that manner they make a hcoice not to make a choice.

it's sort of a subconscious choice. a choice without choosing.

see?

peoples psychological states can be confusing.

posted by Xeno-x on February 13, 2005 at 12:41 PM | link to this | reply

Belief in God

I believe in the creator of all things. To not believe in God is not to believe in self. God created you. God created everything around you and in you. I don't believein the evil. But their has to be a balance of good and evil for the molding of the soul.

posted by Experience on February 13, 2005 at 8:20 AM | link to this | reply

"But some of us simply do not choose."  To abstain from making a choice is STILL A CHOICE.  YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE. 

posted by Gheeghee on February 13, 2005 at 5:15 AM | link to this | reply

but ghee ghee

you encounter information wherein you do make a choice.

I don't know if you have held your beliefs all your life.

Others have, and they wouldn't believe differently.

They just believe, they haven't even thought of deciding or choosing.

Yes all of us always have choices.

But some of us simply do not choose.

posted by Xeno-x on February 12, 2005 at 2:32 PM | link to this | reply

ghee ghee

okay -- people I've know who believe something, particularly frmo birth, just believe, period. they haven't chosen to believe in the sense that they have checked all the belief systems out and decided on their particular system. They just believe.

This can be seen when a they come up against different belief system. Usually they reject that outright, without conscious choice.

Of course, here is when they do make a choice -- they choose to remain where they are. But is it truly choice? Or is it that the belief system is their paradigm, their environment, and it would be difficult for them to operate outside that paradigm, if not impossible.

But again, maybe they do make a choice even without encountering something with which to compare their beliefe system. They make a choice in that they do not make a choice. They decide not to decide. They simply believe.

posted by Xeno-x on February 12, 2005 at 2:29 PM | link to this | reply

empty:  Are you saying that you don't have a choice what to believe, but you do have a choice whether or not any new information will affect what you believe?  If so, why doesn't deductive reasoning apply here? 

Deductive reasoning:  If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.  If I apply deductive reasoning to your statement, I have a choice over what information I accept, and I can choose whether or not that information affects what I believe, therefore I have a choice regarding what I believe.

YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE.

posted by Gheeghee on February 12, 2005 at 12:40 PM | link to this | reply

As all I've done is ask questions; ask for clarification; ask for more information.  Your assuming my motive is duely noted.

posted by Gheeghee on February 12, 2005 at 11:33 AM | link to this | reply

Okay Gheeghee -- then what the hell is your point?

It seemed to me and apparently others as well that you were just trying to pick a fight with those who do not align with your thinking .

posted by gomedome on February 12, 2005 at 8:12 AM | link to this | reply

ghee ghee

from experiencing the people who have the faith and their expressing of such.

It doesn't take being psychic -- it just takes hearing what people say and being around people of faith and understanding what they feel

again -- you will find that there are people with the Christian faith who believe quite differently from you -- and the believe it strongly -- and I would venture to say that you do not at all believe in what they believe in -- that you believe strongly too and that they could not believe as you believe.

again this is belief -- there is no choice here.

but choice can come into the equation -- when one experiences premises different from what one has believed in. Then one chooses whether or not to continue believing as one has, or to embrace the new premises.

posted by Xeno-x on February 12, 2005 at 8:00 AM | link to this | reply

I know what you mean.  I get hung up on the same thing all the time.  I don't think you can choose to believe or not believe. That seems a lot like closing your eyes and hoping hard enough will work some magic and make it so.  (Closing my eyes: "Brad Pitt will see through these phony Hollywood chicks and move to Utah to be all mine"...I'll just keep repeating that till it happens...ha, ha)

 

posted by DarrkeThoughts on February 12, 2005 at 7:46 AM | link to this | reply

"if you in fact know yourself what that is?"  I absolutely know, thanks for asking, gomedome.

posted by Gheeghee on February 12, 2005 at 12:08 AM | link to this | reply

"...demanding professional accreditation and references for common knowledge you be my guest. It only weakens whatever it is that you are trying to get across..."

It was your point, gomedome. I asked you for clarification. Perhaps YOU should stop assuming motive and just answer the question asked.

If I want to ask a question, I have that right. If you don't want to answer it, that's one thing; biting my head off for asking it is entirely another, and I will take the latter as sign of immaturity and lack of knowledge of your topic. This goes for anyone, not just Kooka and The Gang.

EVERYONE: If something is common knowledge, then you won't have trouble proving it. Making the blanket statement that "everyone knows that," or "it's common knowledge" is an assumption. Remember the little saying about assuming anything?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 11:55 PM | link to this | reply

PS, Kooka:

If you run spell check, it will remove the errors that I highlighted for you.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 11:44 PM | link to this | reply

"If you wish to make it imposed, then it is fully self imposed. Kind of like how my favorite color is green, yet I really had no choice over what my favorite color is." Talk about rationalizing.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 11:41 PM | link to this | reply

"Mostly by the way you present the idea of use having a choice it shows that you believe in the idea that both God and Satan are sitting back somewhere trying to pull us one direction or another and make use believe one way or the other." This is really the best you can do? How disappointing. I expected something a little more insightful from such a creative thinker as yourself.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 11:33 PM | link to this | reply

"I present my thoughts in a very logical and error free manner." 

Gheeghee (She just keeps inspiring me now) made this comment that floored me.

"What, I wonder, could possibly put a person in such a position? You "CAN NOT believe." Lucky for me, I have a choice. I don't take the leap and stop believing in God because I MAKE THE CHOICE TO BELIEVE IN GOD."

This was in response tome trying to get her to understand that I CAN NOT believe in God.

Suddenly I can notcannot help but wonder if her faith if real.

I am a writer. I write not because I choose to, but because if I do not write I am not being true to myself and it is noticeable to those around me. I become irritable and I am just not myself. I have no choice at all. I have to write. I have to be creative. I have to these things because it is who I ma am and I am not true to myself when I go against them.

That is how any true faith should work. You can go and look at all the religions that are out thatthere, but when ti it comes to which one is to be your faith you have no choice. You will find that the religion which that is true to who you are will be the one you follow. You have no choice at all about which one will draw you in and make you feel right. If you faith is true and pure you have never had any choice about that.

I ma am an atheist. It is not at all by choice. I CAN NOT believe in God. It is who I am. To believe for one moment that I had a choice about my beliefs would be to be untrue to those beliefs and cast doubts as to what I believe in. I can not cannot just sit back and say 'Hey, it would be fun to believe in God for the next month and see how that goes.' Pretending to believe in something to make others happy is lying straight out. I hold the idea of truth and integrity as being very high on the qualities I wish to embrace. By that I am unable to pretend to believe in something I CAN NOT believe in.

I do not believe that Gheeghee could take a leap of non-belief. If she can then her faith is no where nowhere near as strong as mine is. In order to have a choice you can not cannot have true faith. Because by having a choice you are saying that you do not really believe that your faith is the absolute correct faith.

I find it strange that so many Christians have such a hard time accepting the idea that people's faith is so strong that they can not cannot change it at will. What does this say about their own strength of fiatfaith? If you believe that faith is a true matter of choice then you are saying much about how you view your own faith and beliefs.

If your fiat is true and your beliefs are strong, then you have no choice about what you believe.

I know my beliefs and are solid and my faith is as strong as it can be. I have no choice. I CAN NOT believe in God.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 11:30 PM | link to this | reply

gheeghee

I know your thoughts because you make it very clear just how you think. Mostly by the way you present the idea of use having a choice it shows that you believe in the idea that both God and Satan are sitting back somewhere trying to pull us one direction or another and make use believe one way or the other. One need not be able to read minds to see such truths.

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 4:29 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

I present my thoughts in a very logical and error free manner. You are just to determined that since I disagree with your views and beliefs that I must be fully wrong and have nothing at all to back up what I claim. However, I have yet to see you provide one little bit of proof to show that what I state here is wrong. All you do is try to point out that I must not know what I am talking about.
You sit and make claims with no fact to back them up while trying to discredit me for doing the same. You can not defend your views by trying to point out irrelevant questions that draw people away from the point of the post. If you wish to prove me wrong, then provide proof that I am wrong. Do not attempt to discredit my conclusions because that does not prove me wrong at all, that just proves that you are petty.

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 4:26 PM | link to this | reply

e_h_p

No, people do not always have a choice. As I have mentioned who really chooses their favorite color? it is just what they like, what is right for them. They do not look through the colors and just pick the one they think should be their favorite. No, they just know. It is not something you really have control over. faith is very much like that. If it is a strong, true faith you have no control over your beliefs in it.

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 4:19 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

If you wish to make it imposed, then it is fully self imposed. Kind of like how my favorite color is green, yet I really had no choice over what my favorite color is. It is just what is right for me. A favorite color is a choice, but you really do not choose it because. I never choose to be an atheist, it was just what I am.
Do I have a choice over what color the grass is or what song a bird signs? Yet those things are not really imposed upon me. They just are the way they are. Grass does not choose to be the color it is after all yet one can not really say the something imposed grass to be green.

No, you never asked the question before here. If you really believe you did please point out where. Unless it was in your own posts. I am positive I have never seen you ask it here in my comments.

Okay, faith and trust are synonyms. Your point? I've never claimed otherwise.

I know I have no choice. I know I CAN NOT believe in God. Funny thing is you have now claimed that you might be able to not believe in God. That shows much about just how strong your faith is then. If you really think it is possible for you to just up and stop believing, then I can very honestly say that I have a much stronger faith in my beliefs than you have in yours.

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 4:14 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee -- I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

My original comment was directed at Kooka and the fact I see how he arrived at his premise. If you want to play childish games demanding professional accreditation and references for common knowledge you be my guest. It only weakens whatever it is that you are trying to get across, if you in fact know yourself what that is?    

posted by gomedome on February 11, 2005 at 2:13 PM | link to this | reply

"I know you seem to wish..."  How exactly do you know this, Kooka?  I've not explained anthing about my train of thought here, or really anywhere in these blogs.  Are you psychic?  How do you know what my motivation is?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 1:53 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka:  You state this:  "I am a writer."  Don't you think that a writer should do his or her very best to promote the profession to which they so vehemently cling?  Doesn't a writer present his or her thoughts in a logical, clear, ERROR FREE manner?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 1:49 PM | link to this | reply

empty:  your comment regarding my mentality question elaborated on the concept, which as I said is not what I was looking for, but thanks for trying.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 1:39 PM | link to this | reply

empty:

you state this:  "I don't think people "choose" to have faith, myself; they just do.  They believe because they believe. That's it."  What evidence do you have of this statement?  In other words, empty, how do you know what other people think/feel?  Are you psychic?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 1:34 PM | link to this | reply

Ghee Ghee

I can understand perfectly well.

"Some are able by virtue of the way their mentality is constructed to turn off the need for further investigation while others by the same virtue are in a perpetual quest for answers."

That means that some settle for the answers given them and others are not content with those, but seek either to validate the old answers or to find new ones that are more valid.

posted by Xeno-x on February 11, 2005 at 1:30 PM | link to this | reply

choice or choosing

you always have a choice
but it depends upon what you choose
I don't think people "choose" to have faith, myself; they just do.
They believe because they believe. That's it.
We can take any religious system, for example.
You believe what you believe.
But others believe too.
People usually believe what they grow up being taught, and they believe that what they are taught is absolute truth; it doesn't matter what religion or denomination.
And you can believe that they are as wrong as can be and that you are as right as can be, but they believe the same of you.
They do not choose to believe; they just do.
If you want to continue this further, then we will have to into specifics, such as religions and denominations.
You believe them to be as wrong as can be but they believe them to be as valid and true as can be and they will not be changed.
Maybe there is where choice comes in -- people choose to continue believing -- because they've always believed that way.

posted by Xeno-x on February 11, 2005 at 1:27 PM | link to this | reply

gomedome:

"...differently..." and a more detailed explaination of what differently means in the context of your original statement?  No evidence that what you say is accurate?  No supporting authors?  Psychologists?  Neurologists?  Your original statement implied that you had this information.  Are you a Psychologist that studied the inner workings of the human mind yourself to come up with this conclusion?

One other question:  Exactly how does your original comment about the inner workings of the human mind lead you to agree with the statements Kooka made in his posts?  Was your statement about our minds working so differently intended to support Kooka's claim?  If so, how?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 1:22 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee -- it really is self explanatory unless you are assuming a

a derogatory implication in the use of the word "mentality", when there is none implied. When you ask: "Specifically, how exactly are people's mentalities constructed?" ...differently... is the first answer that comes to mind. Some have purely analytical and calculating minds while others allow their thoughts and actions to be motivated entirely by emotion or instinct. The spectrum of human intelligence is too broad and diverse to break into categories to determine how an individual will react to the acceptance of any set of ideals, dogma or beliefs. Nor does an attempt to do this allow for societal or environmental influences that any given individual may be subjected to over their lifetime.  

posted by gomedome on February 11, 2005 at 12:13 PM | link to this | reply

gomedome:

you commented: "Some are able by virtue of the way their mentality is constructed to turn off the need for further investigation while others by the same virtue are in a perpetual quest for answers."  What exactly does this mean?  Specifically, how exactly are people's mentalities constructed?  You know, biologically?  Psychologically?  (note:  further explaining "the need for further investigation" and "a perpetual quest for answers" does not answer my question..)

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 10:54 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives -- I tend to agree with what you have said in this posting

many people just do not understand that there are many types of minds to be found amongst any given group of people. Some are able to accept a faith as it is presented to them, without question, without condition, while many are not capable of this. The mindsets of some will just not allow this to happen. If there is any choice at all in a person being able to determine what they are capable of believing it is in the choice of whether or not to question further. Some are able by virtue of the way their mentality is constructed to turn off the need for further investigation while others by the same virtue are in a perpetual quest for answers. It is also safe to say that there are a whole lot of people in between these two extremes.   

posted by gomedome on February 11, 2005 at 10:41 AM | link to this | reply

"...because it will be the faith that fits you best."  hmmm.  By this statement, are you saying that you choose the faith that works for you?  Does this mean that you are saying that you have no choice because of the choice you made?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 9:55 AM | link to this | reply

If you CAN NOT believe, you don't have a choice, therefore it's imposed.  Why do you think you have no choice?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 9:18 AM | link to this | reply

Yes I did, as faith and trust are synonyms. 

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 9:16 AM | link to this | reply

Anything you have no choice over IS imposed.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 9:15 AM | link to this | reply

I never said It was imposed.

But it is something you have no choice over. Faith is who you are if it is a true faith.

"What, I ask again, could possibly force a person to NOT trust God against their own will?"

First off, you have never asked that before, so it really makes no sense to say 'again' there.

It is not against one's will to find one's faith. If your faith is true then you are following your will, but you have no choice in the matter because if you are following a faith that for you is a true faith then you have no choice because it will be the faith that fits you best.

I know you seem to wish for there to be all these higher powers at play trying to force you one way or the other, bur in the end it comes down to being true to yourself. When a person is being true to themselves they have no choice in what they believe in.

When I am ture to who I am it comes down to the simple fact that I CAN NOT believe in God.

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 9:08 AM | link to this | reply

"faith is so strong that they can not change it at will." 

 

Let's look at the word faith, shall we? 

 

Main Entry: ¹faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
(from www.m-w.com)

 

Faith is not something imposed on you, but an act of will, an exercise of choice.  Faith, synonymous with belief, also indicates placing trust in something.  What, I ask again, could possibly force a person to NOT trust God against their own will?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 8:58 AM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

I am so very sorry your beliefs are so weak and your faith is not pure.
Although that does help to explain why you keep on making points that just help to show the general weakness of the Bible and the ideas of God.
My beliefs are strong and my faith is pure, so I have no choice at all.
I CAN NOT believe in God.

Do you really think that if you wished to you could say "For the next month I will not believe in God and see how that goes for me," ? DO you really think that if you tried you could go nay amount of time at all without believing in God? If you can, then your faith is not strong at all.

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 8:57 AM | link to this | reply

YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 8:38 AM | link to this | reply