How do you know free will doesn't affect religious choice in a subconscious way? You are not aware of the inner workings of your subconscious by default.
/sʌbˈkɒnʃəs/ Show Spelled[suhb-kon-shuhs] Show IPA
1.existing or operating in the mind beneath or beyond consciousness: the subconscious self. Compare preconscious, unconscious.
2.imperfectly or not wholly conscious: subconscious motivations.
3.the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unreportable mental activities.
Free will implies that you make a conscious choice. I said before that choice is Conscious selection of options. Therefore while the subconscious may or may not effect the religion (we have no proof of either) it does not fall within the purview of choice
Now for my counter question, how do you know the subconscious does effect it?
Except you have no control over the fact that you are gay are black, those are biological imperatives. Religion isn't. You can change religions, you can't change the fact that you're black or gay. There also is no good argument on how being black is dangerous...And I don't think that people who are against homosexuality should be treated with the same vehemence as racists although I don't think gays should be discriminated against, but that's another topic.
Religion isnt a biological imperative? yes I agree. I said before that beliefs were fluid. What this means is a person can develop different conclusions to the world around us and thus beliefs can change. That doesnt change the fact that a changing conclusion and thus belief isnt a choice. Pretty sure I discussed this earlier, so take a look at my previous examples again
That's not really what we're doing, but even if it was, does it matter? I only need to find one instance that illustrates the difference between the two to show that having a religious belief is clearly different than being born a certain race, being homosexual, or being born a certain gender.
Yes it does matter, because it falls under the goalkeeper fallacy as well as the distraction fallacy. Think about it for a moment. You say I have to prove that choice isnt involved, I did that. Then you say that I have to prove that control isnt involved. I did that. You continue to move the goal back everytime I score which puts me on a wild goose chase for an argument that will work but doesnt exist
I guess it's just a coincidence that the vast majority of believers were raised to believe the religion that they do by their caregivers... That fits the definition of brainwashing.
Why dont you go around the world and ask every human being on the planet whether they actually believe their religion? Now Im not really going to ask you to do that as its just as impossible a task as some of the ones you've set before me.
You're also kind of ruining your own argument by admitting that you chose the catholic church because you liked their message of helping others. By the way, you believe that's their message, other people took something else entirely from it. You're really just proving my point.Yes. All the time I feel an inclination to believe something which I deny, because I'm aware of the faults that inclination carries. For example, I often see coincidences that I feel an urge to link together into something more meaningful, but I realize that it's really just an example of confirmation bias, so I reject that inclination.Suddenly? No. But you can certainly do some soul searching and change your mind if you like.I could think about them, the faults I've seen, and consider them. That might lead to me changing my opinion. It probably won't for me, but is it possible? Yes. I'm choosing to think about them.You have every last bit of control over whether or not you consider these things. Are you familiar with the term delusion? It's when you refuse to consider evidence to the contrary in order to protect a belief. I feel this is a particularly poignant example.See above on the delusion thing.So what you're saying is that you choose to ignore certain things in the bible and have developed your own version of the Catholic faith that doesn't believe in a literal interpretation... Are you seeing choice yet?All you really had to say is that you don't believe in the entire bible.Or maybe you're frustrated because you're wrong and you don't like people pointing out errors in your logic. I'm not saying that's the case, either of us could be wrong, but isn't that a potential explanation?
This might get easier to understand if I define control for you, so here you go
/kənˈtroʊl/ Show Spelled [kuhn-trohl] Show IPA verb, -trolled, -trol·ling, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
2.to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions.
3.to test or verify (a scientific experiment) by a parallel experiment or other standard of comparison.
4.to eliminate or prevent the flourishing or spread of: to control a forest fire.
5.Obsolete . to check or regulate (transactions), originally by means of a duplicate register.
6.the act or power of controlling; regulation; domination or command: Who's in control here?
7.the situation of being under the regulation, domination, or command of another: The car is out of control.
8.check or restraint: Her anger is under control.
9.a legal or official means of regulation or restraint: to institute wage and price controls.
10.a standard of comparison in scientific experimentation.
11.a person who acts as a check; controller.
12.a device for regulating and guiding a machine, as a motor or airplane.
13.controls, a coordinated arrangement of such devices.
14.prevention of the flourishing or spread of something undesirable: rodent control.
15.Baseball . the ability of a pitcher to throw the ball into the strike zone consistently: The rookie pitcher has great power but no control.
16.Philately . any device printed on a postage or revenue stamp to authenticate it as a government issue or to identify it for bookkeeping purposes.
17.a spiritual agency believed to assist a medium at a séance.
18.the supervisor to whom an espionage agent reports when in the field.
Problem with your answers is, you continue to put choice in the phrase when Ive demonstrated that there is no choice in it. Which shows me that 1) you arent considering that there isnt a choice, thus not trying to see my side and 2) You really cant force yourself to accept other options thus proving my point that there is no control over a persons beliefs. Now take a look again, think about it, you dont get a choice of what you believe and now you have to force yourself to believe something else. You dont get to soul search, you dont get to consider anything else, you have to force yourself, to command yourself, to dominate yourself to change your beliefs without consideration. That is what Im asking you to do, now can you?
Or maybe you're frustrated because you're wrong and you don't like people pointing out errors in your logic. I'm not saying that's the case, either of us could be wrong, but isn't that a potential explanation?
And if every time someone felt frustrated (which could be motivated by that) it encourages lashing out emotionally when you're losing an argument (not that I'm saying you are).
What I find frustrating is the religion bashing and theocism that goes on around here. That is born from the idea that religion is a choice when its not. The constant goalchanging and stonewalling as I try to prove how wrong that point of view is continues to frustrate me.