Atheism

[AnlytcPhil]

So what if we do have the original Church founded by Christ, to whom He guaranteed protection and guidance?<<

Are you seriously asking that?

Why not?

The “so what” is that, if we are that Church, then you should be a part of it because that is the Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded…<<

Other churches consider themselves part of that church too. I’ve heard Protestants say Martin Luther never left the church founded by Jesus Christ. They claim that the Catholics were the ones who left it and falsely claimed to still be the Church of Christ. In the Methodist church we recite the Apostle’s creed and we say “the Holy Catholic Church”. Methodists think they’re part of the real Catholic Church too.

Or do you not think that’s that big of a deal?<<

I don’t see why it is. Why do you think other churches aren’t just as good as yours?

As to your comments on the Eucharistic miracles, we HAVE had scientists test it… that’s literally what I was saying…<<

Are you sure? And it never made the news?

Beyond that, you casual dismissal of those things betrays the fact that, rather than being someone interested in learning, you are little more than an obstinate child looking for a place to grandstand.<<

No I really want to know why you believe (or believe that you believe) as you do.

you made stupid little quips comparing the actual, physical presence of our Lord and Savior in the Eucharist to a grilled cheese sandwich.<<

Didn’t you hear about that sandwich? It was on the news everywhere. How did you miss it? I posted a link to it. Didn’t you read it? Some Catholics must have believed it really was the Virgin Mary in the cheese sandwich. BTW, it was the Virgin Mary in the sandwich, not Jesus. I did not make “stupid little quips” about it. It’s rather bizarre but it’s just like what was on the links you posted.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

this may not help, but our belief in eternal life<<

I’d love to believe in a way to live on in bliss after I die.

evidence that satisfies one person may not affect another person at all.<<

What evidence are you speaking of?

for me, there is overwhelming evidence that reality makes sense.<<

Of course reality makes sense.

i have never encountered any evidence to support the idea that reality came from nothing.<<

I can’t imagine anything for “reality came from nothing” to mean. That’s because I only learned to use the words “came from” from cases of “X came from Y” when X and Y were both something. Just because you can substitute “something” for “X” and “nothing” for Y doesn’t cause “something came from nothing” to make sense.

There I go talking about how we learn words again. You always say that’s incoherent.

the rest of my RC beliefs are equally supported by the facts and right reason.<<

But you have to start out believing that row of letters “God” refers to something without any reason to believe it, other than you want something to exist for it to stand for, so you can beat death.

Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus fulfilled the promises God made to the Chosen People. Jesus raised others from the dead. Jesus taught us the meaning and laws of the kingdom of God which culminates in eternal life with Perfect Being. etc. etc. etc.<<

I know the Bible says this.

i get that phil cannot understand any of this.<<

Sure I can. I can imagine Jesus raising others from the dead. It’s just the row of letters “God” that I can’t imagine anything for it to refer to. The words you put with it don’t cause any thought to be conjured up in my head.

most likely his/her incomprehension is related to his/her not having the same information and experiences i have and had i use to support my conclusion.<<

Tell me about your experiences. What happened?

so long as phil denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,<<

Why do you think ‘neither believing nor disbelieving something’ is ‘denying’ it? I don’t believe or disbelieve that there is life on Jupiter’s moon Europa, but I sure don’t deny it.

he/she will never be able to converse with me on an equal level.<<

Oho! A superiority complex? Chip on your shoulder?

i get that. i am ok with that. my duty to phil is to pray that he receives the gift of faith.<<

Well thank you. I know you mean well.

i see nothing in his/her writings that indicate he/she wants to learn what i know and believe.<<

Of course I’d love to believe that I could live forever in bliss. Who wouldn’t?

instead i perceive from him/her a desire to promote his/her understanding of reality. since i already have a God-given understanding (which makes it the fullest and most accurate understanding possible and available) of reality through my RC faith, i am really not interested in exploring the shallow and inaccurate understanding of someone else who appears to want only to proselytize their own understanding or lack thereof of reality.

if phil wanted to learn about my catholic faith, i would be happy to oblige him/her.<<

I mainly want to know why you believe (or believe that you believe) as you do. Maybe I could believe it too if you told me how you are able to do it.

i find phil’s post to be incoherent.<<

I notice you say that when and only when I talk about how we come to learn words from hearing and reading certain sentences of a certain type. We don’t learn most of our words by looking them up in the dictionary. We learn them by hearing or reading them used in sentences.

If you’d stop and think about the fact that we are not born knowing any words, then you’d see that it’s not incoherent to talk about how we come to learn them. We are all born theological noncognitivists. Every newborn baby is a theological noncognitivist. I just never grew out of that state.

most of what phil provides is entirely conceptual and has nothing to do with all of the physical and historical evidence that the world provides in its history, geology, physics, literature and other sources.<<

Of course I know about those. I have an MS degree.

the jewish people are real. that abraham founded the jewish religion is real. the jewish prophets are real.<<

I don’t doubt that a lot of that is true.

Jesus is real. the twelve apostles are real.<<

Maybe.

the RCC is real.<<

Certainly!

all of this must be taken in to account when trying to understand metaphysical concepts which are primarily intangible.<<

Does that mean metaphysical concepts are ‘ineffable’ and all we can do is read the words, but not imagine anything they could mean, but believe they must mean something anyway, because we want them to mean something and hope that they do? That’s what it sounds like you do. It must be nice to be able to do that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

AP-

This should help:

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text. To begin a quote, you must insert {quote} at the beginning of the passage and {/quote} at the end. The / is the key to ending the quoted section. Here’s what it would look like:

{quote} Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, {/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote} and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put. {/quote} Hope this helps.

Remember, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ] so that the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

It’s just about as easy to put >> before and << after. That’s what I’m used to doing. I usually put the name before it. Sometimes I forget to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s just about as easy to put >> before and << after. That’s what I’m used to doing. I usually put the name before it. Sometimes I forget to.

It gets easier with practice.

So…are there any particular aspects of Atheism/Theism that you’d like to discuss in particular?

I did a bit of research on theological noncognitivism while waiting to hear from you…is this something you are serious about or is that just for fun?

 

[AnlytcPhil]

It gets easier with practice.

I did a bit of research on theological noncognitivism<<

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson;14317110:

It gets easier with practice.

I did a bit of research on theological noncognitivism<<

Then after you’ve studied that a bit, let’s talk about whether words that make no sense to anybody can still be meaningful, and how to know that believing so is not just an illusion.

I’m glad that somebody here might be interested in this matter, instead of filling me full of ineffable “God”-talk and “Spirit”-talk, and angrily accusing me of rejecting something.



Make no sense to “anybody”? Are you suggesting that the concept of “God” or the word itself is of no value to anyone on the planet? Surely not.

Therefore, if several billion people alive today have some basic understanding of what is meant when the word is used, then I think it’s meaningful - even if the particulars must be worked out precisely in specific instances. For example, a Hindu might mean one thing whereas a Catholic means another when they speak of “God”.

I’m willing to bet that if you were on Jeopardy! and the subject of God came up, you’d still manage to respond correctly to a few of the clues.

So, rather than play with words and meanings, let’s make this simple:

As this is a Catholic forum, I have home court advantage. (On an atheist forum, you would.) Now, in this arena, we will use the generally accepted definition(s) of God. That is, God is a sentient being who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, loving, etc.

Now, if you prefer, we can use a definition offered by a world-class philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, who spoke of a Maximally Great Being which may be defined as:

a being that possesses all qualities that are better to have (love, wisdom, omnipotence, omniscience) but no negative properties (imperfection, corruption). Specifically, a MGB must have the property of necessity since being necessary is better than the alternatives.

Now, to my original questions:

1. Did you grow up in a Christian home or in a home where any religion was practiced?
2. Why have you decided that you do not believe a “God” (or Maximally Great Being) exists?

 

[rcwitness]

Oh yes indeed. Theological noncognitivism is very close to what the Jesuits mean when they say “God is ineffable”. What I say is that “God” makes no sense to me because I cannot imagine anything it could refer to. It seems that’s what the Jesuits are saying when they say “God cannot be imagined”. The difference is that the Jesuits are able to go one step farther and say that even though no one is able to imagine anything for “God” to mean, it means something anyway.

I don’t know whether the correct label for me is “theological noncognitist” or “ignostic” or neither. That’s “ignostic” not “agnostic”. I don’t just flat-out say that “God” is meaningless like some TNs say, so that may be the difference between TNs and Ig’s. So maybe I’m an “Ig”. I dunno. They’re both just labels – which are nothing but rows of alphabet letters.

Be sure to read what Roman Catholic Father Ronald Rolheiser (president of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas) says here, and especially about “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” that he speaks about at the end:

ronrolheiser.com/the-ineffability-of-god/#.WD6-HBma_-Y

Then after you’ve studied that a bit, let’s talk about whether words that make no sense to anybody can still be meaningful, and how to know that believing so is not just an illusion.

I’m glad that somebody here might be interested in this matter, instead of filling me full of ineffable “God”-talk and “Spirit”-talk, and angrily accusing me of rejecting something.

Hmmm… obviously you don’t care for my dialogue. Sorry, but I was not angry with you. You just present a profoundly false base of logic. We admit that we don’t or can’t imagine God. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist or that we can’t Know Him. He made Himself known to us all through history.

You criticize me for “God” and “Spirit” talk? And you claim to understand Jesus?

Now I am definitely done with this thread. I have spent a lot of effort and time explaining why we believe in the Testimony of Israel, her Prophets and Law, Jesus, His Divinity and Resurrection, the Church, her Communion with Jesus, and the Spirit who gives life. I gave the benefit of doubt that you really do want to know the Truth, but I’m discouraged of this now.

Randy, this man is a practicing member of a Methodist church.

I will only respond to a Private Message, if you want to discuss anything more.

Peace
Michael

 

[AnlytcPhil]

Randy Carson; AnlytcPhil;14317132]

Make no sense to “anybody”? Are you suggesting that the concept of “God” or the word itself is of no value to anyone on the planet? Surely not.

Therefore, if several billion people alive today have some basic understanding of what is meant when the word is used, <<

How do you know that? I’m quite sure that they feel that they have some basic understanding, but if you agree with Father Rolheiser, that “basic understanding” can only be “dark knowledge” and “gut-sense”, whatever that is.

then I think it’s meaningful<<

Yes I know that you and Father Rolheiser do.

• even if the particulars must be worked out precisely in specific instances. For example, a Hindu might mean one thing whereas a Catholic means another when they speak of “God”.<<

I think the Hindus claim to have more than one god, but no doubt they’re all ineffable. Speaking of Hindus, have you ever noticed the similarities between the Christians’ story of Jesus and the Hindus’ story of Krishnu, or is it Vishnu? I forget. I’ll have to look up the Hindus again. Both were born of virgins, and died similar deaths. You might want to check that out.

So, rather than play with words and meanings, let’s make this simple:<<

Now I don’t want to “play” with words and meanings (or lack thereof), but I do believe it is necessary to discuss words to find out if all there is to religion is just word-trickery plus the possible belief that meaningless phrases are meaningful, because I cannot help but think that may very well be the case. Maybe you have heard or read that another name for “analytic philosophy” is “linguistic analysis”.

As this is a Catholic forum, I have home court advantage. (On an atheist forum, you would.) <<

Indeed, I get nowhere on atheist forums with their absolute certainty that all Christians use “God” to refer to the old bearded man in the sky that Michelangelo painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It’s no wonder they say “God doesn’t exist”.

Now, in this arena, we will use the generally accepted definition(s) of God. That is, God is a sentient being who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, loving, etc.<<

Those are adjectives, but adjectives and adjective phrases have no meaning (only a usage rule) until they are used to modify a meaningful noun, and I get no meaning from the sound “God”.

Now, if you prefer, we can use a definition offered by a world-class philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, who spoke of a Maximally Great Being which may be defined as:<<

a being that possesses all qualities that are better to have (love, wisdom, omnipotence, omniscience) but no negative properties (imperfection, corruption). Specifically, a MGB must have the property of necessity since being necessary is better than the alternatives.

But again, what do you mean by “being”?

All those words there except the word “being” are adjective phrases in need of a defined noun to modify. What’s the difference between “being” and “something that be”? If you say “human being”, then it is very clear what you are speaking of, but just “being”, I cannot tell what you mean. Of course I can think of a human being, but that’s not what you mean. Can you elaborate a little more?

Now, to my original questions:

1. Did you grow up in a Christian home or in a home where any religion was practiced?<<

Yes I did. I’ve always pretended to believe but never have been able to. Yes you’ll probably call that “dishonesty”, but I had to get along with my parents, friends and relatives. So I’ve always pretended to be just like them. I’ve always gone to church. It’s a habit I can’t break. If I don’t go to church on Sunday, I feel like something is wrong. Church attendance has always been a big part of my life.

1. Why have you decided that you do not believe a “God” (or Maximally Great Being) exists?<<

I didn’t ‘decide’. I am like Father Rolheiser and the Jesuits in that I have never been able to imagine anything that I would have labeled “God”. But unlike them, I’m not able to go that last step and believe that a grammatical noun for which nobody can imagine a referent, must nevertheless necessarily have a referent anyway. I lack Father Rolheiser’s “dark knowledge” and “gut-sense”.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness:<<Hmmm… obviously you don’t care for my dialogue. Sorry, but I was not angry with you. You just present a profoundly false base of logic.

What’s false about it?

We admit that we don’t or can’t imagine God. <<

What is “God”? So far, you’ve only implied that “God” is a row of three alphabet letters that you put adjectives, verbs, adjective phrases, and verb phrases after.

That doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist…

What “He”? A masculine pronoun that stands for the row of alphabet letters “God” that you put phrases after?

…or that we can’t Know Him.<<

What “Him”? The pronoun in the objective case that refers to the pronoun “He” in the nominative case?

He made Himself…<<

What “Himself”?

…known to us all through history.<<

What history has what made known to us?

You criticize me for “God” and “Spirit” talk?<<

Yes. How can you expect me to know what you’re saying if you don’t define your terms for me, but only put verb and adjective phrases after them?

And you claim to understand Jesus?<<

All but the parts where he speaks “God”-talk, or, “My Father” talk.

Now I am definitely done with this thread.<<

This is exactly what I expected you’d do. Like most Christians, you don’t want to discuss anything with me in terms that I can understand. You want to talk over my head.

I have spent a lot of effort and time explaining why we believe in the Testimony of Israel, her Prophets and Law, Jesus, His Divinity and Resurrection, the Church, her Communion with Jesus, and the Spirit who gives life. I gave the benefit of doubt that you really do want to know the Truth, but I’m discouraged of this now.<<

I’ve known what religious people say for a long time. I would have had to live in a cave not to know that. So you’re not telling me anything I’ve not already heard for years.

I want to know how people like Father Rolheiser can take terms that don’t refer to anything he can imagine, and then have something that he calls “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” that somehow lets him know that it’s coherent talk.

Randy, this man is a practicing member of a Methodist church.<<

Yes I am, and I enjoy my church and the people there are my friends. There’s no way I’m going to make a scene and refuse the bread and grape juice by the intinction method, especially since I’m in the choir.

I will only respond to a Private Message, if you want to discuss anything more.<<

If you could talk on my level in terms that I could understand, then that would be great. If not, there’s no use to bother. But thanks for your trouble.

 

[eddie_too]

good try randy carson!!

you tried to establish parameters and phil neither accepted them nor did he propose alternative parameters. i do not see how it is possible to engage fruitfully with someone who will not even discuss a definition of terms.

what i noticed was that phil did not answer or even attempt to answer any of your questions; but instead continued his obtuse refusal to engage and instead continued to challenge, without explanation, your attempts to engage him.

by this time, i see no reason to believe phil will find, whatever it may be, what he is looking for here at Catholic Answers. unless of course he is just trying to impress himself with being superior in thought to everyone else in the world.

i noticed that when he responded to my post he commented upon my writing that he and i would likely continue to be unable to communicate with each other because we are not at the same level. his response was that i was preening with superiority. of course, my comment did not refer in any manner to whose level was superior. it was a simple acknowledgement that our life experiences, in terms of knowledge, education and real life experience were too different for us to communicate effectively.

why did phil immediately attack me and impute to me that i was looking down upon him? perhaps that is a question he could contemplate.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

good try randy carson!!

you tried to establish parameters and phil neither accepted them nor did he propose alternative parameters. i do not see how it is possible to engage fruitfully with someone who will not even discuss a definition of terms.<<

 

[eddie_too]

phil,

if i thought you would be able to understand my comment to randy carson, i would not have written it directly to him.

i understand that you are having trouble understanding most of the comments being made on this thread by devout catholics.

i am sure we all wish that we could write something that you could understand. also, i am sure we all wish that we could understand the points you are trying to make.

the problem is that, from what i have read, none of the devout catholics’ comments and none of your comments seem to be connecting with each other.

we all hope and pray that this changes.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

phil,

if i thought you would be able to understand my comment to randy carson, i would not have written it directly to him.

i understand that you are having trouble understanding most of the comments being made on this thread by devout catholics.

i am sure we all wish that we could write something that you could understand. also, i am sure we all wish that we could understand the points you are trying to make.

the problem is that, from what i have read, none of the devout catholics’ comments and none of your comments seem to be connecting with each other.

we all hope and pray that this changes.

Thank you for your concern. I would appreciate it very much if you would read this whole page by Father Ronald Rolheiser, O.M.I., who is president of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas

ronrolheiser.com/the-ineffability-of-god/#.WEHh2xma_-Y

Then tell me, if you can and will, what you think about “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” that he speaks of at the bottom. It was because of this site that I came to a Catholic forum. I want to know more about what he means by “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” that he speaks of here. As it is, really and truly, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but it’s true that I can get no sense from the arrangement of alphabet letters “God” or “Spirit”. So I wondered about the "dark knowledge and “gut sense” that he speaks of there near the bottom. What is this “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” that makes the rows of alphabet letters “God” and “Spirit” different from gibberish?

Also there is another site by a Jesuit Peter Knott that says similar things to what Father Rolheiser says:

catholic-chaplaincy.org.uk/atheism-and-belief-2/

 

[eddie_too]

i am not sure what either one is getting at. for me, God is Jesus Christ. i do not have to imagine God because He is real to me in the Person of Jesus Christ.

it may be that both are speaking of an human attempt to picture the Holy Trinity in one’s mind. since God is a spirit, it is impossible to attach a physical image to His existence. since the human mind is finite, it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend the infinite.

perhaps what they are referring to is the idea that despite our inability to imagine an infinite spirit, we still can inherently accept that what is impossible for us to imagine is still possible for us to accept as real.

both speak of how being unable to imagine something is not the same as being unable to know something. however you analyze what they write, they are both sure God is real and knowable.

it is true and real that the Person Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. but it is also true that the Person Jesus Christ is human in every aspect of being human except for possessing a fallen human nature. we know God through knowing Jesus Christ. we do not have to imagine Jesus Christ. He is just like us, except that He is not a sinner.

despite trying to imagine the Godhead being like trying to imagine infinity, we humans still, and this is i think the concept of gut-feeling that they were speaking of, can be confident that the Infinite, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving, All-Just, Our Creator and Perfect Being that these words fall short of defining or adequately imagining is real.

human words and thoughts cannot do justice to the reality that is the Holy Trinity. but because that is true does not mean God is not real or that God cannot be known. in a nutshell, i think that is the point both are making.

 

[Russell_SA]

I have fallen away from the Church for about a year and became very atheist. I regret this now. I have always known that God was real and his true church was none other then the Catholic Church. I am looking for some good arguments for the Catholic Church and arguments against Atheism. I use to know all of this but I’ve forgotten a lot of it living the atheist life style. If you know of any good Catholic books, articles, or videos please leave them here. Your own arguments or life experiences are also welcomed. Thank you.

The way this was asked, it sounds like a disingenuous question and atheist smearing.
As a person that the religious would label as an atheist, a couple of things first off. I say “the religious would label…” because no one labels themselves on what they don’t believe, only what they do believe. It’s the group that does believe it that creates the label for people to do not believe those proposed beliefs. Atheism is a single position on a single question, “Do you believe in the supernatural?” It has no tenants, leaders, books, lists of Do’s and Don’ts, life-styles, etc. It is also only a tentative response based on the arguments and evidence that is currently available for answering the question, “Do you believe in the supernatural?”. Also, by the statement in the opening, “I have always known god was real…” you were never really an atheist, only a deistic non-practicing catholic.

I say “life-style” because you mentioned that. Are you living an a-santa-ist lifestyle? an a-fairy-ist lifestyle? etc. No no you are not. You are living the lifestyle of what you believe, not what you do not believe.

Belief is not a choice. You can fake it for the people around you, but you can not lie to yourself. Belief is the conclusion you come to as a result of applying your logical thought process and understanding of the idea and reality. Example: someone presents the idea of C by the argument they put forth as A + B = C. But you don’t see the logical conclusion that A + B = C. You do not believe that they are justified in concluding C based on what they presented as evidence and reasoning. Did you make any claim about the reality of C actually existing or not existing? No because that would be a knowledge claim, not a belief claim. Belief is what we are convinced of, not what we actually know. So based on that example: People can sit + Chairs exists = People can sit in a chair. Now go sit in a chair and try to choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t, it’s not possible. Only when you are given more information about how reality works and more data on the situation would your conclusion / belief change. Belief is the resulting conclusion of the equation. What ever that is, is what you believe.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

I’m also someone whom many would label “an atheist”. But I’m a little different from you and most people that Christians would label “an atheist”. I’m different in that I know of no reason to believe that anybody has defined anything to label “God”. Therefore I cannot know of any reason to believe that anybody does anything to call “believe in God”. I can only suspect that Christians must believe that there is something to do labeled “to believe in God”, and that they must believe that they do something labeled that. But as I said above, I know of no reason to believe that they do anything labeled “believe in God”, or even that there is anything to do labeled “believe in God”.

 

[Peter_J]

The way this was asked, it sounds like a disingenuous question and atheist smearing.
As a person that the religious would label as an atheist, a couple of things first off. I say “the religious would label…” because no one labels themselves on what they don’t believe, only what they do believe. It’s the group that does believe it that creates the label for people to do not believe those proposed beliefs. Atheism is a single position on a single question, “Do you believe in the supernatural?” It has no tenants, leaders, books, lists of Do’s and Don’ts, life-styles, etc. It is also only a tentative response based on the arguments and evidence that is currently available for answering the question, “Do you believe in the supernatural?”. Also, by the statement in the opening, “I have always known god was real…” you were never really an atheist, only a deistic non-practicing catholic.

I say “life-style” because you mentioned that. Are you living an a-santa-ist lifestyle? an a-fairy-ist lifestyle? etc. No no you are not. You are living the lifestyle of what you believe, not what you do not believe.

Belief is not a choice. You can fake it for the people around you, but you can not lie to yourself. Belief is the conclusion you come to as a result of applying your logical thought process and understanding of the idea and reality. Example: someone presents the idea of C by the argument they put forth as A + B = C. But you don’t see the logical conclusion that A + B = C. You do not believe that they are justified in concluding C based on what they presented as evidence and reasoning. Did you make any claim about the reality of C actually existing or not existing? No because that would be a knowledge claim, not a belief claim. Belief is what we are convinced of, not what we actually know. So based on that example: People can sit + Chairs exists = People can sit in a chair. Now go sit in a chair and try to choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t, it’s not possible. Only when you are given more information about how reality works and more data on the situation would your conclusion / belief change. Belief is the resulting conclusion of the equation. What ever that is, is what you believe.

I hate to say, but it seems to me that people do often choose what to believe, albeit subconsciously. (In the last US election cycle, for example, I frequently heard statements that made it sound like the speakers were refusing to believe bads things about their favorite candidate.)