Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no such thing as "better nature", there is just "nature". All human nature has a purpose. And you are merely ascribing "good" or "bad" based on your own values.
But let me add, I do not believe that anyone thinks of themselves as a bad person. The people you despise the most in this world, the greatest evil ever committed by man, was committed by men who believed themselves to be good.
It is impossible to live as a man, if you believed you were evil.
A bit too much a question of mere semantics if you ask me, but okay...
I can easily agree the notion of "better nature" when it comes to humans is not a concept strictly adhering to the laws of nature. You got me! Also true that one man's good is another man's bad. One man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter...
I'm not sure I need all these lessons before we get back to the point at hand, which at this point is beginning to become a little splintered and confusing to me.
You don't believe my "Cement Theory" is sound, but I've found all evidence to suggest it is (as presented in brief to you so far), regardless and/or aside the reasons why. Not "merely" BECAUSE of age, but over the course of aging. Fair?
I have a tendency to discredit anyone who references the "Dark ages". There is no such thing as the dark ages. It was a term made-up by a Renaissance writer, who "Romanticized" the Roman era, because of its apparent technological and artistic progress.
Man, you're tough...
I'll have to be a bit more careful making reference to what people generally understand from a conceptual standpoint, that the "Dark Ages" where a time of more ignorance rather than discovery and enlightenment.
More along these lines for example; "Dark Ages is a term of historical periodisation used to refer to a period of supposed cultural and economic deterioration, and scarcity of written record, usually being contrasted with the more recent times of the writer and with classical antiquity. Its original use referred to the Western European Middle Ages (roughly the 6th to 14th centuries), emphasising the perceived decline following the fall of the Roman Empire."
However, if you want to get our nose down into the weeds of history and split these sorts of hairs, true again, this may be a bit more learning for those in need, "This original definition is still sometimes found in popular use, but increased recognition of accomplishments during the Middle Ages has since the 20th century led to the appellation usually being restricted to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century). However, many modern scholars of the era tend to avoid the term for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate. Popular culture has tended to use it more pejoratively to refer to a time of backwardness.
My bad! I guess I'm just as much a product of "popular culture" as I am a fan of history, and maybe this is good reason to "discredit" me. I don't know. Reminds me of my wife a bit who can't seem to let me tell a story or joke without correcting me about irrelevant details. I love her, but the point of the story just doesn't hinge on whether it was a Wednesday or a Thursday!
I appreciate the effort to "keep me honest" in any case! Thanks for that anyway...
I believe all the content of the emails that was posted by Wikileaks. I also believe it didn't come from Russia. That is all.
>>>> I agree. You know, if things happened today that happened decades ago, like LSD being given to our soldiers and syphilis being given to black inmates, it would be dismissed as conspiracy theory. I think we should start taking a hard look at all those conspiracy theories again. If we're beginning to understand what a bunch of idiots our intelligence community and federal officials and MSM are, or just how compromised they are, we may want to rethink some things.
WHY do we lack confidence in our own beliefs? When do we stop asking questions, learning, before we establish those beliefs? When is it we become confident in our beliefs? Why? At generally what age? Why?
The problem with our beliefs, is that, we more-or-less need others to agree with us, at least within a certain sphere, or they aren't useful.
For example, if you look at old tribal beliefs. One tribe might believe that god gave them a set of mountains, or land to a certain point, or all the cattle, or sheep, or whatever.
There is a tribe in Africa who believes their god gave them exclusive rights to every cow on the planet. And thus, they have the right to steal cattle from neighboring tribes.
Now, these beliefs might sound silly to us, but they are true beliefs. So why did those beliefs form? From logic?
Humans are inclined to believe all kinds of things, but we need others around us to agree with us, or our beliefs aren't very useful. When we declare we have a "right" to healthcare, or education, or to food on the table, or a high-paying job. None of those things are rights. But many people believe that they are.
But why do people believe they are? Because of their better critical-thinking skills? No, because those things serve their interests.
There is nothing fundamentally different in believing that god has given you a right to other people's cattle, or the belief that god has given you a right to free healthcare, or education, or anything else for that matter.
Even if you remove god entirely from the equation, everything we believe about the world, is being filtered through our interests and ambitions. Those who are opposed to those things that you believe, are opposed only because they don't benefit from it.
They may use facts or logic to argue their case, but they aren't opposed to you because of facts and logic, they merely use facts as a means to oppose you, and to convince others to oppose you.
Facts are a tool, used to manipulate others, to make them believe what you want them to believe. It is pointless to be the only person who believes something(in fact, it is counterproductive, because people just think you're crazy). But once you have hundreds, or thousands, or millions of people believing something, then is it useful.
If we understand that facts are used as a tool, then it will make sense why facts don't really need to be factual. They only need to be things that are broadly believed. Once a lot of people believe something, it becomes the defacto truth.
And it will remain the defacto truth, until it is no longer useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Yes, why do children tend to adopt much their parents believe, as well as how they act, profession, lifestyles? At what point/age are we adopting less and "cementing" our ways more and more?
Children adopt the traditions/customs of those around them, largely because they have no other choice. Most children do not want to go to church on Sunday, they are being forced to. And it isn't as if they are going to stand up in the middle of church and yell that they don't believe in god.
It is far more beneficial for a kid to just go along with it, or to stay silent.
He often becomes attached to those traditions, and sees them as useful(Christmas, pot-lucks, social-connections and other relationships with family/etc).
Generally, a person starts questioning god, the moment he realizes that god opposes everything he wants to do. God is just a father-figure, who wants to stand in the way of everyone's fun.
What good is a belief in god for a teenager? Or a young adult? What use would a college kid, sitting in a dorm room on campus, or in a frat house, have in a belief in god?
From adolescence through your 30's, you generally are in a rebellion against basically, rules. You want to overthrow the system, and replace it with something that serves your interests.
But then, by your late-30's, you now have a decent job, and you have a family, and children of your own. And you suddenly begin to realize that these rules that you once despised, might actually be useful. You now have a daughter, and you don't want her used and abused by the same kind of men that either you were, or who you saw from other men, when you were in your 20's.
You suddenly don't feel so hostile to god(or at least religion), which you see as a beneficial tool to keep young rebellious and selfish children from behaving poorly. And suddenly, god is no longer a hindrance to your interests, he is suddenly the only thing that can serve them.
The reason why your beliefs tend to become locked-in at this point, is because your circumstances largely don't change from this point onwards. So your interests remain the same.
If you look at people who have never had children, or anyone else they really have to care for, you'll realize they get locked into a sort of "perpetual adolescence". Their circumstances haven't changed, which is why they haven't changed.
Now, you declare that "old people" never change their views. But this isn't true either.
Take for instance the government program "social security". When you are young, you often deride this program, because its soo far away, and you're not even sure you'll live that long. You would rather keep the money now.
But, the closer you get to retirement, the more defensive you become of social security(or any other institution that benefits you). Because, regardless of what age you are, your beliefs will always be a reflection of your own interests.
No one makes a choice to believe something which would be a punishment to themselves.
The liberals think that poor conservatives should vote democrat on the basis that they would "benefit economically". What they don't see, is that money isn't the only factor. Poor conservatives vote for many other reasons as well, such as safety, of both themselves, and their children.
I developed my theory, BTW, after I started to notice how all the many friends and people with whom I discussed politics and religion back when we were in high school, teens and into our early twenties, maintained those essential leanings afterward, into their thirties, forties and well later into life. Those essential beliefs that were "cemented" in whatever ways, for whatever reasons, by the time we were done with our twenties simply did not -- do not -- change after those formative younger years, no matter the facts, reason or logic that might counter those beliefs.
I never said that your observations were incorrect. What I'm saying is, whatever your friends believe, it will generally coincide with whatever they find useful for the furtherance of their interests.
I agree that sometimes beliefs can "stick" longer than they are still beneficial. For instance, someone who was picked-on as a kid, but who is now an adult, will still remember how he felt, and might fight to end bullying, even if he is no longer bullied(and thus doesn't personally benefit).
Or a victim of racism, or sexism, or even someone who grew up poor, but is now wealthy, might use his wealth in the way that he wanted others to use their wealth when he didn't have any.
So, my presentation of people ALWAYS pursuing their own interests, can appear a little crude and simplistic. There are various factors at play.
But what is always true, is that no one believes something which, if they believed it, would be a punishment to themselves.
They might tolerate a belief that would be a punishment in this life, for the hopes of a reward in another life. But they never believe something which would cause themselves to suffer in both. It simply doesn't matter how true it is.
They will create a new truth, either from facts, or from beliefs(IE religion), and that will become their reality.
In any case, I think we can both agree. Facts aren't useful, except as a tool to influence others. But, to the extent that you can influence them, through any method, is only to the extent that they see it as a benefit.
Appealing to facts and reason by itself, is a waste of time. You appeal to their interests, and use facts as support.
WikiLeaks caught the crocked, corrupt, divisive democratic politicians with their pants down!
Glad WikiLeaks exposed them.
No ,you just want to believe so you can think you're right but in hind sight you know you're wrong and that you can not give any good reason to believe wiki leaks except....see I told you.Really?
No ,you just want to believe so you can think you're right but in hind sight you know you're wrong and that you can not give any good reason to believe wiki leaks except....see I told you.Really?
How Wiki got the emails is the question. There are many reasons to believe they're accurate, including nobody involved in writing them denied writing them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
