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.
Perhaps it's just a difference of perspective, Learn: Your questions seem very pointed to me. You seem bound and determined to prove to me (or yourself) that, by your standards, I haven't had a change of my core beliefs. And I have said a few times now that it's okay that you think that -- they are, after all your standards and I have no desire to try to get you to change them.
By my standards, I have had a change of my core beliefs, but that doesn't mean I think your concrete theory is wrong. As you've said, and I have at no point disagreed with you, I could just be an exception to your rule. Cool, so either way, it's a win for you... either by your standards I haven't changed my core beliefs, or I have but I'm just an exception. Since, as far as I can tell, you have no real interest in knowing about what I believe other than to see how I fit into your theory, I'd say we've taken it as far as we need to, don't you?
Pleroo, you seem determined to describe this exchange as some sort of game that involves winning and/or losing...
No doubt a different perspective regarding exchange of opinion as well, but I wish you could understand that whenever someone engages with me about a subject of interest to me, I can't help but seek clarification to replace what I am confused about. If I am trying to "win," it's the win of better understanding. Obviously I'm not going to change how you think or feel. I know better than that!
These are not my "standards." These are simple words, terms, explanations that help us better understand one another. Just a theory! You seem to be better understanding my theory, for example. I'm beginning to better understand that I don't understand all about what YOU believe. Maybe I never will. That's okay too.
I can assure you either way, I have lost interest in whether you have changed your core beliefs according to my theory. I am perfectly okay to agree you have if it matters, but again it really doesn't in the grand scheme of things.
To be honest, I think you keep casting this negative light on my intentions and motives, as if all depends on whether you "fit" into my theory or not, because you are not really comfortable explaining your belief about God (past or present) as you have also suggested in more ways than one. This too I understand very well, and you can rest assured I totally get that feeling too. As I am sure you know, spiritual people more often than not have a very difficult time explaining the likes -- God -- to people who are not spiritual, don't believe in God.
Who doesn't well know and understand that challenge and why it almost always ends with something of a "dead end." No "need" to go any further. Yes of course. No need at all.
All the best and all the better you better understand me in any case, fingers crossed at least that. Thanks.
Why should I make that assumption? I'm perfectly okay with the fact that other people have reached a different conclusion than I have about the existence of God. I don't need to adopt the same basic approach to life as they do to have a working understanding and a respect for their right not to believe God exists. I've seen it from that side, even if it was for a relatively short period of time, so I get the thought process, at least to a degree.
The criteria that matters in discussions about the existence of God, as far as I'm concerned, is allowing other people to follow their own conscience. As a believer in God, I'm of the opinion that if (big, huge if) it's important to God that someone believes in God's existence, God is certainly more capable than I of helping them towards that end.
Might be we have very different interest as well as perspective here...
Here again a rather negative connotation to suggest I am not "allowing other people to follow their own conscience." Discussing different beliefs and why we either share them or not is in no way not allowing people to think and feel however they wish!
My interest is in our ultimate truth, which includes considering the many varied ways we all come to believe whatever we will about what is true and what is not. IOWs, I'd like to know what is the truth for all of us. I already know that you and millions of other people have their own versions. Who is right and who is not is the ultimate question more on my mind, because I want to know the truth, the ultimate truth for all concerned. No imposition. Just interested in the path to get there, with or without you.
Is it possible that you and others who express the same sort of heartburn do so because you view this sort of exchange as some sort of imposition? An intellectual and/or academic exchange should not be one that leads to those sorts of feelings. Ego, emotions, etc., simply get in the way of exchanging opinion about these sorts of subjects.
I don't read all you write or what others write in disagreement with me as some sort of imposition. I don't consider other points of view as preventing me from following my own conscience.
Maybe this is part of my challenge. Because I don't share those sorts of feelings about different opinion or exchanging them, I tend to be a little more "free" with my questions and comments until then I come to realize they are not being understood or accepted in the same spirit I am exchanging my opinion(s). Too bad that.
Perhaps a good time and/or reminder that I really need to get on with doing something that DOES make a difference, to me anyway...
Again, a good day to all with all good spirits in mind! (Maybe another day I'll need to provide my definition of "spirits"). Cheers!
I'm rather persuaded by the view that basic personality is cemented in by age 6. But there's still and awful lot of worldview and core beliefs that can change before you withdraw your savings. I know, because I've changed quite a few views and if I haven't changed my atheist views it is because the more I have seen the arguments, the better the case looks for atheism.
Interesting. I'd have to think a bit about what is "personality" and what is not. In my case, at about age 6 1/2 my entire way of thinking became twisted by personal trauma and the lack of attention I should have been given instead of "prayer". As I've mentioned on here, I deal with some OCD stuff and that's when it began, and it was very much entwined with religion.
I don't know if I can say my personality changed then or if it was just that the fear and anxiety that's behind the disorder took over. It doesn't really matter.
I certainly changed my religious views several times, but it was too late to undo much of the damage done at that age.
I'm not complaining. It has made me who I am. My so-called religious views have changed numerous times over my life for various reasons as life went on, including an abusive marriage and being in the WTC on 9/11. I don't think the person I was at 25 is the same person I was at 43 or the same person I am now looking 60 in the face.
Pleroo, you seem determined to describe this exchange as some sort of game that involves winning and/or losing.
No doubt a different perspective regarding exchange of opinion as well,...
Oh my gosh ... it was just an expression. The point is, you've made your point about the concrete theory and I don't disagree with you. That's all I'm saying.
Quote:
...but I wish you could understand that whenever someone engages with me about a subject of interest to me, I can't help but seek clarification to replace what I am confused about. If I am trying to "win," it's the win of better understanding. Obviously I'm not going to change how you think or feel. I know better than that!
These are not my "standards." These are simple words, terms, explanations that help us better understand one another. Just a theory! You seem to be better understanding my theory, for example. I'm beginning to better understand that I don't understand all about what YOU believe. Maybe I never will. That's okay too.
I never did NOT understand your theory. You were the one that made that assumption, but based on what, I don't know. Nothing I said in any way negated the theory that people don't often change their core beliefs. I simply related my experience.
It is your, as far as I can tell arbitrary, standard that core beliefs equal spiritual versus not spiritual. I don't disagree that could be considered a core belief. However, in my experience, core beliefs could very well include fundamentalist versus non fundamentalist. But you don't seem to agree with that so .... okay. That's not me being dismissive, that's me saying ... I acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion and it's not a big deal from my perspective. That's all.
Quote:
I can assure you either way, I have lost interest in whether you have changed your core beliefs according to my theory. I am perfectly okay to agree you have if it matters, but again it really doesn't in the grand scheme of things.
To be honest, I think you keep casting this negative light on my intentions and motives, as if all depends on whether you "fit" into my theory or not, because you are not really comfortable explaining your belief about God (past or present) as you have also suggested in more ways than one. This too I understand very well, and you can rest assured I totally get that feeling too. As I am sure you know, spiritual people more often than not have a very difficult time explaining the likes -- God -- to people who are not spiritual, don't believe in God.
Who doesn't well know and understand that challenge and why it almost always ends with something of a "dead end." No "need" to go any further. Yes of course. No need at all.
All the best and all the better you better understand me in any case, fingers crossed at least that. Thanks.
I said what I thought your motives were, but I didn't say I thought those motives were negative because I don't think of them as negative: we have different priorities, and that can lead to tunnel vision on both ends. Look, communicating in person is tough enough, but written communication takes it to a whole 'nother level of tough. I'll chalk this conversation seeming to have gone off the rails up to both of those things.
“All those claims”? You mean the 2 things I mentioned? That there is more than materialism and that I don’t think that matter created life? Tell me, has it been proven that matter did? I hadn’t heard that.
Two things that, if you insist. And you missed the point about materialism.
What we know has been accounted for by the material. What we don't know is unknown, it not evidence for any non -material effect.
The demand for evidence or proof of a material origin of life is fallacious. We don't know' means that material causes remains the default. In fact some hypotheses have been used to plausibly explain the origins of life and the indirect evidence (biochemicals, water and heat) as an indicator of the material conditions that could be conducive to the start of bio replication (the origins of life) adds weight to a material explanation.
As against this we get only "You can't prove it".
That is very faulty reasoning. And there is no point in it other than to make a case for some non -material 'Force', without having any mechanism for it, let alone decent evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Here is what is interesting to me about your and Learn's need to critique what I said ... Follow the discussion, and note that I was not the one who offered my beliefs up to the "public" as some sort of mandate that this is what I believe and so everyone else must too. I simply said that my core beliefs had changed, period. Learn wanted me to share more and I was hesitant, because I don't feel it is my place to try to convince anyone that God exists. I understand some of the things that lead atheists to the conclusion they have reached, and I don't have an issue with it. (If I did, my 12 year old decidedly atheist daughter and I would probably be butting heads on the subject, but we don't.)
At any rate, here we go:
Harry said that he had changed his core beliefs. I responded:
Learn responded to me:
You'll note, now, that I said nothing about my beliefs beyond the fact that I'm no longer a Christian. Learn, however, expressed a desire to know more about my beliefs:
And I did explain, out of courtesy. Now, you're right, posting in a public forum makes it open season and anyone should feel free to respond however they wish. And that means I'm allowed to ask why on earth he (or you, for that matter) wanted to argue about what I believe, given that the point of the discussion was intended to be about changing beliefs, whatever they are.
I am guilty as charged. I have NOT been following the argument or keeping track of who said what. I have noted a few assertions or claims along the road that seem to me to be open to dissent. If I am right then it is needful to correct those so that the discussion is not going completely haywire.
Interesting. I'd have to think a bit about what is "personality" and what is not. In my case, at about age 6 1/2 my entire way of thinking became twisted by personal trauma and the lack of attention I should have been given instead of "prayer". As I've mentioned on here, I deal with some OCD stuff and that's when it began, and it was very much entwined with religion.
I don't know if I can say my personality changed then or if it was just that the fear and anxiety that's behind the disorder took over. It doesn't really matter.
I certainly changed my religious views several times, but it was too late to undo much of the damage done at that age.
I'm not complaining. It has made me who I am. My so-called religious views have changed numerous times over my life for various reasons as life went on, including an abusive marriage and being in the WTC on 9/11. I don't think the person I was at 25 is the same person I was at 43 or the same person I am now looking 60 in the face.
(*That's MONTHS away, though...)
Well, I am not going to expose my personality to all the world and his wife. I will only say that I have changed or amended many of my views and opinions, even though some basic beliefs (atheism, freedom of choice, not getting your kicks by ruining other people's lives) have stayed intact, which is not the same as saying they are 'cemented'. I would change them immediately if anyone gave me a good sound reason to.
But my personality from a young age has really not changed. Perhaps the problem is in trying to put all these personality traits, long -held beliefs and various ideas picked up and changed (or not) along the way into one grab -bag and claiming they are all the same thing.
Maybe. I've never seen a scientist express that openness, but that'd be cool if they are and it would be interesting to know how they've gone about trying to test that hypothesis. In the meantime, if they have tried and failed to date, that isn't conclusive, certainly. It seems to my non-scientific self that proving something beyond materialism from within our material perspective might be quite a conundrum.
For all the lip service some people give to being okay with a stance of "we don't know", why do some atheists seem intent on insisting that everyone has to accept a default position of materialism?
Because it what we know. All the other claims remain hypothetical. It is not only logically unsound to appeal to other explanations than the material but is pointless because they have no explanations.
What happens is 'Maybe something else did this' and then pop in any one of an number of imaginary possible causes , usually a god of some kind, or sometimes a kind of alien.
I have probably spent more time and effort explaining what my theory is NOT...
Seems almost as if people are more anxious to first disagree before really understanding that my Cement Theory is about how we develop our core beliefs BY THE TIME WE ARE 30. I have never argued the claim captured in bold above that again is wrongly attributed to me. My theory is also about what seems to be the case with MOST people, not all people. With all due respect to personal anecdotes, my theory is about how most people tend to cement their views by the time they are about 30 and not likely to change them after that. My theory does NOT argue there are no exceptions.
I can also add, if anyone is really interested to better understand, that many people if not most are also subject to the influences that develop their core beliefs at a very young age, typically as children, typically influenced by their parents. So yes, most people begin to develop their core beliefs at a young age but we all "cement" those core beliefs as we mature after childhood, until at about age 30, most of us have established our core beliefs beyond change.
Once spiritually oriented, for example, typically one will remain spiritually oriented. Once liberal/left leaning, typically we remain liberal/left leaning. Once conservative/right leaning, typically we remain conservative/right leaning. By "once" I mean typically by the time we are 30. Simple as that. Also true as best I have been able to observe and learn from other studies that point to the same truth, anecdotes/exceptions notwithstanding.
it's not a "truth" its your opinion, your view, your belief, your experience.
lots and lots (and lots) of people have a very different opinion, view, belief, experience.
that seems to bother you because you continue to dismiss anything that contradicts your opinion.
you only give credence to selected anecdotes which support your "cement" and you discount and disregard and dismiss anecdotes which show your "cement" to be incorrect.
in other words you have an opinion based on your experience and views.
others disagree based on our own experience and views.
you've stated something strongly. many people have said nope that's not true for lots and lots (and lots) of people. you have declined to comment on all the very normal natural traumas and major upsets that do cause a radical shift in core beliefs after the age of 30. There is even a name for it "mid life crisis." These events cause people to change in drastic ways. You seem really reluctant to acknowledge that.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-06-2018 at 11:28 AM..
Oh my gosh ... it was just an expression. The point is, you've made your point about the concrete theory and I don't disagree with you. That's all I'm saying.
I never did NOT understand your theory. You were the one that made that assumption, but based on what, I don't know. Nothing I said in any way negated the theory that people don't often change their core beliefs. I simply related my experience.
It is your, as far as I can tell arbitrary, standard that core beliefs equal spiritual versus not spiritual. I don't disagree that could be considered a core belief. However, in my experience, core beliefs could very well include fundamentalist versus non fundamentalist. But you don't seem to agree with that so .... okay. That's not me being dismissive, that's me saying ... I acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion and it's not a big deal from my perspective. That's all.
I said what I thought your motives were, but I didn't say I thought those motives were negative because I don't think of them as negative: we have different priorities, and that can lead to tunnel vision on both ends. Look, communicating in person is tough enough, but written communication takes it to a whole 'nother level of tough. I'll chalk this conversation seeming to have gone off the rails up to both of those things.
Go to hit the sign off button and yet another comment before I do. This is like eating popcorn!
Ugh! "Just and expression?" I am to know what you mean to say exactly how???
Not sure if it was you too, but lots of people will immediately offer their version of having changed their core belief(s) as an argument my "Cement Theory" isn't sound. Suggesting my "standards" are "arbitrary" also reads to me like an argument that just doesn't quit while at the same time you insist nothing you write "negates the theory."
Simply understand that to whatever extent you understand or don't, agree or don't, are an exception or not, with many others too, I have had to repeat many times the basics that just simply seem impossible to get across, and this is not exactly rocket science. Doubt you are interested any further as I'm sure we are both good and ready to call it quits on this subject, get closure, as it relates to you and I personally, but if you were to read through the thread I started and named "My Cement Theory," you would see what I mean. Can't count the many times I have had to explain that of course there are exceptions to the rule! Just for starters...
Not sure what you mean by "off the rails" either, but I can say this for certain. I do understand you far better than I did before we started this exchange, and I'm pretty sure any better understanding between us is not likely if indeed this is the best we can do in terms of communicating, explaining ourselves. Won't be the first time I have tried and failed with others for reasons we are also not likely to agree about.
"Not that there is anything wrong with that!" No matter, no worries and no more time today for me. This time really! Best.
AA, I love you and your point of view. But you know I'm not a science person, and most the time the conversations you have are out of my league. Having come out of fundamentalist Christianity, I spend time here pointing out the fatal flaws in their doctrines, as I see them. I hope it might make a difference to someone, at some point, who is wrestling with the same things I once did. It's on you, my friend, to point out the problem with fundamentalist materialists as you see fit, because that's far, far from my field of expertise.
Thats the point. Helping people to see fatal flaws by teaching them to follow a reasonable process in forming a belief.
You did just that, I bet, even when you were younger you kept trying to reconcile "relentless commonsense" and "blind faith". They are not comparable, they are not on equal terms. It just took ya a bit. I guess I was lucky, I saw it in like 3rd grade and my parents knew their job.
"fatal flaw" in most beliefs can usually be linked to beliefs based on something other than observations. I am trying to show that using your beliefs. When you can answer "what is life" and "what is material" then when you form your belief it becomes a more reasonable belief. You are just lucky that your so insightful that your beliefs line up to logic and science. I am not so lucky.
"more reasonable belief" is distinctly different from "cemented belief" to me. "cemented" is a deeply held belief based on very little understanding but the person won't change it when the flaws are shown to them. A person holding a "more reasonable" belief can be accused of "cementation", by a person with a less valid belief, when they won't bite on less valid. we can't avoid that bit of the nasty on a forum. We can in person.
Learn pointing out that cemented happens at a young age, and you stating "I was fundamental in my 20's" just tripped a switch for me ... thanks for that by the way. i was fundamental in many ways in my 20's. That why brain age, knowing past experiences, or personality type are more useful than calendar age in prediction of "cemented belief".
I use your beliefs just to demonstrate what I mean. I can link your "life" and "more than materialist" to the standard model. But I feel its more important that you do. If you can, even a little bit, it just makes it stronger. In affect, you could shut down trans easily. Not that you have a need to, you just that nice, but you would be able to say more than" You believe yours and I'll believe mine". Pel, yours and his are not on equal terms when we look at the science.
The gaps in your understanding and his intentional avoidance of full-disclosure creates the illusion of "equal weight". He, and fundamental Christians, rely on avoidance of some evidence in order to maintain the illusion of "more real". Your pointing out the flaws of fundamental belief is pointing out the flaws in "how to form a belief".
It becomes "which belief makes more sense?" That question, scares the ba-jesus out of fundamental Christians. all literal beliefs actually.
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.
)
AA, I love you and your point of view. But you know I'm not a science person, and most the time the conversations you have are out of my league. Having come out of fundamentalist Christianity, I spend time here pointing out the fatal flaws in their doctrines, as I see them. I hope it might make a difference to someone, at some point, who is wrestling with the same things I once did. It's on you, my friend, to point out the problem with fundamentalist materialists as you see fit, because that's far, far from my field of expertise.
