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.
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Pleasantville. Came along at a time in my life when its message was very clear and helped me move forward.
Just catching up on this thread now. I disagree completely with those who say our personalities/beliefs/whatevers don't change after about the age of 12. All of those things changed for me, especially in my early 40s.
Was never exactly fundie, even though I grew up in a Calvinistic, fundie church. Thank God for my logical, intelligent, engineer father who was permanently disfigured by war and maybe had a different perspective of life from the others in that narrow-minded environment.
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.
That'll happen, all the time. People will make the mistake of letting the labels dictate the meaning rather than ask what is meant, and maybe even find a better label. Like for instance "Agnostics! are so often found to be non -religious theists.
If one defines God as "The opinions and views of Richard Dawkins", one can be an atheist and believe in "God".
I don't see any reason to 'believe' any of those claims. Is there any scientifically validated support for them, or are they just hypotheses that you have invested belief in?
That's not to say that it couldn't be true, but we don't know, and the logic is that although you can believe whatever you like, putting the claim out in public is inviting critique, and the critique is that what is unknown vet possible, and unproven but undisproven is an Unknown, no matter how much one may happen to believe it.
And assuming an unknown to be true until proven false is the fallacy that buggers all Theistic thought from the start, and indeed and cult -think or pseudo -science beliefs.
Yes. Labels can be a big problem. This is why I try to stick to common dictionary definitions that can easily be understood and agreed upon, including that of "God" typically defined as a deity. On the other hand, of course, if someone wants to explain what they believe using different terms and/or definitions, that's okay too, but if they want to be understood by others, it is important for all of us to attempt to make ourselves clear as possible.
Obviously I have tried and failed in that respect more than a few times in this thread, trying to make my Cement Theory better understood. Not easy...
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.)
I am sorry you receive my questions and interest as a "critique." I can understand how you may feel that way, but mostly I have just tried to better understand your statements and experience. Especially in the case with anyone who claims to have changed their core beliefs after they have turned 30, I am interested to first confirm and then understand how/why, because they are the exception to the rule.
I don't know how you do this other than by asking questions. Beats making assumptions anyway, and if interested, the further details are usually also interesting.
For example in your comment above, you seem to be explaining you believe God exists. This is what I consider a spiritual belief. Don't you?
You also explained you believed in God early in life (before you turned 30). Apparently your belief and understanding about God has changed, no doubt. You also defined God as "love and life," which is not necessarily spiritual. Ultimately, I have to admit the question remains, for me at least, as to what you mean by "God" in your comment above. Doesn't seem to mean just "love and life" anymore. Am I wrong about this too?
Is this a critique or the want to better understand? I have little choice but leave you to decide, but from where I am sitting, it is the want to better understand. That's all...
Maybe they are open, but have just failed to find evidence for this other.
I would like to think any good scientist and/or anyone interested in knowing what is true is "open" to any possibility, because otherwise that same problem of confirmation bias can undermine or close off what discoveries may be possible. Accordingly that openness should allow a good scientist or anyone interested in the truth to follow the facts as best we can establish them to wherever they lead.
What apparently confuses people or causes them to distrust the other is with respect to determining what facts are worthy of consideration, worth pursuing, wherever they may lead. How to validate them in order to ultimately establish what is universally true for all of us.
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?
Good question that perhaps begs another, because I think this question of criteria is the crux of the issue. Assuming we should all accept some basic approach and/or criteria for the purpose of better understanding one another and establishing our ultimate universal truth(s), what should it be? How do we best separate fact from fiction together?
I am sorry you receive my questions and interest as a "critique." I can understand how you may feel that way, but mostly I have just tried to better understand your statements and experience. Especially in the case with anyone who claims to have changed their core beliefs after they have turned 30, I am interested to first confirm and then understand how/why, because they are the exception to the rule.
I don't know how you do this other than by asking questions. Beats making assumptions anyway, and if interested, the further details are usually also interesting.
For example in your comment above, you seem to be explaining you believe God exists. This is what I consider a spiritual belief. Don't you?
You also explained you believed in God early in life (before you turned 30). Apparently your belief and understanding about God has changed, no doubt. You also defined God as "love and life," which is not necessarily spiritual. Ultimately, I have to admit the question remains, for me at least, as to what you mean by "God" in your comment above. Doesn't seem to mean just "love and life" anymore. Am I wrong about this too?
Is this a critique or the want to better understand? I have little choice but leave you to decide, but from where I am sitting, it is the want to better understand. That's all...
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?
Hey AA, no time to give more than a perfunctory response right now...
Googled def of materialism is “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.” Life is what animates.
That's a philosophy thing, that is not a science thing. What is "material" and what is "life". The philosophy's perspective does not define anything. so I ask you what do you mean by "material"? or "matter?" and "life"
Describing those become increasingly important due to the nature of this war we are in. well, not you, but people like trans and literal theist got us cought up in a war between beliefs, where the beliefs make so sense at all. They are not locked in science/engineering. Those irrational beliefs are cemented. this deny everything because "I" am afraid of religion" and "my omni dude only" are silly, and dangerous.
Both silly beliefs but yet they are cemented in each side soldiers. So I ask, How did they get cemented? How does the brain work? what happened to that particular brain that holds these irrational beliefs as if they are remotely rational when observations show them so wrong?
So, why is it important that you can talk about "what is matter" and "what is life"? Its important for us "middle men" that use relentless commonsense to help people "reinforce cemented ideas". If we get "cemented into a logical problem solving processes" then the cemented belief isn't so inflexible.
lmao, the process, its the process of "seeing" red, not the color that's important ... too funny ... I couldn't resist.
Good question that perhaps begs another, because I think this question of criteria is the crux of the issue. Assuming we should all accept some basic approach and/or criteria for the purpose of better understanding one another and establishing our ultimate universal truth(s), what should it be? How do we best separate fact from fiction together?
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.
That's a philosophy thing, that is not a science thing. What is "material" and what is "life". The philosophy's perspective does not define anything. so I ask you what do you mean by "material"? or "matter?" and "life"
Describing those become increasingly important due to the nature of this war we are in. well, not you, but people like trans and literal theist got us cought up in a war between beliefs, where the beliefs make so sense at all. They are not locked in science/engineering. Those irrational beliefs are cemented. this deny everything because "I" am afraid of religion" and "my omni dude only" are silly, and dangerous.
Both silly beliefs but yet they are cemented in each side soldiers. So I ask, How did they get cemented? How does the brain work? what happened to that particular brain that holds these irrational beliefs as if they are remotely rational when observations show them so wrong?
So, why is it important that you can talk about "what is matter" and "what is life"? Its important for us "middle men" that use relentless commonsense to help people "reinforce cemented ideas". If we get "cemented into a logical problem solving processes" then the cemented belief isn't so inflexible.
lmao, the process, its the process of "seeing" red, not the color that's important ... too funny ... I couldn't resist.
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.
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.
