Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[Trailblazer]

You are divorcing evidence from any intellectual rigor or responsible and reliable methodology, in favor simply making it the connections drawn by any firings of random neurons in your brain.

Nope.

 

[ppp]

Nope.

Not only are you intentionally avoiding said rigor and responsibility, but you are directly leaning into the "it's true for me" mentality where one is justified in one's conclusions on no more basis than one has said conclusions. This is, of course, the realm of religion and politics, but worse it is the "standard" appealed to by victim blamers, sexual assaulters, and stalkers. Are you old enough to remember the mini-skirt defense? The number of times some guy has tried to claim that what a woman was wearing is evidence that she wanted to have sex with him sickens me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not only are you intentionally avoiding said rigor and responsibility, but you are directly leaning into the "it's true for me" mentality where one is justified in one's conclusions on no more basis than one has said conclusions. This is, of course, the realm of religion and politics..

Maybe for you, it is..
..but we don't all just base our beliefs on 'whims and fancies'.

 

[ppp]

Maybe for you, it is..'.

Your intent may be clear in your mind, but I have no idea what the is 'it' in your sentence is supposed to be referring to.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not only are you intentionally avoiding said rigor and responsibility,

Who said I am avoiding rigor and responsibility?

Rigor is the quality of being detailed, careful, and complete.

I never avoided rigor. You thinking that I am avoiding rigor does not make it so.
I never avoided responsibility either. I am responsible to God for my beliefs and I have met my responsibilities by thoroughly examining the evidence.

but you are directly leaning into the "it's true for me" mentality where one is justified in one's conclusions on no more basis than one has said conclusions.

I believe it is true. Show me where I ever said "It's true because I believe it is true."

I did not justify my conclusions on no more basis than having said conclusions.

Aside from that, I do not have to justify my conclusions to anyone except God since I am only accountable to God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your intense may be clear in your mind, but I have no idea what the is 'it' in your sentence is supposed to be referring to.

'It' refers to what you said about intentionally avoiding said rigor and responsibility.

 

[ppp]

Who said I am avoiding rigor and responsibility?

Right here. I did. The words were mine . I said it about you. I'll say it again if the source of my words was not clear.

It was me.

 

[YoursTrue]

What "evidence" for which God? Some religions do have a different concept of who, what and how many Gods there are. Plus, there is Satan. Christians believe there is evidence that Satan is real. How about Islam? Yet, Baha'is don't believe Satan is real. Beliefs and religious concepts vary from religion to religion.

Which doesn't bother me, because I believe people made up their religious beliefs and their Gods. For a religion like Christianity, many of them say the same thing. That all the other religions were made up by people and those people believe in and worship false gods that they invented. Naturally, for those Christians, their religion and their God is the one true God.

But you know what, Baha'is kind of believe that too, except with a little twist. They say all the religions were true "originally". Then people made up stuff and added it in. They probably even believe that about Islam.

I'm going to say that when a religious idea or tenet is presented to a person, the heart may make a decision. What do you think ?

 

[ppp]

'It' refers to what you said about intentionally avoiding said rigor and responsibility.

Thank you for your input of the content of someone else's brain. Your response will be filed, appropriately.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right here. I did. The words were mine . I said it about you. I'll say it again if the source of my words was not clear.

It was me.

Okay, you said it. Now back it up with evidence. If you have none then all you have is a personal opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you for your input of the content of someone else's brain. Your response will be filed, appropriately.

Okay, I spoke out of turn. I don't usually do that but I thought I knew what he was referring to at the time.
I was just trying to help out but I should have waited for him to answer for himself.

"It" could have also been referring to what you said about directly leaning into the "it's true for me" mentality where one is justified in one's conclusions on no more basis than one has said conclusions.

 

[ppp]

Okay, you said it. Now back it up with evidence. If you have none then all you have is a personal opinion.

Convince me that your usage of the term isn't self-serving twaddle, and I will.

 

[ppp]

Okay, I spoke out of turn. I

Well said. And the acknowledgement is respected.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

@PureX said that one CAN change their mind, but they won't because they don't want to deny their current understanding of 'what is'. #523

I disagree. One CAN change their mind, and they sometimes do, if they get new information that causes them to change their mind. However, if they don't change their mind, it is because they truly believe that what they believe is true according to their current understanding. It is not that they won’t change their mind, as if they are stubbornly refusing to change their mind, it is that they have no reason to change their mind.

Why should anyone deny that what they believe is true?

Conversely, why should anyone accept any belief as true if they don’t believe it is true?

Why should atheists accept that God exists when they see no evidence for God’s existence?

I do not think that atheists are stubbornly refusing to believe in God. I take them at their word when they say that they see no evidence for God. It is not that they won’t believe in God, it is that they can’t believe in God because they see no evidence for God. The same holds true for me. It is not that I won’t disbelieve in God, it is that I can’t disbelieve in God because I see evidence for God.

We can't choose our beliefs. We are either convinced or unconvinced of a proposition by how we evaluate the evidence. We can and do change our beliefs based on new evidence or a change in the way we evaluate evidence. I was a believer in god then I became unconvinced because I learned to better evaluate evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

We can't choose our beliefs. We are either convinced or unconvinced of a proposition by how we evaluate the evidence. We can and do change our beliefs based on new evidence or a change in the way we evaluate evidence. I was a believer in god then I became unconvinced because I learned to better evaluate evidence.

That is essentially what I was saying in my OP. Whether we believe in God or a religion or not depends upon how we evaluate the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Convince me that your usage of the term isn't self-serving twaddle, and I will.

Since you claimed in #662 that I was intentionally avoiding rigor you are the one with the burden of proof, not me.
And that is why I said "Now back it up with evidence. If you have none then all you have is a personal opinion."

Rigor is the quality of being detailed, careful, and complete. Only I know if I was detailed, careful, and complete in evaluating the evidence.
Would you believe me if I said I was detailed, careful, and complete in evaluating the evidence? How would you know I wasn't, because I came to a conclusion you disagree with? It seems to me that this is what it boils down to.

 

[ppp]

Since you claimed in #662 that I was intentionally avoiding rigor you are the one with the burden of proof, not me.

That is an incomplete representation of what I said. I reject your post.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is an incomplete representation of what I said. I reject your post.

Here is the whole post.

Not only are you intentionally avoiding said rigor and responsibility, but you are directly leaning into the "it's true for me" mentality where one is justified in one's conclusions on no more basis than one has said conclusions. This is, of course, the realm of religion and politics, but worse it is the "standard" appealed to by victim blamers, sexual assaulters, and stalkers. Are you old enough to remember the mini-skirt defense? The number of times some guy has tried to claim that what a woman was wearing is evidence that she wanted to have sex with him sickens me. #662

Now can you answer it?

Rigor is the quality of being detailed, careful, and complete. Only I know if I was detailed, careful, and complete in evaluating the evidence.
Would you believe me if I said I was detailed, careful, and complete in evaluating the evidence?
How would you know I wasn't, because I came to a conclusion you disagree with?

 

[ppp]

Here is the whole post.

It is. And simply copying and pasting a post is not representing it.. It's just regurgitation without any thoughtful engagement or transformation. I don't expect for you to recognize why those things are important.

Would you believe me if I said I was detailed, careful, and complete in evaluating the evidence?

No.

How would you know I wasn't, because I came to a conclusion you disagree with?

No.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is. And simply copying and pasting a post is not representing it.. It's just regurgitation without any thoughtful engagement or transformation. I don't expect for you to recognize why those things are important.

I am not going to represent your post, but I already responded to it in #665 and I tried to engage you in a conversation, to no avail.
Just look and see how you responded, without any thoughtful engagement.

No.

Why not?

No.

Then why?