Stupid things you used to believe in

[Secret Chief]

it was Donald Trump that set me free.

I think you should have this as your signature

 

[Spirit of Light]

I started this thread so that you can own up to stupid things that you used to believe in...

...but no longer believe in and now consider stupid

I have a few, but for me this is the main one:

Every person has a "god shaped hole" in them which means that they cannot be completed until something God shaped fills their hole. This can be done with many things but ultimately the best way of filling it is to fill it with God.
​

Also, why did you believe what you believed?

Because I heard some sleazy religious dude on a "faith" television station say it and I thought it sounded kinda cool
​

And why did you stop believing it?

Because it is possible to feel whole and authentic as a human being without God

Indeed, it is obvious that many atheists are more whole and authentic human beings than many theists

And, assuming there is a God-shaped hole, surely it is the shape of what fills it that matters, rather than what exactly it is???​

I do not see my past beliefs as stupid i see my past belief different than my current belief, thats all

 

[Colt]

I started this thread so that you can own up to stupid things that you used to believe in...

...but no longer believe in and now consider stupid

I have a few, but for me this is the main one:

Every person has a "god shaped hole" in them which means that they cannot be completed until something God shaped fills their hole. This can be done with many things but ultimately the best way of filling it is to fill it with God.
​

Also, why did you believe what you believed?

Because I heard some sleazy religious dude on a "faith" television station say it and I thought it sounded kinda cool
​

And why did you stop believing it?

Because it is possible to feel whole and authentic as a human being without God

Indeed, it is obvious that many atheists are more whole and authentic human beings than many theists

And, assuming there is a God-shaped hole, surely it is the shape of what fills it that matters, rather than what exactly it is???​

I used to think Journalism was about reporting what happened.

 

[Secret Chief]

I used to think Journalism was about reporting what happened.

I think it's a spectrum from "Man crashes car into wall" to "Propaganda piece by a politician." Not always easy to see where the one shades into the other.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I used to believe that the rights, benefits, and opportunities my parents and grandparents generations had secured for working class people, were secured for all future generations.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To believe Secular Humanists are rational and prefer evidence and reason over emotionally comforting myths, you have to believe humans are rational creatures.

Evidence shows they are not.

It's not a generalisation about Humanists, but the reality of human cognition.

Most Humanists seem to imagine they are a special case, immune to the failings of lesser beings (typically religious folk). That's just an emotionally satisfying myth though.

Who would you say is a paradigm case of a "good Secular Humanist"?

I think it's entirely possible for an individual to be mostly rational. They will inevitably have some flaws in their thinking (like everyone does), but on average, there are a lot of people who I'd say are either more rational or less rational than most. Thinking they or anyone else is immune to the failings of human nature is unwise, of course, and it often leads to intellectual complacency and rigid thinking.

As for who I'd say is a good example of a secular humanist, I don't really follow any specific public figures enough to give one example, but from my own experience, I've known a lot of people I'd describe as such. The main characteristics that make me consider them to be such are their openness to learning and evidence, their compassion for others, and their general tendency to base their views on facts rather than emotional satisfaction or inherent prejudice.

Nobody always succeeds in doing the above, as I said, hence my belief that always being open to improvement and learning is the key aspect of any reasonable worldview.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When I was that way inclined, I used to believe Secular Humanists and other Rationalists were actually rational and favoured evidence based arguments over emotionally comforting myths

So, just to be clear, Augustus, you view the holding of "emotionally comforting myths" to be a negative thing then, if I am getting the gist of your words here? It seems as though you're saying you wanted to believe that "rational[ity]" and "favor[ing] evidence based arguments" were what were being employed by whoever it is that you are calling "Secular Humanists" or "Rationalists." Meaning that that set of attributes was the more positive item you wanted to believe was in play? And then it seems as though you are imparting that you felt disappointed when you learned that they were, instead, adhering to, or espousing themselves with "emotionally comforting myths." Is all that correct/accurate?

Because it would then seem that there may be others who rely pretty heavily on what could very easily be called "emotionally comforting myths." Others that evidence shows you are quite loathe to denounce as you seem to be trying to denounce those who you are terming "Secular Humanists and other Rationalists" here. Why the favoritism in that sense? Prizing or allowing one set of "emotionally comforting myths" as a positive thing, and denouncing another set of "emotionally comforting myths" as a negative thing?

This is no different than a religious person citing a stance of disbelief in religious claims as a "religious" stance of its own. And as in that exact type of case, I will warn you as I warn those who go down that road... if you, at all, like or support people holding "emotionally comforting myths" in high esteem, then you had better watch who you also apply that same label to. If you apply it to a group you don't tend to like, when you'd also like to apply it to a group you do tend to like... well then, I shouldn't have to describe the resulting conflict of position and principle that one might, all on their own, dive right into.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I used to believe (and this is sincere, believe it or not) that people's religious ideas and ideals actually came from somewhere or something of some import or described something with very plausible presence in reality that was separate from themselves.

Even when first coming to this site - the way people spoke/wrote - with such passion, and confidence in many cases. They worded things in esoteric ways - forcing me to study up on whatever it was they were talking about before I could even begin to claim I had even a foot in the door to the conversation. But the more I read and researched, the more the hallmarks of superficiality showed themselves. The more claims were made without even a hint of an expectation to have to actually support them with anything substantial, the more it became all to easy to, at first, tune it out... and at last, to denounce it, verbally scrutinize, and eventually go about the business of trying to rebut it entirely.

I used to believe that religious people just might be on to something. They, themselves, destroyed that belief completely.

 

[We Never Know]

I used to believe as a whole humans were good. Then I realized we are the worst species known to exist.

 

[Clara Tea]

I always believed that when i grew up that I'd be a lottery winner.

Of course, as an adult i would need to do the lottery but bof... I don't like the odds.

Either you will win (long shot), or you will lose (most likely). But, if you do win, you and your progeny are rich for life.

Is it worth spending a small amount of money and get only slightly poorer?

 

[Clara Tea]

I started this thread so that you can own up to stupid things that you used to believe in...

...but no longer believe in and now consider stupid

I have a few, but for me this is the main one:

Every person has a "god shaped hole" in them which means that they cannot be completed until something God shaped fills their hole. This can be done with many things but ultimately the best way of filling it is to fill it with God.
​

Also, why did you believe what you believed?

Because I heard some sleazy religious dude on a "faith" television station say it and I thought it sounded kinda cool
​

And why did you stop believing it?

Because it is possible to feel whole and authentic as a human being without God

Indeed, it is obvious that many atheists are more whole and authentic human beings than many theists

And, assuming there is a God-shaped hole, surely it is the shape of what fills it that matters, rather than what exactly it is???​

Mary had Jesus.

 

[Clara Tea]

I used to believe as a whole humans were good. Then I realized we are the worst species known to exist.

Cats play with mice. Yet, human intelligence should allow us to comprehend scientists' dire predictions of Global Warming, and come up with a solution. Instead, W. Bush used lawyers to deny the scientist's research, and Trump (who is not a scientist, but said to be very intelligent) surrounds himself with climate deniers, and did, himself, claim that Global Warming is a hoax.

Science is right....billionaires who exploit the environment for their personal gain are wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Either you will win (long shot), or you will lose (most likely). But, if you do win, you and your progeny are rich for life.

Is it worth spending a small amount of money and get only slightly poorer?

Not if you don't have the gambling gene.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I used to believe most environmentalists actually cared about the environment. Now t I think most just want to be hip.

 

[We Never Know]

Not if you don't have the gambling gene.

Gambling gene?

 

[Clara Tea]

I used to think Journalism was about reporting what happened.

The real news is in the CIA....they tried to assassinate Castro, but the world was oblivious. They manipulate world events.

I wonder if the illuminati (ancient rich families in charge of the world) really exist?

 

[Quagmire]

When I was a kid, I thought that the history they taught us in school was based on things that had actually happened.

 

[Quagmire]

I used to believe as a whole humans were good. Then I realized we are the worst species known to exist.

I hear you. I used to think that "Progress" was some sort of God-sanctioned holy mandate for the human race.

Eventually I realized it's really just a bunch of self-indulgent people being taken advantage of by a bunch of self-interested people to the never ending detriment of a whole bunch of innocent bystanders

 

[Augustus]

So, just to be clear, Augustus, you view the holding of "emotionally comforting myths" to be a negative thing then, if I am getting the gist of your words here?

No, I can't think of anything more universally human.

Rationalists on the other hand tend to look down on the "childish" folk who need their "emotional crutches" and congratulate themselves on seeing the world as it is.

Nothing wrong with Humanist clinging to their myths. I'm just mildly embarrassed I didn't realise they were myths at that time and thought myself a jolly rational chap who did indeed see the world as it is.

Why the favoritism in that sense? Prizing or allowing one set of "emotionally comforting myths" as a positive thing, and denouncing another set of "emotionally comforting myths" as a negative thing?

As I said, myths are essential to society and cognition, they aren't negative unless they create tangible harm.

Do you think they are negative?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not if you don't have the gambling gene.

And not if you do.

While it is arguable that all gambling is a mug’s game, nowhere is this more true than with lotteries. The odds offer atrocious value, 100 times worse than slot machines, and as every gambler knows, only fools play those regularly.