• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stupid things you used to believe in

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.
I rarely play the lottery. When it hits 300 million or more I might buy a ticket. I know that I am going to lose, but it is cheap entertainment. Other than that I do not gamble. I have a housemate that does and if I have to pick her up I can walk through the casino without even the slightest temptation.


Casinos work by draining the cash from the addicted. Lotteries work on a different basis. A huge number of the players are like me. Throw the state a buck or two, I won't miss it. Meanwhile my housemate's part time boyfriend, who makes more than I do, can't even afford his own home and has to at times live where he can do home repair to help with rent. He is the sort of person that casinos love. He can hold down a good paying job, but his money is gone quite often before his next paycheck.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I rarely play the lottery. When it hits 300 million or more I might buy a ticket. I know that I am going to lose, but it is cheap entertainment. Other than that I do not gamble. I have a housemate that does and if I have to pick her up I can walk through the casino without even the slightest temptation.


Casinos work by draining the cash from the addicted. Lotteries work on a different basis. A huge number of the players are like me. Throw the state a buck or two, I won't miss it. Meanwhile my housemate's part time boyfriend, who makes more than I do, can't even afford his own home and has to at times live where he can do home repair to help with rent. He is the sort of person that casinos love. He can hold down a good paying job, but his money is gone quite often before his next paycheck.


Yeah, sure; in comparison to casinos, lotteries are relatively harmless for most players. I don't doubt that's true.

Forgetting the social cost, the reason lotteries are such a ripoff is that despite the eye catchingly colossal jackpots they often generate, the odds against buying a winning ticket are in no way reflected by the potential returns. If I bet on the second favourite in the feature race at Ascot or Santa Anita, I'd expect the bookmaker's odds or tote return to reasonably reflect the horse's chance of winning the race. Although as my grandmother used to say, "You never see a bookie on a bicycle."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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 :D

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 know one guy who thinks it was stupid for him to believe the universe magically popped into existence and maintained itself.

He was an atheist, and now he is a theist. But of course you have not addressed that kind of thought.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
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.
Okay, then if they are "universally human" and "just fine and dandy" - then why are you found in this thread to be weaponizing the term "emotionally comforting myths" to try to get the goat of those you call "rationalists" and "Secular Humanists?" That brings negative connotation to it right out of the gate. Like so many others I accuse such things of, I fully expect you to duck and weave, dodge and roll - trying with all your might to get out from under the accusation. That's what you did. Period. And if you would like to claim you didn't, then you have somewhat of a problem on your hands, because that is exactly what I perceived. If you don't wish to appear that way, maybe try not saying passive aggressive things like that in the future? Fully up to you. I don't really care - I just absolutely love calling out people who think they are on "the high road", as you so definitively appear to view yourself.

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?
They certainly can be. Do I think that the story of Cinderella is negative? No. No discernable affect on my life and livelihood from that one. Do I think that Christianity (what is majority practiced as religion in my neck of the woods) can, and has been harmful? Yes, definitely.

And here I thought you were one who didn't view things in "black and white," and understood gradation and grey areas. Like the fact that some things aren't ALWAYS detrimental, but sometimes they can be. Oh wait... you even admitted as much, didn't you? Here:
[emotionally comforting myths] aren't negative unless they create tangible harm.
Hmmm... perhaps you DO understand. But then... why the ask if I thought they were negative? Were you asking hyperbolically, as in "Do you think that ALL emotionally comforting myths are negative?" Was that your question? Or were you merely trying to set me up in some way?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I remember back when I was 20 or so.
I actually believed that government was competent & trustworthy.
That belief died a quick & necessary death upon interacting with
government.
 
Okay, then if they are "universally human" and "just fine and dandy" - then why are you found in this thread to be weaponizing the term "emotionally comforting myths" to try to get the goat of those you call "rationalists" and "Secular Humanists?" That brings negative connotation to it right out of the gate. Like so many others I accuse such things of, I fully expect you to duck and weave, dodge and roll - trying with all your might to get out from under the accusation. That's what you did. Period.

Rationalists use similar language all the time on RF to describe others. What's good for the goose...

And in the context of this thread, when I was a "Rationalist" I genuinely did think I saw the world as it is free of emotionally comforting myths. It is quite clear that many Rationalists do indeed take this position.

I just absolutely love calling out people who think they are on "the high road", as you so definitively appear to view yourself.

Rationalists and Humanists consistently use exactly the same language to call out religious folk, never seen you feel the need to call them out. Their problem tends to be they think they have "outgrown" such silly notions and bravely think for themselves.

I like calling out their hypocrisy. You like calling out "people like me". So keep pretending you are on the high road if it makes you feel good...
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Rationalists use similar language all the time on RF to describe others. What's good for the goose...

And in the context of this thread, when I was a "Rationalist" I genuinely did think I saw the world as it is free of emotionally comforting myths. It is quite clear that many Rationalists do indeed take this position.



Rationalists and Humanists consistently use exactly the same language to call out religious folk, never seen you feel the need to call them out. Their problem tends to be they think they have "outgrown" such silly notions and bravely think for themselves.

I like calling out their hypocrisy. You like calling out "people like me". So keep pretending you are on the high road if it makes you feel good...
You seem to have missed my point. So stay with me here.

You have been witnessed in the past to come to the defense of those who hold religious views. Views you have not denied are quite probably "emotionally comforting myths." in fact, I would go so far as to say that you respect and admire those of religious persuasion far more than you do those who state that they do not have a religious affiliation. Again, this is all based on my own perceptions of your activity here, and arguments you and I have gotten into personally. So if I am to be found in the wrong on any of this, please do correct me with your actual position.

Anyway... continuing with that line of thought... a "Secular Humanist" or "Rationalist" (whoever you deem these people to be) utilizing the term "emotionally comforting myth" to describe a religionist's viewpoints or beliefs is not in conflict with their own, personal take on those religious viewpoints, right? I mean, that much is obvious. However, you wanting to simultaneously cast "Secular Humanists" or "Rationalists" views or beliefs in a negative light, utilizing the term "emotionally comforting myth" (again, by weaponizing the term to rile up these types of people who may take offense to their views being cast similarly to those religionists that they view as their opposition), and also accept that that term might accurately represent those you are keen to defend the beliefs of... well... that's a bit of a conundrum. Internal conflict and contradiction much? Do you see what I am getting at?

It is just as ridiculous for a person of any religion, who ENJOYS their religion, to call an atheist "religious." it's the same kind of thing. There they are, trying to defend something the LIKE by stating that something they ABHOR is JUST LIKE IT. You would never catch me, for example, stating that religious people were "just like atheists." Never. That would be completely ridiculous, and I would never want to be thrown into the same lot with people who hold such beliefs. That's just nasty.
 
You have been witnessed in the past to come to the defense of those who hold religious views. Views you have not denied are quite probably "emotionally comforting myths." in fact, I would go so far as to say that you respect and admire those of religious persuasion far more than you do those who state that they do not have a religious affiliation. Again, this is all based on my own perceptions of your activity here, and arguments you and I have gotten into personally. So if I am to be found in the wrong on any of this, please do correct me with your actual position.

While it can be useful as a shorthand, I don't think you can meaningfully differentiate between a religious and non-religious ideology, so it's not at all accurate to say I admire one more than the other.

Anyway... continuing with that line of thought... a "Secular Humanist" or "Rationalist" (whoever you deem these people to be) utilizing the term "emotionally comforting myth" to describe a religionist's viewpoints or beliefs is not in conflict with their own, personal take on those religious viewpoints, right? I mean, that much is obvious. However, you wanting to simultaneously cast "Secular Humanists" or "Rationalists" views or beliefs in a negative light, utilizing the term "emotionally comforting myth" (again, by weaponizing the term to rile up these types of people who may take offense to their views being cast similarly to those religionists that they view as their opposition), and also accept that that term might accurately represent those you are keen to defend the beliefs of... well... that's a bit of a conundrum. Internal conflict and contradiction much? Do you see what I am getting at?

What is the "internal contradiction" between saying emotionally comforting fictions are a universal part of human cognition and also holding that Rationalists believe in emotionally comforting fictions?

If they take offence at others not placing them on a pedestal that's up to them. They are somewhat self-congratulatory about how rational and independent in thought they are, so would be good to take themselves less seriously.

It is just as ridiculous for a person of any religion, who ENJOYS their religion, to call an atheist "religious." it's the same kind of thing. There they are, trying to defend something the LIKE by stating that something they ABHOR is JUST LIKE IT. You would never catch me, for example, stating that religious people were "just like atheists." Never. That would be completely ridiculous, and I would never want to be thrown into the same lot with people who hold such beliefs. That's just nasty.

Yes Rationalists tend not to want to accept they cling to emotionally comforting myths as they view doing so as being akin to "religious belief" which they look down on as childish.

Maybe they'll become more self-aware in future, but I won't be holding my breath.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
While it can be useful as a shorthand, I don't think you can meaningfully differentiate between a religious and non-religious ideology, so it's not at all accurate to say I admire one more than the other.
Again, evidence in the form of your posts and when you decide to post in an argumentative manner would suggest otherwise.

What is the "internal contradiction" between saying emotionally comforting fictions are a universal part of human cognition and also holding that Rationalists believe in emotionally comforting fictions?
You're leaving out the part where I distinctly mentioned that you come to the defense of one particular type over another. I understand exactly why you wanted to leave that part out. I hope you are aware enough to realize why that is yourself.

If they take offence at others not placing them on a pedestal that's up to them. They are somewhat self-congratulatory about how rational and independent in thought they are, so would be good to take themselves less seriously.
Uh yeah... so that's what it is about. Sure thing.

Yes Rationalists tend not to want to accept they cling to emotionally comforting myths as they view doing so as being akin to "religious belief" which they look down on as childish.
With your adamancy on this point, a thought came to me to ask what, more precisely, you believe the "emotionally comforting myths" are that the Secular Humanists and Rationalists you are referring to hold or adhere to. So, do you have a list? I'd be interested in perusing. Is it like ideas that the axioms they hold in high regard are expected to be "universal?" Like an objectiveness to morality or something? Again - it would be interesting to see a list.

Maybe they'll become more self-aware in future, but I won't be holding my breath.
An unnecessary little bit here... but sure, sure. Whatever makes you happy Augustus.
 

Viker

Häxan
I used to believe the moon had a staircase on earth somewhere. I'd find it and go to the moon without rockets.

I also believed stars were all about the size of cars. We were just seeing their headlights.

The Easter Bunny, of course.

:p
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I used to believe you would be arrested for tearing the tag off the bottom of a mattress. Then I saw how politicians got away with much worse.
 
You're leaving out the part where I distinctly mentioned that you come to the defense of one particular type over another. I understand exactly why you wanted to leave that part out. I hope you are aware enough to realize why that is yourself.

You seem unaware that, on an entertainment medium such as RF, people with limited spare time do not necessarily spend equal time discussing every roughly analogous issue and have a variety of reasons why they may discuss one thing over another without it being some kind of "internal conflict".

Again, evidence in the form of your posts and when you decide to post in an argumentative manner would suggest otherwise.
Uh yeah... so that's what it is about. Sure thing.

Your further fallacious assumptions based on incomplete information, selective perception, confirmation bias and mind reading have been noted.

With your adamancy on this point, a thought came to me to ask what, more precisely, you believe the "emotionally comforting myths" are that the Secular Humanists and Rationalists you are referring to hold or adhere to. So, do you have a list? I'd be interested in perusing. Is it like ideas that the axioms they hold in high regard are expected to be "universal?" Like an objectiveness to morality or something? Again - it would be interesting to see a list.

What I said originally, the emotionally comforting belief that they are rational and see the world as it is, even though this contradicts large amounts of scientific evidence about human cognition.

Or alternatively, the one best summed up by John Maynard Keynes:

"Bertie [Bertrand Russell] sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that human affairs are carried on in a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was carry them on rationally."
 

KW

Well-Known Member
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 :D

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 believe I didn’t need God.

This made a life of peace impossible.

God made us for communion with him. We need it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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 :D

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???

When I was around 15, I was totally convinced that there was something to Plato's Atlantis and somehow got convinced that +10.000 years ago, there was a human civilization more advanced then ours is today and which was totally swallowed up the ocean.

Why did I believe it?
Because I was young and ignorant and easily impressed by "believers" and people on the then still rather primitive internet. Yes, it seems as if as soon as average Joe could put a page online, BS started popping up in cyberspace. Along with naked women. :D

This belief lasted for a couple of months. Not really sure anymore what it was that made me realize I was being stupid. I think it wasn't a single thing and rather the collective of things.. the combination of increasing realization that the evidence just wasn't there (just a LOT of writings of believers) along with the piling on of evidence of the contrary.

The belief in the end just faded out.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You seem unaware that, on an entertainment medium such as RF, people with limited spare time do not necessarily spend equal time discussing every roughly analogous issue and have a variety of reasons why they may discuss one thing over another without it being some kind of "internal conflict".
This reads like a dodge to me. Oh... and implying that I spend all my time here or something. Why... just the other day I watched this really stupid game where people were kicking this ball back and forth... what was that game called? Was it sockhead? No... no... something like that though. I think some people call it "foot ball", but that doesn't apply where I live in the U.S. Maybe sockit? No... no... ah! Soccer! That was it. Soccer. What a waste of time that was... but I wasn't on RF! Hahaha...

Your further fallacious assumptions based on incomplete information, selective perception, confirmation bias and mind reading have been noted.
Yet no actual attempt to set me straight. Something I have also noted.

What I said originally, the emotionally comforting belief that they are rational and see the world as it is, even though this contradicts large amounts of scientific evidence about human cognition.
I doubt it is, at all, about them believing they "See the world as it is." If you asked them (as I have seen in many, many discussions) intelligent people will very often admit that matter and energy, for example, are only tangentially understood via our relatively meager ability to sensate and experience things. I think even you would have to admit that that is true, and is as you have experienced. Sure, there are those who haven't thought that far... there always will be, on any "sides." But in the end, what we can SHARE and DEMONSTRATE to one another within the purview of what we can sense/understand/disseminate simply must take precedence over those things that cannot be shared or demonstrated per interactions with one another. This only makes sense. You want to take your religion, figure out whether or not it is true and start getting actual shareable results from your interactions with it? Go right ahead! No one is stopping anyone from doing this... and actual, reproducible results would be very, very hard to deny. I think you too much assume that people can't accept things like the problem of hard solipsism. Most self-described atheists I have spoken to at least grasp the basics of the ideas, and understand that our sensory input and knowledge of things outside ourselves is certainly not perfect, nor does it give us anything but an illusory picture of reality that we must dig deeper into, and rely more on one another's corroboration, and unbiased instrumentation to better understand in order to consistently help one another in tangible ways.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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 :D

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 believe that UN had authority over the nations of the world.
 
Top