How often do your beliefs change?

[Astreja]

I used to be more of a Picard guy, but these days I lean Kirk.

Oh, no!  Now I have the Weird Al song "White and Nerdy" stuck in my head.

...

Wait a minute; that's a good thing.  NVM.  

[Spongebob]

I would say my beliefs, or at least some of them, change every few months. For instance, just a few months ago, I thought the afterlife might be a real thing, but now I'm pretty sure it's not. I always have to wonder if my beliefs will keep changing indefinitely, and end up becoming overwhelmingly abstract, or if there's an end to this belief changing that I haven't reached yet.

If you are open minded and allow yourself to be exposed to new ideas and information then yes, you will likely continue to feel intellectual pressure to change your beliefs to align better with the reality that you experience.  To not do this requires you do deny reality and/or reject objective information in some way.  I reference objective information because this is the only valid form of information you should be considering.  Subjective information is too unreliable and can lead you to make serious mistakes.

The astonishing thing here is that one one thread you are admitting to changing your mind about religious matters while simultaneously dismissing others who are doing nothing different.  That is hypocrisy and it is disgusting.

[Ahriman]

I reference objective information because this is the only valid form of information you should be considering.  Subjective information is too unreliable and can lead you to make serious mistakes.

Well I would disagree with the first sentence. But you're right about the second sentence. However, people are allowed to make mistakes. In fact, people are allowed to have a completely crazy world view, if that's what they want.

[brewer]

Depends on the original belief and then the validity of new evidence, perspective or time.

I used to believe Bevis and Butt-Head was funny, not so much now.

[Spongebob]

Premise 1 - I reference objective information because this is the only valid form of information you should be considering. 
Premise 2 - Subjective information is too unreliable and can lead you to make serious mistakes.

Well I would disagree with the first sentence. But you're right about the second sentence. However, people are allowed to make mistakes. In fact, people are allowed to have a completely crazy world view, if that's what they want.

How can you accept premise 1 while rejecting premise 2?  They are mutually exclusive.  You can't be tall and short at the same time.

Sure you can make as many mistakes as you like.  It doesn't invalidate premise 1.  You can accept premise 1 and still make mistakes.  The point is, the more you seek out objective information, the better decisions and options you will have. 

In some ways I am talking about one's world view and sure you are free to have a crazy one, but you're only hurting yourself and possibly people you are close to.

Here's a real world example.  Objective medical science tells us that vaccinations are absolutely safe and effective and one of the most profoundly reliable forms of medical treatment ever devised by humans.  If you (perish the thought) ever meet a woman willing to reproduce with you and you have input into whether the child gets vaccinated, the objective world is telling you without hesitation the answer is YES.  Now, you are free to reject this objective truth and believe whatever claptrap you want, but you will be putting your own child at risk and possibly others that child will comes into contact with who have legitimate reasons for not getting vaccinated.  Now I imagine that to you this sounds like fuddy duddy indoctrinated atheist dogma, but that is your emotions talking to you, trying to protect your invested feelings about your accepted worldview. It's your mind fighting the realization that it is wrong about something.  This is known as cognitive dissonance and you really should listen to it.  (In fact you have listened to it in the past because you have acknowledged making changes to your religious beliefs.)  Reality doesn't give a shit about your worldview and reality is much better represented by objective information.  In reality, vaccinations are a good thing.  Hard stop.  This is based on more data and work than you likely have the mental capacity to comprehend.

[Ahriman]

You trust society way too much. Religion is more apt to explain how a person should think than society is, I believe. There are by far more so-called normal people causing problems within society than there are outcasts causing problems.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You trust society way too much. Religion is more apt to explain how a person should think than society is, I believe. There are by far more so-called normal people causing problems within society than there are outcasts causing problems.

On the contrary. Religion spends a tremendous amount of time and effort to get people to not think. This is why they call it ‘faith’.

Boru

[Ahriman]

You trust society way too much. Religion is more apt to explain how a person should think than society is, I believe. There are by far more so-called normal people causing problems within society than there are outcasts causing problems.

On the contrary. Religion spends a tremendous amount of time and effort to get people to not think. This is why they call it ‘faith’.

Boru

Nah, religion teaches people how to think in the right ways, minus all the extraneous societal brainwashing.

[Spongebob]

You trust society way too much. 

That's where you are dead wrong.  I don't trust "society" at all.  I don't even trust individual scientists or officials explicitly.  I trust the scientific method and hold individuals accountable to it.

 

Religion is more apt to explain how a person should think than society is, I believe.
 There are by far more so-called normal people causing problems within society than there are outcasts causing problems.

I most certainly don't trust anyone with religious credentials with anything other than religious advice and I don't have much use for that.  You aren't being objective here because you have no data on this subject.  How do you know this?  You don't.  Have you considered things like the number of Catholic priests and other clergy who have engaged in sexually assaulting children?  What about all those individuals who knew about the assaults and acted to cover them up and protect the offending clergy?  What about all the religious people who did atrocious things in the name of their god, or despite knowing better because they were in fact religious people?  If you go to any prison and poll the convicts there, you should ask how many of them considered themselves a believer in god when they committee their crimes.  You'll see the percentage is high.  I'm not saying this to validate atheism as a protection from being a criminal; it's not.  But you clearly have no idea what the objective facts are.  This is where your reliance on your own subjective imagination fails you.

---

On the contrary. Religion spends a tremendous amount of time and effort to get people to not think. This is why they call it ‘faith’.

Boru

Nah, religion teaches people how to think in the right ways, minus all the extraneous societal brainwashing.

Religion does try to persuade people to think and do in a particular way, but Boru is pointing out that it also pressures people to reject objective truths in lieu of something called "faith", which is defined as belief despite lack of evidence.  This is why Muslims few planes into buildings on 9/11.  You won't likely see any atheist doing that.

[Anomalocaris]

On the contrary. Religion spends a tremendous amount of time and effort to get people to not think. This is why they call it ‘faith’.

Boru

Nah, religion teaches people how to think in the right ways, minus all the extraneous societal brainwashing.

Religion teaches people how to believe on the way that increases the power of influence of that religion.   The nature of religion is such that its influence and power diminishes the prospect of long term survival and prosperity of humanity.

It it didn’t, it wouldn’t need any of the salient attributed that characterize religion. So a harmless religion wouldn’t be a religion.