the question of change in "Flashdangerpants" op

[Peter Kropotkin]

In the above mentioned thread, comes the question of change..
especially in the ''BIG stuff" questions of existence...

this question has several different aspects...

among them is epistemological.. How do we know that the beliefs
we hold is actually true? On what basis can we hold certain beliefs?

So to put this into context, one might say, as I have seen written
on this site, "Abortion is wrong because it is the murder of children''
but this statement isn't actually factual.. on what basis can we hold
this belief? For me it is clear, and I am a father, that abortion has nothing
to do with children.. you cannot refer to an fetus as a child... a child exists
once it is born, not before... I cannot refer to a fetus as a child, it isn't...and
once born it isn't even called a child...a newborn or baby is the correct term,
according to the current literature , you can't call one a child until
6-9 years of age..

so lets try again... to say: "Abortion is the murder of children"
what is that statement? It is an false, emotional statement designed to
bring a person to a already determine conclusion.. and that doesn't even
address the other problem within the statement which is the word,
"Murder"... From an epistemology standpoint, that of knowledge,
how do we ''know'' that abortion is ''murder''...

Truth be known, most of what we belief to be true, is not
factual knowledge, but opinions hiding as facts...

''There is a god'' is not a factual statement, but an opinion
pretending to be fact...

and now let us return to this question of change,
we are indoctrinated from birth with the opinions
of the family, church, society and the state...

there is a god, The USA is number one, that liberals deserve
to die, that capitalism is the greatest system ever devised, are
some of the childhood indoctrinations we get....

these childhood indoctrinations are some of the big beliefs we have as adults..
at some point, for most of us, we see our childhood indoctrinations
for what they are...false pictures of ourselves, our state, the
society and of religion... to match our beliefs with reality, we must
change our beliefs to match the reality we see on the ground...

For me, life made much more sense and matched the reality I saw
on the ground when I accepted the no god in the world reality...
Once I overcame that childhood indoctrination, my life
has been far better... I am much more at peace...

Change comes about because we see/view reality differently...
or said differently, our beliefs travel (slowly) from holding
beliefs based on opinions from our childhood indoctrinations
to the more factual evidence we see in our daily lives....
we travel from opinions without facts to opinions based
on facts... and thus we change our beliefs and values...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so let continue this thought...
we have science, in which every statement must be based in
''truth''... I cannot hold to random opinions and claim they are
fact/ scientific unless they are shown to be factual...
for example, I can claim that there is a planet between the Earth
and Mars...but unless I can show proof of that planet, I am
holding to an opinion, not fact...when challenged to ''prove''
my point I might say, it is invisible, or it is in another dimension...
we have several examples of this type of statements...

For example, the ''Big lie'' that IQ45 won the 2020 election...
there are no facts of any kind that ''prove'' this statement..
I may as well say the facts are ''invisible'' and only seen
by those who already believe in the ''big lie''...if you
believe, you will have your facts... but that leads us to this
question of what comes first, believe or facts? Is a ''truth''
that only exists when you believe, a ''truth?''

TRUTH: the quality or state of being true:
(also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality:

Thus the "Truth" can only exists within being true or in accordance
to fact/reality... and most people have within their belief system,
a mixture of "truth" and "not true".... and that what is "true"
and what is not "true" lies within the factual statements made
about such beliefs.. thus the statement that there is a planet
named Mars, I can factually prove...thus the statement
that there is a planet between the Earth and Mars, I cannot prove,
it is not true.. not factual..

we are left with an interesting question,
under what circumstances should we hold to untrue,
not factual statements?

A lot of people will hold to not factual statement, not true statements
because that "not true" statement will make them feel good about themselves...
for example, one might hold to being a "stable genius" not that it is true,
but it makes one feel better about oneself... Many beliefs are held for
no other reason but for the fact it makes us feel good about ourselves...
no facts or evidence might support that "belief" but it does make
us feel good about ourselves...and that is its value....

Human beings have physical needs, food, water, education, health care,
shelter... but they have psychological needs, love, esteem, safety/security needs,
and believing in a "not truth" to make ourselves feel better, is a psychological
need...

Nietzsche once wrote, "Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth
because they don't want their illusions destroyed" and another quote:
"The real question is: how much truth can I stand?"

and the last quote:

".... in which case the strength of a spirit should be measured according
to how much of the "truth" one could still endure- or to put it more
clearly, to what degree one would require it (truth) to be thinned down,
shrouded, sweetened, blunted, falsified"

or as the movie says ''You can't handle the truth''...

so to understand change in regard to the ''truth''..
the path we must take is from holding beliefs that make us
feel good about ourselves to ''truths'' that might make us
unsure or doubtful about who we are... how much ''truth''
can we stand?

it isn't enough to change one's mind, but to how much ''truth''
can we take..

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so the question becomes, why do we change our 'TRUTHS?"

and one answer might be to better fit within reality...
the reality is that evolution is the best fitting explanation of
all explanations of animals and human beings we have...
as with all science, that explanation is the who, what, when, where
and how of something existing, but science cannot, cannot give us
a why... the why of existence.. I exist but why? Evolution
is the best answer as to how I am here, but not to the why of existence...

our childhood indoctrinations of god, is one attempt
to answer the why of existence, but this ''answer'' fails to
answer the epistemological side...how do we know this is ''true?"
the question of god existing is not a theological question, but
an epistemology question... how do we know this is true?

and if we go from belief in god to being in doubt about god,
then we are going from "not true" to being unsure.. which is to
say that change, going from belief to doubt is progress toward
the truth...so going from a belief in the "big lie" about the
2020 election to being unsure, is movement from belief in
"not true" to not being sure.. that is progress...
the closer we get to the truth, to reality, is moving closer
to the facts of the situation.. even moving into doubt is still closer
to the reality of a situation then holding to a "truth" that
is epistemological ''not true''...
to hold to the idea that there is a planet between the earth and Mars,
is epistemological "not true"...
to hold to there being a god is epistemological ''not true"
and if we change our beliefs to even having doubts about god,
we are closer to the 'TRUTH", then if we believe in god...

to change our beliefs even from a belief in, to doubts about something,
is change that is reflected in going from "not true" to at least coming
closer to the "truth", closer to reality.. even if all we do is go from belief
to doubt..

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

In the above mentioned thread, comes the question of change..
especially in the ''BIG stuff" questions of existence...

this question has several different aspects...

among them is epistemological.. How do we know that the beliefs
we hold is actually true? On what basis can we hold certain beliefs?

So to put this into context, one might say, as I have seen written
on this site, "Abortion is wrong because it is the murder of children''
but this statement isn't actually factual.. on what basis can we hold
this belief? For me it is clear, and I am a father, that abortion has nothing
to do with children.. you cannot refer to an fetus as a child... a child exists
once it is born, not before... I cannot refer to a fetus as a child, it isn't...and
once born it isn't even called a child...a newborn or baby is the correct term,
according to the current literature , you can't call one a child until
6-9 years of age..

so lets try again... to say: "Abortion is the murder of children"
what is that statement? It is an false, emotional statement designed to
bring a person to a already determine conclusion.. and that doesn't even
address the other problem within the statement which is the word,
"Murder"... From an epistemology standpoint, that of knowledge,
how do we ''know'' that abortion is ''murder''...

Truth be known, most of what we belief to be true, is not
factual knowledge, but opinions hiding as facts...

''There is a god'' is not a factual statement, but an opinion
pretending to be fact...

and now let us return to this question of change,
we are indoctrinated from birth with the opinions
of the family, church, society and the state...

there is a god, The USA is number one, that liberals deserve
to die, that capitalism is the greatest system ever devised, are
some of the childhood indoctrinations we get....

these childhood indoctrinations are some of the big beliefs we have as adults..
at some point, for most of us, we see our childhood indoctrinations
for what they are...false pictures of ourselves, our state, the
society and of religion... to match our beliefs with reality, we must
change our beliefs to match the reality we see on the ground...

For me, life made much more sense and matched the reality I saw
on the ground when I accepted the no god in the world reality...
Once I overcame that childhood indoctrination, my life
has been far better... I am much more at peace...

Change comes about because we see/view reality differently...
or said differently, our beliefs travel (slowly) from holding
beliefs based on opinions from our childhood indoctrinations
to the more factual evidence we see in our daily lives....
we travel from opinions without facts to opinions based
on facts... and thus we change our beliefs and values...

Kropotkin

You're arguing that many people's beliefs or/and their statements of what they consider fact are really opinions. You mix two categories here without noting they are separate. Some statements are potentially factual but you feel they lack evidence. IOW they fail on epistemological rigor. Other statements are value judgments, not statements of fact. I think it is clearer is you make clear these are two kinds of opinions.

That said. If you want to make this point or these points AND you are talking about childhood indoctrination, why would you focus just on conservative/religious beliefs and positions?

I can see no good reason to present only beliefs held by people you consider on the other side of the fence, a group you are critical, when you are trying to make a general account. When you are making a general claim about humans, that we do this. It is as if non-conservative opinions of both types don't masquerade as facts also. It is as if there is no indoctrination on the Left, say.

It becomes a kind of trolling. YOu say 'we' have opinions. You talk about 'our childhood indoctrinations' and it sounds universal and not partisan. But all your examples are based on Conservative opinions. So, it seems like part of you wants to say, well, it isn't we, it's them.

to change our beliefs even from a belief in, to doubts about something,
is change that is reflected in going from "not true" to at least coming
closer to the "truth", closer to reality.. even if all we do is go from belief
to doubt..

Of course we might change away from a belief that is true towards doubting it. Or towards a false belief. Or we might be moving away from a belief that is controversial, but is working for us. Perhaps there is no higher power, but belief in one has helped some people. It might be best to get over alcholism first, at least, if using this tool is effective. And perhaps it won't stop being a help. Everyone has beliefs which they cannot demonstrate to others are the case.

[Age]

In the above mentioned thread, comes the question of change..
especially in the ''BIG stuff" questions of existence...

this question has several different aspects...

among them is epistemological.. How do we know that the beliefs
we hold is actually true? On what basis can we hold certain beliefs?

So to put this into context, one might say, as I have seen written
on this site, "Abortion is wrong because it is the murder of children''
but this statement isn't actually factual.. on what basis can we hold
this belief? For me it is clear, and I am a father, that abortion has nothing
to do with children.. you cannot refer to an fetus as a child... a child exists
once it is born, not before... I cannot refer to a fetus as a child, it isn't...and
once born it isn't even called a child...a newborn or baby is the correct term,
according to the current literature , you can't call one a child until
6-9 years of age..

so lets try again... to say: "Abortion is the murder of children"
what is that statement? It is an false, emotional statement designed to
bring a person to a already determine conclusion.. and that doesn't even
address the other problem within the statement which is the word,
"Murder"... From an epistemology standpoint, that of knowledge,
how do we ''know'' that abortion is ''murder''...

Truth be known, most of what we belief to be true, is not
factual knowledge, but opinions hiding as facts...

''There is a god'' is not a factual statement, but an opinion
pretending to be fact...

and now let us return to this question of change,
we are indoctrinated from birth with the opinions
of the family, church, society and the state...

there is a god, The USA is number one, that liberals deserve
to die, that capitalism is the greatest system ever devised, are
some of the childhood indoctrinations we get....

these childhood indoctrinations are some of the big beliefs we have as adults..
at some point, for most of us, we see our childhood indoctrinations
for what they are...false pictures of ourselves, our state, the
society and of religion... to match our beliefs with reality, we must
change our beliefs to match the reality we see on the ground...

For me, life made much more sense and matched the reality I saw
on the ground when I accepted the no god in the world reality...
Once I overcame that childhood indoctrination, my life
has been far better... I am much more at peace...

Change comes about because we see/view reality differently...
or said differently, our beliefs travel (slowly) from holding
beliefs based on opinions from our childhood indoctrinations
to the more factual evidence we see in our daily lives....
we travel from opinions without facts to opinions based
on facts... and thus we change our beliefs and values...

Kropotkin

But why have any beliefs in the beginning?

There certainly is no need for beliefs.

[Age]

Everyone has beliefs which they cannot demonstrate to others are the case.

Why then have or hold those beliefs?

[Iwannaplato]

Everyone has beliefs which they cannot demonstrate to others are the case.

Why then have or hold those beliefs?

So, if someone woke you up at night, scared you, pushed you around. Then left. And you call the police but they find no evidence a break in. They don't rule out that someone got in, but they find no evidence. You tell your friends, but you can't prove it. Maybe you dreamed they say. You experienced it, and you know it did not have the qualities that dreams have. But you cannot demonstrate this to you friends. Get them to know the qualia were the way you say. You can't prove it.

Do you then give up the belief?

Might it not be rational, despite not being able to prove it to anyone, to ask someone who knows security well, to take a look at your home and see if you can make it safer? To live on the assumption that you are correct that you had an intruder?

Or let's talk about people who before it was accepted in science, who believed that animals were experiencers. That they had emotions, that they were aware, that when you look in their eyes, they are looking in your eyes and are aware of you. Until the 70s this was very controversial in science, before that it was considered wrong.

And, really, there is no way to demonstrate the existence of other minds. Yet, Native Americans and others with similar metaphysics, pet owers, animal trainers and more believed that animals, were, like us, subjective beings. Not mere mechanisms.

Were they all wrong to do this before science shifted, not all that long ago?

If I believe hanging out with person X is good for me, must I be able to prove that to others, before I hold that belief and make choices based on it.

You believe:

There certainly is no need for beliefs.

Can you prove this to others? Did you come to believe this only after you found a way to demonstrate this was true to others so that they believed it was true? And how do we test your belief that we do not need any beliefs? Do we find people who have no beliefs and see if that works well? But how do we or they demonstrate/prove they have no beliefs?

Or how about just beliefs like, if I go to a grocery store, I am likely to find food to buy?

Or believing it's a good idea to teach my kids roads can be dangerous? I mean, maybe they won't be for the kids. Maybe every driver they encounter will be great at hitting the brakes?

Or how about be belief that working hard increases the chances of promotion?

Don't we need such beliefs? How would parents choose between all sorts of things to teach their children without having some beliefs about the way the world works?

Note: I have now shifted fromv the issue from it can be just peachy to believe things one cannot demonstrate are true to others TO the issue of needing beliefs.

[Age]

Everyone has beliefs which they cannot demonstrate to others are the case.

Why then have or hold those beliefs?

So, if someone woke you up at night, scared you, pushed you around. Then left. And you call the police but they find no evidence a break in. They don't rule out that someone got in, but they find no evidence. You tell your friends, but you can't prove it. Maybe you dreamed they say. You experienced it, and you know it did not have the qualities that dreams have. But you cannot demonstrate this to you friends. Get them to know the qualia were the way you say. You can't prove it.

Do you then give up the belief?

1. I would NOT have a 'belief' to begin with.

2. Therefore, your question here is moot.

Might it not be rational, despite not being able to prove it to anyone, to ask someone who knows security well, to take a look at your home and see if you can make it safer? To live on the assumption that you are correct that you had an intruder?

No one has to 'break in' to my home, in the beginning, because it is always open.

Not everyone lives in countries like you do where everyone ends up living in fear, and scared.

Or let's talk about people who before it was accepted in science, who believed that animals were experiencers. That they had emotions, that they were aware, that when you look in their eyes, they are looking in your eyes and are aware of you. Until the 70s this was very controversial in science, before that it was considered wrong.

And, really, there is no way to demonstrate the existence of other minds. Yet, Native Americans and others with similar metaphysics, pet owers, animal trainers and more believed that animals, were, like us, subjective beings. Not mere mechanisms.

Were they all wrong to do this before science shifted, not all that long ago?

My question was about 'beliefs'.

Which by the way we are still waiting for you to answer.

If I believe hanging out with person X is good for me, must I be able to prove that to others, before I hold that belief and make choices based on it.

Did you see and understand what my question to you was asking for?

If yes, then what is your understanding?

You believe:

There certainly is no need for beliefs.

No I do not.

Why did you assume such a thing?

Can you prove this to others?

Yes.

Did you come to believe this only after you found a way to demonstrate this was true to others so that they believed it was true?

I do not believe this, so your question here is moot.

And how do we test your belief that we do not need any beliefs?

But I do not have this belief. You will have to comprehend, understand and accept this Fact, first, before you can proceed any further here. Otherwise you will just remain stuck 'here', as you are showing us.

Do we find people who have no beliefs and see if that works well?

You could do that.

But how do we or they demonstrate/prove they have no beliefs?

By Truly listening to the actual words they use.

[Iwannaplato]

1. I would NOT have a 'belief' to begin with.

2. Therefore, your question here is moot.

I don't know what that means. That you wouldn't have a belief. You wouldn't think you had an intruder?

Might it not be rational, despite not being able to prove it to anyone, to ask someone who knows security well, to take a look at your home and see if you can make it safer? To live on the assumption that you are correct that you had an intruder?

No one has to 'break in' to my home, in the beginning, because it is always open.

Wow, that was a really childish move. It was one example of a possible situation. You could have been a charitable reader and imagined a similar but positive situation. For example. You say your home is always open. So, you are woken up by a rare bird, that sings you awake in the middle of the night. It then flies away from your open home and the next day you have no way to prove this wonderful lovely experience happened, but you would believe it happened, or?

Not everyone lives in countries like you do where everyone ends up living in fear, and scared.

You don't know how I live. But you decided to judge me, present your beliefs about me and how I live. But you have no beliefs, lol. You believe that I live in fear and am scared. But you can't demonstrate that is the case. And yet you believe you know how I live.

I presented a hypothetical situation, one that raised epistemological issues. Instead of acting like you understood the epistemological issues you used it as an opportunity to judge me and do some mind reading, all the while denying that you have beliefs. And avoiding having to deal with the issue. It's really basic commication ignorance on your part or worse.

Or, perhaps, you don't believe anything. LOL What that means is that you say negative things about people you don't believe. Take your pick.

You were hypocritical in this post. You were disingenous. You contradicted yourself. You made claims and obviously have beliefs that you cannot demonstrate to others. You did not deal with the issue, I raised in that hypothetical situation. I'm not interested in seeing the rest.

Permanent ignore. Seriously, this little game made me laugh. I am starting to see just how silly you act here. It's the upside of no longer taking someone seriously.

[Age]

1. I would NOT have a 'belief' to begin with.

2. Therefore, your question here is moot.

I don't know what that means. That you wouldn't have a belief. You wouldn't think you had an intruder?

It is this simple - I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely any thing.

Might it not be rational, despite not being able to prove it to anyone, to ask someone who knows security well, to take a look at your home and see if you can make it safer? To live on the assumption that you are correct that you had an intruder?

No one has to 'break in' to my home, in the beginning, because it is always open.

Wow, that was a really childish move. It was one example of a possible situation. You could have been a charitable reader and imagined a similar but positive situation. For example. You say your home is always open. So, you are woken up by a rare bird, that sings you awake in the middle of the night. It then flies away from your open home and the next day you have no way to prove this wonderful lovely experience happened, but you would believe it happened, or?

Could you also be a so-called 'charitable reader', as well?

I would NOT have a 'belief' to begin with, means for absolutely any thing and not just in your proposed example above.

Not everyone lives in countries like you do where everyone ends up living in fear, and scared.

You don't know how I live. But you decided to judge me, present your beliefs about me and how I live.

But I do not have any beliefs here.

But you have no beliefs,

Yes, this is right and correct.

lol.

Do you find this funny?

If yes, then why?

You believe that I live in fear and am scared.

No I do not.

Why did you even begin to assume such a thing?

But you can't demonstrate that is the case. And yet you believe you know how I live.

But I do not.

Why do you continue and persist with this wrong and distorted assumption?

I presented a hypothetical situation, one that raised epistemological issues. Instead of acting like you understood the epistemological issues you used it as an opportunity to judge me and do some mind reading, all the while denying that you have beliefs.

If I do not have any beliefs, then all of your hypothetical situations regarding this are moot.

I do NOT have ANY beliefs.

Therefore, ANY of the hypothetical you present here do NOT relate to me.

And avoiding having to deal with the issue.

But there is NO issue here with me. This is because I do not have any beliefs.

Any issue here is only for those of you who have beliefs.

It's really basic commication ignorance on your part or worse.

Okay, from your perspective, absolutely ALL communication ignorance here, or worse, is ALL MY FAULT.

Or, perhaps, you don't believe anything. LOL

I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely ANY thing.

What that means is that you say negative things about people you don't believe. Take your pick.

But that does NOT necessarily mean that all.

You were hypocritical in this post. You were disingenous. You contradicted yourself. You made claims and obviously have beliefs that you cannot demonstrate to others. You did not deal with the issue, I raised in that hypothetical situation. I'm not interested in seeing the rest.

And EVERY claim you made here is either false, wrong, or incorrect.

Unless, of course, you can and do prove otherwise.

We await what you say and do now.

Permanent ignore. Seriously, this little game made me laugh. I am starting to see just how silly you act here. It's the upside of no longer taking someone seriously.

Okay.

If you found it way too hard to just open and honest and answer the question I posed, for clarification, to you here, then that is also okay. I fully understand your situation, and what you are really afraid and scared of, EXACTLY.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, I just realized, I should have made it clear. I don't believe Age is a hypocrite. I just tell people he is and I tell him he is. I have no beliefs. I don't for example believe he was honest in his previous post. I lack a belief in his honesty. Oh, this is nice. Not having beliefs. I also lack a belief he is a good discussion partner. I love this. I get to say things about people, judge them, but not have any beliefs to justify. I thought this was disingenuous, but I now see how wrong I was. It is merely pleasant, transcendant.

[Age]

Oh, I just realized, I should have made it clear. I don't believe Age is a hypocrite. I just tell people he is and I tell him he is. I have no beliefs. I don't for example believe he was honest in his previous post. I lack a belief in his honesty. Oh, this is nice. Not having beliefs. I also lack a belief he is a good discussion partner. I love this. I get to say things about people, judge them, but not have any beliefs to justify. I thought this was disingenuous, but I now see how wrong I was. It is merely pleasant, transcendant.

You, obviously, still have views, which, by the way, need to be justified. Otherwise absolutely everything you say could just be false, wrong, and/or incorrect.

[Iwannaplato]

I do not believe that Age has no beliefs. I do not believe Age is an honest poster here.
I do not believe Age did very well at all in the exchange here. I lack a belief in his integrity. I find a lack of evidence of it and so a belief never formed.
I have no beliefs. But I lack more postive beliefs about Age than I do about other people who post here.
I lack a belief that his posts are of interest so I do not read them.
I am grateful for this magic tool of disingenousness he gave me and which is only appropriate for posters like him.
Gratitude is a kind of emotion. It requires no jusitification.
I walk boldly into a new day with no need to justify my mocking.
Innocent as Age. Free to claim what I want since I have no beliefs.

[commonsense]

Oh, I just realized, I should have made it clear. I don't believe Age is a hypocrite. I just tell people he is and I tell him he is. I have no beliefs. I don't for example believe he was honest in his previous post. I lack a belief in his honesty. Oh, this is nice. Not having beliefs. I also lack a belief he is a good discussion partner. I love this. I get to say things about people, judge them, but not have any beliefs to justify. I thought this was disingenuous, but I now see how wrong I was. It is merely pleasant, transcendant.

Sarcasm is lost on some. For example read another response to what you said here.

[commonsense]

So the change Peter references is a manifestation of learning. And lifelong learning is what enables a person to analyze his beliefs, confirming them or turning them over for new ones. It takes an open mind, which some who post here falsely claim to have, to change beliefs. And among beliefs, which are in essence conclusions without factual evidence, the stickiest of all is the belief that something factitous is factual.