64
votes
What caused you to change your mind about something significant?
For anyone who had a strong opinion on something and eventually changed their stance, what was the impetus and/or the process?
For anyone who had a strong opinion on something and eventually changed their stance, what was the impetus and/or the process?
Research. I was a supporter of the death penalty - or rather, I didn't care about the death penalty being legal - until I looked into how much it costs vs. life in prison. Then I looked at the statistics of how many people on death row have been later exonerated, and/or found to not be given proper due process, I became 100% anti-death penalty.
Same with my political views. Research into the history and evolution of both parties, and the difference between conservative and progressive reshaped what I thought I was, and how I voted.
Man, this was a confusing comment when I still had my mind on the topic of having kids.
But yes, generally the only "valid" reason for supporting the death penalty seems to be revenge. And I think governments should usually try to avoid seeking revenge. Sure, getting back at an enemy can be advantageous, but straight-up seeking revenge only serves to make things worse. The death penalty is, in my opinion, an emotional response to people's actions and the government as an entity should seek to be above emotional responses.
To preface this, I am staunchly against the death penalty and believe it is immoral and unjust.
I do think there is another reason that people support the death penalty though, beyond pure revenge. If you have sombody so evil and beyond rehabilitation, who shows no remorse for their crimes, and who is an active threat to other prisoners and the prison staff, some people may argue the best way to deal with them in execution. I do think revenge factors into it, but I'm sure some people see it as a practicality as well.
How would they be an active threat to staff? Are you basically just suggesting execution would be more humane than solitary confinement?
I've already stated in against capital punishment. So no, I'm not suggesting that execution is more humane than solitary confinement (though I'm sure some would make that argument).
You can find information on prisoners assault on staff in the UK here
I'm not sure what mass statistics have to do with whether or not individual prisoners are too dangerous to be kept alive.
I have a similar story, watching this video game me pause to my beliefs. It does a great job as to explaining why the "benefits" of death penalty don't even come close to outweighing the negatives, at least with how our current system works. In my case, I still believe that some people probably do deserve to die, but the state simply can't be trusted to carry out that action responsibly.
https://youtu.be/L30_hfuZoQ8
Same reason why I changed my mind on the death penalty too! I still think some people deserve to die, but I don't actually know whom I'd trust enough to make that decision. Definitely not my govt.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
— Gandalf
The answer to what people deserve can only be emotional. I think a more productive approach to judging people would be based on restitution and prevention of future crimes. A murderer can't fix what they did, but they can be given the opportunity to better understand what they did, the grief it caused and why they did it so they can do better in the future.
When it comes to raising children, we've come a long way. For many people, it is no longer acceptable to guide children only by punishing them. But for some reason most justice systems are still based in the middle ages.
Bernie Sanders was asked if he supported the death penalty and his answer always stuck with me; he said “No, I don’t think the government should be in the business of killing people”. I once repeated that phrase to a coworker who thought he was pro death penalty and it kinda shook his belief… he doesn’t trust the government to do anything right but he was trusting government to administer death in a just fashion… after a minute he said “ I may have to rethink that”.
For anyone that's interested in the history of the death penalty, Jacob Geller's video essay on its evolution through different methods (and society's attitudes towards them) is a fascinating watch. https://youtu.be/eirR4FHY2YY?si=pHCetN-Z1PpPPoXc
This is the exact video that changed my mind about the death penalty.
I was raised by someone whose job was specifically to fight to get people off of death row. My favorite thing to point out is that the government itself punishes more harshly for premeditated killings and those done in cold blood. There’s no killing more premeditated than an execution. Usually you’re killed by the state after years in prison. Ironically they’re probably killing someone charged with murder. Rules for thee but not for me.
Same here. I was handed Dead Man Walking to read as a teenager.
I wonder if our parents ever met? It's a small world.
I never wanted kids. Like, when people were setting career and college goals in high school, I set one that said, “Never have kids.” I told everyone I dated I didn’t want kids. I got multiple degrees and the career I wanted. Then I met my partner. He didn’t make me like kids more, but his nurturing presence got me into the precontemplation stage - thinking about thinking about it.
One day, a coworker mentioned in passing, “I don’t like kids, but I like mine.” That struck me. It made a lot of sense. In time, I decided to start a family with my partner. It’s been hard due to some medical issues and such, and I’m glad I really thought it through so I could commit entirely. And I like my kids, but not really other people’s.
To be clear, having kids is not the right choice for everyone - I will never tell someone “You’ll change your mind,” because I don’t think everyone will or should. I just happened to, and it’s worked out for me.
My experience has been the opposite. I always said I wanted kids. I had internalized that having kids was one of the responsibilities of becoming an adult and having a mature relationship. I (cringe) actually kind of harassed one of my friends who had a childfree marriage for environmental reasons, as I thought their reasons weren't valid enough (I was in my teens).
The person I had my first relationship with had a child. He generally made irresponsible decisions. I didn't really fault him for them (I should have). The second person I had a relationship with was childfree. He didn't really explain his reasons, just flatly told me "no" any time I brought up kids. We broke up on weird terms, but his position got me thinking.
I can barely take care of (or AFFORD to take care of) myself and my two animals. I have a chronic illness and depression that occasionally appears as a result. I now have a wonderful partner who does NOT enjoy kids because they often result in sensory overload for him (they do for me, too, but it takes more). I realized that the only planning I've ever done for kids is to think about what I would want to name them, in a weird, covetous fashion (clearly they would need to be named after some of my favorite book characters). The more I've thought about it, the more it has seemed that having kids wouldn't be a good choice for me personally; everything else aside, pregnancy would likely wreak havoc on my body. I think the last step for me was finding out that permanent sterilization is fully covered under my insurance. So I actually went through with having that done, and now as much as the future (or lack there of) abortion legislation in the US terrifies me, it's not something I have to worry about on an existential level anymore. I still do, but that's beside the point.
Adopting is still on the table, as are some alternative options, like being a host family for an exchange student. But biological kids are something I took off the table for myself, and I'm very relieved that I did. It's a really personal choice. I wish having kids was less something expected by society and less of a default setting, because questioning my entire reality during this process was, uh... interesting. I think it's becoming more common to really calculate if/when kids make the most sense, and I hope that thinking becomes more encouraged as time goes on. It would be cool for having kids to be considered an adult choice, rather than THE adult reality.
My experience was similar to an extent. I grew up wanting kids, specifically two. I always assumed I'd have them and thought they were just what you do in a mature, adult relationship. I didn't know it was a choice until my early 20s. I already had issues with my period and trying to control it so I wouldn't become severely anemic again was a challenge.
I found people talking about the childfree subreddit in one of those many AskReddit threads about "toxic subreddits," so I checked it out for myself before judging. It certainly gave me something to think about. It forced me to realize I had a choice. I read about other people's reasons on there and thought how it related to my own life. For about a year, I thought about it, weighed everything in my life vs the decision. I realized I was never excited about children. I hated the idea of pregnancy and childbirth (note: NOT for other people, only myself). It was never something I wanted to experience. Then, I struggle with my mental health and am an introvert on top of it. I cannot deal with being around people 24/7. I need my space. Children deserve to be raised by someone who wants them and loves them, and I cannot provide that for them. It would not be fair to them. It was the right decision for me.
And now, seeing all of the anti-abortion and anti-choice rhetoric, as well as the legislation... I used the childfree doctors wiki to pursue a bilateral salpingectomy when I had to switch obgyns after mine moved away. I had a lot of heart-to-hearts with my mom about it, and she came to realize it was the right decision for me too. She took me to the hospital for my surgery and took care of me the week after. Ultimately, I ended up having a total hysterectomy due to fibroids and an enlarged uterus last year. I adore my current obgyn; she put my health first and am so grateful she offered it as an option.
I wasn't making any kind of comparison about adoption being easier. But it certainly doesn't involve pregnancy or giving birth, both of which would be very difficult for me personally (and now would be pretty much physically impossible, which was the point and was my decision). Adoption is an option that can't necessarily be taken off the table unless I do something that disqualifies me. It's also something that would need to be pursued with sufficient financial and legal resources, which I probably wouldn't be able to accrue in the age band in which I would be interested in raising a child, so it's probably a moot point (again, for me personally). The path exists. Doesn't mean that I would take it or that it wouldn't be stupid hard.
This resonated with me. I've generally been child-free, but I also dated someone who was nurturing. It turns the proposition of parenthood from "everything is on me, and I may also be parenting my future partner" to "we can tackle everything together." I felt strangely about that, but I read the The Baby Decision, which says that's a pretty normal way to feel. I shifted from thinking "what is correct / logical" to "what makes sense for me right now?"
From experience, although I often had many consistencies in the future I imagined for myself (like a career), I found that with different partners (and at different ages), I imagined different futures. My opinions on things like kids or monogamy shifted with the specific person and what was special about our connection (e.g. independence, nurturing care, etc.).
But what was your partners stance on this? Did they change too? How did that work?
I am the person you used to be and I'm quite sure I'll never change. As a consequence, I got a partner with a similar opinion. If by some miracle I were to change my mind about children, there would be some rocky times ahead for our relation for sure. That would probably the end of it, even though we're 12 years together now and the bond is stronger than ever.
My partner did want kids, so we did not fully commit to a relationship until we were both on the same page re: family and timeline. You’re absolutely right: a change like that while in a relationship can bring a lot of consequences. Perhaps we should ask that question next on Tildes: For those who made a significant change, how did it affect your relationships, whether romantic, social, familial?
100% on that question. I have recently changed my mind about my religion and literally the hardest part about it is how it is and will continue to impact the relationships I have with my spouse, my kids, my parents, my friends and my community. I would love to read about others experience with significant changes in opinions or life decisions.
I’ll post that question then!
Edit: here it is: https://tildes.net/~life/1bku/follow_up_question_for_those_who_made_a_significant_change_how_did_it_affect_your_relationships
Protests. Or rather, the (for me) surprisingly big backlash against protests. This happened multiple times, but I will give an example. I'm from The Netherlands and we have this thing with our version of Santa Claus and his helper Zwarte Piet.
There has been an ongoing issue about the inherent racism of that fictional figure. It has come up a few times in history, but no-one (me included) took it very seriously, because hey, it is all innocent play for children and no-one really thinks black people should always be the assistant of white people, right?
But then some people who thought they were pushed into a negative stereotype started organizing big protests and I, along with many others, thought: OK, you kind of have a point, but it is really such a big issue?
And then came the people who felt they needed to defend Zwarte Piet and they were awful, noisy and ruined the all festivities with nonense arguments and violence. And then I, and again: many others, thought: Oh, the protesters do have a point. It really is that bad. We should stop with Zwarte Piet.
I’m not convinced. This is exactly the typical dismissal of an issue that’s being made from a position of privilege.
You demonstrate that you did not get it at all and that you despite of the voiced concerns did not change at all. I mean, cool, we don’t say this word any more because, you know, it’s a racist slur, but we use it in the name of a sweet that is supposed to resemble the skin if some people, who are coincidentally those who had been targeted by the slur.
One question. Did you ever talk with a black person about how they feel about this?
I don't know enough about the specific semantics of "Mohr," but I'd wager it's probably related to the English word "moor", which is similarly an old-fashioned word for anyone with dark skin (I only learned it because of Shakespeare's Othello). I'm gonna wager Mohr is probably closer to that in terms of how offensive it is than the n-word, based on your comfort continuing to say Mohrenkopf.
This comment might finally help me remember that carrots are "Möhren" not "Mohren" though lol... I always struggle remembering my umlauts.
Well, until this recent big stink anyway. Before that, it used to be one of those linguistic curiosities, where once in a blue moon, someone would find out what that name means, and excitedly tell all their friends because "weren't people weird back in the day, isn't language weird?"
Also, @sparksbet , which term is used for that entirely depends on the part of Germany. In my part (very roughly Frankfurt), the usual name is Mohrenkopf too. Personally, no problem at all retiring the name Negerkuss, but Mohrenkopf is so far removed from any racist connotations or having racist effects, I don't really care. The language loses a bit of flavor and a curiosity, but gains a tiny bit of fairness, it's kind of a wash. I err on the side of fairness in this case, but I'm not nearly putting in the kind of effort as avoiding other problematic terms - like Negerkuss.
I think in the end changing the name is probably pretty harmless so the threshold for how harmful the old name needs to have been is pretty low. But I live in Germany where the equivalent was a lot more obvious, ofc!
In the french part of Switzerland it was "nigger's head" and for renamed to "chocolate head" later on.
In another related subject: I'd like to keep the name of the children's game "Who's afraid of the black man" because that's not a game inspired by racism, but by the Black Death instead (the disease often make your appendage turns black).
We had that in the Netherlands also. It was called a Negerzoen. They're now just called Zoenen.
So, I had a doctor named Dr. Mohr. Is there any cultural significance that would've led to her having that last name?
You know, you can write "n-word" instead of...writing the n-word. It's really not pleasant to read.
It’s also just a word, which is being used in a non-derogatory, factual way.
It's not "just a word". It's a word with a long, bigoted history, one still used by white supremacists to denigrate black people. And a gut check would tell you as much -- I doubt you'd go to Atlanta and just casually sling that word around.
And honestly, what was even gained by spelling it out? It's not like "n-word" is ambiguous.
There are many words with long bigoted histories that are still used to denigrate various social and ethnic groups, but none of them get this particular special treatment.
I probably would if I were in a discussion about the etymology of obscure candies from Switzerland. Otherwise, no, I probably wouldn’t, because I’m not a racist and I’m not interested in casually offending people for no reason.
This isn't true.
And respectfully, I think you're missing the point. As a community, we should strive to be welcoming and inclusive. Casually throwing around harmful language -- even when it's not intended as such -- "others" those groups affected. I mean, I doubt anybody's going to leave from one particular instance of one particular word, but these sort of things have a cumulative effect that slowly drive minorities away from communities. And to be frank, we need those perspectives here, too.
Of course, when one censors their speech, there is generally something lost; but I would ask, in this case, what would we actually lose? Is the substitution "n-word" unclear? Or are we just uncomfortable using some slightly awkward phrasing? Because if that's the case, I would argue that running across an unredacted n-word makes me cringe harder than any awkward phrasing ever has.
Really? Can you be more specific?
No, I fully understand your point. I just don’t agree with it. There are appropriate times and places to use a word, like when we are literally discussing the word.
They cannot because it's impossible to prove a negative. It's up to you to provide examples, although I would prefer you didn't because you are arguing in favor of saying n*****.
I'm not asking them to prove a negative, they're claiming that there are other words that get this special treatment -- that's a positive assertion. If it makes them more comfortable, I guess they could demonstrate what they are by writing them in the form X****. If they are in fact treated the same, then I assume I'll instantly recognize them by their first letter but I don't think this is the case.
I think we took it in opposite directions, but your interpretation was probably more accurate.
This is a minor enlightenment for me. Realizing something that I may have followed subconsciously, but didn't quite conceptualize.
Half the work protests do is demonstrating how much and how widely X is disliked. The other half is showing the ways and goals of those who like X.
I find that, for both right and left-wing causes, protests bring out the passionate — but the counter-protests really bring out the crazies.
The Westboro Baptists may have been the one case where the counter protesters were the sane ones.
IMO, counter protesters bing unhinged nutjobs is a selection effect. Most people would say “let them have their tantrum” when hearing about a protest for a cause they despise; counter protesters feel compelled to show up and pick a confrontation.
Great story. I'm US-based, so of course I made immediate connections to the political right wingnuts.
My question though- does anyone know how to meme-ify this phenomenon as a way of getting right to the point? Is there a term for this? The closest parallel I'm coming up with is the strategy of 'giving someone all the rope they need (to hang themselves'.
The #metoo movement changed my perspective on feminism. Not overnight but gradually over the years as the issue has been given more media attention. I wasn't an anti-feminist or anything before, just mostly indifferent - and thought that the equality issues were more or less solved in the 70s.
I went from conservative to liberal.
I moved from New Zealand to California, and instantly became a liberal, because American conservatives are so much more conservative.
That said, I noticed that my voting preference in New Zealand also switched to liberal. The ideals of deregulation, tax cuts and privatization are no longer appealing to me.
I am generally ambivalent to politics at this stage in my life, as a Marxist in a country that has no serious Marxist party, I will never vote for even the left-most party as they are equivalent to Liberals in everything but words. Having said that, I cannot understate how far removed establishment Liberals have gotten from Material and working class concerns, it's to the point where I can have more good-faith arguments with Conservatives in my rural area than many of the Liberals who are obsessed with Identity Politics and will not touch class unless it revolves around some corporate approved messaging.
I’ve always liked the metaphor of political parties as buses. They may not be going to your exact destination, but some of them are going closer than others. Is it really the case that no political party in your country is worse than any other? How can that be possible?
I am also a Marxist and I agree with you partially. Even in the USA (I'm from Brazil) that basically is right VS extreme-right one of them will win so you go for the lesser evil, but both busses are going the opposite way.
Thanks for sharing. I don't get the opportunity to talk to a self declared Marxist much.
I can see how you would get along better in good-faith arguments with conservatives, but I can't see how establishment liberals have moved away from working class concerns.
In my experience, conservatives pay real lip service to working class concerns, but when their establishment is in power, their primary focus is on cutting taxes and regulations and government competition, in order to benefit the rich.
In my experience, the establishment liberals pass legislation for increased social safety nets, minimum pay hikes, medical care, mental care and other issues that concern the working class such as myself.
Perhaps your definition of working class concerns is different from myself. Perhaps you live in a very different country from the two I have spent most of my time in. Or possibly you are more focused on what people talk about, and less about what the establishment actually does.
I appreciate your input. Thank you.
Thank you for the measured response, I admit that my initial statement was largely made for catharsis at what feels like systemic issues in my country.
In my experience, voting at any end of the spectrum does not change the core issues at play, as all parties are beholden to the same finance capital, only willing to pay lip service to rapidly worsening conditions. There is a problem in my country of politicians investing in the same areas they are supposed to regulate, housing for example. As social conditions deteriorate, these are the same Liberal & Conservative politicians that advocate for the increased control of dissemination of media under the guise of misinformation. These are the same politicans that weaponize reserve labour to break unions.
I am essentially venting at this point but that is my two cents.
I really struggle with my meat consumption, after learning for years what a toll it takes on our planet, how barbaric the process is, and how unhealthy meat is when consumed as often as Americans do. I've lessened and lessened my overall consumption to a fraction of how much I used to, but that's not to say it's anywhere near zero.
My struggle is that I experience really sensitive food texture aversion. Most of the vegan substitutes I've had friends make, had at restaurants, or made/bought myself have definitely been a challenge to consume happily. My brain is on high alert the whole time and there's little enjoyment. Impossible meat has helped a lot with that, but I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to fully remove meat from my diet.
I really admire this. I think I could cut out meat pretty easily, my diet doesn’t have a ton of it already and where it does I think I could substitute. The really hard thing for me would be cutting out cheese and eggs.
I’ve had some decent vegan cheese to be sure, at least if we’re talking about cheese-as-topping or things like nacho cheese. Definitely not the same but passable in many cases. The thing that would be hard for me I think is ‘fine’ cheeses like mature cheddars, mimolettes, etc. Basically every time I go to the store I’ll pick up a new block of cheese to try out, usually either as a snack or a meal unto itself (along with some fruits and crackers and tapenades and such). It’s absolutely a choice on my part but man it would be tough to give up.
After feb 24 2022, I pretty quickly and significantly changed my personal stance on firearms. I went from never wanting to hold one to actively seeking training in a couple of weeks.
What exactly was your concern?
I am not american. :) Feb 24 is the day of the large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The DC date you're thinking of is Jan 6, 2021.
As it happened: Ukraine deaths as battles rage on day one of Russian invasion.
BBC News – 24th February 2022
Does your country have any voluntary military wings where you could partake trainings and be in the reserve?
For me many times it's having a personal experience with something - having it go from something theoretical in my mind to actually experiencing it can cause drastic changes.
The old adage you don't know until you try in some cases really does apply.
This, and unexamined beliefs I inherited from family/friends/community, which when given the luxury of calm re-examination I discovered were not at all aligned with my personal ethos. If I'd been over worked, underpaid, constantly in fear from the story lines of the 24x7 news cycle, and feeling attacked by those in opposition to those unexamined beliefs, I doubt very seriously that I'd have been able to change perspective. Toss in a healthy dose of foreign travel and foreign language studies for a broader perspective that many have not, do not, and will not experience the luxury of.
Side note: is your username a reference to the motorcycle? I almost got that bike.
yup I love mine.
I was born in a Catholic family, in a Catholic country, and went to a Catholic school. Not that I ever felt strongly about my religious beliefs anyway, just sort of had them "by default", but I was agnostic by high school. I think the main turning point was I just couldn't understand why "non-Catholics can't go to heaven". (I'm an atheist now, the idea of any sort of god just doesn't make sense to me.)
This was basically it for me as a young kid too. The irony is that on the one hand, I was taught lessons about loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek and being good to others etc. And I really took that onboard as a kid and wanted to be better, the result was I started to realize how unjust the rest of it was. As I started to get old enough to see the complexity of people's lives and how they get set on these trajectories by things way outside their control it was like "How is this their fault? How is it warranting eternal punishment to be wrapped up in this mess that God himself started? And why can't an omnipotent god just give everyone free will and also make them always good?"
I asked a lot of people that last question and have never gotten a coherent answer. Half the time I couldn't even get them to wrap their head around the idea that true omnipotence meant being able to create contradictory logic that is true (ex. a square circle, dry wetness, giving people free will and making them so they always do good etc.). Final straw was learning about other religions and realizing it's essentially all made up. Was kind of traumatic but also a massive relief and made it possible for me to grow. I'm so grateful that I'm not religious.
Same thoughts! I also couldn't wrap my head around the justification for suffering. Why can't an omnipotent god just create a world free from suffering? I mean it's fine to just have challenging times (for example, training for a sport competition, or sorting out a conflict with a friend), but there's just no justification for a lot of the terrible suffering that many people go through, through no fault of their own (for example, cancer, or war casualties).
Perhaps while religious people find it comforting to believe in god and the promise of heaven after going through suffering in life, I find it disturbing that a supposedly all-just god would allow such terrible suffering at all.
A high school history teacher once said in class "What proof do we have that what's written in the bible is true?". That just changed my life and I became an atheist like right there.
Of course I was in doubt, denial, anger and everything else being a teenager, but it didn't take long for me to stop believing.
My family was never religious, it was just the default setting.
I have a similar experience, though leaning towards agnostic more than Atheist. I was sent to a pretty conservative Catholic elementary school purely for education, and the idea of unbaptized people never going to heaven always bothered me. I even asked once "What if they've never even heard of Jesus?" and the teacher just dismissed it as "everyone's heard of Jesus." As an adult now, I have multiple examples of how that's definitely not true so the question still stands.
I remember our religion teacher telling us about how she baptized her uncle or some other relative immediately after he died in a car accident. She was framing it as a positive thing, that she helped him to heaven, but something about it just left a bad taste in my mouth.
That and some other things about my school did more to push me away from faith in the end. Later when talking to an aunt about how my school turned me off of going to mass, she surprisingly nodded along. Turns out my school had a reputation even among Catholic schools for being pretty conservative, and I live in the heart of a red state so that's really saying something. Kind of funny since my parents are most definitely NOT conservative.
In my area, the Catholic schools have a reputation for being atheist factories. It seems that every year, they turn out 900 atheists, 99 true-believing weirdos, and one person actually called to be a priest or join a convent. The Sunday school kids had a much lower overall attrition from religion (but also no true believers or wannabe priests).
Oof, I definitely had a similar sort of Q&A exchange with a religion teacher! I have yet to hear of a persuasive answer.
For me, someone gave me, “My biggest problem with Christianity is that it teaches you to believe in Jesus and not in yourself.” And that one always stuck with me.
I had a similar upbringing. We were to read a religious book-- "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People." I read it early as a preteen, wanting to earnestly understand what it meant to have this religion I was told to have. According to the book, bad things happen because it's God's complex plan. But I didn't see the point in worshiping a god who didn't care for the pain of people. I think the technical term is apatheism, the lack of caring if God exists. (As for whether I think he does? I don't know. I think you can easily chalk up each scientific discovery to something God made, or you can chalk it up to strange happenstance. People call different things "God.")
I was a pretty solid atheist. Then I met God. Unfortunately that only makes me seem crazy, but that’s what happened.
If it was a voice from a burning bush that only you heard, and the voice told you to do things, things you would normally not do, then that would sound crazy.
If meeting God simply brings you assurance, peace and happiness, then that doesn't sound crazy at all.
Bonus points if you are able to find happiness, without the need to force others to align with your beliefs.
There was no burning bush, but the experience (over time) caused me to behave in dramatically different ways. I used to view all people as either threats or resources; now I just love them and do my (pretty poor) best to be of service. I do share my views with people who are genuinely interested, but I am fundamentally opposed to forcing (or even gently pressuring) my beliefs on anyone.
I’m an atheist but I want everyone to find God if it turns out like this
I hope you have found happiness, along with God.
I don't mean that everything is easy. Just that your beliefs and acts of service bring you deep and meaningful personal satisfaction.
Care to share a bit more?
I respect and value your question. Under other circumstances I’d be delighted, but as valar points out, it’s not an appropriate forum. It’s obviously, deeply personal and I’m either too wise or too cowardly to disrobe like that in public.
As an agnostic I too would love to hear this story. But please think twice about sharing, as it will be picked apart by others.
These stories are valuable to me personally, but they don't have persuasive power for those strongly committed to atheism or agnosticism. It is true this subject causes some to become combative. Our beliefs about the world are rooted in our personal experiences using our own senses. If an individual believes naturalism is correct since they've never interacted with the divine, then they likely have a naturalistic explanation for why someone else did have that experience. If a person's experience of the world includes spiritual observations, then they have rational warrant to believe in the supernatural or the divine. In my view, interaction with the divine only rationally has persuasive power for the person experiencing the interaction.
I agree 100%. My experience felt like an extremely kind gift. But only to me personally. It has essentially no persuasive power for others, nor should it.
I realize you may not be a pastor/preacher, but in your opinion, what would naturalistic believers need to do (or do on a regular basis) to have a chance at changing their beliefs?
I'm an agnostic, so no idea if I'm going about this the right way. My tactics have been trying to have an open mind, engage with the evidence, read religious philosophy, pray, read scripture, etc.
Sorry, I should've clarified. I meant to ask what someone could do to have that special experience you had. In my mind it was probably what some would refer to as a miracle? Or am I assuming too much, and it is more like a slow learning process?
It did seem like a miracle. It was pretty dramatic. I don’t feel like I “made” it happen. I did, however try to maintain the attitude that I wanted to know the truth more than I wanted to retain my world view or others good opinion of me or anything else.
I haven't yet had such experience. If I did, I'd almost certainly be a strong theist
As an agnostic (atheist?) I'm intensely interested in the philosophy of religion and Christian apologetics; it's what I spend more of my free time studying than anything else. I'd honestly love for Christianity (and by extension theism) to be true.
There are incredible arguments both for and against Christianity (or theism more broadly) that seem to have equal force, but ultimately I've not found a symmetry breaker. I don't think there's a slam dunk argument that establishes God for me.
This isn't a problem for Christianity. From the people I've talked to who converted to Christianity, they weren't convinced by reading a syllogism or an apologetic, rather by having profound religious experiences.
Beliefs are something that happen to me, I have no control over them. In fact, my loss of faith initially was something scary that happened to me despite me not wanting it to happen. I'd be willing to bet a personal experience with the divine would be quite the symmetry breaker. Best I can do is be open to evidence and religious experiences.
Big topic. Sorry this got so long, but I like explaining my belief system because it helps me reaffirm why I believe what I do.
I've been in a 12 step program for over 20 years. Part of that deal is that I HAD to find "a power greater than myself". It's also very open ended and vague. I don't know (or even care to know) if what I have passes muster as a theism, but here's how I got whatever it is I have.
Early on I was waxing on about the "is there/isn't there a God" question and bemoaning that there have been centuries of people smarter than me that have wrestled with this, so how was I going to ever "believe"? An oldtimer asked me "Do you believe that the people in meetings are doing the things it says to do in those 12 steps, and that some do get sober and their lives improve?"
I said yes, of course. I wouldn't be doing this thing otherwise.
He said okay then. You believe in something greater than you. That's enough.
End of that story, but not the whole thing - because If I believe that "it works" and IT is says I have to believe in something I don't understand... how do I do that?
Another (more metaphorical) story:
Walking through a park, I come to a bench with a sign on it that says "Wet Paint". So, I check it. Now I have paint on my finger and I smudged the paint job.
I continue walking out of the park and down the road and there's a metal fence running along it with a sign warning that it's an electrified fence with 10,000 volts. I decide to cross to the other side of the road to relieve my bladder - I DON'T pee on the fence.
I chose to not believe the first sign but I chose to believe the second.
(I do NOT believe in "signs from God". It's just a metaphor.)
The point is that when it comes down to things "spiritual" "religious" or "higher power" it will ultimately at some point come down to having to make a decision to choose to believe in something not fully understood/proven or to not believe. It's called faith for a reason.
Not only do I choose to believe because it's keeps me sober and has given me a path through life that makes more sense than without the 12 steps (although that is all it was at the beginning), but also because now it seems silly to proclaim that the small bit of scientific understanding humans have achieved is the only way this universe works.
Most of people I think still like to assign a gender to whatever guiding forces may or may not exist. Atheists jump right to "Souls are not possible". We can't sort out our own subconscious existence, and therapy to me still even seems fairly mystical. It's up for debate whether or not we have free will, or if we live in a simulated reality. There's just too much unknown and mind-blowing shit going on to try and proclaim definitively there's nothing unseen or mysterious.
I found that once I found the humility - and that's what I think it is - to say "okay, there are things going on I don't understand" it became pretty straightforward, comforting, and helpful to grow that idea into what I guess you could call a kind of fledgling belief system.
I did it in whatever way worked best for me and didn't take a lot of effort. It did take time and attention and thinking things through and periodically making some adjustments.
For example, In the main 12-step text there's a pretty popular part that proclaims "nothing happens in God's world by mistake". I parroted this for a couple of years until I talked with a friend and decided not to believe that anymore. I realized that I wasn't able to rectify the injustices in the world and my own errors in judgement with how the world works and think that was true. Some people believe there's some kind of divine plan and that works for them. I chose to go back to the humility of not knowing how that particular part of a spiritual world works.
There are a lot of people very eager to find "believers" or "cosigners" or what-have-you around this topic. It's obviously super attractive for grifters because nothing is provable. The 12 step program does a pretty good job of insulating itself from this at a high level with what they call 12 traditions. No promotion, no outside influence, one single issue, etc. etc. But when it comes to seeking out spiritual advice, I'm pretty selective about who I have a conversation with about it anymore. My belief system is mine and it might not hold up under scrutiny, so I don't scrutinize it. I do know through experience though that my mental health and life improves dramatically when I keep it close.
One last closing thought, even though this got way too long, I don't want to nuke this bit even though it doesn't fit in with the reply anymore:
I like the 4-quadrant idea of knowledge- there are lots of versions of this idea, including this one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201510/positioning-our-knowledge-in-four-quadrants
but I'll roughly bastardize it as something like this:
If you made it this far, thanks. My day has been improved by writing this.
I just want to say that this is incredible writing.
Your belief system seems to center epistemic humility, which is a virtue in my eyes.
I have absolutely zero concrete evidence that the external world exists, aside from my fallible, untrustworthy senses. There's no test I can perform to prove I'm not a brain in a vat.
Why do we believe anything at all? To me, we believe things because those beliefs have utility. Believing in the external world, while perhaps irrational, provides value to me, and it sounds like your beliefs have value to you.
Epistemic humility. I like that.
The paint story is one of my favorites. It came from that same oldtimer. He was an amazing man and helped lots of people. Me included if that wasn’t obvious. I think he’d appreciate it getting passed on.
Op's general description could fit me (doubt we're fully aligned). I remember being confused and feeling more than a bit hollow around religion growing up in a mildly religious house (Southern Methodists...). By college I was solidly atheist, then briefly staunchly atheist (became 'part of my identity'). Over my 30s and 40s I softened - "if it brings you joy and peace and a connection to people who have passed, you do you boo!" Somewhere in there you can add in "There's plenty of things in the Universe that science hasn't figured out how to measure and predict." Now, early 50s, with a number of people I loved who have passed on, the desire for there to be something more after death grows stronger by the year. Then I encountered the whole argument around it being far more likely that we're existing in a simulation than the world we think we live in, and well, that's a tough one to refute. Finally, I read http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html and it sort of jives with my dabbling in karma/Buddhism in a way my personal path resonates with. Am I certain of anything? Heeeeeellll no. Am I sad about the ways I see organized religion impacting the world negatively? 100%, on the daily, when I stop to ponder. And, I find peace in leaving a window open for all the possibilities I've yet to encounter and explain.
What makes you say it's more likely we live in a simulation? Anyway, if we do live in a simulation the way most people understand the term, it makes sense to believe in God and to try to get to heaven or whatever, assuming we aren't just deleted upon death.
This is an argument I encountered on the internet, not my original thought...
Think about video games from as far back as you can remember. For me that's pacman, galaga, asteroids.
Look at how much more realistic they've become in that very short time.
Now think about what video games will be like in 50, 100, 500 years. It's not hard (for me) to accept that at some point they will achieve a fully immersive state such that a player in the game cannot discern between game and reality. Or maybe it's just that the AI's within the game will be indistinguishable from actual players, and the AI's will not know it's just a game/simulation.
Now think about how many instances of any given game are running at any given time. If the game is a simulation of a 'real' world that is indistinguishable from that 'real' world. It's far more likely that an unsuspecting individual is within an instance of the simulation than in the world it's simulating.
Viola! You're almost certainly unwittingly in a simulation right now.
My personal follow on is this: What is the best way to train an AI for use in your 'real' world? Maybe stick it in a simulation of your world with 9 billion other AI's who don't know they're in a simulation, let it stew for a bit and then select for whatever qualities you're looking for from the best that 9 billion have to offer.
I kinda hope to do the same some day. I'm agnostic and want to believe. But I'm an evidence type of person.
I'm not super dooper religious, and definitely not into any of the organized religions (though Buddhism has some lovely insights into meditation). For me, areas where evidence is lacking are exactly where my window into the possibility of a higher power exists. It's really convenient to have a higher power to hand shit off to when something is entirely out of my control. "I'm just gonna leave this one up to The Universe, remain optimistic and keep an open mind and open eyes about what comes my way as a result." Could just be a handy mental model to get out of my own way, but potato pohtawtoh... GO UNIVERSE!!!! =D
I hear you. I’m actually a research scientist by occupation. I really care about knowing the truth and I don’t believe things for any other reason than sufficient evidence. I feel like the way I was brought to faith was the only way possible to my particular nature. I wish I could share it in a useful way. I wish you success in your seeking.
My religious belief system. Particularly the denomination of Christianity I grew up with. We were a devout family growing up and I dont regret the things I learned as a kid and even as a young adult. But it was my brother's university sociology textbook that changed my views.
It had a chart that showed how much of the world's population were part of Christendom, and it was a fairly large segment. But out of those, how many were Protestant, a much smaller slice than those who are Catholic. Then looking at Protestants, how many were evangelicals vs. say how many were pentecostal, mainline denominations, etc. And it was getting down to a pretty small segment. Then I came down to how many evangelicals were actually part of the small denomination I grew up in. And based on a world population, it was a TINY TINY segment of the world who are actually part of that denomination.
I now understand the history of why that is so and it has a lot to do with ethnicity, and location, but the bottom line is that I realized it was highly unlikely that our tiny segment of the world held "the truth" about God, or theology and it was just as likely that we were just one of many people around the world trying to answer big existential questions in a way that made sense.
So Im not exactly a rabid supporter of that one tiny slice of Christendom anymore, nor even of any particular faith anymore. People believe what they believe largely because of where they were born and what their parents believed and taught them, but "absolute truth" is not found in one place and not in one church or even one faith. I still respect religious beliefs, and I think there is great value in having them, but its the exclusivity factor of "we're right and everyone else is wrong" that I definitely no longer believe.
I feel as though I could have written every word of your comment, though I'm sure we are talking about different yet equally tiny denominations that claim to be the only ones who are "right."
It is funny to me that I saw greater fruits of the spirit exihbited in me after I learned all the information that Evangelicals try and keep from their children. I remember feeling sorry for kids who were tricked into believing in evolution, tsk tsk. Deconstructing my faith and removing all the definitive answers to questions that were, at best, casually mentioned in the Bible really left me with the capacity to love and accept anyone. Deconstructing my belief that God is controlling everything and it's all part of a plan motivated me to play a part in caring for my planet and helping people in need, because no one else is going to do it.
By becoming a gray Christian, or some better term, I feel a closeness to God that I never felt before and a deep sadness when I see how other people wield the same faith and name as weapons.
Once I saw a man on a bridge about to jump
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What denomination?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Its an oldy but goody lol. Love it!
Okay, this might sound crazy, but I was very staunchly on the side of mRNA Covid vaccines because who wouldn't be and my dad has heart and lung problems and was ailing.
I didn't have any problem immediately believing the science. It was sound. It made sense. I didn't believe in the "it changes our DNA", "it triggers a cytokine storm", "it causes heart attacks", "it causes blood clots in the brain", "it damages the reproductive organs" crowd because although caution is good, their actual slant is not.
However, I did more research and ended up finding out that yeah there are problems. It's not so much what the antivax crowd said, nor is it with mRNA or vaccines themselves, but a very specific combination of things (something that antivaxxers wouldn't have picked up anyway). That combination is in the spike protein, mRNA, and particularly the LNP (lipid nanoparticle).
You see, the LNP is a very, very good carrier. It can bypass blood-brain and other fatty barriers and actually travel all over the body. This is demonstrated, replicated, and is widely acknowledged, so much so that it's considered for treatment of brain diseases source 1 source 2 source 3.
When you pair mRNA with LNP, it allows the mRNA for protein synthesis to travel around the body into places it shouldn't be found in. This in itself is generally alright. But here's the thing: the spike protein the mRNA is supposed to reproduce is so dangerous, it can actually cause organs to become targeted by your body, treating your organs as though it's one big organism it must eliminate, thereby causing autoimmune disorders source 1 source 2 source 3. However, the same mode of action is not as significant if the spike protein is centralized around the actual virus. This is because viruses generally cannot pass fatty barriers around your body.
So mRNA by itself - not a problem. LNP by itself - not a problem. Virus with spike protein - dangerous. mRNA + LNP + spike protein - potentially way more dangerous.
Quite a turnaround honestly.
Sorry, what's the turn around you made? Are you saying you're now against the COVID vaccine because there are potential complications for a low number of people even though it has saved millions of lives, which your sources start by pointing out?
My turnaround is going from "staunchly" being on the side of a certain thing I'm "sure" about to "becoming more critical" of something and not just taking something because "science" since science itself is always in flux.
Okay, so basically you learned to apply the scientific method to science and vaccines. Interesting. Being sceptical is always a good thing and should be a person's default setting in my opinion.
Fair enough. I was trying to understand but I can see how I could have worded it better.
Sure, but like I said in my top-most comment, I was staunchly for anything science simply because it was claimed as "science". I was just giving a personal anecdote given the topic of the thread. Furthermore, plenty of people don't look too much into the science, but rather just follow "science advise" (which is how society operates fair enough). I was one of those people for this specific instance.
Okay but to be clear, the first paper is not at all about side effects related to the vaccine. It is actually about potential applications of the vaccine for brain gene therapy.
The second paper is about side effects but I am going to highlight some quotes from it:
The third paper is not about vaccines and is about how Covid can cause various issues due to the spike protein.
I really didn’t see a lot of evidence to back up your claims. The second paper is the one that probably comes the closest to making the claims you did, but from my perspective, it seems like you took 3 papers and came up with your own thesis statement. I’m not opposed to this, but if you’re gonna do that, I would like you to write a paper on it, and submit it for peer review because based on the citations you provided, it seems like you are speculating.
I would be interested to see more direct citations for some of the things you state in your comment.
I don't see why you're dismissing the claim of "potentially more dangerous" when the phrase is consistent with the research papers. When the research paper is saying the incidence is low and that getting the vaccine is still better than not getting it, I'm not contradicting any of these statements by saying "potentially more dangerous" nor have I implied people shouldn't take the vaccine. I'm triple vaccinated with booster by the way.
The main idea of my top-most level comment was that I just learned to not be "staunchly" for something. If that was somehow lost in translation, then that's my fault.
Yes, correct, that's what I did. I only included 3 sources per important idea in my comment, although in actuality I read plenty of papers from reputable sources (not like Lancet or some other websites) and had to understand it more. As for why I suddenly got into this topic, it was because I was conversing with my GP who just mentioned this. As I personally do not have any medical or medicinal or virology or biology background (I'm an engineer), I had to do a lot of reading. So the papers I listed contain snippets of information I had to string together and had to be sure they made sense and is sound.
No haha I'm not going to publish a paper. I'm not doing any meta studies or cross studies. What I'm doing is speaking anecdotally about being "staunchly" for something when I'm not even super sure why, even if people claim science (I'm triple vaccinated including boosted by the way).
If you genuinely believe that you have discovered something about the Covid vaccines that is dangerous, do you not believe you have an obligation to let the medical community know?
If what you’re saying is true, then you have made an incredible discovery that I haven’t seen discussed in any medical journals. You could get a paper out of it and save lives.
They haven't "discovered" anything. They read papers and drew reasonable conclusions from them, and then shared what happened based on this prompt. They are not advocating for people to stop taking vaccines, they are saying that they transitioned from being 100% convinced there was no problems - which is common amongst people who are for vaccination - to recognizing that there are risks involved.
Please consider this: I'm not the first person who is telling you that you are out of line. You are out of line in your response. I say this as someone who is fully vaccinated and supports vaccination fully (and it's notable that the person you are responding to also supports vaccination).
Respectfully, I don’t agree. I also don’t agree that their conclusions were “reasonable “. Hence my comment.
You are welcome to your opinion but I do not think I said anything offensive or rude. Nowhere in the comment did I insult anyone or imply that they were lying. I don’t believe I said anything other than that they were speculating which they agreed with. I fully believe that I challenged their ideas in an honest way. If we are not allowed to challenge ideas, then how can we even have discussions?
I think the majority of people who have read the comment do not consider it to be offensive.
I think that taking someone to write a paper because they went from thinking "vaccines have zero risk" to "vaccines have some risk" is not reasonable, kind, or warranted. I also don't think you read what the other person was saying with any degree of charity at all, and also misrepresented what they are saying.
I don't disagree that many people might have read your comment and agreed with it, but I don't think that's good; it's actually why I comment less and less here.
Well my friend, I am not particularly interested in having a debate but I don’t think their point was "vaccines have some risk". It seemed to me that their exact wording was “potentially dangerous”. Which, if were true, would be a ground breaking discovery that could save thousands of lives.
I think I gave their comments a lot of thought. I even read through the papers that they cited. I’m not really sure what more I could do to give their ideas honest consideration. I did not try to misrepresent what they said, I only tried to emphasize that they were speculating and none of their citations directly stated the idea they proposed.
I apologize if I came off in a negative way, but I genuinely don’t feel that I was being rude. I just think that bold claims should have bold evidence and if you really have the evidence, you should be willing to submit your claims for peer review.
Regarding your last point, I’m sorry that you feel that way. I hope your experience will improve or you will find somewhere more well suited to what you’re looking for out of an Internet community.
Jeez dude - the tone here seems to go way against the spirit of this site.
I’m not sure you can infer a tone from text.
I also don’t think I said anything rude, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. My point is that if the poster feels so confident in speculating on medical research papers and they truly believe that Covid vaccines are dangerous, then they should put their work out there for the medical community.
Maybe they’ve edited their comment, but nowhere in their original comment nor any of their follow-up replies did they say Covid vaccines are dangerous.
If their top comment remains unedited, then perhaps I’ve identified where you’ve misinterpreted OP’s comments and gone against the “generous interpretation” tenet I regularly see encouraged here on Tildes.
Direct quote 1:
Direct quote 2:
Direct quote 3:
Context: I just got the newest booster on Thursday and I think it is a far better idea to get the booster than not. I think the "side-effects" of getting covid outweigh any potential side effects of the booster. I am in no way calling into question our health institutions.
With that out of the way and my tinfoil hat securely on my head... I've had a number of hyper fit friends die from heart attacks following covid or a vaccination, all in their mid to late thirties. The rational part of me thinks that the inflammation of the organs during the infections effect the heart as well and cause swelling similar to an enlarged heart. The virus does it's thing and when you feel "better", I think your organs that became inflamed during the infection are likely still enflamed. I think of it like bloating after a bad meal. This inflammation plus the exertion from a normally healthy individual - particularly one who is trying to recoup losses after illness - over stresses an already stressed heart and it gives out.
After I got Covid last summer I ended up getting arrhythmia and a very intense heartbeat when sleeping. It wouldn't be fast, just hard/loud. So much so it would wake my partner up in the middle of the night. I wore a heart monitor for a month and after 6 months it went away. Had a close friend not died 6 months prior I don't think I would have gotten it checked out and I definitely wouldn't have limited my exercise regime.
Now, remember I'm wearing tinfoil so take this with a huge grain of salt. A massive grain in fact. I wonder if the vaccines have a similar effect of organ inflammation. I guessing it's not as significant, but because you do feel sick/fluey for 2-4 days after getting the vaccine there is definitely something happening. My hypothesis is that folks get this effect, don't know about it and then go and do strenuous activity and possibly have heart failure.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Taking off my hat now. I still suggest the vaccine as I think inflammation effects are greater with actually getting covid and anything we can do to limit the severity of them is key.
Vaccines are supposed to cause reactions (like inflammations but not only and not limited to only inflammations that you can see or feel; there are other effects, some benign, some malignant). That's your body operating on the mode of action of the vaccines.
What I'm saying is that there's a wholly different mode of action for this combination of technology (mRNA + LNP + particular Covid spike protein). mRNA by itself is fine, and so is LNP. But when you pair all three together, mRNA + LNP + this particular Covid spike protein, then that's where something else happens beyond that of classical vaccines.
The LNP can pass fatty barriers. The mRNA is nondescript and is fine. It's when the LNP passes fatty barriers carrying the mRNA for this specific Covid spike protein into organs where the mRNA would then reproduce said spike protein, is when things get dicey, as now the spike protein is being produced in areas that are more critical. To complete this idea, viruses themselves cannot generally pass this fatty barriers.
Huh, you may have shed some light on why I had a delayed full-body hives reaction to the Moderna booster. I was in hell for a couple of weeks, and steroids (injected and oral) seemed to do fuck-all. I suspected an auto-immune effect, since an allergy should have showed up shortly after the injection—not 14 days later.
After about a year, the dermatographia (and itching) subsided. I recently stopped taking my daily Pepcid AC (H2 antagonist) and I think I'm finally past it.
But I'm leery of taking further mRNA vaccines unless it's got a serious life-saving benefit.
It's not mRNA vaccines per se. It was just a specific combination of LNP technology, mRNA technology, and this particular Covid spike protein. Think about it this way, if you paired mRNA with a different carrier that cannot bypass fatty barriers, then the mRNA will just stay where the blood takes it to. It won't have the odds of traveling beyond. Then, if you have a different spike protein you're targeting, that spike protein may be less risky than the Covid one in particular. Here's the summary:
mRNA technology - ok
LNP technology - ok
Covid spike protein used - potentially dangerous
mRNA tech + LNP tech - ok
mRNA tech + Covid spike protein - potentially dangerously but intended
mRNA tech + LNP tech + Covid spike protein - potentially dangerous and might lead to unintended side effects
After skimming some of your links, reading the responses, and now this comment, I wanted to ask for a clarification.
You keep using the word "dangerous," what does that mean to you? Dangerous to one person could mean life threatening, while to another it could mean getting rashes that are uncomfortable. Either way, I think it's important for any readers who might be influenced by your words to know what you mean when you use the word.
Fair enough. When I say dangerous, I mean potential to cause serious harm.
Potential = not guaranteed to do so
Serious harm = beyond the norms expected by "scientific consensus". So if the claim is that Covid vaccines do not cause any serious side effects, then this statement is actually wrong (though it was parroted a lot, I don't think anyone can deny this).
Yes, now I admit I used the word "dangerous" wrongly. It should've been "potentially dangerous".
I had a pretty big political shift from Libertarian late 90s/early 00’s to pretty far to the left. I think i ran into a study that said that people In more socialist countries , ala Denmark, were happier. And it kinda struck me- what is the point of government and society if not to make people basically happier. That led me down the “follow the research even if you disagree with it” path and now I generally vote based on the data the provides outcomes that I want for the world. E.g. if you want your city to have less trash on the streets, clean water, clean air etc, support policies that have clear evidence of providing those things. And surprise surprise, it happens!
It sounds like you have a very transactional view of relationships, which might not be the healthiest.
People typically don't want to be viewed by their partner as simply an insurance policy for when you're having a bad day, or as just a way to split grocery+rent costs. Sure, those things can be nice side benefits of a romantic relationship, but both needs could also just be satisfied by a good friend or two and/or a roommate.
I know it sounds very transactional in my post. But I don't really mean it that way. The topic was about what changed my mind, and my brain could only understand and make sense of things in that way. Like I spent time weighing pros and cons of things just because I tend to overthink. And that's how I changed my mind.
But I do actually need and want affection and someone to be with. Not just for bad times. I just have issues with admitting that without covering it in a veneer of "logic".
I do have very good friends who have been really great. But they really aren't a replacement for a partner.
Like right now, my immediate reaction to people telling me not to be in a relationship is sadness. I wouldn't be this sad if I didn't actually want one.
No, a partner is someone you want to make your own life better for, so you can give back what they give you. It's a mutual arrangement.
My wife and I have a hobby of mentoring soon-to-be or recently married couples, trying to help them face or prepare for the kinds of trials a typical marriage goes through. We both say "Your partner should be someone who's life you want to make better in any reasonable way." It requires both people actively working in the relationship and also trust between the two that either side is always going to do whatever they can. It's much easier to hear your partner say they had a lazy day and didn't get anything done, while you were at work, when you know they wouldn't take a lazy day unless they needed it. This style of relationship relies heavily on quick and honest communication, though.
Yes of course. I also want to make my partner's life better. If I make their life worse, they shouldn't be with me. It's to be expected.
I think you have some good wisdom here. And if you had started with something like "yeah, I feel you. For me, I've always felt that a partner is someone..." instead of "No," I feel that you could've gone from a combative tone to a supportive tone while keeping your message the same.
Thank you for the feedback. It was not my intention to be combative, but I did want to be direct. I do not think a view like that is conducive to a healthy relationship.
Nevertheless, I'll keep it in mind.
I would say you're better off not dating and making other arrangements instead (insurance? saving for a personal assistant when you need one?)
You shouldn't want a partner for when times are bad. You should want one for when times are good. People in relationships survive in spite of tough times, not because of them. Its really taxing on a relationship when one person goes through an extended period of hardship. It also tends to cascade, and when you're both in periods of hardships, it gets really really hard.
Where they shine is when you're both doing great, and you have someone to share that joy with. If you don't feel that impulse, I would do yourself and your prospective future partners a favor and skip the whole thing, because it doesn't sound like a relationship is really what you're looking for.
I didn't mean for the post to come off as completely heartless and transactional. I know things can be very hard, I've been there. And I've been there for close friends who are also similarly going through tough times while I was too.
I do not think of a partner as an insurance policy.
This is what I posted to another reply
You came across fine, people are just being uncharitable in their reading. Really wasn't called for, especially in the context of the thread.
The only cardinal sin of relationships is dishonesty, with the other person or with yourself. That second part can be hard, especially if you haven't been in a lot of relationships. You might not know what you want, how you'll change over time, or what life might throw at you.
It sounds like you might be leaning towards aromantic / asexual? I met a woman who was sex repulsed and had survived cancer in her early 30s. She was very certain of what she wanted:
If she found someone who wanted the same thing a happy, healthy relationship could come about. If she was wrong about what she needed or what she could compromise on, she might end up avoiding a relationship she'd thrive in, or 5 years in an unhappy but difficult-to-dissolve relationship.
What you can offer, what you need, or what you can tolerate all affect the pool of people. There's places like Grindr, Date a Farmer, GentleMancalla (well, not yet, but it's only a matter of time before agrarian, antiquarian board game enthusiasts make it), or /r/AsexualDating that serve as a first filter to try to align those interests.
You know who's had transactional relationships? Probably the majority of people throughout history. Many places still consider a "love marriage" to be a shameful thing. You know what happens at weddings? People state the terms of their relationship: "...faithfully ...in sickness and in health ...richer or poorer"
That doesn't mean you can't want more, and it doesn't preclude love or strong bonds, but I think people are deceiving themselves if they think there aren't implicit expectations of a partner. Making it explicit kills the romance, but that's partly because it was (societally-sourced) an expectation.
My grandma didn't stay in a relationship because of the good times. There wasn't much "time" with 7 kids, and there wasn't much "good" in the poverty, alcoholism, and gambling. Despite this they were together a full life, contrasted with modern divorce rates. Kinda dysfunctional but often supportive, in sickness and health, and all that. I don't know if that was a good thing, and I'd never choose it for myself, but I think it at least points to people in this thread not being experts on what your relationships should be.
Thank you for the long reply. It really helped.
You've actually got where I was coming from. I am similar to the woman you know. Even her list of what she wanted is similar. The only difference is the retiring young bit. I probably wouldn't retire at all. I don't really mean that in a bad way. I like what I'm doing currently.
But you're right, that I truly won't really know what I would want as I have little experience with romantic relationships. I gave myself some leeway. If I found someone I liked, and they liked me too, it's possible I might throw the list out the window if I realised what I wanted from this relationship was different. It's basically a flux kind of thing. Because I do worry about passing on a relationship that we both could thrive in just because of a list.
People have suggested that I was possibly Asexual or Aromantic. But I honestly don't understand it enough to actually label myself as anything. But thank you for the subreddit suggestion. I'll look into it.
Yeah. I don't think somewhat transactional is a bad thing. My sister kept dating many terrible and toxic men for many years. But then one day she got together with an incredibly nice nerdy guy. I got along with him very easily. He wasn't her usual type, so I asked her why she got together with him.
She said it was because she was getting older and wanted to have kids and so did he. Their moral values, outlook, sense of humor, and goals in life also happened to align. They when they started dating, they had a serious conversation about the future, what they wanted and what they expected of each other. Because they were both getting older and my sister didn't want to waste time dating if it was going to go nowhere.
So now they're married with 3 kids and they're incredibly close, are affectionate, and supportive of each other. She says she's lucky to have him. He says he's lucky to have her too.
The relationship started more transactional than usual because they both knew what they were looking for. They then bonded together over time and are fond of each other.
I didn't expect their relationship to work out, but it did. It was basically goal alignment first, and love came later. So I can't really judge how a relationship should look like. But theirs is a positive example for their type of relationship.
I don't know what my own relationship would be like. I hope it'll work out.
I'm not sure if you're the original OP but if you are-- I think I read your post earlier and didn't think it was too crazy either. I spent a lot of time thinking relationships had to be built on passion-- a sort of irrational coefficient you could use to "write" your love story, a kind of personal narrative about why you should be together. When times were tough, you'd think, "Ah, but when we first met..." and you'd hold on. But love built on logic-- why couldn't you simply rationalize yourself out of it?
Despite a lot of dating and a very open mind to life's possibilities, I rarely found passion. People were transactional, but not very genuine. When I did find passion, I found that it was not simple: passion came in strange forms, fueled by strange circumstances. A romantic person-- one who will wine and dine you-- is not romantic because of you, but often because they are romantic. They simply express themselves that way. They very easily could develop strong feelings randomly for others.
My friends often said I seemed miserable dating. I was-- I am fantastic alone. I hated dating. I make an effort to maintain friendships (though I could always be better) and personal development. But I wanted to have a deep romantic connection in my lifetime, and the more responsible and fantastic I became, the more I felt the weight of imagining having to do it all alone forever. While my friends could fill varying support roles in my life and vice versa, I knew eventually they would have partners and children to prioritize before friends.
Much like your sister, I met a sweet and hot nerd. I am also a sweet nerd, so it wasn't too crazy. But it wasn't instant connection or passion. We were really just two people who got to know each other, made time for each other, and liked what we saw. It's not all been smooth sailing-- dating like this is tenuous, and the future is still unknown to me. But I always felt like he was right for me, and that we could make each other feel very loved. We were emotionally discussing the state of our relationship and at one point I had to laugh and admire how well we managed a contentious discussion like that.
So now I believe that relationships are partnership agreements. It does come with love, but feeling love isn't really the point. The goal is to support each other, to be each others' partners for life. You won't always love your partner, but you'll always have each others' backs. Commitment, after a certain point, is a decision we make, not an emotion we feel. So if you want a forever love, you just got to do it.
Thank you for the reply. It does help make me feel more validated.
Our thought process is kind of similar.
This is exactly me right now. I know my friends will still be there for me, but I'm definitely not their first priority and that's understandable. I want someone who can be my first priority and me be theirs.
I'm also miserable dating. That's why I stopped pretty quickly when I realised I was half hearted about it. I still have the notion in my head where you'd get to know someone slowly through daily life and you fall for them.
But you're right, that's not really how most people do it. It's a partnership agreement.
This is what I'm looking for. Thank you for writing that in a more coherent way than I did in my original post. Haha.
Thanks for putting things in a way I can understand. You have changed my mind a little bit about how to view forming a relationship.
It's funny- I'm sort of doing the reverse. In other words: I've been single for a long time (variety of factors), and have always told myself that I want to be in a relationship. Not to mention, I'm 35 at this point. No one has ever really pushed me, but I've read all the stories of where you're "supposed" to be by this age, and I am FAR from any of those things. Probably a good idea to mention that I'm also a guy.
A few things have happened now, including (completely by choice!) moving into an entirely new culture- for reference, I'm American, and am now living on the complete opposite side of the world. As such, certain possibilities and cultural views have become available to me... this is a long-winded way of saying, being in a romantic relationship would be nice, but now it's far from a priority. I'm enjoying myself being single- and because I have this terrible habit of looking long-term, in this particular culture the male is expected to be making $$$$ so that the wife can have a child and stay at home. I'm in a job that I like, but it's an incredibly low-paying one that cannot support a family. So I'd much rather stay single and remain a disappointment only to myself.
Something else that has colored my views to a certain point: I know more people personally who either have become divorced or are in miserable relationship than I know for being in a happy one- all the happy people who are in relationships I know only through social media, ironically.
Yeah. I'm kind of the opposite again. I grew up with a terrible example of a relationship and rejected the idea entirely.
Then when I got older, I made friends with people who are happily married and that was also one of the reasons I changed my mind. I finally had examples of a good and healthy relationship.
Of course, I've seen my fair share of divorces and people in miserable relationship. But I'm making myself focus on my friends who are in a happy supportive relationship instead.
At the risk of sounding like an edgy teenager, Romans 9. Reading that chapter made me look at the mutual exclusivity of free will and a pre-made plan. Being that I still believed in free will at the time (now I'm a naturalistic determinist, but that's neither here nor there), I had to drop the belief that contradicted itself. There were also moral differences. Hard to worship someone who's cool with people owning people, sometimes. If I go to hell for that, so be it. And hey, Romans 9; if the god of the bible were real, He would have already decided whether or not I'm to be saved
Unfortunately that sent me down a proto-alt-right atheism hole. Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, that sort of thing. It was also around that time I started getting into reddit, and unfortunately my first comments on the site were in the Debate an Atheist subreddit. I don't remember what my comments said, but I was 15, so they probably weren't very nice or eloquent. Idunno what changed to pull me out of that phase, but I'm super happy that I recognize that cringe for what it is.
ugh, yeah I spent a lot of time on the Atheism sub when I first joined reddit way back in ye olden times
I liked it because it provided a lot of verbalization and reasoning for the weirdness I felt regarding my catholicism, and helped me be more comfortable living without it. But on the other hand, it was one of the most terminally online neckbeardy dumpster subreddits in existence. It helped me through a tough time in my life, but also made me a worse person for a while. It was a poisonous amount of snark, sarcasm, misogyny, and general combativeness and eventually, I just left.
I had a change of heart about psychedelics, which I believed were strictly recreational. The amount of research behind the benefits of those substances changed my mind and I now think psychedelics will be a revolution for mental health. I still wouldn't make use of those drugs outside of a controlled, therapeutic setting.
When I was studying for a master's degree, I despised post-structuralism, which I viewed as irrational and indefensible. With time, I learned that post-structural ideas are extremely useful for thinking about human subjectivity, identity, gender, etc. So I still think post-structuralism is terrible for a lot of stuff, but wonderful for others. Ultimately, the issue is not as much with post-structuralism itself, but with people that turn it into a gospel and use it in ways that are inadvisable and bizarre. If left unchecked, post-structuralist thought can easily arrive at something very similar to mysticism, post-truth, irrationality, antiscience, etc.
I was always left leaning in the political spectrum, but I went from being indifferent to a communist. Well, I always flirted with it, but never really read to much about it. Now I have a library and am always learning.
I stopped believing in the black and white democracy/dictatorship nomenclature too. The state is nothing more than the monopoly of violence and repression, what matters is who controls it.
Leaving Christianity was the biggest thing in my life. It's a big long story. To summarize, during study of apologetics I came to see the Bible was self-contradictory and error prone. I had to give up on trusting it. It was very sad day. I miss Christianity a lot. The truth is the truth though, gotta follow it wherever it leads.
What do you miss about it?
I had a sort of similar thing where I left Protestant Christianity because I couldn't see it (in particular, the modern "bible alone" literal interpretation cult-like fanaticism) as being true anymore. I thought I would miss it more, or at least the hymns, but I did not, and adjusted quite quickly.
Do you have a new faith (or faith like) community? Might help a bit.
It's probably the family aspect of it I miss the most. Get together 2-3 times per week at this shared community building with all these people that you grow to regard as extended family over many years. It is very nice having such a group of people to be able to rely on and do activities with.
Yeah I got nothing now. Just sit at home and watch tv and play video games. Sometimes drink beer. Dunno. I guess I'm athiest or agnostic? Obviously I cannot trust any of the holy books.
Yeah that aspect of it is pretty nice, and not really any alternatives for it in the secular space. It's like a hobby club without a hobby, a sport fan team without a sports..... maybe cultural club if you speak another language or belong to a minority?
If you could stomach it, I was thinking like Marla from fight club: join a support group for something you don't have. Attend a service for a faith you don't share. :)
You may be interested in this podcast episode interviewing Megan Phelps-Roper about how she left the ultra-conservative church she grew up in:
I think it's natural to miss something that was a big part of your life. I hope you find another ethos and/or community that resonates better with you!
I can relate to this. My parents were "born again" when I was around 15. I was always a tad skeptical, but generally embraced it. Then while in college, I took an interest in Philosophy. I did my best to defend my faith to myself. I spent countless hours reading, researching, watching and listening to debates, etc. I still find it a bit interesting that Philosophy lead me to empiricism/science, but science had little-to-no effect on my faith initially.
Anyway, it was devastating at first. It completely wrecked my worldview and wiped out the things I'd come to rely on in my life. It also eventually killed a lot of friendships in my life and strained my relationship with my parents. Atheists, after all, aren't all that popular where I was at the time. It was a pivotal moment in my life. That was years ago - I'm in a much better place now. I hope you find some peace and happiness in your life to fill those gaps your faith once filled.
Grew up Catholic. Was an altar boy, prayed at the chapel every Wednesday, went to church every Sunday. Wanted to be a priest when I grew up. But I always knew there other religions. It never really squared me that I was lucky enough to be 100% right, but every Muslim, Hindu, Jew was wrong. Presumably they believed just as strongly as I did? But their faith was wrong. So faith could be wrong.
But that didn't turn me atheist. I played around with deism, pantheism, etc. I was active at a skeptics forums for a while. Someone posted an innocuous poll: do you believe in life after death? I clicked yes. It was pretty low stakes. And then someone posted an innocent, nothing comment that upended what was left of my religiousity:
"haha can you add an 'i hope' option xD"
And that was it. I didn't really have a reason to believe in life after death. Indeed, what a ridiculous thing to think. I know what happens to brains when they die. I was just terrified of death. I just hoped for life after death. But that didn't make it any more likely.
I wouldn't be able to point to something specific, but in general, studying sociology changed my perspective on pretty much everything. I used to be a relatively rigid person who had strongly held beliefs, but now I'm terrified to even have strong opinions on most things. I'm sure there are a lot of people here who would say that life is gray and we should be open minded and listen one another and whatever, but they don't actually believe in it. Well, studying sociology instills it deep in you. It becomes second nature.
It may sound like this is a good thing, but it's far from it. You constantly have to deal with this conflict living inside you, being pulled from one side to the other. At best it's annoying, at worst it's anxiety inducing. I have people around me with similar backgrounds but if I weren't lucky, I don't know how I'd keep on going.
I don't know how else to put this into words without sounding more smug than I already do, but if you've studied sociology or know someone who has, ask them about it and they will likely know what I'm talking about.
She said no.
Who is she? What’d she say no about?