The attack of the killers memes! (can people change?:II!)

[Randorama]

Dear moderators: as it was inevitable that a relatively interesting thread would have been hijacked by people interested in trivial matters like calling each others' names, proving Godwin's law and in general, destroying civil discussions by trolling, i would like for this thread to be kept alive, even if it might be considered redoundant. I understand that, in your infinite wisdom, you didn't find proper to split threads when people hijacked the other one (since, if someone says mentions the holy scriptures, everything seems to be magically allowed), so i'm making a new one by myself. Please, avoid PMs and publicly state eventual resentments, actions, whatever,


On topic:

The questions are: what we define as "change", in individuals? And once we've defined that, can individuals effectively meet these requirements, and thus "change? Arguments that are out: preaching, religion (because everyone so far uses it to preach), Tacos ( sorry, i have to do it).

Please join this discussion with wits and sense of humour, and (please) adhere to the said guidelines, it would really be an improvement.

[Neon]

Add 'no Godwin's law' to the rules, please.

Seriously.

[The n00b]

What can change the nature of a man? How about guilt or the development of a conscience no matter how late in life.

[Ord]

I beleve people can change.
I knew a guy who was popular with the women, spoiled, arrogant, not very smart, a bit of a bully and a general prick. The said individual went on to join the army and fought in the first gulf war, while I went on to college. A year later, when I met him, he was like a completely different person.
It was probably some of the things he saw and did. Killing another human being can change you (which he did).
This guy is now assured, settled, funny and contemplative. I believe that under certain circumstances people can change.

[sethsez]

Arguments that are out: religion

Why? It's pretty clear that religion has changed many people, for better or for worse. Saying "God allows change" is a stupid argument that doesn't move the thread foward at all, but discussing the actual ramifications of being religious on a person's ability or desire to change isn't a worthless direction for a thread like this to go.

Essentially, I'm saying discussing the ramifications of religion should be fine (since they can be discussed regardless of one's belief in them), but bringing up actual religious arguments is a dead end (since it's entirely based on personal belief in the first place, it's just spinning your wheels in the mud).

[Randorama]

Why?

Please refer to other thread and the comment above, thanks.

[sethsez]

Why?

Please refer to other thread and the comment above, thanks.

Please refer to my rebuttal, thanks.

If you're not going to answer a question with anything beyond "please go read the other 100+ message thread and poke around for my point, kthx," don't reply to it. If someone's asking for clarification, it's because you didn't make your point well enough the first time, so saying "read what I said again" doesn't help either.

And once again, note what I said and the distinction I made. If you want to talk about whether people can change while ignoring one of the major catylists that causes many people to change, for better or worse, then you might just as well close the topic right now. Asking if people can make themselves change while ignoring the affect religious beliefs (note the word beliefs, ie, whether a belief in miracles affects the ability to change, not whether miracles themselves affect the ability to change) could have on their ability or desire is like asking if life could be sustained with light but ignoring plants. It's a needlessly restricted question, and although you might get an answer it isn't going to be a complete one.

[Jon]

Why?

Please refer to other thread and the comment above, thanks.

Please refer to my rebuttal, thanks.

If you're not going to answer a question with anything beyond "please go read the other 100+ message thread and poke around for my point, kthx," don't reply to it. If someone's asking for clarification, it's because you didn't make your point well enough the first time, so saying "read what I said again" doesn't help either.

And once again, note what I said and the distinction I made. If you want to talk about whether people can change while ignoring one of the major catylists that causes many people to change, for better or worse, then you might just as well close the topic right now. Asking if people can make themselves change while ignoring the affect religious beliefs (note the word beliefs, ie, whether a belief in miracles affects the ability to change, not whether miracles themselves affect the ability to change) could have on their ability or desire is like asking if life could be sustained with light but ignoring plants. It's a needlessly restricted question, and although you might get an answer it isn't going to be a complete one.

Well said sethsez, very articulate if I do say so myself. As for my rather glib response I believe the answer is yes, people can change. I don't believe it happens very often and generally takes a major life altering event to do so but it can happen (for the better and for worse. )

[Randorama]

Please refer to my rebuttal, thanks.

Yes, i did

but bringing up actual religious arguments is a dead end

In short, if you can only post reactions to what i write, you're invited to post in other threads, thanks. You're *again* misunderstanding arguments to provoke and hijack threads,and frankly, i find you quite offensive. Once a a while, why don't you try to change and have ideas?

[The n00b]

Please refer to my rebuttal, thanks.

Yes, i did

but bringing up actual religious arguments is a dead end

In short, if you can only post reactions to what i write, you're invited to post in other threads, thanks. You're *again* misunderstanding arguments to provoke and hijack threads,and frankly, i find you quite offensive. Once a a while, why don't you try to change and have ideas?

Sethsez is being extremely articulate and patient with his arguments but I cannot say the same for you. You have instead countered with meaningless accusations. I recommend that if you cannot handle this discussion on philosophy, you should not start threads like this.

[Randorama]

I recommend, dear N00b, to read other intervertions by said user as well, or to read the aforementioned thread "can people change?" and see where pretty articulate " actual religious arguments" are actually " a dead end". I also suggest you to read my posts in said thread and try to figure out who, in the discussion, was on topic and who hijacked said thread, with rabi bible thumping. Maybe you wouldn't come to such harsh and *absolutely inappropriate* conclusions like yours, assuming that you can deal with basic logic though!


Now, once the usual trolls are feed (because i'm an altruist), let me restart by quoting

As an agnostic science teacher, I also strongly believe there are areas where science has nothing to say. We are afterall, dealing only in facts, not truths. When someone says the earth came into existance 6000 years ago or so, I have some SERIOUS problems on the level of conflict with fact, however when someone says that 'God shaped the heavens', science really has nothing to say. Or even that God created all life on earth. I can speak of the natural forces which can be observed and studied, and I can speak of theories built upon the body of face. But as to what force might be behind the forces we can study, science can say nothing (and SHOULD say nothing.)

I don't think this is the problem itself. On one side, i think that religion, meant as a normative system (i.e. "we know how the world works, so you have to follow our rules") , has the structural need to define physical laws and, most crucially, hierarchies. The core idea is that, put in the hands of the people who want to control other people , any dogmatic system has, as a natural enemy, Darwinism.This broadly encopasses a wild caleidoscope of authoritarian systems: again, Darwinism and genetics were utterly despised in Soviet Union...upon the official discovery of DNA by Crick and Watson, Eugenii Lysenko, minister of agricolture, said something like genetics being a capitalistic lie.

Why is this, though?

Ironically, while those people in Kansas I cannot help but call ignorant for not understanding what IS and IS NOT science attack evolutionary theory as a teachable idea within the schools, they miss this same argument from Darwin himself who in the last page of Origin makes clear this potential mystery behind those natural forces we can observe.

The problem is that, if science does not explain everything, as say "look, we don't have answers on this, go on and solve your problems", or if really leaves room for doubt, then it automatically creates problems to dogmatic approaches. The dogmatic memes are like cuckoos, or grasshoppers perhaps: they need to conquer all the possible territory (minds of people) and leave none to other systems, as they would represent a menace to their survival. On ther other hand, non-dogmatic systems are cooperative in nature, or at least non-confictual, i'd say, maybe even complementary (In the sense you can use one system where the other ends, in some cases).

That these topics are so hotly debated in the US is only revealing of our lack of understanding in regards to basic philosophy and the nature of science (what it DOES and DOES NOT say). Science does not conflict with religion but rather only those tenants which people have extrapolated incorrectly from their beliefs (

I wouldn't use the "our", though. The core issue, again, is that there is a specific set of people who need tools for total control, and among other things they promote dogmatic, omnipervasive, visions about the world. Other options are a problem, may them actually pertinent to facts or not and well, if facts don't put these persons out of the centre of the universe.

The only problem that the evolutionary theory poses to any dogmatic system is that it puts man (and some men are more men than others, to paraphrase "the animal farm") out of the centre of the Universe. It would be interesting if it would have worked otherwise (but i can't see how, honestly)...i doubt it would have posed such a treat to some "beliefs".

[sethsez]

Please refer to my rebuttal, thanks.

Yes, i did

but bringing up actual religious arguments is a dead end

In short, if you can only post reactions to what i write, you're invited to post in other threads, thanks. You're *again* misunderstanding arguments to provoke and hijack threads,and frankly, i find you quite offensive. Once a a while, why don't you try to change and have ideas?

I try to contribute to the discussion at hand by posting my feelings on the topic and you turn it into a pissing match because you have some grudge against me. Nice.

[sethsez]

I recommend, dear N00b, to read other intervertions by said user as well, or to read the aforementioned thread "can people change?" and see where pretty articulate " actual religious arguments" are actually " a dead end".

You're completely missing the point of what I just said. There is a difference between arguing religious beliefs, which that thread had, and arguing about the effect religious beliefs can have on a person, which that thread did not have, and they are two very different issues. Whether God intervenes or not makes absolutely no difference (as an atheist, my position is obvious). What matters is whether the person believes it happened and if this is a sufficient catylist to cause change in certain people.

I also suggest you to read my posts in said thread and try to figure out who, in said thread, who was on topic and who hijacked said thread, with rabi bible thumping.

If you're insinuating it was me who turned it into a bible-thumping argument... hahahahahaha.

[The n00b]

I recommend, dear N00b, to read other intervertions by said user as well, or to read the aforementioned thread "can people change?" and see where pretty articulate " actual religious arguments" are actually " a dead end". I also suggest you to read my posts in said thread and try to figure out who, in said thread, who was on topic and who hijacked said thread, with rabi bible thumping. Maybe you wouldn't come to such harsh and *absolutely inappropriate* conclusions like yours, assuming that you can deal with basic logic though!

He has not said anything of the sort in this thread so why have you targeted him and brought the thread to a standstill for the sake of a simple "grudge match?"

BTW the other thread was hijacked by a relatively new poster by the name of Michaelm. He seemed solely interested in trolling and I don't think any of us took him seriously. We actually just made fun of his weak attempts to bait forumers into a flaming match. I really don't see any reason for us to start an argument in this new thread so why don't we just drop the whole matter?

[sethsez]

The funny thing is that I actually tried to remain entirely on topic by saying that I felt his restrictions on the discussion would wind up leaving out important influences on people, which is pretty central to the entire topic (that is, if you believe outside influences are a major factor in personal change), and then stated my own feelings on the matter. There was nothing personal there.

Whatever. Rando, you clearly have a bone to pick with me, so take it to PMs if you want to bitch me out. If you actually want to discuss the topic at hand, then leave that shit out of this.

[Randorama]

Ok, CMoon, if you're reading this (and everyone who's really interested in the thread and doesn't plan to jump in and rave about unrelated things), can we continue from my reply?

Oh, and Sethsez and N00b, either you discuss in thread or i'll ignore you from now on.

[sethsez]

Now, I will state my actual opinion on the topic. Yes, it will include religion.

People can change. People frequently do change. However, people don't always change for the better, nor do they change in ways that we, ourselves, would change. Thus, there's the perception that change isn't occuring, because it isn't in a way we would personally deem meaningful.

The biggest catalyst for change is a change in worldview. Religion is the most obvious example of this (switching from Christianity to Buddhism will obviously create a vast difference in woldview), but winning the lottery (a massive change in class) or seeing a therapist can also cause similar changes. Certainly, the outlook and behavior of someone living from meal to meal is going to be vastly different from someone who can afford five cars a week. This can often make otherwise nice, outgoing people become secluded, depressed, arrogant, etc. Lottery winners frequently commit suicide, and these were happy people before the winnings came in.

However, is this really a change in personality, or the same personality reacting to an external change? I'd argue it's a bit of both. Take the money away and the person isn't going to revert... it's changed them, for better or worse, permanantly. Is this a good thing? I argue that it's a meaningless question, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Change has occured.

Can people force themselves to change? Again, this can be easily answered with a simple "many people do." So why don't more? Certainly, we encounter people who we know would be better off if they forced themselves to change. But this gets back to my point in the first paragraph... that is, we're applying our prejudices and opinions onto someone else. Though it might make perfect sense to us that they should change, they might see it from a totally different point of view. If someone's a high-rent prostitute, I might think "why can't this person change?" while he or she is thinking "I'm making a decent amount of money for work I don't mind doing." Who's to say who is right? More to the point, if change is possible and a person doesn't take the option, could it be argued that it's a concious choice, or simply the result of apathy? Without getting into someone's head, we really can't.

Can a person change to the core? Well, it's possible. Brain injuries can change someone's personality to the point of being completely unrecognizable, so clearly there's some physical basis for personality. The degree to which this is malleable is debateable, obviously, but I'm of the opinion that a person's core cannot be changed through standard means. With that said, I'm also of the opinion that the stuff around it can be changed to such a degree that it's almost the same thing.

[sethsez]

Oh, and Sethsez and N00b, either you discuss in thread or i'll ignore you from now on.

Jesus Christ on a crutch.

Rando, I was discussing. I didn't bring up the religion thing to piss you off, I brought it up because I feel it's too important to the discussion to be left out entirely.

[CMoon]

Ok, CMoon, if you're reading this (and everyone who's really interested in the thread and doesn't plan to jump in and rave about unrelated things), can we continue from my reply?

Sorry, took me a while to even notice this thread.

I've been at creationist vs. evolution debates and it is amazing to see that out of a couple hundred people about ten folks will GET IT. Those wonderful and dedicated agencies who fight the good fight against intelligent design in the schools and what not, make very clear how evolutionary theory and science in general have NOTHING to say about religion. Many leading evolutionary scientists are christians and they understand well that science only speaks of fact (not truth, not values, not bellief or faith) and there are limits of what science can say. But thinking of Dawkin's memes (as the topic title implies), such ideas are not as seductive as truths which ease the troubles of the days, or for that matter, any kind of truth? Where is the comfort in saying 'we don't really know'? Yet, the mentality of a scientist (and any educated person for that matter) must admit that there are many things we cannot know.

I would love to hear more religious persons say 'well here are the facts, but here is what I believe.' The importance of the seperation is clearly a higher process in humans, with many never attaining the maturity to seperate them.

Ironically, the point where I find Christianity admirable, perhaps even quite beautiful is where it does require the leap of faith--that is, to say one does not need to have all the evidence stacked up to believe in their god, but that instead faith and love/agape can preserve in the face of selfish genes/a universe that doesn't circle the sun, a history of life that has very little to do with humanity. To see faith preserve amongst these facts is part of what makes Christianity amazing. That organizations like the ICR work day and night to obscure the facts and make that leap of faith as easy as buying a soda at the convienance store is that other side of Christianity I dispise (I think most Christians dispise it too).

If more Christians interpreted their religion in a higher and more personal way, we wouldn't have these stupid 'religion versus evolution' debates which really distill to two types of though--one which seperates fact from faith, and one which does not seperate fact from truth.

There is a cognitive division here, though it is a fairly advanced one for humanity apparently, but no different than the step where children move from seperating their own perception from a shared world view (IE what they see is not seen by everyone else.) The seperation of fact from 'truth/faith' is one I'd like to see more people underestand--but as we can see from current educational practices in Kansas, this is something most people are still missing.[/u]

[Randorama]

People can change. People frequently do change. However, people don't always change for the better

The biggest catalyst for change is a change in worldview.

Cutting and pasting but...

There is a cognitive division here, though it is a fairly advanced one for humanity apparently, but no different than the step where children move from seperating their own perception from a shared world view (IE what they see is not seen by everyone else.) The seperation of fact from 'truth/faith' is one I'd like to see more people underestand--but as we can see from current educational practices in Kansas, this is something most people are still missing.[/u]

These elements are key aspects in the issue. I would like to asnwer you that, well, after 12 (or whatever), individuals make a step ahead in their perception of the world and learn to distinguish facts from beliefs.This is clearly not the case, and actually the teenager years seem to be worse, in this regard. The core issue is that we can manipulate beliefs, and change them at will, unlike reality. It is not a case that dictatorships (repetita iuvant!) had posed a great effort in molding young generations according to their necessities, like for instance the "HitlerJugend".

One question is: why? Because the issue at stake is control of territory, so to speak. If we one country going around to make wars, what ideology would work better? Actually, a skeptic approach is, well, just a skeptic approach, not even an ideology.On the other hand, if "we" are the adored sons of any divinity, and this divinity says that we are the centre of creation, well: what would we the worst thing to happen(among others)? Our soldiers to find out that, no, they're not in the centre of the Universe, that some time ago we were just little stinky monkeys and, BY CHANCE AND NOT BY SOME WRITTEN DESTINY, we are what we are now.

Which is not too much, i'd add

However, is this really a change in personality, or the same personality reacting to an external change? I'd argue it's a bit of both. Take the money away and the person isn't going to revert... it's changed them, for better or worse, permanantly. Is this a good thing? I argue that it's a meaningless question, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Change has occured.

While the original thread, i think, was about improving, more than changing, i still think that changes are what you make of them, so to speak. Interaction with external world may be sometimes painful, especially when things are unpleasant. However, i still think that we can be in charge of the effect these changes can do to us. A tregedy will surely affect us, but it can also be a way to grow up wiser.

Can people force themselves to change? Again, this can be easily answered with a simple "many people do." So why don't more?

Can a person change to the core? Well, it's possible. Brain injuries can change someone's personality to the point of being completely unrecognizable, so clearly there's some physical basis for personality. .

Well, in that case, we should hit hard with a stick!But seriously, changes, regardless of the type, are also better if advantageous. If there is a possibility to change, and this change is advantageous, i think that a good chunk would do it, given some external stimulus. The majority,perhaps, only if forced to change.

A few may pursue constant change as a personal occasion of growth. Not "improvement", just becoming more...refined? In what you already are.

A tad of a generic argument, i know

[Michaelm]

I think that if people reach the point where they act to the following rule :

Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do onto you

That they have become the best person they could be.
In fact if all people would act like that there would be no more wars, stealing and stuff like that.
I believe that the biggest reason we people haven't yet reached this point is greed.

[PaCrappa]

One question is: why?

Yeah man, why were you such a dick at the beginning of this thread?

Because the issue at stake is control of territory, so to speak.

Oh. I see. Good luck with your "discussion".

Pa

[The n00b]

One question is: why?

Yeah man, why were you such a dick at the beginning of this thread?

Because the issue at stake is control of territory, so to speak.

Oh. I see. Good luck with your "discussion".

Pa

I have a theory for that. You see Rando is merely showing us humble forum goers an example of a person who cannot change yet also fears change. Sethsez brought up the idea that religious beliefs could change someone for the better or for the worse. Rando of course acted like such views could possibly change his views and instead of embracing a new idea or correcting the posters, he reacted with hostility.

He has also refused to stop going on the offensive at posters in this thread that point out his hostility or merely try to plead their innocence. He cites an earlier thread where another poster was trolling and uses it to justify his dickheadedness. I, and other posters, have told Rando many times that we did not troll his thread but he refuses to let go of this idea.

So can people change? Rando certainly can't whether he refuses to or just plain can't. Or maybe he has....His ever growing hostility to those who merely want to explore all areas of this philosophical discussion might have changed Rando into a troll, the very people he claims he is ranting against.

[sethsez]

Honestly, I would like to see this get back on topic, even though it seems to be a cursed one.

[Randorama]

Yeah, i agree with SethSez

but yes, human beings are the most territorial lving beings around. Now i'm going to jump a bit here and there: one typical habit of man is to fight for resources and thus, for territory. It's just saying "it's our turf!!1!", because since we got domesticated, roughly 10.000 ago, we started organizing space with specific sets of rules. In some sense, it's no more and no less than the Kelsenian approach to nation: a costitutional system distributed on a geographical space (ok, i'm guessing by memory, my lazyness as always).

In this regard, it is obvious that, if your system is a dogmatic sets of beliefs, you need to expand and throw away, physically, anyone who can have different memes, no? So you can occupy the space that functionally prepares young generations and program them to believe in your dogmas. On this regard, the Kansas battles are a bit more than just a quarrel upon systems of beliefs.

In this regard, it is also important to remove any possibility of change, before it's too late, i think. No?

[sethsez]

.....

[TWITCHDOCTOR]

I like Taco's too!!!
Original Supreme's from Taco Bell...yea, I'm white!

[sethsez]

.....

[Randorama]

Sethsez, i gently invite you to follow your suggestion.

Now that i think of it, Kansas it not the only place where "Darwinism" is not trendy anymore...i wonder, who studied (at least officially) such a theory at school, in Europe? I suspect that regardless of the educational system, it has never been a trendy theory at all

[sethsez]

I deleted my replies for a reason, and have asked a mod to delete them fully. If another mod sees this message before that mod checks his PMs, they can delete them too. It's a good topic, and regardless of my feelings on the matter I shouldn't have posted that, so I'd rather it (and Twitch's reply to me if possible) be deleted entirely.

I misinterpreted what you said (partially... I still disagree with a lot, but that's in a PM), and I'm sorry for dragging it here, where it doesn't belong.