24 replies to this topic

[The Man]

At this time I've posted this question on one other message board.

On any subject what would it take for you to give up your idea?

For example, what would you need to do to convince yourself to not post here again or think twice about something you've believed in your whole life.

This topic doesn't have to descend into a religious debate because this way is the most smart imo. I'm letting you define your own rules for change instead of using point and counter point all over again.

It works both ways. If you are skeptical about something what would it take for you to be more certain and vice versa. What would it take for you to reevaluate something you've known.

Personally, I'd like to give up eating too many holiday goodies but that would require not buying them and taking them off plates.

It can be any subject.

[chalcara]

Depends. I'm stubborn. I stuck out ten years with my fucking degree and I finally got it - a rather decent one, too!

Mainly I'm not a fan of torturing myself - so the only reason I give up something I like would be so that I get something I want even more - be it a goal or something else. For example I've given up tv for reading & painting, for example - but I wouldn't haven given it up for the fuzzy feeling of self-mastery.

[Vlad Yvhv]

Solid, irrefutable, replicatable scientific proof that the opposition is right.

[An7imatt3r]

Devinne Intervention

[The Man]

I think I need to find someone help me give up my video games.

[John Roberts]

I'm a total sell-out. If some bible thumper came up to me and offered me cash to believe in his God, I would. I'd be the biggest God loving person you would ever meet - until the first check bounced that is.

[Ratty Randnums]

Seems like I heard about an evangelist who did similarly, he got rich being a TV preacher, the quit revealing he'd been an atheist the whole time.

[John Roberts]

I can see how being a fake TV preacher and knowing you are fake can be a very clever business move. I like this guy.

[The Man]

When we have acceptable proof what would it take for you to willingly not deny it?

[chalcara]

There's always the issue if the source of this proof is trustworthy or not. Which in itself can be very iffy.

So basically, the proof has to be logically sound (including a logical sound background), obtained by a trustworthy source and it has to be repeatable by other sources.

[John Roberts]

So basically, the proof has to be logically sound (including a logical sound background), obtained by a trustworthy source and it has to be repeatable by other sources.

Or Batman could just tell us.

[BigWigRah]

nothing personal, I just don't like the fact that the media is referring to 2010 as the start of a new decade, when the actual start to the new decade is 2011, as the 1st decade of the 21st century began on January 1st, 2001.

not a big deal or anything, just a minor peeve. no reason to shut down the topic.

i'll think and get back to this.

[furrykef]

Decades start at 0. Since there was no 0 AD, it makes no mathematical sense, but it's been the tradition for as long as anybody can remember and they're not going to change it. Doing it your way feels akin to saying the 80's didn't begin until 1981.

By the way, this issue reminds me of games I used to watch at our stadium. At the end of a period, as the timer ticked down, the whole crowd would chant "9! 8! 7! 6!", etc. Only problem is, they shouted "9" at 9.99, "8" at 8.99, etc., so when they hit zero they still had a whole second to go, which felt awkward and anticlimatic, like bringing a joke past its punch line. Somehow they wouldn't notice and do it exactly the same way in the next period. I guess they couldn't grasp the concept that there are 9 seconds left when it says 9.00, not 9.99.

- Kef

[chalcara]

easily fixed by screaming "wohoo!" wenn it finally hits zero. :3

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I try to keep an open mind about everything. I take in any ideas, filter those ideas with pure simple logic and facts relating to that idea. I let that method of thinking dictate what I end up believing. So I always find myself apathetic to a belief or idea until I've evaluated that idea.

So by the time I believe in something, I pretty much have my mind made up. That's not to say it can't be changed. But it would take exactly what to took for me to believe in that idea in order for me to not believe in it.

This discussion reminds me of my Personal Statement on my FUS Profile:

"I believe in what I want to believe. You believe in what You want to believe. So when someone wants to believe in something, no one will know what to believe! Believe it or not..."

[The Man]

Stepping over the line, I recently read about omniscience and omnipotence. That if someone is omniscient they couldn't be omnipotent because they already know what they're going to do. They won't need total power when they know exactly what to do with it.

But couldn't total power and knowledge be one and the same? Is that what this is about? That humans desire something they don't have?

On one level it seems to me people take comfort in the unknown whether they truly understand it or not.

[John Roberts]

On one level it seems to me people take comfort in the unknown whether they truly understand it or not.

Tis true, I think. And that's cool. The part that annoys me though is when some (and I mean some, not all) of those people use a failure of science as a way to shake their fire and brimstone stick and announce "See? SEE?! They can't prove it! We win!". It's like, yeah, at least those people are out trying to prove and understand something; what are you guys doing, other than shoving fingers in your ears?

I guess the whole blind devotion no-matter-what thing is what really really bugs me. And not just the religion kind, of course, but anything. Like my little sister's blindness when it comes to her much, much older, cheating boyfriend; or an old friend of mine who refuses, under no circumstances, to never ever eat lettuce from the super market because of something his superstitious father told him when he was a boy (I don't understand that one either); and my personal favourite: "That video game/movie/novel sucks cause some guy I've never heard of write a review telling me so! I must spread my hatred for it!! ARRRGGGGHHH!!! No, I have never played/seen/read it myself, why do you ask?".

I suppose it's hard to change your opinion when you are a dumb-shit to begin with.

[Valerie Valens]

What would cause me to give up an idea? If it's unfeasible or absurd.

Also, most reviews are full of shit. There are many games that for all its hype and rave reviews, continue to underwhelm me, and games that I thought were good that were unfairly rated because they compared it to a similar game and refused to judge it on its own faults and merits. IGN and Gamespot are the biggest offenders of this.

[The Man]

The most we can hope is discussions like these open up eyes.

[chalcara]

What would cause me to give up an idea? If it's unfeasible or absurd.

Also, most reviews are full of shit. There are many games that for all its hype and rave reviews, continue to underwhelm me, and games that I thought were good that were unfairly rated because they compared it to a similar game and refused to judge it on its own faults and merits. IGN and Gamespot are the biggest offenders of this.

As someone who's two favourite games get smashed because one isn't enough like Halo (the Metroid series) and the other one's commercially successful - THIS, a thousand times THIS.