versus the mindset of a 'liberal" is curiosity, although it did brush upon it

... for the most part, I have never even heard claimed. I guess my worldview is based strongly on what I have seen reasonably well proven, or witnessed for myself, and not just "stuff I heard". I tend not to swallow anything that includes phrases such as "everyone knows" or "I saw a TV program that said so". Then, I'm a scientist. When I read scientific publications, I look for omissions, logical gaps, and errors, and occasionally find them. I've only once been asked to comment on a grant proposal, and found the arguments therein to contain a very deep flaw, but one that could likely be corrected with a little more work.

I was a little nonplussed by the one about GW's dentures, because I had at one point actually seen what were supposed to be his dentures on display. And yes, I (thought I) saw a lot of wood. There was clearly a lot that wasn't wood, including springs which looked to be brass, and it was quite believable that some of the metal I was seeing was gold rather than brass -- after all, gold is exceptionally free from corrosion. The display explained that hippopotamus ivory was used for the actual teeth, which seemed perfectly logical, and the white parts sure looked like they could be ivory. The articles cited suggested horse and donkey teeth were used; it's not clear to me just which parts were made of which. So, what about all that "wood" ? From the sources cited, it appears that the 'palate' part of the dentures was discolored, and that might have been what I saw (I didn't take a picture) as wood, or it might have been that it was some kind of frame for holding the dentures when not in use, kind of like a case. I certainly thought it was too large to fit in anyone's mouth. Comparing my old memory with the articles cited was confusing, but not contradictory. And years before I ever saw those dentures, I had already read that they weren't really wood, or at least not all wood. So it wasn't any belief that was central to my thinking.

I'm not sure what would really contradict my central beliefs -- maybe if the Earth really were flat, or the Moon were really green cheese, or Donald Trump turned out not to be a vile, despicable travesty of an (ostensibly) human being, that might do it.

from the movie "Time Bandits" and the info about Thomas Crapper from an episode of "X Files" was wrong.

I don't think my worldview can recover.

I'm a big believer in listening. Listening is a lost art. Many people think the ability to talk is a sign of intelligence. I believe the willingness to listen is the real sign.

There's no point in having free speech if we won't listen to one another.

that 12/25 was not Jesus's birthday, and that in fact no one has the foggiest idea of when it was. 12/25 was selected to be the day to honor is, for tw pretty good reasons, one practical, and one pased on good logic with flawed premises.

The practical one was that every civilization all over the northern hemisphere has had celebrations at that time of the year, and we might as well have one too.

The other one was based on the idea that the year began at the spring equinox. At the time, the Julian calendar was still in force, and though it wasn't quite eleven days off yet, it was off some, and the spring equinox was around March 25. That was considered to be the date upon which the world was created, so it was only reasonable to assume that that was the date upon which the Annunciation happened. And December 25 is exactly 9 months after March 25.

Personally, I am a Christian - one who believes that if a person claims to follow Jesus, they should be acting in accordance with his instructions about how to act, and I endeavor to do so. As such, I do not care in the slightest about what date he may have been born. But I love that story because it's such a charming example iof what humans can some up with by applying hard logic to soft premises. I chuckle every time I think of it.

were simply grafted onto preexisting pagan winter solstice celebrations.

All that stuff in the Bible about not using two things for one thing, like not making garments of two kinds of thread or not planting two crops in your field, really mean "don't practice two religions."

Early Christianity had a significant problem when it got into Northern Europe - all the people they forced into Christianity from there already had religions. Those religions already had start-of-winter and end-of-winter festivals. To get people to stop practicing non-Christian festivals, the Christian leadership simply made Jesus-related festivals with the same trappings.

...mixing meat with dairy could make you sick before refrigeration, etc.

I always believed "don't cook a kid in its mother's milk" was a way of keeping you from using two meals' food to make one meal.

in the form of cheese. The meat would be more likely to go bad, but that would be the same with or without milk products.

Most of those rules were arbitrary.

...with the VALUES attributed to the Jesus character, but do not believe that those values are anything supernatural, just part of human nature (along with the shitty parts).

and among the kindest, sweetest people in the world. Of course, like Christianity, you also have some clunkers. Every belief group does. Actually every group does. As you say, human nature has multiple parts. And human nurture sometimes helps and sometimes doesn't. I try to take (or sometimes leave) people as I find them.

I like the Humanist point of view:

"Good Without God".

... and many slaves, being Christian, chose that day for worship services.

According to Wikipedia, it's nowhere near that clear-cut, and will probably never be fully resolved. Given how much the calendar has been modified, it's probably not the day originally celebrated anyway.

I'm an empiricist by nature, so I don't feel threatened by new information that's supported by good evidence.

My core beliefs aren't about particular facts being true, but rather a set of principles, and not amenable to being challenged by facts.

I never had family or teachers or a larger community who really tried to indoctrinate me as I was growing up, so I always felt that anything I learned was open to correction if more information came up. Again, that's how you science, so it came naturally to me.

(When I was young, our family attended Southern Baptist churches and my parents originally voted Republican, like their parents. Neither lasted, for reasons I feel too obvious to enumerate. )

Interesting
Rec

Musk wasn't really showing his true colors yet and lots of people idolized him.

If he hasn't updated his opinions then I guess that would make him exhibit A of the points he's making in that comic.

From that link: