Have You Always Believed As You Do Now?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay I understand your stance on fact used for the application of morals. But, you seem to be stating that the formation of morals isn’t a fact based pursuit. That is all I was getting at. Your morals are not based any more on fact than anyone else. So they are entirely the creation of the individual (or god) and developed outside of fact and science.[/quote]

I’ve consistently stated that facts inform both morals and the application of morals. It seems you now agree on the latter, but are still challenging the former.

[/quote]
I have always agreed on the latter. BUT the latter still requires the former for completion.

[quote]

Here’s an example of facts directly informing morals:

The objective existence of [insert random God here] is either a fact or a lie. For example, Jesus is either a living entity as of the time of this message or he is not. Likewise for Allah, Buddha, and all the other Gods.

Now consider the moral imperative covered by the first of the 10 commandments:

Clearly, this moral is informed by the belief (which is either a fact or a lie) that Jehovah, the God of the old testament, is an actual being rather than a figment of someone’s imagination.

The veracity of this claim directly informs this moral. If there is no Jehovah, there is no moral value in placing that God above all others.

Facts matter. It is foolish to base one’s morals, or the application of those morals, on lies.[/quote]

Okay, what facts directly inform your morals?

Besides, as I’ve already stated, there were a lot of benefits to the moral imperative for the Israelites to honor Jehovah. Whether to the greater good or greater bad is a matter of opinion.

182

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Love is a noun, it is a thing. However the only way we interact with it is via action. We can feel love and express it, but we cannot touch, feel it physically, taste it, hear it or see it. Love has no physical embodiment in it self; we sense it only through emotion and expression. Things that exist, but do not have a physical make up are metaphysical entities.

It’s just logical.[/quote]

[quote]
You claim love has no physical embodiment. You know this how? Also, if you think it doesn’t have a physical component, you must be high.[/quote]

Ok, so what physical substance is “love” made of? Does it have the property of mass? Is it a gas, solid, liquid, or plasma?

183

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, what facts directly inform your morals?[/quote]

Does that mean you now agree that facts can directly inform morals, per my earlier example?

An example of a fact informing one of my morals:

People are real rather than a figment of my imagination. Therefore, my core value of loving people makes sense.

Again, I’ve never argued that false beliefs always produce negative consequences. I’ve only argued that false beliefs are more likely to produce negative consequences than true beliefs.

184

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, what facts directly inform your morals?[/quote]

Does that mean you now agree that facts can directly inform morals, per my earlier example?

Again, I’ve never argued that false beliefs always produce negative consequences. I’ve only argued that false beliefs are more likely to produce negative consequences than true beliefs.[/quote]

No, I do not exactly agree. First, none of the things you’ve mentioned has been disproven. Second, if we accept they they are in-fact myth, you have only shown examples of morals being based on myth, not fact.

What facts are your morals based on? And what evidence do you have that the “myth” based beliefs tend to be more negative than “true” ones?

You value love. Considering that there is no empirical evidence that love even exists, beyond a chemical brain reaction that is reproducible by other means, isn’t love a false belief? Scientifically, love is a myth.

List for me “true” beliefs that are based on empirical evidence. Or even just one.

185

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I do wish you well, I have no reason to wish you otherwise.
You do have to admit you are fascinated by religion as you have started at least 2 or 3 of them. Ironically, I have never start one, yet it is a topic I am rather fond of discussing.[/quote]

You’re one of the “good eggs” as far as I can tell :slight_smile: You have your religious beliefs, but don’t across as extremist or judgmental.

I’m interested in religion given my religious background, but more importantly (at the risk of sounding sappy), I’m interested in the quest for truth and morality.[/quote]

Me too. I use philosophy, science, and religion as m vehicle for discovery.
It’s this academic nerdy side where I find solace in a really fucked up world.

186

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I do not exactly agree. First, none of the things you’ve mentioned has been disproven. Second, if we accept they they are in-fact myth, you have only shown examples of morals being based on myth, not fact.

What facts are your morals based on? And what evidence do you have that the “myth” based beliefs tend to be more negative than “true” ones?

You value love. Considering that there is no empirical evidence that love even exists, beyond a chemical brain reaction that is reproducible by other means, isn’t love a false belief? Scientifically, love is a myth.

List for me “true” beliefs that are based on empirical evidence. Or even just one.[/quote]

Like I said, the fact that people exist informs the value of loving people. If people don’t exist, the value of loving people is meaningless.

You’re getting off track, though. We’re not having a debate about what is and is not real. We’re discussing the point that our beliefs inform both our morals and the application of those morals.

187

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I do not exactly agree. First, none of the things you’ve mentioned has been disproven. Second, if we accept they they are in-fact myth, you have only shown examples of morals being based on myth, not fact.

What facts are your morals based on? And what evidence do you have that the “myth” based beliefs tend to be more negative than “true” ones?

You value love. Considering that there is no empirical evidence that love even exists, beyond a chemical brain reaction that is reproducible by other means, isn’t love a false belief? Scientifically, love is a myth.

List for me “true” beliefs that are based on empirical evidence. Or even just one.[/quote]

Like I said, the fact that people exist informs the value of loving people. If people don’t exist, the value of loving people is meaningless.

When I say that I value loving people, I’m referring to love as an action, not as an emotion.

You’re getting off track, though. We’re not having a debate about what is and is not real. We’re discussing the point that our beliefs inform both our morals and the application of those morals.[/quote]

How in the world does the fact that humans exist create your basis for love? This is the same argument that the existence of the universe is basis for god. You cannot even factually define what love is. This goes to the core of the entire debate, it is not off track.

188

Love is a myth.

There is no scientific support of the concept.

It has spawned many wars.

Believing in it sets one up for heartache, misery, and depression.

It leads to suicides.

Extremists stalk/harass/kill in its’ name.

The notion drives jealousy and causes unspeakable crimes.

Believing in it, you are living in a fantasy world. One that has destroyed many lives.

189

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How in the world does the fact that humans exist create your basis for love? This is the same argument that the existence of the universe is basis for god. You cannot even factually define what love is. This goes to the core of the entire debate, it is not off track.[/quote]

Again, you’re dodging the point that beliefs directly inform values. You seem to have covertly admitted that this is the case in my example of God. Now you’re challenging a different example (i.e., loving people) without acknowledging the actual point being made.

To answer your question though, it’s obvious that if people didn’t really exist, the value of loving them would be irrelevant. That moral is only worth pursuing if people are real.

In the same light, if your God doesn’t really exist, the value of loving your God would be irrelevant. That moral is only worth pursuing if your God is real.

In both cases, a belief directly informs the moral. The veracity of that belief is extremely important, to determine whether the moral is worthy of your effort.

190

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Love is a myth.

There is no scientific support of the concept.

It has spawned many wars.

Believing in it sets one up for heartache, misery, and depression.

It leads to suicides.

Extremists stalk/harass/kill in its’ name.

The notion drives jealousy and causes unspeakable crimes.

Believing in it, you are living in a fantasy world. One that has destroyed many lives.
[/quote]

Again, I am referring to the action of loving people. Call it service if you like.

Not that I concede that the emotion of love is a myth. The emotion of love is simply the label we assign to the biochemical processes in our brain that produce the sensations and consequent actions we associate with love.

By your logic, the color purple is also a myth. Purple doesn’t really exist, and is simply the meaning we assign to the light waves that are received by the human eye and processed by the brain.

191

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Love is a myth.

There is no scientific support of the concept.

It has spawned many wars.

Believing in it sets one up for heartache, misery, and depression.

It leads to suicides.

Extremists stalk/harass/kill in its’ name.

The notion drives jealousy and causes unspeakable crimes.

Believing in it, you are living in a fantasy world. One that has destroyed many lives.
[/quote]

Love as a supernatural force is a myth.

192

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Love is a noun, it is a thing. However the only way we interact with it is via action. We can feel love and express it, but we cannot touch, feel it physically, taste it, hear it or see it. Love has no physical embodiment in it self; we sense it only through emotion and expression. Things that exist, but do not have a physical make up are metaphysical entities.

It’s just logical.[/quote]

[quote]
You claim love has no physical embodiment. You know this how? Also, if you think it doesn’t have a physical component, you must be high.[/quote]

Ok, so what physical substance is “love” made of? Does it have the property of mass? Is it a gas, solid, liquid, or plasma?[/quote]

Let me guess, whether I answer or not, you’ll write off whatever I say and hey presto! your magical love force wins by default.

You are the one making claims here.

193

read through this and would like to say back to the first post

yeah i have always believed what i started believing in.

for afew years i kinda doubted but that unmistakable hold was on my life. tried to escape it, run from it, tried alot of things to see if it was just aload of crap with just some sort of subconscience hold on my life. but after 3 years of testing my faith i was drawn back to the very point in which i started.

Gotta love God for not getting annoyed at me. i think the word is Grace.

194

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How in the world does the fact that humans exist create your basis for love? This is the same argument that the existence of the universe is basis for god. You cannot even factually define what love is. This goes to the core of the entire debate, it is not off track.[/quote]

Again, you’re dodging the point that beliefs directly inform values. You seem to have covertly admitted that this is the case in my example of God. Now you’re challenging a different example (i.e., loving people) without acknowledging the actual point being made.

To answer your question though, it’s obvious that if people didn’t really exist, the value of loving them would be irrelevant. That moral is only worth pursuing if people are real.

In the same light, if your God doesn’t really exist, the value of loving your God would be irrelevant. That moral is only worth pursuing if your God is real.

In both cases, a belief directly informs the moral. The veracity of that belief is extremely important, to determine whether the moral is worthy of your effort.[/quote]

No, I directly addressed your former points.

The fact that people exist does not in any way lead to valuing love. It only doesn’t disprove it based on existence. You need to go back and look over logic operations in math.

From: If people don’t exist then love for them doesn’t exist.

Does NOT flow: People exist, therefore human love exists.

Its bad logic. I’m asking for the logic or facts that suggest the love you believe in. If you have none, it’s a myth.

195

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Love is a myth.

There is no scientific support of the concept.

It has spawned many wars.

Believing in it sets one up for heartache, misery, and depression.

It leads to suicides.

Extremists stalk/harass/kill in its’ name.

The notion drives jealousy and causes unspeakable crimes.

Believing in it, you are living in a fantasy world. One that has destroyed many lives.
[/quote]

Again, I am referring to the action of loving people. Call it service if you like.

Not that I concede that the emotion of love is a myth. The emotion of love is simply the label we assign to the biochemical processes in our brain that produce the sensations and consequent actions we associate with love.

By your logic, the color purple is also a myth. Purple doesn’t really exist, and is simply the meaning we assign to the light waves that are received by the human eye and processed by the brain.[/quote]

AH… So these people were just believing in the “wrong” kind of love. Much the way religions that perpetuate violence believe in the “wrong” kind of god. These bad things arenâ??t a necessary trait of love, BUT neither are bad things a necessary trait of religion.

The emotion of love as a biochemical process is the only version of love that has a scientific measurable definition. All other forms are myths. However, if this is the love you are speaking of, you are valuing a biochemical process, and as such, you should equally value large amounts of chocolate. If that isn’t what you are talking about, you believe in a myth.

And you are entirely wrong about purple. Purple is a scientifically defined, quantifiable, measurable, physical property of a photon. Now, the idea of the beauty/ugliness of purple, that’s a myth.

196

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Love is a myth.

There is no scientific support of the concept.

It has spawned many wars.

Believing in it sets one up for heartache, misery, and depression.

It leads to suicides.

Extremists stalk/harass/kill in its’ name.

The notion drives jealousy and causes unspeakable crimes.

Believing in it, you are living in a fantasy world. One that has destroyed many lives.
[/quote]

Love as a supernatural force is a myth.[/quote]

Love as anything more than a biochemical process is a myth. Outside of that definition, they are all supernatural.

(I happen to believe in this myth)

197

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I directly addressed your former points.[/quote]

Actually, you seem to have switched from your original position based on our discussion. Let’s be perfectly clear then:

Do you acknowledge that a person’s beliefs about the nature of reality can directly inform that person’s values, as well as the application of those values?

The fact that people exist is a necessary prerequisite for the value of loving people to be worth pursuing. That fact has direct relevance on the utility of the moral itself.

I never said that the fact people exist is sufficient for the moral of loving people, only that it was necessary.

198

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
AH… So these people were just believing in the “wrong” kind of love. Much the way religions that perpetuate violence believe in the “wrong” kind of god. These bad things arenÃ?¢??t a necessary trait of love, BUT neither are bad things a necessary trait of religion.[/quote]

Who said anything about the “right” or “wrong” kind of love? I have no idea where this even came from.

Did you see the part where I said that I value the action of love, not the emotion of love? Due to my environmental and genetic programming, I value people, which is what leads to the action of trying to help people.

[quote]And you are entirely wrong about purple. Purple is a scientifically defined, quantifiable, measurable, physical property of a photon. Now, the idea of the beauty/ugliness of purple, that’s a myth.
[/quote]

Wrong. Light itself has no color. It is a bundle of energy pulsating at a particular frequency, but has no color. Purple doesn’t exist. It is a creation of your mind, based on an interpretation of wavelengths of light as perceived by the human brain. Your purple may be very different from my purple.

199

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I directly addressed your former points.[/quote]

Actually, you seem to have switched from your original position based on our discussion. Let’s be perfectly clear then:

Do you acknowledge that a person’s beliefs about the nature of reality can directly inform that person’s values, as well as the application of those values?

[/quote]
No, you’ve only shown how facts can contradict beliefs, not inform (be based on) them.

Are you admitting that your beliefs are based no more on fact than the belief in a creator?

[quote]

The fact that people exist is a necessary prerequisite for the value of loving people to be worth pursuing. That fact has direct relevance on the utility of the moral itself.

I never said that the fact people exist is sufficient for the moral of loving people, only that it was necessary.[/quote]

No, you did not say that it was sufficient. It was worded that way in the question you were answering though. I’ve been asking over and over again, what facts lead you to the formation of your beliefs. You’ve refused over and over again to give a direct answer.

200

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
AH… So these people were just believing in the “wrong” kind of love. Much the way religions that perpetuate violence believe in the “wrong” kind of god. These bad things arenÃ??Ã?¢??t a necessary trait of love, BUT neither are bad things a necessary trait of religion.[/quote]

Who said anything about the “right” or “wrong” kind of love? I have no idea where this even came from.

[/quote]
I listed out many atrocities that have been committed in the name of love. You said that isn’t the kind of love you believe in. I’m assuming that means people who did/do those things for love are believing in the wrong kind, while yours is the right kind. If my assumption was wrong, please clarify.

Exactly. The “action of love” is a myth. If it isn’t, please explain it with scientific verification.

Wrong. Light itself has no color. It is a bundle of energy pulsating at a particular frequency, but has no color. Purple doesn’t exist. It is a creation of your mind, based on an interpretation of wavelengths of light as perceived by the human brain. Your purple may be very different from my purple. [/quote]

You are so scientifically ignorant it’s amusing. As I said, purple is a photon with a specific wavelength. You can measure it, verify it, record it and declare scientifically that photons are purple without ever viewing it. It is a physical property. There is purple outside of human eternal interpretation. A photon with a wavelength of about 400nm is purple whether or not it ever enters the human eye. Your argument is absurd. I thought you were a man of science.