Have You Always Believed As You Do Now?

forlife · March 3, 2010, 4:05pm

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

Why are you talking about facts informing or contradicting beliefs? This whole discussion has been about facts informing or contradicting morals.

If by “beliefs” you really meant “morals”, then you just admitted that facts have direct bearing on morality. Clearly, if the facts contradict one’s morality, then that morality is questionable at best.

[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.
[/quote]

If the fact that people exist is necessary for the moral of valuing people, then clearly that fact has direct bearing on the existence of that moral. What is so hard to understand about this?

forlife · March 3, 2010, 4:41pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.[/quote]

I never said any such thing. Love is simply defined as any action that is intended to benefit another person. Whether or not that action in fact benefits the person is irrelevant to it being a loving act.

People do a lot of things in the name of love that hurt others, based on misinformation and false beliefs. Which is why the moral itself needs to be informed by actual facts.

Again, the “action of love” is any act intended to benefit another person.

Do you really want to get into comparing academic credentials? Let’s avoid the personal attacks and focus on the actual subject ok?

Again, you’re mistaken. Take any basic psychology course on human perception and you will learn that colors do not exist in the objective world. They are created by the human brain as an interpretation of certain wavelengths of light. Color is not a physical property, it is a fabrication of the brain based on a physical property (i.e., light).

For example, consider synesthesia. Some people perceive numbers/letters or hear musical sounds that cause them to see colors. These colors are identical to the colors they see in response to specific wavelengths of light. In all cases, they are fabricated by the human brain in response to external physical stimuli, but the colors themselves do not exist in the objective world.

DoubleDuce · March 3, 2010, 4:43pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

Why are you talking about facts informing or contradicting beliefs? This whole discussion has been about facts informing or contradicting morals.

If by “beliefs” you really meant “morals”, then you just admitted that facts have direct bearing on morality. Clearly, if the facts contradict one’s morality, then that morality is questionable at best.

[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.
[/quote]

If the fact that people exist is necessary for the moral of valuing people, then clearly that fact has direct bearing on the existence of that moral. What is so hard to understand about this?[/quote]

Nothing is hard to understand. I agree with it. I’m sure we disagree on what certain facts prove/disprove, but that is an aside. But you once again avoid my question. What facts led you to believe in love? If you refuse to answer yet again I will take is as admittion of belief in a myth.

kman3b18 · March 3, 2010, 4:48pm

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
A deity is the object of your worship.
[/quote]

Fair enough. By your broad definition, I’m not an agnostic/atheist. Essentially, you’re saying that anyone that places value on anything is a theist.[/quote]

No again - you seemed really hooked on this “what I value” thing (which, interestingly, is part of my point); certainly I haven’t brought it up.

I’ll say it again: “the most important thing” in your life has very little, if anything, to do with what you say it is; with what you purportedly “value.” You aren’t alone here - we all deceive ourselves in this regard.

I’ll say it again: it is your actions which reveal what you, in fact, worship; take a look at what you actually do year by year, day by day, hour by hour. And if you really believe that your actions reveal a life that is radically informed by charity - in the traditional sense of the term - then I’ll eat my hat and then some.

Most people, when it really comes down to it, worship their own precious selves (this can take various forms - via power or money or whatnot). It’s as if the tendency to worship the self is so deeply grooved in our imperfect humanity that we invariably revert to doing so. It almost cannot be helped.

It’s not a question of whether or not we worship something - that cannot be helped, really. It’s a question of what we worship.

[/quote]

Before you even wrote this I quickly came to the realization that I indeed do ‘worship’ myself. This is what most people do though, and I believe this mechanism is based upon evolution and survival.

forlife · March 3, 2010, 4:49pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Nothing is hard to understand that. I agree with it. I’m sure we disagree on what certain facts prove/disprove, but that is an aside.[/quote]

I’m glad we agree then. My only point has been that the veracity of facts which inform our morals is absolutely important. It’s misleading to say “morality is completely independent of the physical world, and outside the realm of science.” Where knowledge is available, it is wise to use that knowledge to inform the morals that we hold.

[quote]But you once again avoid my question. What facts led you to believe in love? If you refuse to answer yet again I will take is as admittion of belief in a myth.
[/quote]

As I said earlier, I value love as a result of my genetic and environmental programming. The morals that we hold are like the preferences, attitudes, values, and beliefs that we possess. They are all created by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The moral of love is no more mystical than the preference for chocolate ice cream. Both indicate what we value, based on what we have experienced and on the way we are wired.

DoubleDuce · March 3, 2010, 5:15pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.[/quote]

I never said any such thing. Love is simply defined as any action that is intended to benefit another person. Whether or not that action in fact benefits the person is irrelevant to it being a loving act.

[/quote]
So then an honor killing is an act of your kind of love?

You could make an identical statement about religion.

Aside from my note above. Benefit is an scientifically undefinable general term. You must use scientifically definable terms in a scientific explanation. You have essentially defined love as an action done out of love. You just used the word benefit to change the way it sounds. It’s a circular definition.

Mine are decent. However education and understanding are 2 very different things one of which is measurable in the confines of this discussion.

[quote]

Again, you’re mistaken. Take any basic psychology course on human perception and you will learn that colors do not exist in the objective world. They are created by the human brain as an interpretation of certain wavelengths of light. Color is not a physical property, it is a fabrication of the brain based on a physical property (i.e., light).

For example, consider synesthesia. Some people perceive numbers/letters or hear musical sounds that cause them to see colors. These colors are identical to the colors they see in response to specific wavelengths of light. In all cases, they are fabricated by the human brain in response to external physical stimuli, but the colors themselves do not exist in the objective world.[/quote]

These imagined colors do not exist in the physical world. The ones we see through our eyes do. The reason your comparison of me saying the color purple doesn’t exist is wrong because it is a physical property with exact definition in science. Period. I’ve given you the exact measurable definition. That is how it is different.

By your definition everything in the universe would all fall into the same category. The surface of the earth is imaginary because people feel the pressure in their feet differently? No. The earth surface has a definition outside of interpretation through human experience. so does color. You can define it in exact terms with no need of perception. The color of a photon is every bit the physical property as its energy (which is actually an interchangeable term) or it’s relativistic mass (also in the same boat). Hell, a prism actually physically separates light base on color. Different color light behaves differently in the physical world.

Love has no exact scientific definition. It can only be defined through non-scientific human interpretation. It lacks meaning in the scientific sense. It is a myth. Purple is not.

katzenjammer · March 3, 2010, 5:32pm

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
A deity is the object of your worship.
[/quote]

Fair enough. By your broad definition, I’m not an agnostic/atheist. Essentially, you’re saying that anyone that places value on anything is a theist.[/quote]

No again - you seemed really hooked on this “what I value” thing (which, interestingly, is part of my point); certainly I haven’t brought it up.

I’ll say it again: “the most important thing” in your life has very little, if anything, to do with what you say it is; with what you purportedly “value.” You aren’t alone here - we all deceive ourselves in this regard.

I’ll say it again: it is your actions which reveal what you, in fact, worship; take a look at what you actually do year by year, day by day, hour by hour. And if you really believe that your actions reveal a life that is radically informed by charity - in the traditional sense of the term - then I’ll eat my hat and then some.

Most people, when it really comes down to it, worship their own precious selves (this can take various forms - via power or money or whatnot). It’s as if the tendency to worship the self is so deeply grooved in our imperfect humanity that we invariably revert to doing so. It almost cannot be helped.

It’s not a question of whether or not we worship something - that cannot be helped, really. It’s a question of what we worship.

[/quote]

Before you even wrote this I quickly came to the realization that I indeed do ‘worship’ myself. This is what most people do though, and I believe this mechanism is based upon evolution and survival.[/quote]

Yes - although, I’d put that a different way: “Love of self” is man’s most persistent, powerful and deceptive temptation; and it is so because it’s hardwired into us; and this is due to our fallen nature, where competition among scarce resources is the rule.

That is why “Caritas” is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to embody fully or even partially: it means supreme self-sacrifice.

forlife · March 3, 2010, 5:33pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So then an honor killing is an act of your kind of love?
[/quote]

You keep artificially subdividing “kinds of love”, when I’m referring to one common definition: any act intended to benefit another person.

Does the perpetrator of the “honor killing” believe it is in the best interest of the person being killed? If so, in the twisted mind of that person, it is definitionally an act of love.

[quote]You could make an identical statement about religion.
[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote]You have essentially defined love as an action done out of love. You just used the word benefit to change the way it sounds. It’s a circular definition.
[/quote]

Why are you overcomplicating this? Love is doing something to benefit someone else. It’s not a circular definition. Love is based on the belief that one’s action will be in the best interest of the person to whom the action is directed.

So seeing purple when I play a “C” on the piano isn’t real, but seeing purple when I perceive a certain wavelength of light is? Sorry, but there is no difference between the two. In both cases, the purple as seen by the individual is identical. Color is a construct of the mind; it is not a property of the physical world.

The surface of the earth exists, and the wavelengths of light exist. However, the interpretation by your brain of these stimuli is a fabrication, a mental image that is not identical with the physical property being perceived.

Again, you can verify this in any basic psychology text on human perception.

What about the taste of salt? Is it a myth as well?

DoubleDuce · March 3, 2010, 5:41pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Nothing is hard to understand that. I agree with it. I’m sure we disagree on what certain facts prove/disprove, but that is an aside.[/quote]

I’m glad we agree then. My only point has been that the veracity of facts which inform our morals is absolutely important. It’s misleading to say “morality is completely independent of the physical world, and outside the realm of science.” Where knowledge is available, it is wise to use that knowledge to inform the morals that we hold.

[/quote]
I disagree with your wording. But yes, science can and should have an impact of the application of morals.

As I said earlier, I value love as a result of my genetic and environmental programming. The morals that we hold are like the preferences, attitudes, values, and beliefs that we possess. They are all created by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The moral of love is no more mystical than the preference for chocolate ice cream. Both indicate what we value, based on what we have experienced and on the way we are wired.

[/quote]

How can something have a scientific explanation when it has no scientific definition? Ice cream has a scientific definition. Preference for one type is measurable. There is nothing mystical in the situation. The first step scientifically in addressing something is to quantifiably define it and it’s measures. You haven’t done that. You cannot scientifically explain it before you do this.

You attempted, unsuccessfully, to use a slimily to avoid answering the question.

Iâ??d also like to note that you apparently have effectively removed free will from the human condition. (although free will is not contradicted by science)

If you accept your preference for love like that of ice cream, how exactly is a preference for belief in a creator any different?

Give me a valid quantifiable definition of love or admit it’s a myth.

forlife · March 3, 2010, 6:01pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I disagree with your wording. But yes, science can and should have an impact of the application of morals.
[/quote]

Bingo.

Then explain to me where the preference for chocolate ice cream resides. What is it, exactly? How does this preference exist in the physical world?

I don’t believe it is any different. I believed in a creator for the first 38 years of my life, and that belief directly stemmed from my religious programming. Had I been raised in the middle east, I would have believed in Allah instead of Jesus.

[quote]Give me a valid quantifiable definition of love or admit it’s a myth.
[/quote]

Give me a valid quantifiable definition of the taste of salt or admit it’s a myth.

DoubleDuce · March 3, 2010, 6:10pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So then an honor killing is an act of your kind of love?
[/quote]

You keep artificially subdividing “kinds of love”, when I’m referring to one common definition: any act intended to benefit another person.

[/quote]
I do not know if that is the most common definition. There are undoubtly many different uses and hence definitions of the word. I use the word kind to mean your specific definition. That is all. I can refer to it as your definition of love if that would be more comfortable.

I believe they do think itâ??s best. In which case, even your definition of love has cause terrible things.

Exactly.

[/quote]
So you agree they are on equal footing?

Why are you overcomplicating this? Love is doing something to benefit someone else. It’s not a circular definition. Love is based on the belief that one’s action will be in the best interest of the person to whom the action is directed.

[/quote]
This is not a the sufficient scientific definition I asked for. Benefit is not scientifically defined. Define benefit scientifically.

OMG this is retarded. The situations as Iâ??ve pointed out are completely different. You avoided my demand of an equivalent definition for love.

So, seeing a physical Jesus walk on water and hallucinating it are the same thing huh? One has an actual physical event in the real world interpreted by eyes. The other could be the result of drugs or a lack of sleep. But both have the same result in the brain. OH, but they are the same thing. The physical event doesnâ??t matter.

I agree that mental interpretation is really just fabrication so in that since what your or my mental image of purple is not a real thing. BUT ONCE AGAIN PURPLE HAS AN EXACT DEFINITION OUTSIDE OF HUMAN INTERPRETATION, LOVE DOES NOT. LOVE CAN ONLY BE DEFINED IN NON SCIENTIFIC TERMS. IT IS NOT A REAL THING. IT IS NOT A PART OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. It is myth. Purple is a physical part of the universe though perception of it differs.

[quote]

Again, you can verify this in any basic psychology text on human perception.

What about the taste of salt? Is it a myth as well?[/quote]

The physical properties of salt are real. The chemical reactions it causes are real. Your interpretation of how it tastes is not a real thing. It has large variance from person to person. It is relative to individuals. Taste is not a real thing in the common use of the word. Taste in that sense is an abstract concept. Much like your version of how you see purple.

DoubleDuce · March 3, 2010, 6:41pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I disagree with your wording. But yes, science can and should have an impact of the application of morals.
[/quote]

Bingo.

[/quote]
Please note that this still leaves the creation of morals entirely mystical.

What does, where it resides have anything to do with anything? Ice cream is a chemical composition with certain properties. It is a physical thing. Preference for it has a mathematical and statistical definition that could easily be measured in a scientific test.

Love (as defined by you) is not a real thing. It has no definition in science. You cannot test for what you have not defined. Get it?

So once again love and a creator are on equal footing for belief?

Give me a valid quantifiable definition of the taste of salt or admit it’s a myth.[/quote]

Saltiness is a physical property of the known world. It is defined by a scientific scale. Sodium chloride has an index of 1 for example. The scale is based on known chemical reactions. Well, what about love?

Edit: As you will note, I already did this satisfactorily with your original challenge of the color purple. I don’t know why it was necessary to further my point with a new example.

espenl · March 3, 2010, 7:21pm

http://overcompensating.com/posts/20100222.html

I believe we would be able to convert fat to sugar via the TCA cycle if we were created by some supernatural being. We would also be able to create C vitamins, like other mammals. I was baptised and confirmed lutherian, like most Norwegians. It would be nice if there was something out there, but I dont see how there could be.

I like Christopher Hitchens theory.

kman3b18 · March 3, 2010, 2:21pm

[quote]espenl wrote:
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20100222.html

I believe we would be able to convert fat to sugar via the TCA cycle if we were created by some supernatural being. We would also be able to create C vitamins, like other mammals. I was baptised and confirmed lutherian, like most Norwegians. It would be nice if there was something out there, but I dont see how there could be. I like Christopher Hitchens theory.[/quote]

Truth. In general, far too much is fucked up in the world for there to be an omnipotent being out there who created us all and looks out for us, unless God is really a sadistic bastard, and who wants to worship that guy anyways?

But this is why I don’t discuss religion with people. I say that statement, and I hear some bullshit about how God ‘is just testing us!’, or how ‘there is a better life if only yor truly believe!’. How about you go tell that one to the mom who I saw on the news after her 5yo daughter was raped and killed. But it was just a test right?

Oh, and I’m not buying the idea that God made us so that we could be given free will and to do as we want with our free will, as if we are some kind of circus for him to watch. If he could create the universe, and galaxies and LIFE out of nothing or whatever the hell religious people believe, then he sure as hell could take a step in every now and again to stop some of the truly inhumane and disgusting things that happen daily in the world.

katzenjammer · March 3, 2010, 7:23pm

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20100222.html

I believe we would be able to convert fat to sugar via the TCA cycle if we were created by some supernatural being. We would also be able to create C vitamins, like other mammals. I was baptised and confirmed lutherian, like most Norwegians. It would be nice if there was something out there, but I dont see how there could be. I like Christopher Hitchens theory.[/quote]

Truth. In general, far too much is fucked up in the world for there to be an omnipotent being out there who created us all and looks out for us, unless God is really a sadistic bastard, and who wants to worship that guy anyways?

But this is why I don’t discuss religion with people. I say that statement, and I hear some bullshit about how God ‘is just testing us!’, or how ‘there is a better life if only yor truly believe!’. How about you go tell that one to the mom who I saw on the news after her 5yo daughter was raped and killed. But it was just a test right?

Oh, and I’m not buying the idea that God made us so that we could be given free will and to do as we want with our free will, as if we are some kind of circus for him to watch. If he could create the universe, and galaxies and LIFE out of nothing or whatever the hell religious people believe, then he sure as hell could take a step in every now and again to stop some of the truly inhumane and disgusting things that happen daily in the world.[/quote]

So he should have made robots?

DoubleDuce · March 3, 2010, 2:32pm

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20100222.html

I believe we would be able to convert fat to sugar via the TCA cycle if we were created by some supernatural being. We would also be able to create C vitamins, like other mammals. I was baptised and confirmed lutherian, like most Norwegians. It would be nice if there was something out there, but I dont see how there could be. I like Christopher Hitchens theory.[/quote]

Truth. In general, far too much is fucked up in the world for there to be an omnipotent being out there who created us all and looks out for us, unless God is really a sadistic bastard, and who wants to worship that guy anyways?

But this is why I don’t discuss religion with people. I say that statement, and I hear some bullshit about how God ‘is just testing us!’, or how ‘there is a better life if only yor truly believe!’. How about you go tell that one to the mom who I saw on the news after her 5yo daughter was raped and killed. But it was just a test right?

Oh, and I’m not buying the idea that God made us so that we could be given free will and to do as we want with our free will, as if we are some kind of circus for him to watch. If he could create the universe, and galaxies and LIFE out of nothing or whatever the hell religious people believe, then he sure as hell could take a step in every now and again to stop some of the truly inhumane and disgusting things that happen daily in the world.[/quote]

The crux of your argument is that most religions believe in an immortal soul. As such the only thing of real importance is the soul. If this is true, a benevolent all powerful being would do everything possible to secure the fate of the soul, not the physical body. Bad things happening to the physical body could lead to a better consequence in eternity. The convenient part of this is that none of that is verifiable.

However, your view is not a logical rebuttal of the stance of most major religions. Pretty much because their stance is such that it cannot be verified.

There is also the philosophy that this is the best of all possible worlds. Essentially, that anything a god would do could only make things worse. So, everything isn’t good, but it could only be worse.

kman3b18 · March 3, 2010, 7:33pm

I don’t believe he made anything, because I don’t believe in God. But way to go from one extreme of society to another. I’m not saying things would have to be live “Brave New World”, but I’m pretty sure an all powerful God could have stepped in to make the world much less depraved if he really did exist.

kman3b18 · March 3, 2010, 7:45pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20100222.html

I believe we would be able to convert fat to sugar via the TCA cycle if we were created by some supernatural being. We would also be able to create C vitamins, like other mammals. I was baptised and confirmed lutherian, like most Norwegians. It would be nice if there was something out there, but I dont see how there could be. I like Christopher Hitchens theory.[/quote]

Truth. In general, far too much is fucked up in the world for there to be an omnipotent being out there who created us all and looks out for us, unless God is really a sadistic bastard, and who wants to worship that guy anyways?

But this is why I don’t discuss religion with people. I say that statement, and I hear some bullshit about how God ‘is just testing us!’, or how ‘there is a better life if only yor truly believe!’. How about you go tell that one to the mom who I saw on the news after her 5yo daughter was raped and killed. But it was just a test right?

Oh, and I’m not buying the idea that God made us so that we could be given free will and to do as we want with our free will, as if we are some kind of circus for him to watch. If he could create the universe, and galaxies and LIFE out of nothing or whatever the hell religious people believe, then he sure as hell could take a step in every now and again to stop some of the truly inhumane and disgusting things that happen daily in the world.[/quote]

The crux of your argument is that most religions believe in an immortal soul. As such the only thing of real importance is the soul. If this is true, a benevolent all powerful being would do everything possible to secure the fate of the soul, not the physical body. Bad things happening to the physical body could lead to a better consequence in eternity. The convenient part of this is that none of that is verifiable.

However, your view is not a logical rebuttal of the stance of most major religions. Pretty much because their stance is such that it cannot be verified.

There is also the philosophy that this is the best of all possible worlds. Essentially, that anything a god would do could only make things worse. So, everything isn’t good, but it could only be worse.
[/quote]

So you are arguing that a religion’s ignorance is justification for anything? Just because things can’t be verified (or scientifically disproven) then it should be okay? What about the flip side of that coin. And to that point, God would simply be testing our souls? What point would he have in doing that? He is purposely making living beings go through anguish for some little game that he decided to come up with? How sick is that line of thinking.

Honestly, organized religion was conceived out of the necessity to explain things that people could not explain thousands of years ago, and in order to control the masses. Its take a very ignorant person to not see those two points.

And I fail to look at that last philosophy with any credibility. Look at the last paragraph of my first statement to see why.

DoubleDuce · March 3, 2010, 8:38pm