Have You Always Believed As You Do Now?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, what are some of YOUR facts. (and I don’t think anyone directly basis moral principal on any of those facts)[/quote]

It may be a direct or an indirect correlation. The point is that our world view affects our morality, so it’s wise to ensure our world view reflects objective reality to the extent we are capable of doing so.

You can find a list of my facts in any scientific textbook. Those facts may actually be refined over time, based on the progressive discoveries of science. For the rest, I admit that I simply don’t know the answers, and don’t pretend that I do.

[/quote]
What are some of the more important ones? I truly do not understand how you are deriving morals from scientific text books. If they are good true science, and purely objective, this should be impossible.

[quote]fallacious as measured by what perspective of reality?

Fallacious as measured by reliable scientific evidence.

[/quote]
Okay, objectively and scientifically show me that slavery is immoral.

[quote]

I meditate by praying, so I’m wrong? Happiness is a subjective matter. Many people get happiness out of non-factual based mediums like religion. Why should they forgo that happiness and base their beliefs on your factual view?

There are many people who forego happiness in this life, from the misguided belief that they will be rewarded with happiness in some hypothetical next life. For example, a radical muslim may commit a suicide bombing in the belief that Allah will reward him with 7 women in the next life. Or a gay Christian may choose a life of loneliness in the belief that he will be made straight in the next life. Or a parent my deny her child a blood transfusion in the belief that if it’s God’s will, the child will be healed anyway.[/quote]

Isnâ??t hope something of happiness? Just because you value other forms of happiness more than hope, it doesnâ??t mean that everyone does.

Besides, most people suppress some of their more basic desires in the name of their morals. Iâ??m sure you do to. I might suppress my desire for more women and remain monogamous for my morals. Is it wrong for me to do that? I donâ??t know a single person whos moral beliefs donâ??t contradict their desires and pleasures at least to a degree. You may desire men, but because of your moral standard, deny yourself multiple relationships. Is that any different?

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are some of the more important ones? I truly do not understand how you are deriving morals from scientific text books. If they are good true science, and purely objective, this should be impossible.[/quote]

You can’t derive morals from scientific text books. However, you can derive morals from fantasy, per the examples I provided earlier.

[quote]Okay, objectively and scientifically show me that slavery is immoral.
[/quote]

That is a moral statement, not a scientific statement. Claiming that people are healed through prayer is an empirically testable hypothesis. Claiming that slavery is immoral is not.

Isn’t hope something of happiness? Just because you value other forms of happiness more than hope, it doesn’t mean that everyone does.

Hope is meaningless if it is based on a false belief that will never come true.

Let’s get real here. Do you seriously think a mother should allow her child to die, in the misguided belief that blood transfusions will offend her fairy tale God? Even if it gives her “hope” that she will see her child in the next life, is this decision not regrettable given that it is based on fantasy rather than facts?

[quote]Besides, most people suppress some of their more basic desires in the name of their morals. I’m sure you do to. I might suppress my desire for more women and remain monogamous for my morals. Is it wrong for me to do that? I don’t know a single person who’s moral beliefs don’t contradict their desires and pleasures at least to a degree. You may desire men, but because of your moral standard, deny yourself multiple relationships. Is that any different?
[/quote]

Suppressing your desires in the name of your morals is admirable, but it’s potentially unnecessary and even damaging if it is based on false beliefs.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are some of the more important ones? I truly do not understand how you are deriving morals from scientific text books. If they are good true science, and purely objective, this should be impossible.[quote]

You can’t derive morals from scientific text books. However, you can derive morals from fantasy, per the examples I provided earlier.

[quote]Okay, objectively and scientifically show me that slavery is immoral.

That is a moral statement, not a scientific statement. Claiming that people are healed through prayer is an empirically testable hypothesis. Claiming that slavery is immoral is not.

Claiming people are healed through prayer is not a moral statement so why interject it in the argument? (aside from the fact that I could point out numerous flaws in these studies that I touched on previously) You are talking about scientifically falsifiable moral values, but you have yet to tell me one.

Isn’t hope something of happiness? Just because you value other forms of happiness more than hope, it doesn’t mean that everyone does.

Hope is meaningless if it is based on a false belief that will never come true.

Meaningless to whom? If happiness is the goal, why does it matter if the belief is true or false? Nor is anyone close to proving what happens to a persons essence upon death anyway.

Let’s get real here. Do you seriously think a mother should allow her child due to die, in the misguided belief that blood transfusions will offend her fairy tale God? Even if it gives her “hope” that she will see her child in the next life, is this decision not regrettable given that it is based on fantasy rather than facts?

Yes. But I believe in universal morals. This affords me the luxury of saying that any parent who does that is wrong. I was merely taking your beliefs to their logical end.

[quote]Besides, most people suppress some of their more basic desires in the name of their morals. I’m sure you do to. I might suppress my desire for more women and remain monogamous for my morals. Is it wrong for me to do that? I don’t know a single person who’s moral beliefs don’t contradict their desires and pleasures at least to a degree. You may desire men, but because of your moral standard, deny yourself multiple relationships. Is that any different?

Suppressing your desires in the name of your morals is admirable, but it’s potentially unnecessary and even damaging if it is based on false beliefs.[/quote]

Beliefs based on anything can be unnecessary or damaging (though once again you stray toward words you refuse to accept a definition for, unnecessary and damaging in whoâ??s eyes?). Good and bad come from both false and â??realâ?? beliefs. Why is it bad to get good from false beliefs?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are some of the more important ones? I truly do not understand how you are deriving morals from scientific text books. If they are good true science, and purely objective, this should be impossible.[/quote]

You can’t derive morals from scientific text books. However, you can derive morals from fantasy, per the examples I provided earlier.

[/quote]

You’ve repeated over and over that your morals should be based on fact, are you withdrawing that claim?

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Claiming people are healed through prayer is not a moral statement so why interject it in the argument?[/quote]

The belief that a supernatural being exists, is benevolent, and has the power to heal people is a prerequisite to the moral action of praying over a person to facilitate the healing process.

As an aside, I think beliefs can inform the application of values as well as the values themselves.

Yes. But I believe in universal morals. This affords me the luxury of saying that any parent who does that is wrong. I was merely taking your beliefs to their logical end.

What if you only believed in relative morality? As long as you value the happiness of people, wouldn’t you feel justified in condemning the woman who, out of a misguided belief that blood transfusions are evil, allows her child to die?

Good and bad come from both false and real beliefs. Why is it bad to get good from false beliefs?

It’s not bad to get good from false beliefs, but you are more likely to get bad from false beliefs than you are to get good from false beliefs. Because of this, false beliefs are undesirable.

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You’ve repeated over and over that your morals should be based on fact, are you withdrawing that claim?[/quote]

No, I’ve said that one’s morality should be informed by actual facts rather than by fiction. More specifically, it’s foolish to base your values and the application of those values on fantasy.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Claiming people are healed through prayer is not a moral statement so why interject it in the argument?[/quote]

The belief that a supernatural being exists, is benevolent, and has the power to heal people is a prerequisite to the moral action of praying over a person to facilitate the healing process.

[/quote]
Do you not wish someone well? Hope they get better? I don’t know a major religion that grantees any physical healing.

As an aside, I think beliefs can inform the application of values as well as the values themselves.

Yes. But I believe in universal morals. This affords me the luxury of saying that any parent who does that is wrong. I was merely taking your beliefs to their logical end.

What if you only believed in relative morality? As long as you value the happiness of people, wouldn’t you feel justified in condemning the woman who, out of a misguided belief that blood transfusions are evil, allows her child to die?

I cannot tell you how I would feel if I weren’t me. I can tell you that I couldn’t logically justify anyone’s condemnation in that case. I can also say that my feelings in the situation suggest evidence on a universality to morality. I should be asking you “since you think it’s bad that parents do that, don’t you think some morals are universal?”

[quote]

Good and bad come from both false and real beliefs. Why is it bad to get good from false beliefs?

It’s not bad to get good from false beliefs, but you are more likely to get bad from false beliefs than you are to get good from false beliefs. Because of this, false beliefs are undesirable.[/quote]

What I see in the world is vastly different. Considering religious beliefs to be false, I still see more good than bad in them. How many people are comforted and helped to emotionally heal because of faith? How many people get blown up by suicide bombers? How many people turn the other cheek as jesus did? How many violent crusades in his name have there been?

Even at the bare essentials of life, religion has helped keep people healthy throughout history. Look at the time of moses. Even their cleanliness laws teach basic hygiene and food practice.

I would also suggest that you are blurring the line between religion and culture (it’s true that they overlap). Many “holy” wars are as much about race and culture as religion.

For example: early explorers came to bring the true religion to the savages. In reality they didn’t care about religion. The natives were a different race and had a different culture. That’s why they tried to concur them. It would have happened regardless of religion.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You’ve repeated over and over that your morals should be based on fact, are you withdrawing that claim?[/quote]

No, I’ve said that one’s morality should be informed by actual facts rather than by fiction. More specifically, it’s foolish to base your values and the application of those values on fantasy.[/quote]

Informed - Possessing, displaying, or based on reliable information.

Care to try again, you said the same thing I did. You are arguing semantics to avoid the substance. What facts inform your morality?

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Do you not wish someone well? Hope they get better? I don’t know a major religion that grantees any physical healing.[/quote]

You’ll find a few here (Pentecostalism, Catholicism, Christian Science, LDS):

Faith healing

[quote]I should be asking you “since you think it’s bad that parents do that, don’t you think some morals are universal?”
[/quote]

What does it have to do with morals being universal? While it’s true that most moral systems value happiness, it’s irrelevant. If your personal value system includes happiness for others, then you would condemn choices that produce unhappiness, particularly when those choices are informed by false beliefs.

What I see in the world is vastly different. Considering religious beliefs to be false, I still see more good than bad in them. How many people are comforted and helped to emotionally heal because of faith? How many people get blown up by suicide bombers? How many people turn the other cheek as jesus did? How many violent crusades in his name have there been?

The positive results you cite are still possible without needing to believe in fairy tales. Additionally, how many negative results could you avoid by discarding the fairy tales in the first place? Why not simply hold to the values, while discarding the false beliefs that can misinform the application of those values? Makes sense to me.

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Car to try again, you said the same thing I did. You are arguing semantics to avoid the substance. What facts inform your morality?[/quote]

Blood transfusions save lives.

Being bit by a venomous snake can kill you.

People experience less depression, anxiety, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts when living consistent with their sexual orientation.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Car to try again, you said the same thing I did. You are arguing semantics to avoid the substance. What facts inform your morality?[/quote]

Blood transfusions save lives.

[/quote]
No, transfusions can extend the length of a life. But to base a moral on this you must first value life. Why are the molecules that make up a human body more valuable if the continue an ultimately futile metabolic process? An atheist existentialist would ask why it matters whether the baby dies young or suffers a meaningless miserable life before dieing?

What if the baby is grossly deformed and I consider death to be morally superior to life for the child?

Being bit by a venomous snake can kill you.

So can sex. So can skydiving. Yet these things still ad value to people’s lives. People get their jollies many dangerous ways.

[quote]

People experience less depression, anxiety, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts when living consistent with their sexual orientation.[/quote]

They experience less of all of those things when someone murders them too. In fact euthanizing unhappy people would rid the word of much unhappiness. Besides if a homosexual with AIDS stays home because of depression rather than having sex with an unknowing partner, isn’t that net “collective good”? So those sorts of things aren’t bad in an absolute sense and you need to find a different measuring system.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Do you not wish someone well? Hope they get better? I don’t know a major religion that grantees any physical healing.[/quote]

You’ll find a few here (Pentecostalism, Catholicism, Christian Science, LDS):

Faith healing

[/quote]
Most, as I understand it, have the disclaimer that prayer is subject to the will of god.

[quote]I should be asking you “since you think it’s bad that parents do that, don’t you think some morals are universal?”

What does it have to do with morals being universal? While it’s true that most moral systems value happiness, it’s irrelevant. If your personal value system includes happiness for others, then you would condemn choices that produce unhappiness, particularly when those choices are informed by false beliefs.

[/quote]
I can only judge happiness for myself. the application of my standards to others is non-nonsensical and fruitless. Besides, as I mentioned in my other post, net happiness can be a funny thing. If you know someone is going to live a miserable life, why not kill them?

[quote]

What I see in the world is vastly different. Considering religious beliefs to be false, I still see more good than bad in them. How many people are comforted and helped to emotionally heal because of faith? How many people get blown up by suicide bombers? How many people turn the other cheek as jesus did? How many violent crusades in his name have there been?

The positive results you cite are still possible without needing to believe in fairy tales. Additionally, how many negative results could you avoid by discarding the fairy tales in the first place? Why not simply hold to the values, while discarding the false beliefs that can misinform the application of those values? Makes sense to me.[/quote]

That’s exactly what I try to do, it’s obviously lead us to different destinations though. If a sugar pill makes someone feel better, why should I look down on them for their ignorance? The belief in the medicinal properties of a sugar pill is necessary for it’s positive effect (which are indeed medically verifiable).

[Makavali]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
No, it cannot. Even if scientists knew the exact bio-electro-chemical make up of some one that is feeling love and could replicate it, they cannot make some “love”. It is more than chemistry, electricity and biology.
[/quote]

How exactly did you establish this?

[/quote]

Because love is a metaphysical object. Our physical make allows us to interact with it, but it is not something we can fake or replicate in a petri dish. There is not one feeling or emotion or thought involved with love, it encompasses the spectrum.[/quote]

You know this how?[/quote]

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]

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.

[honest_lifter]

Doubleduce is making valid points that haven’t been refuted. What are your particular moral standings? What does the fact that being bit by a venomous snake can kill you do for you? It doesn’t say whether or not you feel it is morally wrong to commit suicide by said snake. Would one of your moral beliefs be that you avoid poisonous snakes? That would be a weird one…

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, transfusions can extend the length of a life. But to base a moral on this you must first value life. [/quote]

As I said, facts can inform not only your values, but the application of those values. In this case, one already has the value (i.e., life) and the scientific fact that blood transfusions can save lives leads to the act of having a blood transfusion.

The fallacious belief that a supernatural being has prohibited the ingestion of blood leads to the opposite application, where a person chooses not to have a blood transfusion. This can result in death.

Clearly, the correctness of one’s beliefs has significant bearing on one’s values and on the application of those values.

[quote]What if the baby is grossly deformed and I consider death to be morally superior to life for the child?
[/quote]

Then you would choose to let the baby die. We were talking about how beliefs inform values, not about which values are more important than other values. You asked for examples, and I provided them.

[quote]So can sex. So can skydiving. Yet these things still ad value to people’s lives. People get their jollies many dangerous ways.
[/quote]

Some hold the fallacious religious belief that one’s God will allow you to be bitten by a venomous snake, without being harmed.

They experience less of all of those things when someone murders them too. In fact euthanizing unhappy people would rid the word of much unhappiness. Besides if a homosexual with AIDS stays home because of depression rather than having sex with an unknowing partner, isn’t that net “collective good”? So those sorts of things aren’t bad in an absolute sense and you need to find a different measuring system.

Again, you’re challenging the values themselves. The point of the examples was to demonstrate that scientific facts do inform one’s values.

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most, as I understand it, have the disclaimer that prayer is subject to the will of god.
[/quote]

That’s true, but if the will of God doesn’t exceed what would be expected by chance alone, it is meaningless.

[quote]I can only judge happiness for myself. the application of my standards to others is non-nonsensical and fruitless. Besides, as I mentioned in my other post, net happiness can be a funny thing. If you know someone is going to live a miserable life, why not kill them?
[/quote]

Nonsensical and fruitless? So you’re saying that the happiness of others is irrelevant to you, and has zero bearing on your actions? I doubt that is true for the large majority of people.

That’s exactly what I try to do, it’s obviously lead us to different destinations though. If a sugar pill makes someone feel better, why should I look down on them for their ignorance? The belief in the medicinal properties of a sugar pill is necessary for it’s positive effect (which are indeed medically verifiable).

Because a sugar pill has no potential for harm. What if it was a cyanide pill instead? Would it not be tragic for people to take cyanide in the mistaken belief that it would cure them rather than kill them?

[forlife]

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Doubleduce is making valid points that haven’t been refuted. What are your particular moral standings? What does the fact that being bit by a venomous snake can kill you do for you? It doesn’t say whether or not you feel it is morally wrong to commit suicide by said snake. Would one of your moral beliefs be that you avoid poisonous snakes? That would be a weird one…[/quote]

I mentioned my core values earlier in the thread.

Again, the point of the snake example was that people have mistakenly committed suicide, from the false belief that their God would save them. Their intent was not to kill themselves, and it’s tragic that they died due to acting on a lie.

It’s important for people to realize the truth, to the extent that it is available, rather than following false beliefs that have potentially devastating consequences.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Doubleduce is making valid points that haven’t been refuted. What are your particular moral standings? What does the fact that being bit by a venomous snake can kill you do for you? It doesn’t say whether or not you feel it is morally wrong to commit suicide by said snake. Would one of your moral beliefs be that you avoid poisonous snakes? That would be a weird one…[/quote]

I mentioned my core values earlier in the thread.

Again, the point of the snake example was that people have mistakenly committed suicide, from the false belief that their God would save them. Their intent was not to kill themselves, and it’s tragic that they died due to acting on a lie.

It’s important for people to realize the truth, to the extent that it is available, rather than following false beliefs that have potentially devastating consequences.[/quote]

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.

[Aragorn]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Question for believers, and for agnostics/atheists:

Have you always seen the universe as you do now, or have your beliefs changed over time?

I have a theory that there are a lot more believers → agnostics/atheists than there are agnostics/atheists → believers.

But maybe I’m overgeneralizing from my own experience. I was a devout Christian for 35 years before becoming an agnostic.[/quote]

Didn’t read the thread past the OP, so I dunno if it’s devolved into a trainwreck (which I assume is the case) or not. However, for myself, yes. I have always believed as I have. However, the reasons for my beliefs have changed and continue to change as I test whether or not my world-view holds water or not.

The reason I mention that is that I am committed to a belief system that is internally and externally consistent, and if I feel that the arguments for changing my world view are strong enough I am open to doing so. I am not “stuck” in my beliefs. Thus far I have found that I believe my world view to be worthwhile, although the underlying reasons for doing so have changed as I examine inconsistencies and decide whether they are lethal or not.

[forlife]

[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.

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:

You shall have no other gods before Me.

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.