Re: Jack Kevorkian - Karma assisted suicide

[quadz]

(As my reply focuses on the religious aspects of the debate, I've replied in the Religion boards...)

Part of them are hypocrites.  Most don't actually know what they're talking about.  They take snippets of the Bible & use those like nightly news sounds bites.

Indeed, it's impossible not to take only snippets of the Bible.  Both for logical reasons (have you seen the biblical contradictions graph?), as well as for ethical/cultural reasons (unless you're planning to stone your non-virgin bride to death on her father's doorstep?)

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

I submit that it is impossible for any modern believer not to take this precise piecemeal approach to scripture.  (Again, plus or minus a few degrees of the current cultural baseline.)

(but when you have power to do what you want it's more dangerous)

Not sure precisely what you mean by 'more dangerous'.  Given 'free will', anyone has the 'power' to do what they want... so I presume you're alluding to some framework of enticements aimed at guiding 'free will' and thus mitigating its 'power'.  But if I apprehend your meaning, you appear to be making an unsupported assertion--or at least implying--that people on the whole behave better under the threat of eternal damnation and the carrot of salvation?

If so, the data does not appear to back this up.  (And even if it were true, it says nothing about the truth claims of these beliefs.  It could function like a placebo.)

I'm not sure what's being argued here: if he did a good thing or if he killed people.

How about this: Is physician-assisted suicide ever morally justified?

[reaper]

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents the literary or philosophical intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

That's the way the world works.  The bible is what god defined, it's the natural way of life, explained to humans by humans, through their connection to god.  Basically it helps people walk the correct path of life, work for charity, etc.  In fact it has created civilization and added even more harmony to life.  Just remember if you took away god from the prisoners, what they would have left, and that there's no purpose to anything else.

As far as the tension, it's easy to ignore the fundamentals and point fingers at religion.  Anyways, I have a lot more to add, as I'm sure you're aware.  What better for religion than the big bang, and how do you explain perfect harmony through chance?

Can the bible be improved upon?  I think sure, but not fundamentally.

[quadz]

That's the way the world works.^{[so far, we agree]}  The bible is what god defined^{[citation needed]}, it's the natural way of life^{[citation needed]}, explained to humans by humans^[agree!], through their connection to god^{[citation needed]}.  Basically it helps people walk the correct path of life^{[citation needed]}, work for charity, etc.  In fact it has created civilization^{[citation needed]} and added even more harmony to life^{[citation needed]}.  Just remember if you took away god from the prisoners, what they would have left, and that there's no purpose to anything else.^{[citation needed]}

Care to support your assertions?





Further, nothing you've stated appears to contradict my claim:

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

[reaper]

Care to support your assertions?

it's the natural way of life

You could ask a child what god is, and I'm sure they wouldn't know, but there's no eradicating the idea.  If the world were any number of other variations, it'd be easy to see the world was foresaken, or a product of chance and evolution.

Basically it helps people walk the correct path of life

See Dahmer's explanation from the interview in prison with his father.  As well see people going the extra mile, guided by the lord (god).

In fact it has created civilization[citation needed] and added even more harmony to life

Just  because the logic is circular does not make it false.  Regarding the so called data that shows lack of belief is better for civilization, the problems are almost to numerous to mention.  That and I would need to formulate complex timelines.  For harmony, look at colors, dogs and man, good and evil, etc

Just remember if you took away god from the prisoners, what they would have left, and that there's no purpose to anything else.[citation needed]

This is common sense, at least certainly the first point.  The second: consider machines, animals, and trees, along with the stars, might as well just get rid of them.


See evidence below -

[reaper]

Further, nothing you've stated appears to contradict my claim:

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

true is in quotation marks, and you're trying to turn the bible into something it isn't.  the message is clear, you just can't take out snippets, and decipher the meaning, in almost all cases, that's not why they were written.

[quadz]

Further, nothing you've stated appears to contradict my claim:
Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

true is in quotation marks, and you're trying to turn the bible into something it isn't.  the message is clear, you just can't take out snippets, and decipher the meaning, in almost all cases, that's not why they were written.

Nothing you've stated appears to contradict my claim:

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

[reaper]

Glossing over obscene parts is a judgment you'd make considering why they were written and putting them in context, no?  Also I think you ignored the meaning of the quotation marks.

[quadz]

Glossing over obscene parts is a judgment you'd make considering why they were written and putting them in context, no?

The judgement I'd make is that the Bible is literature.

As to the judgment a believer seems to make:

I still claim the following:

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

Also I think you ignored the meaning of the quotation marks.

When I used quotes on "true", I meant to convey that truth seems to be a key quantity in dispute.  Also, somewhat in the flavor of the "truth" of:

  2 + 2 = 5  (for extremely large values of 2)

Nevertheless, if you'd prefer it without quotes:

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all true to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...


Same?

[reaper]

The bible is what god defined, it's the natural way of life, explained to humans by humans, through their connection to god.

****

I still claim the following:

Ultimately, the belief that the Bible was somehow dictated by or authorized by or in some way represents intent of the creator of the universe, sets the gold standard for confirmation bias: assume it's all "true" to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...
****

If the bible is the ultimate truth and ultimate guide, I'd hardly call taking things out of context and not underanding the "why" the start of showing the bible is the gold standard for some type of logical fallacy.

When I used quotes on "true", I meant to convey that truth seems to be a key quantity in dispute.  Also, somewhat in the flavor of the "truth" of:

  2 + 2 = 5  (for extremely large values of 2)

I understand what you meant by the quotes, but literally the bible highlights a connection to the holy spirit, it's not based on assumption.  I think even if you don't believe in it, there's no avoiding it, as god(_not_ the universe) just is.  There's no assuming, it's just self evident truth.  I think especially if you consider the bible to be the word of god, your claim doesn't make sense on a few levels.  I've attempted to convince you it is, I didn't expect success.

For 2+2=5 --- 2+2 is equal to 4 in the context of addition with real numbers - not anything else, just 4.  If 2 has a large value, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  If I can conjure up something, I can make 2+2=5.  Something like euclidian geometry isn't a completely accurate description of the universe's space.  However in the context of euclidian geometry, the shortest way between two points is a straight line.

 

[reaper]

Also I don't think you need any type of proof that 2+2=4 in a defined system.  You define the system.  You don't need mumbo jumo like "I think therefore I am", and attempting to extend that.  The math speaks for itself along with the definition.  I'm suprised people even talk about that.  Although I'm pretty sure you agree with me.

[quadz]

If the bible is the ultimate truth and ultimate guide, I'd hardly call taking things out of context and not underanding the "why" the start of showing the bible is the gold standard for some type of logical fallacy.

You seem to have reiterated my point:

If you assume as a starting point the Bible is the "ultimate truth and ultimate guide", then you're begining with the ultimate confirmation bias.

To proceed, you'll need to assume it's all true to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...

I understand what you meant by the quotes, but literally the bible highlights a connection to the holy spirit^{[citation needed]}, it's not based on assumption^{[citation needed]}.  I think even if you don't believe in it, there's no avoiding it, as god(_not_ the universe^{[citation needed]}) just is.  There's no assuming, it's just self evident truth^{[citation needed]}.  I think especially if you consider the bible to be the word of god, your claim doesn't make sense on a few levels^{[such as?]}.  I've attempted to convince you it is, I didn't expect success.

Since your assertions are unsupported, might as well replace "bible" with "Koran" or "Microsoft Word 1.0 Manual".

If I can conjure up something, I can make 2+2=5. 

Good show.  That is the flavour in which it was intended.

[reaper]

But there's no assumption, the word of the koran or bible (same thing) is handed down from god.

[quadz]

But there's no assumption, the word of the koran or bible (same thing) is handed down from god.

I'm not sure how your statement could be any more self-contradictory.

It appears we may have reached the cut-off point as described by Sam Harris:

If someone disagrees with you all you can do is appeal to scientific values - and if he doesn’t share those values the conversation is over.

If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?

If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument are you going to provide to show the importance of logic?

[reaper]

If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?

indeed

[quadz]

If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?

indeed

Indeed: The first sentence of the quote described evidence and logic in the context of scientific values.

Evidence in a scientific context does not consist of simply saying: Hey! Look at "harmony, look at colors, dogs and man, good and evil, etc... consider machines, animals, and trees, along with the stars"!

What you will have put forward there, at best, represents the first inklings of a potential hypothesis, which you'd need to develop, and then go searching for evidence to support.  Those concatenations of nouns alone do not constitute evidence.


Again:

If someone disagrees with you all you can do is appeal to scientific values - and if he doesn't share those values the conversation is over.

If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?

If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument are you going to provide to show the importance of logic?

And, again, nothing you've said addresses the following:

If you assume as a starting point the Bible is the "ultimate truth and ultimate guide", then you're begining with the ultimate confirmation bias.

To proceed, you'll need to assume it's all true to begin with, then quietly gloss over all the parts that are patently obscene to present day cultural baselines, and cling tenaciously to everything remaining...