Hello and welcome. You express yourself well, so doubly welcome. — T Clark

No, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. You need to be more vocal and nasty. What you should have said was, "Shut up and go away. You sound like a bloody idiot, so doubly go away".

If you were antisocial more often, you'd probably be more fun.

Did you read my posts? 13 out of eighteen threads concerning religion in the past two weeks were anti-religion. None were pro-religion. If anti-religionists would just stop squawking, the whole set of issues as they relate to the forum would shrink almost to nothing. — T Clark

Yes, I read that part. But like I literally just said to you, it's not a problem for there to be discussions critical of religion. It would actually be more of a problem if discussions critical of religion were a rarity.

Yes, yes, brilliant. You're a saviour. Keep up the good work. But it's not very interesting for anyone of intelligence.

As I've said, there wouldn't be any problems in this area except that the anti-religionists step in and cause them. — T Clark

That's not true though. It's not causing a problem to be critical of religion. Religion has much to be critical of.

Where is the evidence?
— Jacob-B

The post above this one has a link to a NY Times article. — Wayfarer

That's not evidence of a miracle. That's just evidence that an explanation hasn't been found.

Irrational god of the gaps style thinking.

As you know, I'm trying my best to be a nice and considerate philosopher. So, perhaps you can help me. If someone has a religious belief which is stupid or ridiculous, what should I do? Should I give them a hug?

It wasn't my idea. — T Clark

I know.

There's been a few discussions lately which pick on really easy targets, like that discussion on "miracle cures", like the one on "immortal souls", and like your discussion on homophobic religious beliefs. This is another one of those discussions. You're right, but it's not very interesting to point out the obvious.

Wah.

But yes, the idea of segregating the forum along those lines is ridiculous.

You're wrong. It's not true that the statement, "Force equals mass times acceleration", is untrue.

You centered me out as one of the worst offenders, and you are correct, while ignoring that I am a religionist whom you have tried to label as an atheist.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

I wasn't aware that you are not an atheist. — T Clark

He's an atheist. He just doesn't want to be called one.

There's nothing incoherent about agnostic atheism. Micheal was right three years ago when he explained it in his reply.

In fact, I'd argue there is no difference between believing religious scripture and historical accounts. — Tzeentch

That's a patently absurd claim. And bringing up examples of false historical accounts doesn't support it.

For mature adults, it is. — tim wood

No, it isn't. For anyone at all. Maturity and age are completely irrelevant. It's a category error to say that beliefs are chosen.

The beliefs that accompany religion are poster-child for this topic; I have my own, and trust me they're considered and chosen. But included as well are beliefs about sports teams, love, almost anything else that might be subject to belief. Or, to take clothes, admittedly most of us don't make clothes, but we do choose which to buy. I think you have to provide an account for how, as you say, — tim wood

All you've effectively done there is repeat your assertion that beliefs are chosen, along with some irrelevancies, like mentioning that they're considered. I never said anything about beliefs not being considered. They're just not chosen. And then you make a completely inappropriate analogy which I raised precisely because it works against you. When I go into a clothes shop, I can walk over to the t-shirt section, browse through the different colours and styles, pick one that I'd like to purchase, and then purchase it, so that I then have acquired it. I can choose from a range of options: the blue one, the red one, the black one, and so on. That's nothing like how I acquired any of my beliefs. I didn't choose to believe that I live on Earth, for example. I couldn't and can't believe that I live on Mars, or Mercury, or Venus, or Jupiter, or any other planet, even if I try my hardest. There's simply no choice in the matter. And that's obvious.

And the ability to edit.

Belief just isn't the kind of thing which can be chosen. It's nothing like going clothes shopping or picking from a restaurant menu. That's just not how it works.

You could say that about almost anything related to this topic. Who cares? It just sounds like you're trying to poison the well for any criticism.

Obviously he meant atheists prefer to spout polemics rather than explore the subject. — Shamshir

That's not true. You're putting words in his mouth. What he actually said was that it's difficult for atheists to talk about God because there's no generally agreed upon description of God.

Belief is sometimes a matter of choice — tim wood

No, it never is. That's a category error.

Absolute nonsense. Like I said, you need revise your conception of truth in line with fallibilism.

What's wrong with you? — Tzeentch

:kiss:

Why do they know best? They're medical professionals! If you're suicidal, then that's a symptom of mental illness. Who better to assess them? Themselves? Ha! Yeah, forget the medical professionals, let's let the patients diagnose themselves. They know best, after all.

Yes, someone can decide to commit suicide rationally. But that's not most people, who think that they're being rational, but are just being emotional or not thinking clearly. Can you think of a better system that will somehow distinguish the rational from the irrational, when the latter can be subtle or convincing? It's complicated, but once again, it's a cost-benefit analysis. It's better to have safeguards than to risk all those people slipping through the net and wrongfully sanctioning suicide. It's not like they can't take matters into their own hands anyway. That's why the most prominent cases of assisted suicide are about those for whom it is physically very difficult, if not impossible, through disability.

What an astonishingly silly point - no, I am NOT opposed to those who have been brought into existence being educated. — Bartricks

That's not what I said. Nor is it what you said in your last reply. You added the part about "those who have been brought into existence" as though no one would notice. Well, I noticed.

I am opposed to people bringing people into existence. — Bartricks

Yes, and it isn't difficult, through this thing you may have heard of called logic, to get from that to you being against children being educated, children playing on bikes, children being told bedtime stories, children going on holiday, children watching television, children gathered around the table eating dinner, children going swimming, children playing board games, children going camping, and so on, and so forth. You are very obviously against all of that, ultimately. I hope you've thought this through properly. It would be disingenuous to make out as though you are fine with all of that, when your ideal consists of none of it.

And that's why your stance will always be infinitely more silly.

It should be up to who knows best, so medical professionals. If the person really does know best, then I would expect their case to be granted by the medical professions and get the go ahead in accordance with the laws I referenced. But that's unlikely in the case of that random guy from earlier who is probably just depressed and needs professional help treating his depression.

Why would you simply leave it up to the person, with no safeguards whatsoever? You say that we should try to get them help and so on, but ultimately they could completely disregard that against their own best interest.

How can you not know what metaphysics is? You've been interested in philosophy long enough. Learning the branches is one of the most basic, early stage things you do. Check out the "Categories" menu if need be.

Yes.

I have two mobile phones. I type up the first text on one of the phones saying that I murdered your family. And then I type up a second text on the other phone saying that I didn't murder your family. Then I send them both at the same time.

The second text was a lie.

What's wrong with the reasoning? — Bartricks

I told you what's wrong with it.

And you're attacking a straw man. I am not arguing against educating children. Perhaps if you'd been made to undergo more education you'd have realized that. — Bartricks

You are actually, by logical implication, because you're arguing for your ideal, and in your ideal there are no children being educated. There are no children at all. There isn't anyone at all, for that matter.

Yeah, that sounds lovely.

Anyway, what seems horrible to me is the authoritarian nature of such a law, in the sense that an authority presumes to decide for someone else something that I consider a fundamental liberty. I know you may not agree, but that's what I mean. — DingoJones

Okay...

Well, I preferred you when you thought more like me, and less like Terrapin Station. But it's not even a liberty issue. People are at liberty to kill themselves. That's simply a fact, regardless of our views on the matter. I can go and jump off of a bridge or hang myself. It's just not something that I would say is acceptable simply because the person wants to do so. Have you even thought through the logical consequences of that? You realise of course that death is permanent, irreversible. And you also realise that feelings can be rash, impulsive, fleeting, or stemming from a disorder?

I just see the example shown by a drawing. What variables are being measured there? How are they measured? — Fernando Rios

You know that logo at the top, what does it say? It doesn't say, "The Science Forum", does it?

That a large portion of our lives will have to be lived under the paternalistic dictactorship of our parents and state authorities is part of what makes forcing someone into this existence such a significant thing to have done to them. — Bartricks

This has surely got to be one of the worst kinds of ethical reasoning. Reasoning based off of purely imaginary and impossible (or practically impossible) alternatives. Like, yeah, parents and teachers are so bad, because ideally little children should be free to look after and educate themselves.

Default wrong. Like guilty until proven innocent? You murdered her by default, but we'll await the verdict.

Thank you for your answer. What are the experiments that Newton used to show their laws are true? — Fernando Rios

You've already been given examples, and you can look them up. So why ask me that?

So many respondents missing the point regarding "proof". He clarified that by "proof", he means showing to be true. This can be done through the relevant experiments. If you disagree, then you need to revise your conception of truth.

You can show they are true by running the experiments. — StreetlightX

/thread

Well I dont think we should rashly submit to what someone says, that's a straw-man. — DingoJones

No it's not, it stems back to the original proposition, which is that an adult should have the right to die if they want to, which would mean rashly submitting without proper examination. Obviously the part about it being rash isn't explicit, but it's implied.

And I was only ever using the law as a point of reference in answer to the question I was asked. It doesn't matter whether or not it can be enforced. I'm making the point that it's right to act in line with what the relevant laws say on the matter. Clearly more thought has gone into the laws I've referenced in this discussion than some of the simplistic opinions expressed by participants in this discussion.

You'll have to come up with a better objection than, "It seems horrible to me". And you don't even seem to know what you're talking about when you say that. What seems horrible to you? No one is stopping anyone from killing themselves if they are intent on doing so. So what's horrible? A medical professional doing their job? What planet are you living on? That would fall under the the Hippocratic Oath.

That man running through the streets today.

Did you catch his face?

Not by long, if it was. It was realised on the 23rd of June 1972. So 47 years ago.

Elaborate! — jamalrob