Is it wrong to want to die?

[Xavier363]

You are useless to respond too. You end up making your own rules on how an argument should go, from flip flopping to only wanting yes or no answers and then going "you didn't explain anything" after you get the exact demand. You really just can't hack the fact that you were schooled and proven to be illiterate.

You have no knowledge of the world which is why you can't understand the 3rd world politician reference, you don't know anything about it or care to absorb that reality. You made a really ridiculous example to back up your hell argument with the whole Catholic priest - tithes reference and you even got confused and lost in your own arguments on the basis of what deserves hell. You are just trying to make a one sided debate to help feed the ego of your newbie atheist image. You failed and you lost, get over it.

Hey! Welcome back! I figured your ego would not allow you to maintain silence

So, even though I can read your posts and comment, I'm somehow illiterate. Seems like you don't know what that word means. So, even though I've refuted your ridiculous argument, here it is again:

My response to your argument:
I don't know what a neo-atheist is. I've been an atheist (a person who does not believe that any gods exist) since I was about 8 years old, I think. I'm thinking that you want to use neo here to try to conflate atheists with nazis - just an ad hominem attack. You sir, made the claim that as a Canadian, my mandatory taxes go to support bad actors. I've refuted this many times and you have conceded my points on this: taxes are mandatory, tithing is voluntary, intentionality matters (except for priests, apparently). Go ahead, defend your claim that as a Canadian paying mandatory taxes that I'm somehow complicit in supporting bad actors before they are discovered to be bad actors in the same way that voluntary tithing when aware that the catholic church has protected pedophile priests for decades is complicity in supporting these priests. Go ahead. Try to defend your claim without resorting to your "what about ism", which I've repeatedly pointed out are irrelevant distractions and will be pointed out and ignored. Go ahead, dude.

Honestly don't know what your are talking about with your "one sided debate" comment. You keep commenting on my ego rather than my refutations of your argument. I just face palm about your comment about "newbie atheist image" given that I've been an atheist for almost 50 years. How long before I'm no longer a "newbie"?

So, go ahead, show me how I "lost". Please show how you schooled me. Show me how my refutation of your claim (see above) is ridiculous. I'll make some more popcorn while I "get over it".

 

[Xavier363]

You are useless to respond too. You end up making your own rules on how an argument should go, from flip flopping to only wanting yes or no answers and then going "you didn't explain anything" after you get the exact demand. You really just can't hack the fact that you were schooled and proven to be illiterate.

You have no knowledge of the world which is why you can't understand the 3rd world politician reference, you don't know anything about it or care to absorb that reality. You made a really ridiculous example to back up your hell argument with the whole Catholic priest - tithes reference and you even got confused and lost in your own arguments on the basis of what deserves hell. You are just trying to make a one sided debate to help feed the ego of your newbie atheist image. You failed and you lost, get over it.

Chirp, chirp... Please, I need to be schooled...

 

[Cis.jd]

Hey! Welcome back! I figured your ego would not allow you to maintain silence

So, even though I can read your posts and comment, I'm somehow illiterate. Seems like you don't know what that word means. So, even though I've refuted your ridiculous argument, here it is again:

Most of your replies show that you can't understand the posts you are reading, or you are just refusing to accept the points. Its as if you wanted to control the type of answers you were getting just so you can feel that you had an argument.

My response to your argument:
You sir, made the claim that as a Canadian, my mandatory taxes go to support bad actors. I've refuted this many times and you have conceded my points on this: taxes are mandatory, tithing is voluntary, intentionality matters (except for priests, apparently). Go ahead, defend your claim that as a Canadian paying mandatory taxes that I'm somehow complicit in supporting bad actors before they are discovered to be bad actors in the same way that voluntary tithing when aware that the catholic church has protected pedophile priests for decades is complicity in supporting these priests. Go ahead. Try to defend your claim without resorting to your "what about ism", which I've repeatedly pointed out are irrelevant distractions and will be pointed out and ignored. Go ahead, dude.[/quote]

But this also has been answered that your excuses mean nothing because despite the intention you have and despite it being mandatory, these "bad actors" are still getting rich off you. Now, what you've ignored is that you do have an initial choice through your votes, it wasn't mandatory for you to pick these politicians but you did, you and/or your community chose these "bad actors" to have a job just by electing them.
At the same time, you've ignored or just plainly didn't understand the referencing of 3rd world countries, in where their choices are because of manipulation. You don't get that because you only have 1st world knowledge of the world, nothing else.

Honestly don't know what your are talking about with your "one sided debate" comment. You keep commenting on my ego rather than my refutations of your argument. I just face palm about your comment about "newbie atheist image" given that I've been an atheist for almost 50 years. How long before I'm no longer a "newbie"?

one sided, your entire attitude that you've displayed through your replies is that it is ok if it is done by anyone else unless it is religion. A sign of a "newbie" (or neo) atheist who is about saving face and ego rather than reason and knowledge, you can't be fair at all when it comes to any side that is connected to religion because you think it makes you a "cool" atheist just to have something disparaging to show against religion.

The moment when you started to refuse getting rhetorical questions and examples is when you lost, because it was just you trying to make sure your opponent couldn't have an actual counter argument.

 

[Xavier363]

despite the intention you have and despite it being mandatory, these "bad actors" are still getting rich off you.

Thank you for conceding. Despite the intention. Despite it being mandatory.

Now, what you've ignored is that you do have an initial choice through your votes, it wasn't mandatory for you to pick these politicians but you did, you and/or your community chose these "bad actors" to have a job just by electing them.

No sir, that is not true. I've never "chosen" a bad actor when voting. People get hired as civil servants. If they later break the law and become bad actors - that is not on me or anyone voting. Your argument is just laughably s*****.

At the same time, you've ignored or just plainly didn't understand the referencing of 3rd world countries, in where their choices are because of manipulation. You don't get that because you only have 1st world knowledge of the world, nothing else.

Again you "what about the third world" - I've told you many times that this is irrelevant and will be ignored. I'm Canadian - you accuse me of supporting bad actors through paying mandatory taxes. Stop using the "third world" to deflect - it just makes you look s*****.

This will be fun for me, but not for you. So, Yes / No question: is Canada part of the third world?
You answer yes - you are wrong and you lose.
You answer no - your Third World arguments are irrelevant and you lose.
You refuse to answer - you cannot defend your argument and well, you lose.

This is why you don't like Yes / No questions. This is why I do like Yes / No questions. Go ahead, Yes, No, or Refuse?

one sided, your entire attitude that you've displayed through your replies is that it is ok if it is done by anyone else unless it is religion.

Well, if your side is supporting the catholic church - go ahead and accuse me of being one sided. The catholic church has protected pedophile priests AFTER they were discovered to be raping children. I'm against that side.

Your words:

A sign of a "newbie" (or neo) atheist who is about saving face and ego rather than reason and knowledge

Please show how "newbie" (or neo) somehow relates to ego rather than reason and knowledge. You made the argument, I've refuted it. Over and over again. So, when I refute your i****** argument it is because of my ego and not your i****** argument? So, if you were arguing for a flat earth, and I refuted this i****** argument, it would because of my ego?

 

[Zoii]

It's not wrong to want to die but it is wrong to kill yourself. They are two different things.

I disagree. Many will argue they have a perfectly good reason to kill themselves. Particularly those living in pain and misery with no hope of things improving. It's all very well for Christians to throw stones at such people and tell them how awful and sinful they are for wanting to end their own suffering.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I disagree.

That is your right.

Many will argue they have a perfectly good reason to kill themselves.

I'm sure suicides all believe they have perfectly good reasons to kill themselves.

Particularly those living in pain and misery with no hope of things improving.

Pain and suffering are redemptive. It's not obviously so but it does work. One should not seek out pain and suffering, but it has it's place in human experience. Those who have experienced radical pain first hand know how to empathize with others in suffering and have learned how to pray for them and accompany them.

It's all very well for Christians to throw stones at such people and tell them how awful and sinful they are for wanting to end their own suffering.

Who threw a stone? Who said people who are in pain and are suffering are awful and sinful for wanting to end their pain and suffering? But to kill oneself? When there are rational ways of managing even extreme pain? Been there.

 

[Cis.jd]

Thank you for conceding. Despite the intention. Despite it being mandatory.

I haven't conceded at all, you have lost the debate because you tried to make rules on how your opponent has to respond because you want to safeguard yourself from points challenging your bad arguments.

No sir, that is not true. I've never "chosen" a bad actor when voting. People get hired as civil servants. If they later break the law and become bad actors - that is not on me or anyone voting. Your argument is just laughably s*****.

But that isn't the case in every country. You see, you don't take that in regards. Also, your reasoning and excuses can be used for catholics and priests. Priests get hired and start off as civilian students, if they later break the law and become bad actors - this not on catholics or anyone who officiated their job. You are not going to give that, because everyone else has an excuse in your eyes except religious institutions. Also, the whole "getting hired as civil servants" isn't the same in every country, most politicians in 3rd world countries get their opportunity because their parents where in politics or they where already famous celebrities prior to be elected, you have to take in consideration these facts.

Again you "what about the third world" - I've told you many times that this is irrelevant and will be ignored. I'm Canadian - you accuse me of supporting bad actors through paying mandatory taxes. Stop using the "third world" to deflect - it just makes you look s*****.

It's not irrelevant because it shows how ridiculous your pov is. People who live in the 3rd world also elect and re-elect the same politicians that steal from them, that is why those countries remain 3rd world. You are also forced to condemn them the same way you have done to catholics with tithes.

Please show how "newbie" (or neo) somehow relates to ego rather than reason and knowledge. You made the argument, I've refuted it. Over and over again. So, when I refute your i****** argument it is because of my ego and not your i****** argument? So, if you were arguing for a flat earth, and I refuted this i****** argument, it would because of my ego?

You did not refute anything. You've lost, get over it.

 

[Xavier363]

I haven't conceded at all, you have lost the debate because you tried to make rules on how your opponent has to respond because you want to safeguard yourself from points challenging your bad arguments.


But that isn't the case in every country. You see, you don't take that in regards. Also, your reasoning and excuses can be used for catholics and priests. Priests get hired and start off as civilian students, if they later break the law and become bad actors - this not on catholics or anyone who officiated their job. You are not going to give that, because everyone else has an excuse in your eyes except religious institutions. Also, the whole "getting hired as civil servants" isn't the same in every country, most politicians in 3rd world countries get their opportunity because their parents where in politics or they where already famous celebrities prior to be elected, you have to take in consideration these facts.


It's not irrelevant because it shows how ridiculous your pov is. People who live in the 3rd world also elect and re-elect the same politicians that steal from them, that is why those countries remain 3rd world. You are also forced to condemn them the same way you have done to catholics with tithes.


You did not refute anything. You've lost, get over it.

My words:

Again you "what about the third world" - I've told you many times that this is irrelevant and will be ignored. I'm Canadian - you accuse me of supporting bad actors through paying mandatory taxes. Stop using the "third world" to deflect - it just makes you look s*****.

This will be fun for me, but not for you. So, Yes / No question: is Canada part of the third world?
You answer yes - you are wrong and you lose.
You answer no - your Third World arguments are irrelevant and you lose.
You refuse to answer - you cannot defend your argument and well, you lose.

This is why you don't like Yes / No questions. This is why I do like Yes / No questions. Go ahead, Yes, No, or Refuse?

I see that you chose Refuse. Super not surprised. You refuse, you lose. You are so dishonest.

 

[Cis.jd]

My words:
I see that you chose Refuse. Super not surprised. You refuse, you lose. You are so dishonest.

You are the one who refuses to read. You were already explained the significance of referencing the 3rd world, you ignored it (or just don't understand it). The point of the referencing of the 3rd world was so that you can see various scenarios and demographics in where your reasoning must apply to for the integrity of your arguments. And once again you've shown to be illiterate with: "I'm Canadian, that is irrelevant".. You just don't get it, no matter how much it is dumbed down.

The point is the whole world has various establishments that have corrupt officials that are being supported because of the money coming from innocent people. That is why it's called corruption. So If you want to have be honest with your arguments then you are forced to start labeling and condemning demographics of other groups such as people in 3rd world countries, their political issues are not as good as yours because their politicians can escape the law. No matter how many times this is explained, you still can't get it. You should not be on any debate oriented forum at all because you can't even understand your own arguments.

 

[Zoii]

When there are rational ways of managing even extreme pain? Been there.

Well it's good you could manage your pain/suffering. That's not the experience of many - and it is to that group I refer to and wont be the one to cast aspersions on their choice to end their suffering. It seems you believe that your success at managing pain should tar the experience of all who suffer irretractible pain. But your wrong - Really - I would implore Christians to not be so condemning of those who choose to end their life because life isn't bearable. Its not sinful - its simply being human

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well it's good you could manage your pain/suffering. That's not the experience of many - and it is to that group I refer to and wont be the one to cast aspersions on their choice to end their suffering. It seems you believe that your success at managing pain should tar the experience of all who suffer irretractible pain. But your wrong - Really - I would implore Christians to not be so condemning of those who choose to end their life because life isn't bearable. Its not sinful - its simply being human

Pain is much better understood than it was and is rarely intractable. It can be managed. On the other hand, there are many people who want to off themselves whose pain can be managed successfully. They need a better doctor who can help them manage their pain, not a doctor who will kill them.

I don't know where you are getting this 'condemning' thing. It isn't sinful to want to be relieved of major pain. And there are effective ways to lessen the pain. But having a doctor snuff you is not the way to make pain bearable.

 

[jayem]

Pain is much better understood than it was and is rarely intractable. It can be managed..

Yes and no. There are situations—which are not that rare—when adequate pain management can be very difficult. My father died of wide-spread, end-stage prostate cancer at age 86. He had metastases in his lungs, liver, pelvis, and spine. Bone mets in particular are wicked. The pain is usually unrelenting. Radiation provided some palliative relief, but only short term. So he was put in home hospice care, and was taking regular oral doses of Percodan. Which of course, eventually stopped working. He was finally put on an IV morphine drip. The dosage needed for pain relief pretty much knocked him out. But it also suppresses respiration. And after 48 hours or so, his breathing stopped. This clearly isn’t suicide. But it’s nature taking it’s course with physician assistance. Do have a problem with it?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes and no. There are situations—which are not that rare—when adequate pain management can be very difficult.

Yup. But the solution is getting the pain management optimized. Not killing the patient.

My father died of wide-spread, end-stage prostate cancer at age 86.

Sorry this happened to him. My situation was cured by surgery, but not without lots of attempts at getting the pain meds right. Fentanyl has it's place I've found. And no, I am not addicted and am free of pain and free of narcotics. I know not everybody has their pain cured and not everybody can shake the narcotics.

He had metastases in his lungs, liver, pelvis, and spine. Bone mets in particular are wicked. The pain is usually unrelenting. Radiation provided some palliative relief, but only short term. So he was put in home hospice care, and was taking regular oral doses of Percodan. Which of course, eventually stopped working. He was finally put on an IV morphine drip. The dosage needed for pain relief pretty much knocked him out. But it also suppresses respiration. And after 48 hours or so, his breathing stopped. This clearly isn’t suicide. But it’s nature taking it’s course with physician assistance. Do have a problem with it?

If the goal was not to kill him, but to provide pain relief, I have no problem with it. You seem to have presumed I would. But I too know the suppression of respiration thing and deciding whether to take the pain meds early because the pain came back at three hours and the dose was not due for another hour. I took the meds. I was close enough to that edge, not at all willing to kill myself but willing to take the chance for pain relief.

There are doctors who aren't qualified in pain relief. And doctors who would rather violate their oath (if they were even offered the chance to take the Hippocratic Oath) and kill the patient rather than treat the patient. I had doctors who were willing to work with me to manage my pain, not just pretend that Percodan was the be all and end all of pain relief. I suffered, but it was not without some relief from time to time.

Suicide is awfully final. And not my call to make as a Christian. Albert Camus said "There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide." If you want to advocate suicide as a solution to life's problems, that's one thing. But it isn't medically necessary for pain.

 

[Xavier363]

You are the one who refuses to read. You were already explained the significance of referencing the 3rd world, you ignored it (or just don't understand it). The point of the referencing of the 3rd world was so that you can see various scenarios and demographics in where your reasoning must apply to for the integrity of your arguments. And once again you've shown to be illiterate with: "I'm Canadian, that is irrelevant".. You just don't get it, no matter how much it is dumbed down.

The point is the whole world has various establishments that have corrupt officials that are being supported because of the money coming from innocent people. That is why it's called corruption. So If you want to have be honest with your arguments then you are forced to start labeling and condemning demographics of other groups such as people in 3rd world countries, their political issues are not as good as yours because their politicians can escape the law. No matter how many times this is explained, you still can't get it. You should not be on any debate oriented forum at all because you can't even understand your own arguments.

Yes, of course I ignored the third world "what about ism". I don't live in the third world. My words, again:

Again you "what about the third world" - I've told you many times that this is irrelevant and will be ignored. I'm Canadian - you accuse me of supporting bad actors through paying mandatory taxes. Stop using the "third world" to deflect - it just makes you look s*****.

This will be fun for me, but not for you. So, Yes / No question: is Canada part of the third world?
You answer yes - you are wrong and you lose.
You answer no - your Third World arguments are irrelevant and you lose.
You refuse to answer - you cannot defend your argument and well, you lose.

This is why you don't like Yes / No questions. This is why I do like Yes / No questions. Go ahead, Yes, No, or Refuse?

Care to answer the question this time? Why are you so afraid to answer the question? I think I know the answer. To answer the question shows that your accusation is false. So, what will it be: Yes, No, Refuse? Its such a simple question. Why not just put on your "big boy pants" and just answer the question?

 

[Zoii]

Pain is much better understood than it was and is rarely intractable. It can be managed. On the other hand, there are many people who want to off themselves whose pain can be managed successfully. They need a better doctor who can help them manage their pain, not a doctor who will kill them.

I don't know where you are getting this 'condemning' thing. It isn't sinful to want to be relieved of major pain. And there are effective ways to lessen the pain. But having a doctor snuff you is not the way to make pain bearable.

While pain medications can reduce pain, for many it won't eradicate it and it has nothing to do with the chosen doctor/nurse - it has everything to do with the nature of the pathology. Bone/spinal/nerve pain are cases examples where managing it can very difficult; and to attack it aggressively results in significant complications.

And we aren't just talking about pain. Those with neurodegenerative disorders (for example) have an awful existence with an inexorable but slow miserable journey towards death.

My objection is that Christians (and other religious organisations) add to the suffering of others by either directly denying practitioners the option to end their own suffering OR act in a way to make said practitioner to feel that they are sinful and should feel shame for wanting to have an end to their suffering,

Fortunately, in many countries such as mine, religious groups (predominantly Christians) have been kept at arms length - and those who have the types fo suffering I describe, have full legal rights to end their own life painlessly. In such circumstances, it is up to the church (and individuals such as yourself) to decide if they elect to make the family of the deceased to feel terrible when telling them how sinful and terrible the loved one was for choosing death.

 

[chevyontheriver]

While pain medications can reduce pain, for many it won't eradicate it

No. Of course not. But is the goal in life to eradicate all pain? Or reduce it to manageable levels. Growing old has it's aches and pains. Should I kill myself if I can't have every ache and pain eradicated. Or do I manage the pain and keep on going?

... and it has nothing to do with the chosen doctor/nurse - it has everything to do with the nature of the pathology. Bone/spinal/nerve pain are cases examples where managing it can very difficult; and to attack it aggressively results in significant complications.

My point was that a quality medical practitioner can help achieve a better outcome. And that is true no matter what kind of pathology. One does not need to kill the patient to find relief.

And we aren't just talking about pain. Those with neurodegenerative disorders (for example) have an awful existence with an inexorable but slow miserable journey towards death.

My objection is that Christians (and other religious organisations) add to the suffering of others by either directly denying practitioners the option to end their own suffering OR act in a way to make said practitioner to feel that they are sinful and should feel shame for wanting to have an end to their suffering,

Fortunately, in many countries such as mine, religious groups (predominantly Christians) have been kept at arms length - and those who have the types fo suffering I describe, have full legal rights to end their own life painlessly. In such circumstances, it is up to the church (and individuals such as yourself) to decide if they elect to make the family of the deceased to feel terrible when telling them how sinful and terrible the loved one was for choosing death.

I see you have accepted the righteousness of suicide AND you are happy to condemn those who do not share your views. There is little point in going on in this discussion if you have to condemn anyone who thinks suicide isn't a golden solution.

 

[James_Lai]

First, I want to start out saying that I'm not suicidal or anything like that. I was just curious and pondering on the thought of why do people often think it's wrong if someone feels like they want to die. Don't majority of us here long to be together with the lord?

I often have feelings of not wanting to be here or feeling out of place in the world but the thought of being in heaven, with God, lost loved ones, without medical issues, aging, pain. All seem like very reasonable things that us Christians would look forward to.

Would love to hear your take.

The world we live in is a 24/7 hell. What keeps us here is other people and our love for them ❤️

 

[Zoii]

Growing old has it's aches and pains. Should I kill myself if I can't have every ache and pain eradicated

That's somewhat facetious to compare old-age aches and pains to the misery of neural or osseous pain, let alone the miseries of disorders such as neurodegenerative disease.

My point was that a quality medical practitioner can help achieve a better outcome. And that is true no matter what kind of pathology. One does not need to kill the patient to find relief.

If a good doctor can achieve a good outcome - fabulous - we are not talking about that cohort. Rather we are discussing the cohort where a good outcome is impossible to achieve.

I see you have accepted the righteousness of suicide AND you are happy to condemn those who do not share your views. There is little point in going on in this discussion if you have to condemn anyone who thinks suicide isn't a golden solution.

I have accepted the dignity of dying. I accept that whether Christians like it or not, it is legal for assisted suicide in many countries. And I am pointing out that it is Christians (and other religions) that are doing all the condemning, seemingly feeling quite comfortable to throw stones at those who are seeking an end to the misery they are enduring, and at their grieving families who support the decision.

 

[Xavier363]

No. Of course not. But is the goal in life to eradicate all pain? Or reduce it to manageable levels. Growing old has it's aches and pains. Should I kill myself if I can't have every ache and pain eradicated. Or do I manage the pain and keep on going?

My point was that a quality medical practitioner can help achieve a better outcome. And that is true no matter what kind of pathology. One does not need to kill the patient to find relief.

I see you have accepted the righteousness of suicide AND you are happy to condemn those who do not share your views. There is little point in going on in this discussion if you have to condemn anyone who thinks suicide isn't a golden solution.

I'm a big fan of bodily autonomy. My body, my life, is mine to do with as I wish. Yours is yours to do with as you wish. Just as if you are against same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against suicide, don't kill yourself. Pretty straight forward. Just don't tell others how to live their lives, control their reproduction, who to marry, etc. If you are against these things, fine, mind your own business. Don't try to inflict your opinions on others.

Anyone that has come to the realization that the pain in their life is worse than the good things in life and ends their life, to me, has made the right decision. If that bothers you, the problem is yours.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There is the story about a passionate young evangelist who was witnessing to people during a train journey. While talking to a person with a rather nervous disposition, just as the train was going into a tunnel, asked him, "Are you ready to die?" One has to imagine the terrified screams that resulted!