A semi-philosophical question, For those few who have a brain Options

[Dr Strum]

And what's your basis for the invalidation? Religion.

[Leyviur]

No, his use of religion.

[Irysa]

Same difference. Its inadvertently related to the topic of religion.

[Dr Strum]

We're just going in a circle now, Ash.

[Leyviur]

It's not the same. That's the whole point.

[Irysa]

This argument instantly fails.

[Leyviur]

You didn't state a reason.

My argument stands.

[Irysa]

Your argument has no reason in it either.

Opinion ain't fact.

[Leyviur]

A religion's rules counts as opinion, so any argument using it fails, therefore you're saying I'm right and my argument stands.

Whoopsie for you!

[Irysa]

k


But it still fails.

This post has been edited by Chaos Seraph: Jan 12 2007, 05:35 PM

[Buddhu]

Allow me to explain. Personally I think that humans in general have much to gain through death, but given that thats a mostly minorty view so I didn't include it.

Oh, okay. Well, what I said answers part of the question, at least.

What kind of religion would support suicide, anyway?

What kind of religion has a god that kills many innocents just because the majority of the people killed were sinners? What kind of religion has a god that punishes people for things that they cannot control? There are a ton of religions and they all have many different beliefs, and they ALL have at least one thing that is questionable.

Now, to answer the part of the question that I have yet to answer. Yes, I think they should be allowed to. I mean, it definitely seems like a selfish thing to do, when you consider the people who were close to the person. However, it also seems selfish to force that person to stay alive when they don't want to for whatever reason.

Heh, oops. I wasn't trying to start an argument with that comment, I was honestly curious. Sorry~

-----

...because it does not belong to him in the first place, so I would say no.

Who does it belong to? God? Don't make me laugh.

So...then what's your opinion of it? Can you honestly say that you believe in science as a basis for...everything? Basically, you have three options to argue fro:
1. Religion, no matter which one that be.
2. Science (yea, like that'll get you anywhere)
3. Ignorance.

Unfortunately, until you have a reason for your atatement, you're arguing from the third.

Again, I say that life is a gift one should value. What kind of religion would support suicide, anyway.

Religion is for the weak. Religion is a giant cesspool of hypocrisy that people without spines draw strength from. Every religion is a bullshit attempt at seeming good while pushing its own agenda. "Be courteous to others and do good deeds... but only when it is convenient." Fuck that shit. Religion is for suckers. Anyone who attempts to use religion as an argumentative tool instantly fails.

Again, as Sturm said, you have yet to prove this argument using something other than religion.

-----

I didn't use it against her point, I said it invalidated it.

That's better. ;)

[Leyviur]

So...then what's your opinion of it? Can you honestly say that you believe in science as a basis for...everything? Basically, you have three options to argue fro:
1. Religion, no matter which one that be.
2. Science (yea, like that'll get you anywhere)
3. Ignorance.

Unfortunately, until you have a reason for your atatement, you're arguing from the third.

Uh, are you retarded? You can still believe in things without having a religion. I believe in personal choice. A person's life is their own. I already went through this in my first post in the topic. Not everyone is so naive that they see the world in black and white like you do.

Again, as Sturm said, you have yet to prove this argument using something other than religion.

Yes I did. In my very first post.

That's better. ;)

Makes no difference to me. You're a person like any other.

[Ethronix]

Alright, one at a time!!

Religion is for the weak. Religion is a giant cesspool of hypocrisy that people without spines draw strength from. Every religion is a bullshit attempt at seeming good while pushing its own agenda. "Be courteous to others and do good deeds... but only when it is convenient." Fuck that shit. Religion is for suckers. Anyone who attempts to use religion as an argumentative tool instantly fails

First off that anti-religious statement.

Every religion is a bullshit attempt at seeming good while pushing its own agenda. "Be courteous to others and do good deeds... but only when it is convenient."

No not quite all of them, but of course you probably haven't seen the ones with no agenda to carry out and the ones that don't tell you to abide and "be nice" to other people so based on what you typed I can see where that comes from(and yes there are such religions).

Religion is a giant cesspool of hypocrisy that people without spines draw strength from.

That however, regardless of argument is sadly true of many modren religions though the hipocrisy is mostly limited to religions that impose a strict morale law that no-one even follows yet them vehemently deny that fact when confronted. As for the weaklings part I can't speak for others but I can say of myself, I haven't done anything with my religion hovering in the back of my head, my resolve comes from my stubborness and complete dedication to avoid falling into that cliche of all too common religions, that way I don't need any additional strength or reasoning in a vain attempt to justify what I do.

Now, to answer the part of the question that I have yet to answer. Yes, I think they should be allowed to. I mean, it definitely seems like a selfish thing to do, when you consider the people who were close to the person. However, it also seems selfish to force that person to stay alive when they don't want to for whatever reason.

Thank you for your answer, that was pretty much the type I was asking for.
However once again I was too vauge, But this ensuing argument is definitely worth watching.

Anyone who attempts to use religion as an argumentative tool instantly fails

Well from what I'm reading it looks like your arguing aganist religion as a whole.

I didn't use it against his point, I said it invalidated it.

Which is the same as using it against it...

You used religion as a basis for argument against Buddhu's point.

You know Sturm has a point there, you did say that because Buddhu used religion his point was invalidated but to invalidate the point on the grounds of it being religious is using religion as an argumentative tool which according to you means that "anyone who attempts to use religion as an argumentative tool instantly fails."

a human has no right to take his life, because it does not belong to him in the first place

I too am curious.Who does a human's life belong to, but in saying that it belongs to anyone is saying that someone has the final say in everything you do, think, say, and act, which raises the question who, the ones who brought said person into existance?,the divine?, If either of these then doesn't that invalidate the person's free will?

Alright I think thats everything. Not that its in any order....

[Leyviur]

No not quite all of them, but of course you probably haven't seen the ones with no agenda to carry out and the ones that don't tell you to abide and "be nice" to other people so based on what you typed I can see where that comes from(and yes there are such religions).

Exception to every rule. The only religion I accept is Buddhism these days.

Which is the same as using it against it... You used religion as a basis for argument against Buddhu's point.

No, I used his/her/its use of it as the basis. Instead of using religion as a concept I used the word 'religion' along with every other word Buddhu said.

You know Sturm has a point there, you did say that because Buddhu used religion his point was invalidated but to invalidate the point on the grounds of it being religious is using religion as an argumentative tool which according to you means that "anyone who attempts to use religion as an argumentative tool instantly fails."

Except, as I said, I never used religion itself as an argumentative tool. Just the words used. They just happened to be associated with it.

[Ethronix]

No not quite all of them, but of course you probably haven't seen the ones with no agenda to carry out and the ones that don't tell you to abide and "be nice" to other people so based on what you typed I can see where that comes from(and yes there are such religions).

Exception to every rule. The only religion I accept is Buddhism these days.

Which is the same as using it against it... You used religion as a basis for argument against Buddhu's point.

No, I used his/her/its use of it as the basis. Instead of using religion as a concept I used the word 'religion' along with every other word Buddhu said.

You know Sturm has a point there, you did say that because Buddhu used religion his point was invalidated but to invalidate the point on the grounds of it being religious is using religion as an argumentative tool which according to you means that "anyone who attempts to use religion as an argumentative tool instantly fails."

Except, as I said, I never used religion itself as an argumentative tool. Just the words used. They just happened to be associated with it.

Point taken, which brings me to ask Chaos Seraph's response to said question.

Which reminds me that I use some science when expalining anything outside of the norm, that way you don't deny everything and you don't take everything as a spiritual message, I mean after all not everything thats read should be taken as fact, likewise I'm not too quick to dismiss any legitimate skepticism as bias....But thats just me....