Maniac -- ha ha.

The joke's on us all, prozac doesn't break down through digestion and it's got into our water supply. So we are all already on prozac, and we still have to choose what crappy tv show, to watch. Don't seem fair, no, not at all.

Chemtrails are also serious business.

negativity is relative. and don't bring God into this. You theists... tisk tisk. God is the creation of Man not the other way around. Think about it. You have been lied to, so don't use religion in your arguments, just use secular logic and I will be happy to discuss with you

interesting NONRELIGULOUS view thank you, fucking finally a secular view, thank you thank you thank you, I am sick of all this morality bullshit

THANK YOU FOR THAT NONRELIGULOUS COMMENT, FUCKING FINALLY SOMEONE MAKES A LOGICAL, SECULAR ARGUMENT WITHOUT THE FALSE MORALITY ASSUMPTION BULLSHIT... THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

What is wrong with religious views otto? Although I think that this question has more to do with morals than religion (though they are closely tied).

I heard Kevorkian was asked by Obama to head the death panel. :D

what's wrong with religious views is that they should not exist. religion is an established system used to control people's minds (ie the design of the Holy Roman Empire). morality comes from God and because God does not exist, morality falls flat on its ass. I agree with otto 100%. There are not enough atheists on this site

So, let me get this straight:

All morality is relative.

while simultaneously, you hold:

Religion is bad.

Do you seriously see no philosophical contradiction?

What the hell happened to otto lol looks like he may need some... erm... assisted something-er-other.

Uh, how are people getting by without morality? How is that...how is that going to work?

Not sure what's up with Otto --

Hey Otto, what's up with you? And who were you talking to?

so much to address (i think i was responding to someone on the previous page of comments FYI and I didn't see my first two messages go through, duh) Religion is illogical (to me illogical="bad" but good point if you were correct that would be a contradiction) and Thucy you smart ass shut up, that was not a clever besmirchment of my action (nice try). Hmm Acosmist, let's see... how do animals get along... oh that's right they are violent and go by survival of the fittest and natural selection... humans are animals (with guises of morality and a more self-conscious mind). we give too much credit to God. morals control natural impulses, and fail anyway as a system. I would prefer a state of nature. That's right, I said it. Bring it, people. You Hobbesian scum!

I believe I was responding to to Maniac, yep that was it. Now it should make more sense

I fail to see what religion has to do with this. Even if suicide under any circumstances is wrong, that doesn't mean that allowing someone to commit suicide is. In fact, since we're talking about whether to legalize assisted suicide, then we're looking about whether its immoral to allow someone to allow someone to kill themselves. Where does the Bible say anything about that?

Furthermore, whether morality exists is independent of God. What makes worshiping God good, assuming he exists?

@Otto, stating your position is not the same as presenting an argument. If your belief about assisted suicide requires the assumptions that God and morality do not exist, then you'll never convince someone who refuses to make that assumption. This entire thread is based on morality, and you can't claim both that morality doesn't exist and that it is better or worse for assisted suicide to be legal.

@ ZaZa, similarly, if your argument requires the assumption that God exists, and that the Bible is infallible, then you'll never convince someone who doesn't make those assumptions.

im saying it is illogical that it should be illegal because it is supported with the false guise of morality (where do morals come from if not from religion/God? by the way, i'm interested) obviously this discussion will go nowhere if we have two diatomically opposed arguments, but it's still fun to try

Its somewhat difficult to figure out a source of morality, because you can just ask "what makes that good" to anything anyone presents. You can't that something is good or bad, unless you have some base of morality to build on. There has to be a standard for what is good in order to establish whether something less foundational to someone's beliefs is good or bad. I believe that certain things are good or bad without proof, because such proof is impossible, and I think that life is pointless unless there's something that you could theoretically improve or accomplish.

"obviously this discussion will go nowhere if we have two diatomically opposed arguments, but it's still fun to try"

Generally, if there is a disagreement about some founding assumption, you should try to argue given your opponent's assumptions, if possible. Its probably easier to show that allowing someone to commit suicide shouldn't be illegal, even if God exists, than it is to show that God does not exist.

Let's assume God, by which I mean an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being, exists. Obviously, evil also exists. That means that God allows other beings to commit evil acts. Therefore, allowing someone to do evil must not be evil, or else God would be evil. If allowing suicide isn't evil, then why should it be illegal?

yeah, but your toeing a fine line there buddy, you can't reason with religious people, although i respect your effort to do so. i understand what your saying, but at the same time morality= right and wrong (for your soul) ethics= right and wrong (for civil reasons) and good and bad are a completely different set of opinions unrelated sometimes to morals and ethics. eg: "that's a good shirt you have there" my thinking the shirt is good has nothing to do with morality or ethics, but my own personal RELATIVE sense of style. I will never assume the opposing argument to be true, because then my belief system caves on itself, as would be the case for my opponent (and I think your God-assumption is slightly presumptuous)

"you can't reason with religious people"

That's absurd. Some religious people are completely unreasonable, but the vast majority will listen to a rational argument, especially if it isn't specifically about religion. Have you heard of, say, Newton?

As for assuming that the opponent's assumptions are true, I just mean for the sake of argument. In order to counter someone's argument, you must show that either their assumptions are wrong, or that their assumptions don't lead to the conclusion that they're arguing for. In this case, its easier to show that the assumptions don't lead to the conclusion, than it is to show that the assumptions are wrong, so you should argue as though God exists, even if you don't think he does.

My assumption about God in my argument is meant to show that IF God exists, then assisted suicide should be legal. I'm not claiming that God exists, but that the argument that assisted suicide should be illegal because God said that suicide is immoral is invalid.

As for morality, I don't want to turn this into a debate about semantics. I believe that certain things are beneficial, good, or right, and that certain things are harmful, bad, or wrong. Neither the soul nor civil reasons are involved in my concept of right and wrong. I'll admit that I don't have a very strong logical argument for morality, but as I mentioned, I don't think life has any point without my belief, and it is impossible to prove or provide evidence for something being good or bad if you don't establish that certain things are good or bad first.

zuzak you should join my live game

and yes you can reason with religious people you just have to bear with them

i know deism is supposed to be the unity of reason and faith according to T. Paine, but faith is different than organized religion (as any good deist will explain, eg Newton)

Newton wasn't a Deist, Wikipedia lists his religious stance as Arianism. Besides, there are plenty of other religious scientists and reasonable religious people.