Dr. Assisted Suicide

atlashunter said:

You said atheism is a belief system. It’s not. It doesn’t provide answers to any of those questions. It’s a blank slate and leaves the floor open for atheists to pursue answers. A belief system provides answers. Here’s a book and here are all the answers. Just read it and believe it. We don’t have that. We have to think for ourselves.

Click to expand...

It’s a belief that there is no God. That doesn’t absolve it from having to answer the BIG questions of life. The answers to that system of questions form an individuals belief system. If the answer is “I don’t know.” or “We don’t know.” that’s not a STRENGTH, when others can provide rational, intelligible answers.

Atheism weds itself to science with its experiential data and mocks those who can’t provide “concrete proof” of God. YET, YET, when it comes to answering the very biggest questions of life, the ones of infinite importance they retreat into the shell of “I don’t knowism” and feign offence if pushed for a rational defense of their stance on the subjects. Yawn. So predictable, so elementally thoughtless.

SemperFiDawg said:

Agreed. 100%. Again, my point. Everyone has answers or “I don’t knows” to all of the big questions in life. Just don’t tell me it’s not a belief system, if you use it to guide your values because you believe it’s the best answer just because “Athiesm is not a belief system.” It is. It’s just not as rigid as some “ accepted” religions as far as orthodoxy and rigid doctrines. I swear, some times you Athiest are as nuts about being as Anti Religious as some believers are about being dogmatic, legalistic religious. They both throw out the baby with the bath water, because they can’t think past orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

You are doing exactly what I said to Atlas -

Originally Posted by WaltL1
Just an observation over the years -
Christians HAVE to make Atheism a belief system. Its the only way they can compare the two. The only way they can work it out is "Atheism tells you this and Christianity tells us this".
If Atheism doesn't "tell you" anything then the whole thing falls apart..... so they have to insist that it does.

Click to expand...

You are insisting Atheism is something its not so that you can compare them.

Just don’t tell me it’s not a belief system, if you use it to guide your values because you believe it’s the best answer

Click to expand...

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The end.
There is nothing to use to guide your values. There are no established values of Atheism. Atheism is not meant to provide with you a guide to anything. That's not what Atheism is. That's now what Atheism does. That's not what Atheism is intended to do.
Atheism is not what you are trying to make it be so that you can compare it to Christianity.
You really gotta accept that fact.

It’s just not as rigid as some “ accepted” religions as far as orthodoxy and rigid doctrines.

Click to expand...

WHAT is not rigid? What doctrines?
There isn't any. Again, Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The end.
Anything else an Atheist may think beyond that is his own personal thoughts. Not "Atheism".

I swear, some times you Athiest are as nuts about being as Anti Religious as some believers are about being dogmatic, legalistic religious.

Click to expand...

You think that because you wont accept that Atheism is not what you are insisting it is.
And I'm not being combative, angry at God, getting advice from the Atheist Handbook, or even bristling.
I'm just sayin'.

SemperFiDawg said:

It’s a belief that there is no God. That doesn’t absolve it from having to answer the BIG questions of life. The answers to that system of questions form an individuals belief system. If the answer is “I don’t know.” or “We don’t know.” that’s not a STRENGTH, when others can provide rational, intelligible answers.

Atheism weds itself to science with its experiential data and mocks those who can’t provide “concrete proof” of God. YET, YET, when it comes to answering the very biggest questions of life, the ones of infinite importance they retreat into the shell of “I don’t knowism” and feign offence if pushed for a rational defense of their stance on the subjects. Yawn. So predictable, so elementally thoughtless.

Click to expand...

You forgot -
And so honest.
Why do you think "I don't know" is retreating into a shell?
Seems like it takes more gonads to admit that than it does just to pick something that tickles your fancy and insist that its fact, its true..........
Out of curiosity, which do you find to be more "moral" (your favorite subject)? -
I don't know
or
I'm gonna pick what I like, insist its real, expect other people to abide by what I pick, shake my head when they ask me to prove it.....

SemperFiDawg said:

If the answer is “I don’t know.” or “We don’t know.” that’s not a STRENGTH, when others can provide rational, intelligible answers.

Click to expand...

Who are the “others”, and what are the rational and intelligible answers they provide?

*

bullethead said:

"And ’tis of little consequence,"

Ignorantly frustrating when all you ask is for an honest and to the point answer, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Why would you think that? I agree, wholeheartedly. I see nothing of ignorance in it, nor of frustration to me. In fact it would have been too much to hope that you might answer in that way.
" 'Tis of little consequence".

If I said "of absolutely none", would you think I was trying to outstrip you in some way...? Or would you allow me..."my" honesty? Would you, do you, find a truth in standing there? Is that forbidden to you, to any? Even though you quote another who lived millennia ago?

Does that remain, despite the intervening millenia...as true to you today as we would suppose it might have to Marcus who had a submission, manifested a submission...to writing it?

Another man wrote this. But...would you now find him and his testimony inadmissible...merely because it can be found...in the Bible? If you found it "outside" of that compilation...would you find it more acceptable?

You yourself may know that before it appeared between leather covers and in gold leaf, seemingly assigned by some a worthiness to appear "in there"...it was included in scrolls...but before that...it was...written.

"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity"

No, I am not frustrated in your answer at all.


My question to you about frustration is this:

How much truly...is of little consequence to you? How much will you bear (as rightly you would ask me the same) in the testing of that? What, if anything, are either of us, both of us "able to bear" of the testimony, by submission...we make? Here...and quite publicly. What of our words will we be shown...able to eat ourselves?

We set tables to each other...we present to each other what "comes out of us"...and by this say "eat what I have eaten"...and show what is "of us". Our words are nothing ever more than this. Nothing ever more than testimony of "what has been made into "the me."...and now comes out from "the me." Knowledge has worked into "the me"...and such knowledge comes out in words...presented.

One other question is this...do we set the same table to all, and seek to, everywhere? Or, are we hypocrites...afraid of troubling our own house? Upsetting our own precious little apple carts? Is that...of little consequence?

SemperFiDawg said:

Why do you even bother? If his posts are more than 2 sentences I just ignore them.

Click to expand...

Why does it appear you seek to present yourself as a man...yet act at times like such a woman? Is that seemly? Is this...concise?

Israel said:

Why would you think that? I agree, wholeheartedly. I see nothing of ignorance in it, nor of frustration to me. In fact it would have been too much to hope that you might answer in that way.
" 'Tis of little consequence".

If I said "of absolutely none", would you think I was trying to outstrip you in some way...? Or would you allow me..."my" honesty? Would you, do you, find a truth in standing there? Is that forbidden to you, to any? Even though you quote another who lived millennia ago?

Does that remain, despite the intervening millenia...as true to you today as we would suppose it might have to Marcus who had a submission, manifested a submission...to writing it?

Another man wrote this. But...would you now find him and his testimony inadmissible...merely because it can be found...in the Bible? If you found it "outside" of that compilation...would you find it more acceptable?

You yourself may know that before it appeared between leather covers and in gold leaf, seemingly assigned by some a worthiness to appear "in there"...it was included in scrolls...but before that...it was...written.

"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity"

No, I am not frustrated in your answer at all.


My question to you about frustration is this:

How much truly...is of little consequence to you? How much will you bear (as rightly you would ask me the same) in the testing of that? What, if anything, are either of us, both of us "able to bear" of the testimony, by submission...we make? Here...and quite publicly. What of our words will we be shown...able to eat ourselves?

We set tables to each other...we present to each other what "comes out of us"...and by this say "eat what I have eaten"...and show what is "of us". Our words are nothing ever more than this. Nothing ever more than testimony of "what has been made into "the me."...and now comes out from "the me." Knowledge has worked into "the me"...and such knowledge comes out in words...presented.

One other question is this...do we set the same table to all, and seek to, everywhere? Or, are we hypocrites...afraid of troubling our own house? Upsetting our own precious little apple carts? Is that...of little consequence?

Click to expand...

I asked you direct questions that warranted direct answers. You reply with a quote from something I posted earlier. If you cannot indulge in conversation then, don't try to save face now.

WaltL1 said:

You forgot -
And so honest.
Why do you think "I don't know" is retreating into a shell?
Seems like it takes more gonads to admit that than it does just to pick something that tickles your fancy and insist that its fact, its true..........
Out of curiosity, which do you find to be more "moral" (your favorite subject)? -
I don't know
or
I'm gonna pick what I like, insist its real, expect other people to abide by what I pick, shake my head when they ask me to prove it.....

Click to expand...

I will take “I don’t know” over pretending to know by using god of the gaps any day.

WaltL1 said:

You are doing exactly what I said to Atlas -

You are insisting Atheism is something its not so that you can compare them.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The end.
There is nothing to use to guide your values. There are no established values of Atheism. Atheism is not meant to provide with you a guide to anything. That's not what Atheism is. That's now what Atheism does. That's not what Atheism is intended to do.
Atheism is not what you are trying to make it be so that you can compare it to Christianity.
You really gotta accept that fact.

WHAT is not rigid? What doctrines?
There isn't any. Again, Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The end.
Anything else an Atheist may think beyond that is his own personal thoughts. Not "Atheism".

You think that because you wont accept that Atheism is not what you are insisting it is.
And I'm not being combative, angry at God, getting advice from the Atheist Handbook, or even bristling.
I'm just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He insists atheism has to answer his questions. Yet it doesn’t.

ky55 said:

Who are the “others”, and what are the rational and intelligible answers they provide?

*

Click to expand...

God did it. Has such a great track record of answering the simple questions like where thunder and earthquakes come from so why not use it to answer the big questions of life?

What about "Dr. assisted" life?

660griz said:

What about "Dr. assisted" life?

Click to expand...

Some of the faithful oppose that too.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=195

The churches and movements listed below have religious beliefs against some or most forms of medical care. For articles on specific cases and issues involving many of these, see the By denomination page.

Followers of Christ
Faith Assembly
Church of the Firstborn
Christian Science
Faith Tabernacle
End Time Ministries
The Believers’ Fellowship
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Church of God of the Union Assembly
Church of God (certain congregations)
First Century Gospel Church
Full Gospel Deliverance Church
Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God
Jesus through Jon and Judy
Christ Miracle Healing Center
Northeast Kingdom Community Church
Christ Assembly
The Source
“No Name” Fellowship
The Body
1 Mind Ministries
Twelve Tribes
Born in Zion Ministry

Since 1980 children have died in these sects without medical attention for:

pneumonia
meningitis
diabetes
diphtheria
appendicitis
measles
gangrene
dehydration
blood poisoning
Wilm’s tumor and other cancers
perinatal suffocation or strangulation
diarrhea
respiratory infections
kidney infections
Rocky Mountain spotted fever
epilepsy
pericarditis
strangulated hernia
bowel obstruction
sepsis
thalassemia

*

ky55 said:

Some of the faithful oppose that too.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=195

The churches and movements listed below have religious beliefs against some or most forms of medical care. For articles on specific cases and issues involving many of these, see the By denomination page.

Followers of Christ
Faith Assembly
Church of the Firstborn
Christian Science
Faith Tabernacle
End Time Ministries
The Believers’ Fellowship
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Church of God of the Union Assembly
Church of God (certain congregations)
First Century Gospel Church
Full Gospel Deliverance Church
Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God
Jesus through Jon and Judy
Christ Miracle Healing Center
Northeast Kingdom Community Church
Christ Assembly
The Source
“No Name” Fellowship
The Body
1 Mind Ministries
Twelve Tribes
Born in Zion Ministry

Since 1980 children have died in these sects without medical attention for:

pneumonia
meningitis
diabetes
diphtheria
appendicitis
measles
gangrene
dehydration
blood poisoning
Wilm’s tumor and other cancers
perinatal suffocation or strangulation
diarrhea
respiratory infections
kidney infections
Rocky Mountain spotted fever
epilepsy
pericarditis
strangulated hernia
bowel obstruction
sepsis
thalassemia

*

Click to expand...

Ok now someone catch me back up...are we against dying...or for it?
Some folks can't be pleased.

welderguy said:

Ok now someone catch me back up...are we against dying...or for it?
Some folks can't be pleased.

Click to expand...

That's funny Welder. Good one.

I would argue that we should use a different method to determine what a humane, compassionate course of action is in regards to all forms of medicine as opposed to religious texts. Can you explain why you think a religious text is a good source to answer these kinds of questions?

ambush80 said:

That's funny Welder. Good one.

I would argue that we should use a different method to determine what a humane, compassionate course of action is in regards to all forms of medicine as opposed to religious texts. Can you explain why you think a religious text is a good source to answer these kinds of questions?

Click to expand...

First I need you to point me to the particular religious text that is giving you problems regarding these medical courses of action. Then we can look at the context of them and see where the break down is exactly. I'm open minded to your criticism of it as long as you are.

bullethead said:

I asked you direct questions that warranted direct answers. You reply with a quote from something I posted earlier. If you cannot indulge in conversation then, don't try to save face now.

Click to expand...

You really don't see it, do you? At all?

You quoted a philosopher to some end, of which I assumed you had understanding. I assumed that's why you quoted him...to show something you endorsed, believed, found worthy of mention.

Of course you can. And for whatever reason you care to. You can quote something with which you agree (as was my assumption, and if wrong, forgive me) or you can, for whatever purpose, quote whomever you care to, not agreeing, and you owe me absolutely no explanation in it. I read the words and make inferences, and my inferences are just as likely to be amiss as anyone's.

I can place no requirement upon you to limit what you say...or quote. But when a body of words speaks, and seems to speak a thing that I believe I understand...is that property solely yours now to claim whatever you care to about it? You quoted Marcus Aurelius...who had at one time...something to say. I inferred you meant it to "mean something".

Note: You may be among the many that deride "the faith" as being archaic, primitive, superstitious and benighted to such a degree as you may enjoy a singleness in excelling at it. Nevertheless your quoting a philosopher of ages past was not to me, inappropriate. I didn't at that point even care to note that sauce and goose, sauce and gander, was something worth mentioning. If you see a "truth" in something written a thousand, two thousand or five thousand years ago...really...what's that to me?


But then you replied with this:

Do you think I would believe, or more importantly would you expect me to believe a fellow reloader that told me he gets his recipes from a handloader who lived almost 2000 years ago and from a log book which that ancient handloader never actually wrote a recipe in?

I wouldn't fill my cases with a recipe from my experienced best friend just because he said so. I would start lower, work my way up, check for velocity and pressure along the way and stop when verified results tell me that the recipe I was given is safe IE: truthful. And even then, if it is not accurate in my gun, it is useless to me.

Knowing all that, can you tell me Why I should take the word of someone who doesn't even "reload" but pretends to while mixing unproven components from an ancient load book full of unverifiable loads along the way solely because that is the only way they think it can be done?

Click to expand...

To which I responded with a partial inclusion of your quote:

That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence, whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration. Again that the longest and the shortest lives have an equal loss at Death. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Click to expand...

But, you really do not see...do you? It must have seemed more important for you to say this to me:

That's how I know when I make too much sense to you.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, you got me...didn't you?


It didn't at all enter your mind (how could it?) that your first propositions in quoting Marcus Aurelius...were now your fitting answer.

That this man you quoted from antiquity could in any way be response to:

Do you think I would believe, or more importantly would you expect me to believe a fellow reloader that told me he gets his recipes from a handloader who lived almost 2000 years ago and from a log book which that ancient handloader never actually wrote a recipe in?

Click to expand...

Oh...you quote Marcus Aurelius...why? Was it a truth you saw and found he expressed well? Was it because you have complete certainty about the words having survived and being transcribed inerrantly? So you therefore have complete source confidence? (Seems silly...you might just as well have quoted George Bush...then...who at least we may be able to recall by video tape. If all you are after is a verifiable source)

Seeing the truth of it (by me) need not mean you see any truth in it, at all. (And the more I consider it, I sincerely doubt you do)

The truth I see him trying to express is simply this. And as "a" truth...has a timelessness to it.

It matters not, in regard to man, whether he observes for a year, or ...

whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration.

Click to expand...

for

That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence,

Click to expand...

That in the beholding of things the only exchange possible will forever be only of things, between things, to things.

And man then would continue in "thinghood" irremediably.

It appears to me you like doing that "gotcha thing". But you must know, but perhaps you do not...that this too, has been going on for quite a long time (even well before Marcus Aurelius)

The nature of man is a fixed...thing...unless entry of what is not "of thing" is given.

As for saving face...what's to save? I am a fool already, for answering you. If I may be a fool for Christ, so much the better, but that appears to me a presumption I dare not indulge. He already knows. And that's far more than enough.

And like I said, I ain't got nothing against Marcus Aurelius, he saw what he saw and said what he said, and I trust he's well past needing any judgment of mine upon him.

But another did write...quite a few years before him:

"Vanity of vanities...all is vanity."

Your not liking his conclusions to the matter, do not distress his words at all. But who knows...maybe you do like his conclusions...more than I know.

Israel said:

You really don't see it, do you? At all?

You quoted a philosopher to some end, of which I assumed you had understanding. I assumed that's why you quoted him...to show something you endorsed, believed, found worthy of mention.

Of course you can. And for whatever reason you care to. You can quote something with which you agree (as was my assumption, and if wrong, forgive me) or you can, for whatever purpose, quote whomever you care to, not agreeing, and you owe me absolutely no explanation in it. I read the words and make inferences, and my inferences are just as likely to be amiss as anyone's.

I can place no requirement upon you to limit what you say...or quote. But when a body of words speaks, and seems to speak a thing that I believe I understand...is that property solely yours now to claim whatever you care to about it? You quoted Marcus Aurelius...who had at one time...something to say. I inferred you meant it to "mean something".

Note: You may be among the many that deride "the faith" as being archaic, primitive, superstitious and benighted to such a degree as you may enjoy a singleness in excelling at it. Nevertheless your quoting a philosopher of ages past was not to me, inappropriate. I didn't at that point even care to note that sauce and goose, sauce and gander, was something worth mentioning. If you see a "truth" in something written a thousand, two thousand or five thousand years ago...really...what's that to me?


But then you replied with this:




To which I responded with a partial inclusion of your quote:



But, you really do not see...do you? It must have seemed more important for you to say this to me:





Ahhh, you got me...didn't you?


It didn't at all enter your mind (how could it?) that your first propositions in quoting Marcus Aurelius...were now your fitting answer.

That this man you quoted from antiquity could in any way be response to:



Oh...you quote Marcus Aurelius...why? Was it a truth you saw and found he expressed well? Was it because you have complete certainty about the words having survived and being transcribed inerrantly? So you therefore have complete source confidence? (Seems silly...you might just as well have quoted George Bush...then...who at least we may be able to recall by video tape. If all you are after is a verifiable source)

Seeing the truth of it (by me) need not mean you see any truth in it, at all. (And the more I consider it, I sincerely doubt you do)

The truth I see him trying to express is simply this. And as "a" truth...has a timelessness to it.

It matters not, in regard to man, whether he observes for a year, or ...

for



That in the beholding of things the only exchange possible will forever be only of things, between things, to things.

And man then would continue in "thinghood" irremediably.

It appears to me you like doing that "gotcha thing". But you must know, but perhaps you do not...that this too, has been going on for quite a long time (even well before Marcus Aurelius)

The nature of man is a fixed...thing...unless entry of what is not "of thing" is given.

As for saving face...what's to save? I am a fool already, for answering you. If I may be a fool for Christ, so much the better, but that appears to me a presumption I dare not indulge. He already knows. And that's far more than enough.

And like I said, I ain't got nothing against Marcus Aurelius, he saw what he saw and said what he said, and I trust he's well past needing any judgment of mine upon him.

But another did write...quite a few years before him:

"Vanity of vanities...all is vanity."

Your not liking his conclusions to the matter, do not distress his words at all. But who knows...maybe you do like his conclusions...more than I know.

Click to expand...

Strike Three

bullethead said:

Strike Three

Click to expand...

no worries...there's still more innings.

welderguy said:

no worries...there's still more innings.

Click to expand...

You may ask, what IS baseball? (If asking about a thing is really a question at all) Or maybe you don't ask¿ and the questions are all mine which may be an answer to a question not asked.

Either way I've really said nothing (even though loaded with letters that form words) still amounts to nothing. But there must be a thing to do away with to get no-thing.

Oh yeah, One

bullethead said:

You may ask, what IS baseball? (If asking about a thing is really a question at all) Or maybe you don't ask¿ and the questions are all mine which may be an answer to a question not asked.

Either way I've really said nothing (even though loaded with letters that form words) still amounts to nothing. But there must be a thing to do away with to get no-thing.

Oh yeah, One

Click to expand...

In your haste to belittle, I have found more hope for you.