RE: Atheism and Hope
November 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm
(This post was last modified: November 14, 2015 at 4:05 pm by prmptuscerus.)
Thanks so much for responses and for giving honest feedback instead of platitudes.
The post was made before ideation, but I wouldn't call it an attempt as I didn't actually perform any action. I speculate there are many people who would take their lives if there were options which weren't so confrontational.
An interesting point that I took from this thread was that simply because one individual desires to take their life doesn't necessitate that others need to assist. Not only do others have a right to make whatever claims they wish about your state, they have a right not to be associated with an action they might find disturbing. It is interesting to know that Switzerland allows euthanisia for tourists. I had done research on Belgium but realized it wasn't going to work for me.
Less important issues-
A few asked about agnosticism in my definiton. My definiton of agnosticism is very unpopular; I lack knowledge (or belief) about God. I do believe that atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist and I realize that is not popular amongst atheists. I respect the right of people to call themselves what they wish and I don't enjoy debating semantics (although the distinction does come up in debate for reasons you are all well aware of regarding burden of proof). I believe it is possible to disprove things; like the existence of a openly Islamic senator, although the stipulations regarding God make it much more problematic.
Regarding evolution, I would invite criticism of incorrect claims made about it. I made some claims without showing how I got there. I recognize evolution itself makes no moral claims or philosophic claims although an individual might derive some from evolution, but is just a theory of origins. (I suppose by virtue of being a theory of origins it would have to rule out other theories of origins like Creationism). If there is no value to human life, as the Mulsim poster described, which is objective then eugenics as I understand it would be totally valid. Why should the mentally ill pass on their genetics, or addictive personalities or those with limited mental capacity? I suppose the idea that these people should not live is in itself a value judgment and would be unfounded, but personally I find it valid and can thus only apply it to myself.
I contended that Hedonism (or whatever term you want to give it) would be the only reason to live and I find this to be most often the response. I like the feeling I get with family, I like video games, I like vegetable soup. I'm not judging it, I find it absolutely valid for an individual to make that distinction. I just don't understand it personally and I find it ridiculous from my perspective. Something else that I would take away from this thread is a new idea, that of legacy or accomplishment. One can accomplish something that is meaningful to pass down to other individuals which can enhance their lives. This perspective is much more fulfilling than what I perceive as pleasure seeking.
The post was made before ideation, but I wouldn't call it an attempt as I didn't actually perform any action. I speculate there are many people who would take their lives if there were options which weren't so confrontational.
An interesting point that I took from this thread was that simply because one individual desires to take their life doesn't necessitate that others need to assist. Not only do others have a right to make whatever claims they wish about your state, they have a right not to be associated with an action they might find disturbing. It is interesting to know that Switzerland allows euthanisia for tourists. I had done research on Belgium but realized it wasn't going to work for me.
Less important issues-
A few asked about agnosticism in my definiton. My definiton of agnosticism is very unpopular; I lack knowledge (or belief) about God. I do believe that atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist and I realize that is not popular amongst atheists. I respect the right of people to call themselves what they wish and I don't enjoy debating semantics (although the distinction does come up in debate for reasons you are all well aware of regarding burden of proof). I believe it is possible to disprove things; like the existence of a openly Islamic senator, although the stipulations regarding God make it much more problematic.
Regarding evolution, I would invite criticism of incorrect claims made about it. I made some claims without showing how I got there. I recognize evolution itself makes no moral claims or philosophic claims although an individual might derive some from evolution, but is just a theory of origins. (I suppose by virtue of being a theory of origins it would have to rule out other theories of origins like Creationism). If there is no value to human life, as the Mulsim poster described, which is objective then eugenics as I understand it would be totally valid. Why should the mentally ill pass on their genetics, or addictive personalities or those with limited mental capacity? I suppose the idea that these people should not live is in itself a value judgment and would be unfounded, but personally I find it valid and can thus only apply it to myself.
I contended that Hedonism (or whatever term you want to give it) would be the only reason to live and I find this to be most often the response. I like the feeling I get with family, I like video games, I like vegetable soup. I'm not judging it, I find it absolutely valid for an individual to make that distinction. I just don't understand it personally and I find it ridiculous from my perspective. Something else that I would take away from this thread is a new idea, that of legacy or accomplishment. One can accomplish something that is meaningful to pass down to other individuals which can enhance their lives. This perspective is much more fulfilling than what I perceive as pleasure seeking.
