Suicide

[Suzy]

I have excellent health and a long way to go yet before I jump of this mortal coil.
But I am going to finish my own life when or if my life is no longer enjoyable, no longer worth living and when I know it will never get better. For instance chronic pain and knowing it will get worse with no hope of relief from drugs. This can happen at any time in life so I have already thought of it. [Yes, I know Im weird]

I am an atheist so my logic tells me that death itself is O.K. [but not necessarily getting there] I was not here for millions of years before I was born and I was fine with that. It was a breeze!

A point I should mention here is the means used to end it all I will keep that to myself for obvious reasons but it will be painless and 100% successful. [Not jumping under a train because I am a coward and also someone has to clear all the mess up]

So to the point and I would like your views on it. What about our love ones. Some say its selfish to take your own life because of what you do to them. I say its selfish of them if they dont let you go if you are suffering.
Me being me I have already cleared it with my family [all atheists] so I am good to go.

[keithprosser3]

one might argue that they don't exist at all.

Do you mean that ontologically or pragmatically?

[instantc]

one might argue that they don't exist at all.

Do you mean that ontologically or pragmatically?

I would go as far as to say that they do not exist at all.

[keithprosser3]

I see!
So let me take as an example the right to vote. The fact that when election time comes round I can vote appears seems prima facie evidence the right to vote exists.

Your move!

[instantc]

I see!
So let me take as an example the right to vote. The fact that when election time comes round I can vote appears seems prima facie evidence the right to vote exists.

Your move!

The idea of human rights is that by virtue of natural law, which would transcend any written legislation, you have an intrinsic right to vote that cannot be taken away from you. I see no reason to believe that there is any truth to this statement. Your right to vote is granted to you by the legislator for the time being, and the right to amend that entitlement is reserved for the legislator. It's not a natural entitlement, it's a conscious decision of the governing entity.

[keithprosser3]

That's what I thought you meant - in fact you couldn't have meant anything else.

"The idea of human rights is that by virtue of natural law, which would transcend any written legislation, you have an intrinsic right to vote that cannot be taken away from you"

I will stick with voting as it isn't so likely to get as emotional as, say the right to life even if it might or might not be an actual 'human right'.

Now it's true that the physical universe - natural law - does not automatically provide me with the right to vote in an election. But I don't see that means that right (or human right) does not exist. Aeroplanes do not exist as a result of natural process - we have to bring them into existence by our will - yet I don't think anyone would say that aeroplanes don't exist. The same - I suggest - applies to human rights. They exist as a result of the human will that they shall exist.

It is their dependence on human will that makes them not non-existent but preciously fragile.

Consider the right not to starve. I think that is a human right. But people do starve. That is because it is like an aeroplane before the Wright brothers - it exists as a dream or an aspiration, which will - if only we have the will - become a reality.

[instantc]

That's what I thought you meant - in fact you couldn't have meant anything else.

"The idea of human rights is that by virtue of natural law, which would transcend any written legislation, you have an intrinsic right to vote that cannot be taken away from you"

I will stick with voting as it isn't so likely to get as emotional as, say the right to life even if it might or might not be an actual 'human right'.

Now it's true that the physical universe - natural law - does not automatically provide me with the right to vote in an election. But I don't see that means that right (or human right) does not exist. Aeroplanes do not exist as a result of natural process - we have to bring them into existence by our will - yet I don't think anyone would say that aeroplanes don't exist. The same - I suggest - applies to human rights. They exist as a result of the human will that they shall exist.

It is their dependence on human will that makes them not non-existent but preciously fragile.

Consider the right not to starve. I think that is a human right. But people do starve. That is because it is like an aeroplane before the Wright brothers - it exists as a dream or an aspiration, which will - if only we have the will - become a reality.

What exists is merely an opinion that some people share stating that the world would be a better place if everyone had the right to vote that cannot be taken away from them. Regardless of that vision, no such rights exist, your right to vote for example was granted to you by a majority vote and can be taken away from you tomorrow by the supreme parliament.

[keithprosser3]

Exist is slippery term, especially with abstract ideas like rights. Even if enshrined in law and customarily granted a right does not exist as solid entity. One cannot buy a kilogram of human rights, or put a human right into a box for when you might need it.

I don't think we disagree about rights but about what it means for something to exist.
On that score, I am something of a Platonist, ie

"The philosophy of Plato, especially insofar as it asserts ideal forms as an absolute and eternal reality of which the phenomena of the world are an imperfect and transitory reflection."

so I tend to view a right as something that exists even if it is abeyance. I quite understand not everyone agrees with that view-point!

[instantc]

I don't think we disagree about rights but about what it means for something to exist

...

so I tend to view a right as something that exists even if it is abeyance. I quite understand not everyone agrees with that view-point!

I also think that certain rights exist, just not universal human rights. For example, you do have a right to vote, but it is a temporary right granted to you by the supreme parliament for the time being and enforced frequently by the government.

Universal right to life doesn't exist anymore than the universal right for everyone to have a Ferrari that I just invented exists.

[Overcomer]

Suzy wrote:

But I am going to finish my own life when or if my life is no longer enjoyable, no longer worth living and when I know it will never get better. For instance chronic pain and knowing it will get worse with no hope of relief from drugs.

I was in a terrible car accident that was not my fault almost 20 years ago. I have lived with disability and severe chronic pain throughout my entire body since that time. Therefore, I find the above statement -- and this whole thread -- very interesting.

I'm a Christian so I view things in a radically different way from an atheist. Following my accident, I truly did want to die. For a year and a half, I prayed every day that God would take me home to him so that I wouldn't have to live life crippled by pain. I never considered taking my own life. For one thing, it would have devastated my family. For another, it's God's choice whether I live or die. For a third, I wouldn't give the devil the satisfaction of my taking my own life. He would have loved that!

Now, all these years later, I still live with the same pain and the same disability, but I am glad I am alive. I would have missed out on so much -- time spent with my family, meeting new people and forming new friendships, and, most importantly, forging a deep and loving relationship with the Lord. God created us to be in a relationship with him and with each other. Therefore, it is not surprising that I found the value of being alive in relationships.

The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, noted that he did not know whether he would live or die (he was in prison and it was possible that he would be given the death sentence). He noted that to die was gain, meaning that he would go to be with the Lord, and that would be wonderful. But he also noted that to live was gain, that is, he would serve and honour the Lord more on earth by being a blessing to others.

In other words, he realized that his life was not his own, that God had given it to him, and that it was up to God to determine how long he would remain on earth. I realized the same thing.

If we live only for ourselves, for our own pleasure and enjoyment, then we have missed the point. We are here for others as much as for ourselves. My life has value because God has given it to me and he asks me to live it out in relationships and in service to him and to others. There is meaning in pain and suffering. Therefore, to say that one should end one's life because of it is to say there is no meaning in it. And maybe there isn't for the atheist. But there is for the Christian.

God never promised that we would not know pain and suffering in this world. In fact, he stated clearly that these things would be realities in a fallen world. What he did promise is this -- that he would see us through all our trials successfully. After living with pain and disability for almost two decades, I can honestly say that he has kept that promise to me. As Paul wrote in Phil. 4:13, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me -- not just some things and not just the easy things, but ALL things.

I often wonder why some people refuse to acknowledge God and accept his strength and comfort and peace and joy (yes, you can have those last two things in the midst of pain and suffering). Instead, they shun him because he hasn't made their lives perfect and given them everything they want. Many are angry at him for the tragedies and difficulties and grief in their lives. I understand that. I was, too -- at first -- but then I realized that his gift doesn't lie in taking trouble away, but in being with us IN the trouble.

C. S. Lewis said that pain is the megaphone God uses to get our attention. People can react to it in one of two ways -- they can run from God or they can run TO God. I chose the latter and can honestly say that I would not give up the relationship I have with the Lord in exchange for a pain-free life separated from him. There is so much to learn in trials that is impossible to learn when life is trouble-free. And I am promised that, in the next life, there will be no pain at all (Rev. 21:4). I'm looking forward to that, but, like Paul, I will stay here as long as the Lord wants.

And who knows? Perhaps the Lord will heal me in this life. He has given me two other healings in my life. Maybe he has a third one in store for me while I still walk this earth. But if he doesn't, I will still remain faithful to him. After all, he has remained faithful to me.

[Suzy]

[Replying to post 39 by Overcomer]

I was very moved by your post Overcomer.
You put your argument very well. Of coarse I can understand you point of view on this subject. But if you dont believe in God, or to put it another way, you know God does not exist then should the time come when there is no hope of a cure and you are suffering then an atheist like myself has an advantage over a believer. An atheist can escape the suffering.