CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Suicide should be easy and simple.
Yes- Everyone should have the right to end their life. Nobody should be forced to live. What about their pain? Does anyone care that life is trying to kill them?
No - If suicide is easy and simple, thousands will be gone and what will be left are mourning family members and friends. What about their pain?
It's THEIR life. Not anyone doses. What the fuck gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my life? (I'm not suicidal I'm just speaking metaphorically). It's the same argument as abortion. But when it comes down to it, it's their baby and their life THEY decide what THEY want. And their mourning families will cross their mind before they do anything, and if it doesn't sway them to not do it, too fucking bad for the mourners. Clearly the person is no benefit to society if they're suicidal. And if they're in immense pain, they should get to end it. It's more cruel not to! No Christian bitch is gonna tell me what I can and can't do with my life. "w-what do you mean I can't end it?" "because god doesn't want you to silly" "p-please, I'm in horrible pain, I'm depressed, I can't go on anymore. Please let me die in dignity." "Noooo sorry the bible says no" "I dont believe In the bible or god!" "well I do silly bye bye!" how retarded is that? Their life, their call. Period. End of discussion. And the only people who have any right to try to persuade that person otherwise is their family and friends for obvious reasons but even THEN they can't tell that person they cannot end their own life. And certainly no random stranger can tell them what to do. And to people who say otherwise, how does some random other person killing themselves affect you directly or in any way at all? Stop being pussies.
Beautifully argued... and in all seriousness, a point well made. It seems that institutions of all kinds (not just religious) have an insatiable desire to control other people's lives. If people start ending their lives that somewhat loosens these institutions' control... In the case of the Christian and Catholic Church, a fear of death is paramount to their influence; a society which condones suicide clearly does not fear death to a great extent and as such the Church's influence is restricted.
If someone is so depressed they want to kill themselves, surely that shows a breakdown in society and a social body such as the church should be allowed to prevent such things.
the church should be allowed to prevent such things
I am all in favour of the Church aiming to reduce the suicide rate by offering to help the depressed. However I am not in favour of the Church denouncing those who kill themselves as "sinners" and condemning them to an eternity in Hell, which is unfortunately the Bible's means of propogating a fear of death to secure followers. I should make it clear that I do not believe high suicide rights are an indicator of a healthy liberal society (no sane person would) and so measures such as counselling to alleviate depression, financial support to alleviate poverty and other reformative schemes all recieve my full support - outright prevention or cruel means of deterrence do not.
Man, why does everyone have such a horribly wrong perception of Christianity?
However I am not in favour of the Church denouncing those who kill themselves as "sinners" and condemning them to an eternity in Hell,
The Church is not responsible for said judgement. You are either ignorant or had a bad experience with a certain church. Because this is simply not true.
which is unfortunately the Bible's means of propogating a fear of death to secure followers
Such a small percent of believers are afraid of death. Most want a personal relationship with God. Its following out of love and appreciation, not fear. Maybe some follow out of fear, but this is less sincere and a smaller portion.
I should make it clear that I do not believe high suicide rights are an indicator of a healthy liberal society (no sane person would) and so measures such as counselling to alleviate depression, financial support to alleviate poverty and other reformative schemes all recieve my full support
And I don't think most church bodies would go any further than this. Again, you have an unfortunate perception.
outright prevention or cruel means of deterrence do not.
The Church proclaims the Bible to be the word of God and therefore that it's teachings be adhered to. The Bible condemns those who commit suicide to Hell. The Church, so long as it preaches the Bible as the word of a God to be worshiped, endorses this position on suicide. Of course there are many people (probably the majority) who would describe themselves as Christians who would not agree with this view. This is why I am attacking the Church as an institution rather than individuals with a personal relationship with their God.
Most follow out of love
Love of what exactly? Other than what people have read about God what reason do they have to love him? A child dies every 17 seconds from a lack of clean water - the world is a cruel and unjust place. While I'm sure some people do follow out of blind love, I'm afraid fear is often a major driving factor.
And I don't think most church bodies would go any further than this
I wish this was the case. In high profile euthanasia cases such as Rosemary Gilhooley and Reginald Crew the Church voiced it's opposition to allowing people the right to choose to die. Such opposition has political ramifications, as Governments often consider the Church's word as representative of it's followers who make up a large proportion of the country. The Church here have used its influence to condemn suffering people to life.
Just to clarify, I am not Catholic and I do not support the Catholic Church. I actually know very little about what they stand for, so I can only speak for Protestants. But this is another issue entirely.
The Church proclaims the Bible to be the word of God and therefore that it's teachings be adhered to. The Bible condemns those who commit suicide to Hell. The Church, so long as it preaches the Bible as the word of a God to be worshiped, endorses this position on suicide.
I don't know what you mean by 'endorse'. They believe it is true, but they are not the ones who make this final judgement, God does. So you are very wrong in saying the Church sentences these people to Hell.
Love of what exactly?
God.
Other than what people have read about God what reason do they have to love him?
What other reason does there need to be? Let's not get sidetracked though, I've had this discussion way too many times.
While I'm sure some people do follow out of blind love, I'm afraid fear is often a major driving factor.
I don't think so. Maybe in your circle of acquaintances.
In high profile euthanasia cases such as Rosemary Gilhooley and Reginald Crew the Church voiced it's opposition to allowing people the right to choose to die. Such opposition has political ramifications, as Governments often consider the Church's word as representative of it's followers who make up a large proportion of the country. The Church here have used its influence to condemn suffering people to life.
No it is the government that makes this decision. The Church is simply voicing its opinion, its not condemning anyone to life.
you are very wrong in saying the Church sentences these people to Hell.
I don't mean to claim that the Church does the sentencing, just that they support the sentence. By "endorse" I mean support. If the Church does not endorse this sentence, then they cannot believe God is just (they believe he is too harsh, etc...). Since the Church continuously proclaims God to be just, I have assumed they support his punishment for suicide. I hope I have made myself clear.
What other reason does there need to be?
Soviet children educated in the 1950s read books about how wonderful Stalin was. Not that I'm comparing God to Stalin - Stalin actively murdered thousands while I would only accuse God of negligence. My point is that you cannot base love on what is read, but on what you actually experience, and the reality is famine and disease for over half the population. I shall argue no more on this particular matter seeing as you do not wish to be sidetracked.
Maybe in your circle of acquaintances
Blaise Pascal was an eminent 17th Century philosopher famous for what has become known as "Pascal's wager". His argument concludes that it is better to believe than not to believe in God because in believing you secure yourself from potential divine punishment. Pascal is not a member of my circle of acquaintances, funnily enough. I use this one historical example to demonstrate that fear of God and death has for centuries been a factor in encouraging followers. Jesus claims many times in the Bible that "none shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven but by me" - effectively threatening those who refuse to follow him with divine rejection.
The Church is simply voicing its opinion.
The Church needs to realise its opinion carries political weight. The Government may make the final decision, but this decision is influenced by the Church (and various other pressure groups). The Church is partially responsible if the Government acts in according to how they have argued.
I don't mean to claim that the Church does the sentencing
"However I am not in favour of the Church denouncing those who kill themselves as "sinners" and condemning them to an eternity in Hell" -You
Soviet children educated in the 1950s read books about how wonderful Stalin was. Not that I'm comparing God to Stalin - Stalin actively murdered thousands while I would only accuse God of negligence. My point is that you cannot base love on what is read, but on what you actually experience, and the reality is famine and disease for over half the population.
Wow. Is that really what Christianity looks like to you? You actually might be right, some people do blindly follow God based on what is written. But on the other hand, there are those that live for God because of their experiences. By this I mean a personal relationship with God, which is as real as it gets. Sure, you can argue that this is only feeling, and feelings have often led honest people astray. Although I would argue it is much more sophisticated than a 'feeling'.
I shall argue no more on this particular matter seeing as you do not wish to be sidetracked.
Thank you, I just didn't want you to get the last word. ;)
Blaise Pascal was an eminent 17th Century philosopher famous for what has become known as "Pascal's wager".
Ah, but even I as a fellow believer know that his wager has many problems.
His argument concludes that it is better to believe than not to believe in God because in believing you secure yourself from potential divine punishment.
I am aware of this.
Pascal is not a member of my circle of acquaintances, funnily enough.
Darn, he's probably laughing it up in heaven right now.
I use this one historical example to demonstrate that fear of God and death has for centuries been a factor in encouraging followers.
Nah, this example doesn't mean that. Its more about the chance for infinite happiness. But having said that, I honestly don't see this at all. I go to a church of 50,000+ and I know a great number of these members. I don't think any believe in God because they are afraid of death.
Jesus claims many times in the Bible that "none shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven but by me" - effectively threatening those who refuse to follow him with divine rejection.
Why do you view this as a threat? Jesus allows anyone to enter the kingdom of heaven through him. It's a promise.
The Church needs to realise its opinion carries political weight. The Government may make the final decision, but this decision is influenced by the Church (and various other pressure groups). The Church is partially responsible if the Government acts in according to how they have argued.
There is a separation between church and state. The opinion of the church should not directly affect the decisions of Congress. And if it does, you can't blame the church for it, its the government that's going against it's very own policy of separation. Your point is moot.
"However I am not in favour of the Church denouncing those who kill themselves as "sinners" and condemning them to an eternity in Hell" -You
I have already clarified my point - perhaps I shouldn't have used the verb "condemn" here. I should have said "supporting a condemnation to an eternity in Hell". A Church which supports a punishment of this kind for suicide is not a Church which can claim to be loving of everybody.
Wow. Is that really what Christianity looks like to you?
This is exactly what organised religion looks to me. I don't have as much a problem with individuals with a personal relationship to a God they believe in. I am not intolerant of religious individuals, but I do have a problem with the Church as an institution.
Although I would argue it is much more sophisticated than a 'feeling'.
I would be very interested to hear your argument.
Its more about the chance for infinite happiness.
Pascal argues that choosing not to believe in God puts you at the risk of eternal damnation. People should believe in God because they don't want to take the risk as they are afraid of eternal damnation. Infinite happiness plays a part, but so too does fear of what lies after death.
I don't think any believe in God because they are afraid of death
When you're talking about 50,000 people this isn't a claim I'm going to take seriously. Love certainly plays its part in belief, but so does fear - and in many cases the Church capitalises on this fear to secure followers.
Why do you view this as a threat?
Jesus: "Follow me or go to hell"
I know it's crude, but it seems to me the essence of "no man shall enter the kingdom of heaven but by me".
There is a separation between church and state
Only in as much as the Government is not made up of the clergy and not obliged to follow the laws as laid down in the Bible. Governments are interested in staying in office. A large proportion of the electorate are Christians. The Christian Church claims to represent these Christians. The Government will therefore listen to the Church as it hopes to secure the votes of the Christians it represents. The Church must understand that it therefore has influence, and therefore power. Power which comes with responsibility.
Again you have missed my point; whether the teachings of Christianity are moral is not the argument I am making. I am simply suggesting that a fear of God or a fear of death has been used by the Church to coerce theists into the Christian faith, and that Jesus was no different, indeed he sets the trend (at least the Jesus as portrayed in the Bible).
I have already clarified my point - perhaps I shouldn't have used the verb "condemn" here. I should have said "supporting a condemnation to an eternity in Hell".
Hmm...I think you're off the beat again here. People in the church don't want people to go to hell. They earnestly want non-believers to be saved. This is not to say that they do not agree with God's judgement.
A Church which supports a punishment of this kind for suicide is not a Church which can claim to be loving of everybody.
Sure it can. Again, people do not want people to go to Hell, under any circumstance. At least, loving people don't.
This is exactly what organised religion looks to me. I don't have as much a problem with individuals with a personal relationship to a God they believe in. I am not intolerant of religious individuals, but I do have a problem with the Church as an institution.
I actually do too. I don't agree with the Catholic church on many things.
I would be very interested to hear your argument.
That is my argument...
Pascal argues that choosing not to believe in God puts you at the risk of eternal damnation. People should believe in God because they don't want to take the risk as they are afraid of eternal damnation. Infinite happiness plays a part, but so too does fear of what lies after death.
Alright true, it does play a role. But when believing, you either gain infinite happiness or lose nothing. You seem to think that believing in God is only about the fear of death. Even according to Pascal's wager this is simply not the case.
When you're talking about 50,000 people this isn't a claim I'm going to take seriously.
Think what you want. I will stand by my claim.
Love certainly plays its part in belief, but so does fear - and in many cases the Church capitalises on this fear to secure followers.
Sure, I've heard of that. But a much vaster portion of churches do not. This topic has to be covered at some point, but that does not mean a church operates by it.
Jesus: "Follow me or go to hell"
Not really, its "Follow me and enter the kingdom of heaven"
I know it's crude, but it seems to me the essence of "no man shall enter the kingdom of heaven but by me".
No its not. You completely changed the pretense.
Only in as much as the Government is not made up of the clergy and not obliged to follow the laws as laid down in the Bible. Governments are interested in staying in office. A large proportion of the electorate are Christians. The Christian Church claims to represent these Christians. The Government will therefore listen to the Church as it hopes to secure the votes of the Christians it represents. The Church must understand that it therefore has influence, and therefore power. Power which comes with responsibility.
This is a weak point. The government listens to every institution. Its not limited to the Church. The government is who makes decisions, every institution is permitted to voice an opinion. You cannot blame a government decision on an independent institution, this is silly. Yes, the church does not condone assisted suicide. That does not mean it directly prevents it as a body.
They earnestly want non-believers to be saved. This is not to say that they do not agree with God's judgment.
I cannot be a pacifist and support the death penalty - to do so would be hypocritical. I cannot simply claim "I don't want anyone to commit a crime, but if they do they should die" and retain my pacifism. Similarly, a Christian who wants everybody to go to heaven cannot claim "I don't want anyone to be sinful, but if they are they should go to Hell" and still practice universal unconditional love (which is what Jesus preaches). I use "should" here because although they have no power themselves, they do (as you stated) agree with God's judgment.
people do not want people to go to Hell
Again - people who support the death penalty may not want people to die, but if you support this sentence you must accept that you do not value or "love" those who end up executed. Christians may not want people to go to Hell, but if they support this sentence then they cannot claim to love those who are sentenced.
That is my argument...
I would like to hear your argument as to why a belief in God is more sophisticated than a simple feeling.
You seem to think that believing in God is only about the fear of death
I don't mean to give this impression - I am aware in this debate I have been more critical of religion than I usually am. I only wished to assert that the Church as an institution often manipulates an individual's fear of death and the unknown to secure followers and subsequently social and ultimately political influence. To do this they reference quotes from the Bible, such as Jesus' "no man shall enter heaven but by me".
But a much vaster portion of churches do not
I'm pleased to hear this is the case. I suppose that my understanding of the Christian faith is mostly through a Catholic perspective, and Catholicism (perhaps more so than Protestantism) plays on fear and guilt. I have seen one small girl too afraid to eat a slice of cake without her parent's permission - not out of fear of her parents, but fear of Hell and God's judgment. With experiences like these it is inevitable I would be prejudiced against religious institutions which I see as encouraging these fears. I appreciate that you are not arguing from a Catholic perspective.
Not really, its "Follow me and enter the kingdom of heaven"
Two sides of the same coin if you ask me - I suppose this is purely a matter of perspective.
You completely changed the pretense.
A pretence is what it is ; )
Yes, the church does not condone assisted suicide. That does not mean it directly prevents it as a body.
Indirect prevention, through public proclamations of the sinful nature of suicide, still carries a share of responsibility. I am singling out the Church here for the purposes of this debate, but I believe all institutions are responsible for the pressure they place on Government to conform to their values and the consequences of this pressure. I am not absolving Government of responsibility either, merely asserting that all parties who voice their opinion carry responsibility - especially if their opinion is adhered to.
Similarly, a Christian who wants everybody to go to heaven cannot claim "I don't want anyone to be sinful, but if they are they should go to Hell" and still practice universal unconditional love (which is what Jesus preaches).
Sure they can. Here, let me illustrate a similar example:
Say that a loved one of yours (mother, father, sibling, what have you) commits a crime. Under law, they are sentenced to time in prison. Would you be considered unloving if you agreed to the sentence? I would assume that you wouldn't "want" that person to go to jail, but at the same time you do agree that everyone lives under the law, right? Its a bit like this, I hope this helps you understand the topic.
I would like to hear your argument as to why a belief in God is more sophisticated than a simple feeling.
Its purely relational. It would be useless to try to explain this to an atheist.
I only wished to assert that the Church as an institution often manipulates an individual's fear of death and the unknown to secure followers and subsequently social and ultimately political influence. To do this they reference quotes from the Bible, such as Jesus' "no man shall enter heaven but by me".
This is a worthy point. The Church has been known to do this, and I do not particularly agree with it either.
Two sides of the same coin if you ask me - I suppose this is purely a matter of perspective.
I suppose. There are lots of perspectives on the issue.
A pretence is what it is ; )
Whatever
Indirect prevention, through public proclamations of the sinful nature of suicide, still carries a share of responsibility. I am singling out the Church here for the purposes of this debate, but I believe all institutions are responsible for the pressure they place on Government to conform to their values and the consequences of this pressure. I am not absolving Government of responsibility either, merely asserting that all parties who voice their opinion carry responsibility - especially if their opinion is adhered to.
Alright, fair enough. I still don't think the government is swayed as drastically as you think by the Church, but its understandable I guess.
Say that a loved one of yours (mother, father, sibling, what have you) commits a crime. Under law, they are sentenced to time in prison. Would you be considered unloving if you agreed to the sentence? I would assume that you wouldn't "want" that person to go to jail, but at the same time you do agree that everyone lives under the law, right? Its a bit like this, I hope this helps you understand the topic.
Very well explained, and indeed it is much clearer to me now. I would maintain that there is a difference between Hell and prison, and while you may allow for a family member to serve a prison sentence you would be unlikely to allow eternal damnation - However I feel this is probably a moot point. I am glad that we have managed to agree in some areas as a result of this debate.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with you there, his overarching point was valid, but I also had a big problem with using abortion as a comparison - they're completely different issues. Few disagree that people should be allowed control over their own lives, but the main (if not only) argument against abortion is that it's restricting the liberty of something separate to you, and is not just the usage of personal liberty. Two very different cases.
It's the same shit. Two things that are both up to the individual and nobody else. It's not murder it's an undeveloped fetus that if born usually causes more harm than good.
Yes it is similar, but both depends on the intent of pursuing the act. If it is a rape victim who is thinking of abortion as an act to eliminate her humiliation and source of pain, then perhaps it should be allowed since the fetus causes more harm than good as you have argued. If it is euthanasia that we are discussing about, then surely suicide would be a better option for the patient to end his suffering and pain with dignity, assuming that this right is not abused.
However, what if the individual is just too rash in deciding that he wants to end his life simply because he is crashed by a problem he faces? Take for example, committing suicide because his favorite character in a video game died, such an act is simply in the heat of the moment and could be prevented if suicide is difficult. The fact is that the individual would potentially regret his action when he feels his life slipping away. If more time has been allowed for help to be extended to the poor guy, then suicide would not have been an option, even though it never should have been. In light of potential 'misuse' of suicide, I think suicide must never be easy and simple.
But it is easy. If people are serious about it then they will go through with it. And who cares what their regrets are, they're dead. If people wanna end their life for whatever reason, they should be able to. Their choice, their life, their reasons, their motives, their RIGHT.
So your saying that only the individual should have the choice whether they want to live or not. Which is a valid point.
But then you go on to say their parents also have the choice whether they should live or not.
Which brings us to the question, what kind of parents would allow their child to kill themself?
"It's more cruel not to! No Christian bitch is gonna tell me what I can and can't do with my life. "w-what do you mean I can't end it?" "because god doesn't want you to silly" "p-please, I'm in horrible pain, I'm depressed, I can't go on anymore. Please let me die in dignity." "Noooo sorry the bible says no" "I dont believe In the bible or god!" "well I do silly bye bye!" how retarded is that?"
Yes, because when a Christian tries to help a suicidal stop being depressed and start enjoying life again, that's actually them enforcing their religion onto other people and it's part of their widespread global campaign to turn the whole world stupid.
I like how you assume that all suicidals are atheists, because clearly having the joy of scientific enlightenment wasn't good enough for them.
talking on a very symbiaotic base, all the respected philosophical people who are for the motion on this cause are either super saturated with the worldly explorations or are some post-nonagenurians.
Life is very short for them who really do have some objectives for themselves as well as for others, but if one is suffering the days out and compiling things to put an end to their life should probably visit people who are crying out everywhere on this planet for the loss of their companions.
Yes i also do believe that life is short but if it is lived well, then it's enough, and if somebody have reached their ''enough'' should try and find some other alternatives for living becuase there is always one person atleast who would struggle your farewell.
Parents of their trimisters do know the importance of living, an old independent senior citizen do know the fatality of death not the mere isolated suicide commiters idiot would know.
Instead of praising and designing ways for a better and easy suicide, we all shold be watching cartoon network kind of things cause that would suit us better.
If someone wants to kill themselves because they think they are an idiot, then their friends and family can explain that there's no supporting evidence for his assessment of the situation and that he should thus reconsider.
However, if he tires to commit suicide and fails, then there's plenty of supporting evidence and he has no choice but to keep trying. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to botch a suicide ;)
according to me, this should not be there. each and every person in this world has some or other tension. if suicide will be made easy and simple, then one by one all persons will die. then, what will happen of this earth. just think about it. it is nonsense to say thaat suicide should should be made simple rather it shoul be discarded and eliminitated
do you even have an idea that you are talking of an exponentially growing planet and not about the era in which we exist.
I really dont understand that what exactly do you want, is it that you are expecting people running down the road with arms in their hands and having options to use them lavishly upon themselves for tackling their problems outa their way.
Definitely not if you consider rash people who do not consider things properly in the heat of the moment. If suicide is easy then we might have people doing it whenever they are faced with problems, especially when they think they are unable to overcome it. While it is true that everyone has the right to decide whether they want to live or die, there should have preventive measures that make suicide a more difficult choice for people.
I believe that suicide is the ultimate end to life itself, not just to pain and suffering but also to pleasure and enjoyment. People should not take suicide as a solution to problems in life. It is too irresponsible to think of death as a solution to all, when it clearly is not.
