Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Why not execute by OD on one's drug of choice?

Asked by ETpro (34581points) January 18th, 2014

This past week, Ohio tried out a new cocktail for an execution by lethal injection. A gasping, snorting Dennis McGuire took 26 minutes to die after the chemicals began flowing. What states generally use are a mix of poisons with each one designed to cause one or more vital organs to shut down over a relatively brief period of time. That’s always going to be a painful, terrifying process for the victim, because our bodies are carefully crafted by evolution to detect any vital organ being compromised and to set of blaring alarm klaxons in the nervous system when such a failure begins.

The death penalty is a darling of America’s right-wing, and judging from the applause lines the far-right audiences reacted to in 2012’s Republican Presidential Debates, the more painful the death, the better they like it. So there are probably some among us who think McGuire got off way too easy, and should have died only after days of torture. Perhaps we could beat people with a cat o’ nine tails till their back is like bleeding hamburger, let the wounds crust over, then stretch their bodies slowly on a rack-and-pinion till all the scabs pop loose and they slowly bleed to death.

I think that killing; except to defend oneself or others from criminals, terrorists or an enemy nation state (war); is morally wrong. If it is wrong to kill when not being threatened with killing—and the Golden Rule would certainly make it clear that such killing is wrong—then it should be just as wrong for the state to do it as for an individual to kill. That’s my opinion.

But if we are going to execute people, I think we should do it humanely. I do not think most Americans want us to go back to the sort of torture and gore that was all the rage in the dark ages. If we’re going to execute people and want to do it humanely, why not let them choose the drug they prefer. Some might pick heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine or a speedball AKA belushi to OD on. Others would prefer the sort of anesthesia used in modern operating rooms, with just enough administered to first put them under, then the dosage increased till they are gone.

What do you think? Should we end capital punishment altogether, do it but do it as humanely as possible, or go back to drawing and quartering people and all the other hideous methods Vlad the Impaler, AKA Count Dracula, perfected?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

80 Answers

KaY_Jelly's avatar

I think we should end it all together.

We have intrinsic moral and values and at the end of the day we may want to portray that we are like the lion king but life would be extremely different for the the lions if they themselves had guilt each time they murdered their dinner.

I just wanted to give a study to partially back up my comment.

Slightly off topic, before the fall of the angels there were no meat eaters. Also animals don’t have a place in the kingdom of heaven may explain the free for all.

ibstubro's avatar

This is a topic that I’ve never completely settled in my own mind. On the one hand, killing someone is entirely too permanent (mistakes happen) and way to easy on the criminal.

On the other hand, if someone is never to be rehabilitated and will never be allowed to rejoin society, what’s the point in maintaining their lives.

We have the ability to chemically induce coma, and keep someone in that state indefinitely. Perhaps we could do that with unrepentant and non-rehabable offenders. Warehouse them with mechanical maintenance and minimal staff.

Blondesjon's avatar

Did the convict give his/her victim a choice in the way they died?

Fuck ‘em.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

How about we don’t execute AT ALL! I understand some “humans” need to be removed from society forever but the rest of us should not be barbaric in doing so.

glacial's avatar

A number of reasons, all coming back to the fact that a death sentence is meant to be a punishment. How would it look if the state imposed death by suicide, when suicide is against the law?

tom_g's avatar

This is going to be a tough one. You’re likely to find there’s little support for capital punishment overall here. And answering this question might be difficult in that context. I suppose if I were to entertain the question – even though I vehemently oppose the death penalty – I would have to say that we should not leave it up to the person who is to be executed. Rather, if we’re going to invest in the technology to kill people, we should apply everything we know about pain and medication to make sure that the process is as pain-free as possible. Why leave this up to non-scientists (the person who will be executed)?

zenvelo's avatar

One of the big problems I have with the death penalty is that it reduces all of us, as society, to the same level as the murderer. A sentiment like @Blondesjon‘s I understand, but I do not want to be on a par with the murderer. There’s a moral obligation to rise above when we can.

bolwerk's avatar

The government has no right to execute a private citizen. Execution should be limited to agents of the state: state-sanctioned police, bureaucrats, judges, and members of the military who commit grave offenses against the citizenry. How they die doesn’t matter, and can be their choice if it doesn’t involve too much public expense.

whitenoise's avatar

Another serious issue with the death penalty is that it doesn’t work as a deterrent.

Smoking comes with a death penalty. Stops very few people from smoking. If people can not even give up a cigarette under threat of a painful death, then why would they give up crime?

There are no good reasons for executing a death penalty, so how one does it is irrelevant. One shouldn’t. (Most all other civilized countries in this world don’t actively kill their people, either.)

ucme's avatar

Clint Eastwood petitioned for this method while in office, Hang Em High being the simply hilarious slogan.

janbb's avatar

I don’t beleive in the death penalty but I don’t understand why we can euthanize animals without (seeming) pain and not people. a sedative is administered first and then the drug that stops the heart.

reijinni's avatar

If we are going to execute, the thing that are needed is a metal cage and metal poles. Set up the cage, hand the prisoners metal poles, shut the door and tell them to go silly. After a while, electrify the fence and watch the hilarity.

janbb's avatar

Edit: Believe

glacial's avatar

@janbb I’ve never understood that either. Why don’t they simply administer an overdose of morphine? It’s almost as if they want the inmate to suffer.

I remember hearing a story a few years ago about the top drug used for lethal injection, and there being some controversy over the company that supplies it. Maybe this is just one more case of lobbying and political corruption trumping compassion.

BhacSsylan's avatar

So, some quick notes on the death penalty situation, death by lethal injection is usually quite like pet euthanasia. There is a set cocktail of drugs that is very similar to anesthesia, and usually involves a sedative agent, followed by a paralytic, and then followed by the actual killing agent (which could be an overdose of the sedative but is usually more potent). This is generally considered as humane as possible (politics of whether killing for this is humane at all aside) because the subject is essentially in a coma when they actually die. The issue with something like a morphine overdose (or other drugs listed above) is that most are psychoactive and the results can be be very variable (though morphine may be used as the anesthetic, though it’s probably too expensive). This is faster, cheaper, and generally considered more humane.

Now, the issue with Ohio comes in because the manufacturers of such drugs basically don’t want to be known to be supplying killers, more or less. Many are based in European countries which have banned the practice, as well. So most have pulled out of the agreements, and have threatened to stop supplying the US at all if governments keep using it, which is a major issue because many of these are used routinely in medicine. So, governments have had to try and figure out different ways of going about it since, correctly in my opinion, they’ve decided that keeping hospitals supplied is more important than maintaining their ability to kill people. Some tried to use compounding pharmacies (which essentially can make the compounds themselves) but have run into issues such as the amount needed or issues with quality control, or they’ve had to try different cocktails, with results like those in the above story. Why we don’t have our own plants I couldn’t tell you, but could range from simply not having needed to make them to our pharmaceutical companies wanting to keep in good standing with the EU and so similarly won’t provide them. Couldn’t tell you, but that’s where we stand.

Darth_Algar's avatar


That’s essentially what we do. at least in idea. The difference is that pet euthanasia is performed by a medical professional in the field who know and understand all the relevant details and variables and can ensure as smooth and painless a death as possible. Executions usually are not. Sometimes executions are preformed by medical doctors (who’s identity is typically disguised). More often than not they’re done by a prison official or at best something like a nurse who may have some training, but often woefully inadequate to the task at hand.

There’s also the fact that many companies that manufacture the drugs used are increasingly refusing to sell the drugs to DoCs in states that use the death penalty, and also require their clients to refuse (by written agreement and such) to sell these drugs to the state DoCs as well. The states then resort to trying various, often untested, cocktails. Or yeah, what the dude above me said.

DWW25921's avatar

My answer is going to be very Libertarian. Let the people in the states decide what should happen and as long as it doesn’t contradict national law, make it so. If the people wanted it this way than it should be this way. If they choose differently than so be it.

glacial's avatar

@DWW25921 In that case, why not just make it a national plebiscite?

Darth_Algar's avatar


“Very libertarian”? Most libertarians I’ve ever spoken to vehemently oppose the death penalty.

JLeslie's avatar

Whether I agree with the death penalty or not, 26 minutes to die is ridiculous. Was the guy an addict to begin with with tons of tolerance? it doesn’t make sense that it would take so long. You don’t shut down every organ, you can just give enough drugs that the person goes unconscious and then more drugs so respiration stops.

Darth_Algar's avatar

As for my personal view of the death penalty – I am absolutely opposed to it. The state should never be entrusted with such power over its citizens.

OpryLeigh's avatar

@ibstubro Why is a chemically induced coma any better than killing them? Is it because if they are later found to be innocent it can be reversed?

ibstubro's avatar

Yes, @Leannne. If they were later found innocent or a medical advance increased their chances of rehabilitation, inmates could be revived. It also presumably would give them years of quiet solitude during which the subconscious could chew on crimes they committed.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I don’t think medically-induced comas are really intended for keeping people under for prolonged periods of time. One thing, for instance, muscle atrophy can set in in a matter just a couple of weeks. Then you have toxicity from the drugs being administered to keep them in a coma. Sure that can be treated, but basically you’re looking at a lot of constant, not to mention extremely costly, medical supervision and work.

Those are just practical concerns, I have ethical concerns as well. Is it really right for the state to keep someone in a state of deathless non-life? I dunno, just something about that strikes me as extremely disturbing. Secondly every person has a right to defense (both legal and otherwise) and a right to participate in their defense. This would, by its very nature, deprive them of that right. How can a comatose person participate in their defense?

ibstubro's avatar

As an alternative to the death penalty, @Darth_Algar being in a coma would have the advantage of not being dead. Dennis McGuire’s not exactly actively participating in his own defense.

Putting death row inmates in a coma wasn’t meant to be taken literally given today’s technology. It was meant to express my frustration with the current system, and to encourage people to think outside the box. If we pursue a manned trip to Mars and beyond, suspended animation might become a reality, and we might have to address the inmate issue at some point in the future.

Say cryogenics advanced to the point that we could preserve and revive a human body economically for a 10 year period. Would it be ethical to freeze death row inmates, cocoon them, then stack them like cord wood in a bunker in Antarctica?

Paradox25's avatar

I had brought this issue up before, and I still feel that carbon monoxide is the cheapest, least messiest, surest, one of the quickest and most human ways to go. I’m still not sure if I would agree with the idea of more humane executions though since they would be used as an excuse to prolong using the death penalty, which I vividly oppose anyways.

Damn, if we’re going to these types of extremes in order to execute criminals then why stop at choice? Let’s use the Chinese death vans, and strip criminals of their organs too while we’re at it.

Darth_Algar's avatar


Sorry, when discussing relevant current issues like the death penalty I like to discuss what is, not science-fictiony speculations.

ETpro's avatar

@KaY_Jelly Thanks. I completely agree we should abolish the death penalty. We as a state should not stoop to the moral code of a murderer. We also know that when DNA testing became available, numerous people on death row were vindicated. They were about to be executed for a crime they did not commit. There are many people on death row today that will not be vindicated by DNA because no DNA evidence was found. But they were convicted by the same flawed process of eyewitness testimony and other criminals fingering them in exchange for a get-out-of-jail-free card from a prosecutor who is soon to be up for reelection. If that process misfired so often before DNA testing was available, it’s sure to misfire now where there is no DNA evidence found.

As to the the vegan appeal, there are many species on Earth that cannot survive as vegans. Lions and tigers can’t live without killing. Cats can’t either. Orcas, Most fish. Should they all just die rather than eat?

@ibstubro Life in prison without possibility of parole is actually cheaper than execution with all the appeals. And it is far cheaper than sustaining someone in a medically induced coma for years. Add to that the fact that medically induced coma isn’t sustainable over a long period of time and is greatly debilitating even over a few years. Why would we do that to a potentially innocent person when it wastes money to do it that way?

@Blondesjon So are we no better than the criminal in question? And what if we find out after the fact that the jury got it wrong, and the convict was innocent? How do you apologize to a dead man for unjustly killing him?

@ARE_you_kidding_me Agreed.

@glacial Suicide isn’t against the law, attempted suicide is. It would be pointless to outlaw suicide, since the perpetrator is dead and therefore can’t adequately mount a defense at trial.

@tom_g That resonates with me. I’m with you on every point.

@zenvelo Exactly.

@bolwerk I’m against execution no matter who the criminal might be. But I find it strange to hate government so much you’d excuse the murderous drug cartels but condemn an entire class, many of whom spend their lives trying their best to serve the public good.

@whitenoise Very true.

@ucme Ha!

@janbb Excellent point.

@reijinni Seems you don’t want to stoop to the level of the murder, you’d prefer to dive under that and look for the moral bottom.

@BhacSsylan Morphine is widely available and that alone will first put a person out of pain, and with a bit more, stop their respiration painlessly.

@Darth_Algar At least a medical panel could spell out the procedure. I’m completely against even having capital punishment, but if we insist on being one of the most barbaric countries in the developed world, we could do it painlessly.

@DWW25921 How do you determine in Libertarian terms how large a voting bloc is good, and what constitutes too many people voting. Would you like to return to tiny fiefdoms, to city states, to everybody for himself? How do you decide that question?

@JLeslie That is essentially what I meant to point out in the OD question.

@ibstubro Glad to hear is.

@Paradox25 Death by carbon monoxide. Headache, weakness, nausea, vomiting, convulsions and eventually death. That’s humane. I think Ohio’s cocktail was superior to that.

ibstubro's avatar

@Darth_Algar the epitome of “naysayer”. Little to ‘contribute’, but let’s punch holes in everybody else’s “science-fictiony speculations.” Why discuss the problems created by people driving while talking on ‘wireless walky-talky’s’ when cell phones don’t even exist. Oh wait. They DO.

@ETpro everyone is “potentially innocent”. Oh, except the dead.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@ETpro“As to the the vegan appeal, there are many species on Earth that cannot survive as vegans. Lions and tigers can’t live without killing. Cats can’t either. Orcas, Most fish. Should they all just die rather than eat?”

I actually wasn’t appealing to a vegan diet. I was giving a quirky off topic fact. I was saying that before the fall of the angels (which has already happened so animals are meat eaters now there is no changing that) but before the fall there were no human meat eaters . Imho this may be why we have that urge inside of us to seek a veggie or vegan diet.

God also recognizes you, if you recognize him, whether you eat meat or not, that is in the bible also.

As for the animals, it’s a shame, they do not have a place in heaven that is why I said imo they can kill their dinner without consequence unlike us who are born with intrinsic moral and values and do feel guilt but doesn’t mean some of us do not want vengeance.

Matthew 5:38

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

bolwerk's avatar

@ETpro: who said anything about killing them all? The state is inherently murderous. Let it take out its rage on its own.

Paradox25's avatar

@ETpro Breathing in pure carbon monoxide under pressure kills rather quickly. Condemned inmates likely feel more pain from the needles penetrating their skin vs any slight but brief discomfort felt from the former method of death.

ETpro's avatar

@ibstubro We’re exonerate people we’ve already executed when overwhelming exculpatory evidence comes to light after the fact. Not that it does them any good, being they are already dead. But it does leave their family feeling better that the truth of their loved one’s innocence is finally established.

@KaY_Jelly How do you know that?

@bolwerk I am against capital punishment no matter who to accused worked for before their arrest.

@Paradox25 Just don’t test that theory on me.

Darth_Algar's avatar

My own state, Illinois, has, since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s, executed 11 men, and voided the convictions 13 who were on death row but latter proven to be innocent of the crime they were convicted and condemned to die for*. That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence in trusting the government and the people with that kind of power.

(*This is why Illinois has abolished the death penalty in recent years.)

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@ETpro I should correct myself.

I actually do not know that animals do not get to go to heaven because:
—with God all things are 
Matthew 19:26

You asked:
How do you know that?

It’s the bible. My question to you is how do you not know this.

ibstubro's avatar


Could not say it better:
“My own state, Illinois, has, since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s, executed 11 men, and voided the convictions of 13.”

The statistics don’t favor life?

ETpro's avatar

@KaY_Jelly It is incumbent on people making extraordinary claims to prove them. You should know it is not possible to prove a negative. So the person asking, “How do you know that.” is not compelled to prove you do not—and it is impossible to provide such a proof.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@ETpro OK.

Under that premise:

Here’s a quote:

“Our concern here is simply to show that the Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes. It may very effectively serve as a “textbook” of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. Whether or not we choose to accept this framework is basically determined by whether or not we want to do so. Those who elect the evolutionary framework do so not because the facts of science require this, but because this is the philosophic thought-structure they desire.” ~Institute for Creation Research
“They did not like to retain God in their knowledge”
(Romans 1:28).

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

2 Peter 3:4

Darth_Algar's avatar

@ibstubro “The statistics don’t favor life?”

I do not understand what you mean by the question. Please clarify.

ibstubro's avatar

I was agreeing with you, @Darth_Algar. I’m in Illinois, too, and 11/13 hardly favors innocent life.

In my opinion, 99 guilty and 1 innocent dead negates the death sentence. Unless we have the ability to revive the innocent, then we should probably refrain from killing. Don’t rob people of things if you cannot make restitution?

Darth_Algar's avatar

I see. The question mark confused me a bit.

ibstubro's avatar

I don’t believe I am your alter ego @ Darth_Algar. Nor do I want to be. I just wish you would be more “anti-them” and more “pro-me”.

You have some great ideas and thoughts. They can be lost in the competitive bullshit.

ETpro's avatar

@KaY_Jelly We are indeed off topic, but hey, it’s my thread and it’s social, so what’s not to love about an interesting digression?

Thanks for the reply, and my apologies for not addressing the part of your earlier response where you referred to For the record, I strongly support nonviolence except in limited instances like Adolph Hitler’s desire to conquer the world and exterminate all of humanity that he deemed racially impure, meaning not blue-eyed blond Aryans.

There is so much wrong with that statement of belief from the Institute for Creation Research that I could write pages. The waters of the deep were not the first thing created. There was light hundreds of millions of years before there was any water. The Earth wasn’t here till at least 9 billion years after creation. Genesis 1:25–27 says Adam and Eve were created after the animals (which is correct). In Genesis 2:18–19, it’s the other way around. Man came first, then God made animals to keep him company, and finally got around to making Eve out of part of Adam. In Genesis 1:27 Man and woman were created simultaneously. In Genesis 2:18–22 Adam was created first, then the animals, then Eve was made out of Adam’s rib instead of the dust she was made from in Genesis 1.

The Earth is not the center of the solar system as the Bible says it is. There are no firmaments circling the Earth, one with the moon mounted in it, one with the Sun, one with the planets, and one with all the stars. You’d think the creator of the Universe might actually get at least some of this right. But it is fun to watch Christian apologists who make a living off selling these ancient myths tie themselves in Gordian knots hand-waving away the morass of direct contradictions in the Bible. There is always the reliable old fallback of “God works in mysterious ways.”

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@ETpro I just wanted to post the first article because it gives some great views on a non violent God. Surprisingly I don’t
agree with all of the interpretations of the scriptures on Jesusveg. That is their POV.

My point being that Jesus is the prince of peace. If it is correct then He is the reason that we have intrinsic morals and values at all and it shows me that we are of God. You said it yourself that you prefer peace. Gods ultimate goal is for us to reign in a peaceful heaven with him unlike Lucifer’s selfish and evil ideas which seem to be more prevailant now.

“You’d think the creator of the Universe might actually get at least some of this right.”

Suppose this was to your would that make a difference on the choice you choose??

I’m beginning to see the perfection.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KaY_Jelly “The fact that you have intrinsic morals and values at all shows me that we are of God.”

And why do you assume that morality has to come from a god, specifically your god?

KaY_Jelly's avatar


Under the premise of the logical argument which goes like this:

1:If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

janbb's avatar

@KaY_Jelly I think there is a problem with the first premise. One could just as easily posit: “If human nature did not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.”

El_Cadejo's avatar

And we can also bring in the argument of whether or not objective moral values actually exist.

BhacSsylan's avatar

There’s a great many problems with that ‘logical argument’. Mainly, nothing is proven, and so it is not a valid proof.

1 is not proven, since you have given no proof that objective values require a god, and
2 is not proven, since linking to an article on objectivism (a philosophy which, by the way, rejects the existence of any god and sees the idea of ‘faith’ as anathema), is not a proof. Show some reason to believe of any of your premises and we can talk.

BhacSsylan's avatar

Apologies, technically it is ‘valid’ in that the conclusion can be reached from the premises. However, it is not sound (arguably the important part, as you can ‘validly’ prove literally anything), as the premises are unproven.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KaY_Jelly “Under the premise of the logical argument which goes like this:
1:If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.”

That is a terrible argument.

ibstubro's avatar

Now, why is it that @KaY_Jelly cannot make the statement, ” “The fact that you have intrinsic morals and values at all shows me that we are of God.”

Making the statement, ” “The fact that you have intrinsic morals and values at all shows US that we are of God.” could be objectionable.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

Ty @ibstubro! I try to cover all the bases. I am so happy that you saw that. :)

@Darth_Algar The argument is not terrible. It is an argument used in debates between Christian apologists and well known atheists.

Also, I’ve already given the scientific evidence that we have moral values – @uberbatman, so to deny them would be denying science and science is proof, you could rightfully argue it, but I personally do not think it would stand against all of the evidence science has for it.

@janbb Sure you could make that argument but it makes no sense. Think about it…“If human nature did not exist..what kind of world would we live in then??

Darth_Algar's avatar


It’s a bad argument because it rests on a false premise (as do most arguments used by Christian apologetics).

Blondesjon's avatar

omg! @KaY_Jelly is @ETpro‘s alternate fluther account!

i’m surprised you all didn’t just hear the ‘click’ as the pieces fell in to place in my head.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@Blondesjon oh boy. Is that what I am portraying? Ok. Bye now. No disrespect, I just prefer to be myself. =-O

ibstubro's avatar

Dispute, ”...shows me…”. Please.

ETpro's avatar

@KaY_Jelly The argument is terrible because it is based on premises you have not proven. Logically, the argument below is every bit as valid, but every bit as unproven (and just in case anyone want’s to play Devil’s advocate, I do not accept this counter argument any more than I accept KaY_Jelly’s original argument on morals being tied to God.

1:If Satan does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, Satan exists.

It works equally well to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or invisible pink unicorns exist. I presume you do not believe that objective moral values actually come from Satan, the Great FSM or pink unicorns.

janbb's avatar

@ETpro Agree. That was the point I was making above.

El_Cadejo's avatar

@KaY_Jelly is that link on objectivism your scientific proof? It’s more of a philosophy IMO.

—Maybe read this link as well.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

If you guys want to refute science that is fine.

I am using a logically sound argument but it is not to prove that God exists, hear me out.

My argument shouldn’t just be attacked just because of distaste to my opinion!

Since I can not or was not even proving that God exists then technically if you want that argument from me one of you can go first, so therefore the burden lies on you as the atheist to prove that the entity(s) or deity(s) do not exist.

Otherwise where is you’re substantial scientific proof of non-existence so that we can all stop asking questions!

I think you if look back to my comments (before the one to @Darth_Algar) you know I was not trying to prove that God exists.

I gave my scientific evidence at the top of comment section!

That in retrospect was what I was arguing in the beginning not the existence of a deity, but because @Darth_Algar had to question my opinion IE:“why do you assume that morality has to come from a god, specifically your god?” So I gave an answer, which I should of sustained from because I knew it would be attacked.

So if anyone wants to accuse me of something then as you were look at my comment to @Darth_Algar, but I felt my opinion was being attacked and in return maybe I should of been more honest, hence accuse me of dishonest answer, but not of the argument and not my opinion. Also I can’t give @Darth_Algar or anyone a satisfying answer that wouldn’t be trolled or baited either way, unless I say I do not believe in fairy tales.

It is becoming apparent when Christians are out here their ‘opinions’ are supposed to be ‘logically’ sound and solid.

I will stand behind the moral argument, because in this case I would not use the argument to prove that God actually exists but it is an argument for God and not like @ETpro‘s argument for Satan which is an argument against God, but neither argument prove the existence, just like atheism does not prove the non existence even though pretending He doesn’t exist is close enough for most atheists as a good argument.

If we knew the answers we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Again, do not put words in my mouth, I do not actually look at the argument as proof of my God’s existence, I threw it out there for reaction, none of us can prove my opinion and anyone (@ibstubro pointed out!) should of seen that, (@ibstubro did!) so I’m even wondering why anyone picked out the ‘false premise’ and went on to dispute my personal (false premise) opinion.

The argument is valid.

People on Fluther seem to beg the question to me whenever I answer something that has to do with Christian anything, opinion or not.

And by all rights the bible is a historical book but the events that took place are up as a matter of opinion so I am within my rights as is anyone who chooses to be an atheist.

@uberbatman No. That link was not my scientific proof. My first comment on the top of the page gives some proof on morals here is more.

ibstubro's avatar

This is what kills me, @KaY_Jelly.

We Jellies can be respectful about little green men, but not a personal belief that brings another member comfort and peace of mind: i.e. God.

I don’t understand why giving up God makes people so vehemently so “anti-God”.
But, then again, I’m the exception to the rule: I’m an ex smoker and vegetarian with a smoker S/O that I regularly cook meat for. To bring us full circle, MY choices are personal.

Live and let live: either garner support to pass a law against it, or shut your pucker up.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@ibstubro jeeze that sounds just like me. I’m vegan-ish but still make bbq for parties, friends and relatives. I also used to smoke like a chimney but I gave that up ~a decade ago. If only smoked pork could be part of a proper vegan diet. ( I still sneak a little every now and then)

ibstubro's avatar

Quit sucking up, @ARE_you_kidding_me. I already friended you!

Just Kidding!

“An open mind is a terrible thing to fill.”
Think about that.

ETpro's avatar

@KaY_Jelly Wow! The Bible says Satan exists and that God created him. I stuck Satan into your logical construct because it appeared to be an argument for God being the author of objective morals. But as noted afterwards, the argument is logically sound no mater what you put into it as the this you want to conclude the existence of. Dragons, unicorns, faeries, shape-shifting lizard people who have replaced all of Earth’s top leaders. You name it, that argument is logically sound. But it is utterly false unless the first premise is supported by proof.

@ibstubro Here we go again with the claim that saying an argument for an idea is terrible is the same as saying the person holding the idea is terrible. That is simply not true. I don’t see anyone here being vehemently so “anti-God”. I concern myself with unfounded beliefs (faith) because pretending to know what you don’t know leads to faulty reasoning, and because faith often leads people to be vehemently anti-atheist, anti-agnostic and even anti-theist toward any doctrine outside their own.

They are teaching young earth creationism in Texas public schools and calling it science. They blow up women’s health care centers and murder doctors. They are trying to redefine rape, to limit access to contraception, and to put their declarations of faith on every public structure, our money, the pledge…

Look at the countries where the highest percentage of the population are deeply committed to their faith. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan. I’d be fine with believers if so many of them did not want to grab the reigns of power and use government to force everyone else to follow their belief system.

El_Cadejo's avatar

@KaY_Jelly Please provide me with a real source. Not an abstract or an interview.

Even if your first cited source was an experiment done in a proper way(having a large enough sample size, randomized, small error margin etc all of which I can’t see from your link) it would still only show babies see helping=good, hindering=bad. It’s a large leap from there to imply we have objective moral values and that we are not completely changed by the environment in which we grow up in.

BhacSsylan's avatar

Please see my addendum, if you’re going to be arguing logical constructs with the terminology please use it correctly. The argument is not sound, it is valid. Sound requires all premises to be proven. Valid simply means it is internally consistent. You can make a valid argument for unicorns, but not a sound one.

ETpro's avatar

@uberbatman I am going to side with @KaY_Jelly in saying that the science is increasingly showing that we do have objective morals. The basic rules that derive from the law of reciprocity are found in even the most primitive human cultures, as well as in advanced ones of wildly divergent religions. There is no scientific evidence, however, that this requires a supernatural author of morality. Animal studies have shown that social animals all tend to have moral codes that make group cooperation work more smoothly. Since this obviously confers a survival benefit over members of the species that choose to go it alone, we have every reason to believe that moral rules evolved by natural selection. For a good review of what is known on this read Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. I suspect you will enjoy the book.

Paradox25's avatar

@ETpro The law of reciprocity has been demonstrated to a very high degree with bonobos, our closest relative along with the chimpanzee. I had posted links about bonobo behavior in other threads on here though I don’t have them anymore.

Both types of primates appeared to had evolved differently simply because this group of animals are not good swimmers, and the bonobos and chimpanzee’s ancestors were confined to each side of a river with different enviroments.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@ibstubro “We Jellies can be respectful about little green men, but not a personal belief that brings another member comfort and peace of mind: i.e. God.
I don’t understand why giving up God makes people so vehemently so “anti-God”.”

Who here is “anti-God”?

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@ibstubro I completely agree.

JLeslie's avatar

@ibstubro To jump in, your choices are personal, but many Christians don’t see it that way. They think spreading the word of Jesus is an obligation and they don’t behave in a way that conveys they want to keep their believes personal, they want it all to be very public. That is the biggest conflict in the US regarding religion I think. If Christians just kept their religion to their churches and their families and were not putting up billboards, sky writing, and trying to change laws, they wouldn’t get so much push back. As far as debate about whether God exists, that’s just a debate. People should be respectful in the debate, and sometimes they aren’t. Many Christians/believers don’t really understand how they sound to an atheist or someone who is not Christian. How offensive and disrespectful what they say can sound. The reverse is true also. Even if all the parties don’t have the intent to be disrespectful.

ibstubro's avatar

Yes, @JLeslie, I’m going to have to agree with you, too.

I was thinking in the shower this morning that if your God tells you to behave contrary to the laws of the land, then that is a show stopper as well. If you want to fly planes into buildings, do it in your own land, and let your legal system deal with it.

I have little truck with proselytization, violent or otherwise.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@ETpro Ideology of any kind leads to false reasoning not just faith. It seems like intelligence mixed with ideology amplify this greatly.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

I personally wouldn’t say that it is ‘many’ Christian’s who don’t see that you have a personal choice.

There are those Christian extremists who will fly a plane into a building, but that, to me, does not speak of the “Prince of Peace” that I learn about in the bible.

Imo, again I have no proof for this, this is just my opinion going by Luciferian docterine and Christian scriptures, right now is a war between evil and good.

Also, I do not live in the US I am in Ontario and we do keep our religion to just churches and families mostly from what I have seen anyway, it hasn’t always been like this though, faith has died in the last 10 years, back then you’d get the door to doors, now I havent seen or heard from one in years.
I don’t remember when they stopped saying the Lord’s prayer in school, but they said it
when I was a child.

I also do not like proselytizing or violence.

Some videos I’d like to use explain things really well and then at the end the whole “come to God now…” I don’t like that part I wasn’t looking for that in part of the information. But it almost seems that no matter what Christian information I reference, many of them do that, especially the videos. :/

I personally am not out here to proselytize. I am however just highly opinionated because I feel like my choice for me at this point in my life makes perfect sense. It isn’t that way for everyone.

Before I made this choice I once was an atheist also so that imo is an advantage because I know how I would not and sometimes did not like or want to be treated then so I follow that now.

My opinions may come off as proselytizing because my life is moved by God. So many answers I give out here I reference to Him.

So let me be selfish for a minute and very un-Christian like, because I’m not trying to change you’re mind as much as I am solidifying my own feelings and gaining knowledge at the same time. You see each time I do this many of you are actually helping me understand my own choice.:) ty. ♡

JLeslie's avatar

@KaY_Jelly When I say many I don’t mean most, but I could have worded it better.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@JLeslie I understood. I just wanted to make that clear for others who possibly do not understand. It was not really a criticism towards you, there are those that may possibly believe that.

ETpro's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me I should have added that to my list. Any “my way or the highway” thinking leads to false reasoning.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther