Atheist expects death to be oblivion.

In fairness to Jeeves, quote should read
W4U said (not Jeeves said),
Yes, but not if such self-sacrificial heroism is used for wanton killing of innocents in the name of some obscure cause. I think that is the definition of martyrdom, no?

Google John R. Fox. When he and his soldiers were surrounded by the Germans in WWII, he called in artillery fire on his own position, thus killing himself, his troops and a bunch of Germans.

We gave him a medal - for killing himself and his troops. Because we thought that sacrifice was noble.

We also gave Paul Tibbets a medal. He killed upwards of 200,000 innocent people for his cause. If he had sacrificed himself in the process (which was a very real possibility) he would have been an even bigger hero.
Yes, it is a completely subjective form of heroism.
A terrorist in one country is a resistance fighter in another.

But my point is not to condone dying in the act of killing for any reason, but to revere dying in the act of saving lives for all good reasons.
 
Nobody referred to is doing that.
And if everything is God nothing is.
If believers have an expectation of supernatural action that isn’t attributed to a specific deity, what is the source? In the world of make believe if you proclaim everything to be God, then everything is God.
Are you beating your wife still? ... etc etc
I’m not aware of ever stating an intention to beat my wife, or there being any evidence that I have done so. If you can employ your special epistemological skills to prove otherwise, then please do.

Jesus on the other hand did state to his followers that he was intentionally on a path to his own execution, and did not resist the action to carry it out. Sounds like suicide to me.
 
Sounds like suicide to me.
I think he did expect a last minute intervention by his Father. Why else the accusation;
Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" ... It is the only saying that appears in more than one Gospel, and is a quote from Psalms 22:1.
This saying is taken by some as an abandonment of the Son by the Father.
 
I think he did expect a last minute intervention by his Father. Why else the accusation;
It seems obvious that he he was aware of the script for his demise.

Matthew 20:17-19 King James Version (KJV)

17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,

18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,

19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20:17-19&version=KJV


Maybe he expected the guy upstairs to make the experience less excruciating.
 
Precisely.
Thats what makes a loaded q loaded.
The amount of "unawareness" you require to designate jesus aa suicidal might make for a good onion article, but that's about it.
In the case of Jesus it’s not a loaded question because the narrative presents it as fact. Jesus walked into a situation that he knew would result in his death. How is that not an example of suicide?
 
We gave him a medal - for killing himself and his troops. Because we thought that sacrifice was noble.
I'm pretty sure the "we" who gave him a medal was comprised of military. War - which is usually not started or managed by the 'heroes' who do the actual killing and dying, and who also get a lot a fewer medals than the generals who mostly don't do the killing and dying - presents situation where nobody wins. The people who were not conscripted and thrown into those situations celebrate the decisions that turned out in their favour and condemn decisions that turned out unfortunately.... I often suspect what they really giving medals for is "better you than me, brother!"

We also gave Paul Tibbets a medal.
I didn't.
 
Yes, it is a completely subjective form of heroism.
A terrorist in one country is a resistance fighter in another.

But my point is not to condone dying in the act of killing for any reason, but to revere dying in the act of saving lives for all good reasons.
I bolded the important part. It is the motive that is important to everyone, religious and atheist alike. Kill yourself, even kill innocent bystanders or compatriots? Endure extreme suffering? You are a hero if it's for a good cause - and a villain if it's for a bad one.
 
[all born in sin...] Horse shit

:)
Oops, I forgot to turn on the irony brackets.

Anyway, regardless of whether you're taking out 'innocents', 'IP's', 'insurgents', 'hostiles' or 'infidels', mass killing doesn't strike me as a particularly laudable activity.
When it's done in the service of a vengeful god or aggressive invader, it's simply wrong.

Undertaking a rescue at the risk of one's own life is heroic.
Taking similar risk in the service of adventure, like space-flight, is brave, but not admirable, since they're doing it for themselves.
Throwing away one's life in a doomed enterprise is simply wasteful.
 
Last edited:
Right. It was composed of people from our society, atheist and religious alike. Such sentiments are not determined by whether someone has religious beliefs or not.

Again, we (US society) did.
I changed that to military, because that's more accurate. The society doesn't decide who gets medals.
But the sentiments, they are to a very large extent influenced by religious beliefs. The US may pretend to be a secular democracy, but it's still so predominantly Christian as to not even question or notice those influences. It still at least 75% believes in sacrifice as a virtue (without regard to its outcome) and even more deeply, widely and unconsciously believes that there are finite amounts of harm and benefit in the world, each with a price-tag.
 
Back
Top