How can you regret committing a suicide?

That's why you have to separate the virgin suicide from the chad seppuku, I was reading that book "Shutting Out the Sun" and they mentioned a principal, if I remember correctly, who had hanged himself using an improvised rope in the car back-seat, can you imagine how far beyond this guy was from the fags who jump and regret, all the adrenaline his body released and how desperate he was for air and he didn't stand up

He said what he meant, user

Attached: kierkegaard_eyes.jpg (162x54, 4K)

There exists a unicorn with a big swingin' cock ready to pounce and make you is bitch. It's hiding behind nearest closed door to where you are.

Are you now going to take measures to protect yourself against this unicorn? After all, you never know! Spending the rest of your life doing the double peace on a unicorn's eager cock is pretty scary after all.

Attached: eqef.jpg (353x334, 21K)

Something stupid is always going to be stupid no matter how often you repeat it. Not killing yourself because hell might exist is not a good way to decide on such a matter.

lol *clicks retweet*

You just earned reddit gold sir. Well done

Atheism is proven is the point, atheism is a religion

Cope harder, LARPer. You're not "based" for going to church once a month and you'll never find a "conservative qt 3.14 virgin trad gf" which is the only reason you got involved with that nonsense.

*isn’t proven
Damn typo

I am going to kms tbqh

And that brings us to our next subject—the Divine
goodness. Nothing so far has been said of this, and no
answer attempted to the objection that if the universe
must, from the outset, admit the possibility of suffering,
then absolute goodness would have left the universe
uncreated. And I must warn the reader that I shall not
attempt to prove that to create was better than not to create:
I am aware of no human scales in which such a portentous
question can be weighed. Some comparison
between one state of being and another can be made, but
the attempt to compare being and not being ends in mere
words. ‘It would be better for me not to exist’—in what
sense ‘for me’? How should I, if I did not exist, profit by
not existing? Our design is a less formidable one: it is only
to discover how, perceiving a suffering world, and being
assured, on quite different grounds, that God is good, we
are to conceive that goodness and that suffering without
contradiction.

Attached: 1533138231634.jpg (459x576, 28K)

Then your instincts activate the second before your death and your last thoughts and moments are still painful and miserable since your body wants to live Even If your mind wants to commit suicide. Then If You believe the theory by which the brain excretes lysergic acid at the point of death (which causes hallucinations and distorts the perception of time) You'll still probably get to experience hell or at least a very bad trip for the time that your brain takes to turn completelly off which by your perspective may be litteraly billions of years.
There's no escape.

>the unicorn meme / any variation to the them en of the teapot in space
Oh ok You're a retard. Never mind.

>no actual counter-argument, just insults
Typical.

You end up in heaven and lose the beloved tragedy of your life.

>Bertrand Russell is retard

Any other anons have survived an actual suicide attempt? Call me a whatever, ama, just curious if anyone else have confronted the feelings it leaves you to be unsuccessful of such a simple thing.

Attached: schneider16.jpg (340x526, 42K)

I'm litteraly the same as , retard.

Well Yes he is.

You don't commit it, simple. You insult heavily a gangster on the wood and while he is pulling out the gun you ask forgiveness to god. I mean, it's written in the Bible that god forgives everyone

>Heh, I'm smarter than the Being which litteraly created the whole Universe included the infinitely large part of it that I will never know, totally going to game the system guys!

Attached: IMG_1842.png (504x302, 97K)

He is going to forgive those who were so arrogant to think "I am gonna outsmart god"
It's written in the bible

I don't know about Christians but at least in some versions of Judaism it's perfectly acceptable to "game" the system because the rationale is that since God is perfect the loopholes are there on purpose.

This made me kek. Unironically based.

If Russell is studied in Logic class in Math course it's maybe because you aren't able, as a literatus (I'm assuming) to understand it

I guess you're the smart one, here
>I have a 200iq I am the smartest one everyone else is retarded
kys lol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

>Russell's teapot
Based. A flying teapot is actually more believable than some of the things Christ-tards say.

cringe

>Still no argument
You're trolling or otherwise you're an arrogant mongoloid

Now enjoy religious mongotards getting butthurted by this kek

>That's just survival instinct and fight or flight
So?
>and is a fault we have to live with for being the product of evolution,
Uh huh...
>it is instinct and has nothing to do with reason.
Non sequitur.

I don't understand if that retard understands the point of Russell's teapot and doesn't realize the burden of proof belongs on him.
>If you kill yourself you go to Hell!
Prove it!
>Because it says so in a book
Prove it!
>God wrote that book!
Prove it!
>uhh- uhhhhhh uhhh.....

>Are you now going to take measures to protect yourself against this unicorn?
Why would anyone do such a thing as that ;^}

>the rationale is that since God is perfect the loopholes are there on purpose.
The purpouse being getting the smartasses.
Argument from telepathy. Never said I'm particularly smart, Never said I'm a part of the accademic class. You yourself don't know anything about me but still have to resort to put words into my mouth.
Russel's teapot argument is a fallacy and kiddy-tier easy to dismantle. It makes assumptions on the nature of religion and of knowledge that nobody worth their salt amongst religious people and atheists aknowledge. It's basically a rhetoric trick used to appear smart.
It oulived its usefullness in This regard the moment itself it was published.

Also Please continue ignori gli the actual point made in the previous post. You're looking so smart by not addressing the point of the conversation. By all means go on.

Because having to go to hell after being in heaven is pure agony.

Good post.

I dont need an argument If You don't make one first.

>Russel's teapot argument is a fallacy and kiddy-tier easy to dismantle.
Do it then.

Also, I love how christians believed in jesus as well as hinduists believe in vishnu, but I have never heard of vishnu being seen in Lourdes and I have never heard of mary, the virgin, being seen in Bombay. Guess divinities have geographical preferences lol

catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-india-schoolkids-say-virgin-mary-appeared-amid-scent-of-jasmine-73012

>but still have to resort to put words into my mouth.
Actually, you missed my point. How can you say he is retarded if you know just his literature works but you can't understand his math and logic works?
Also, by saying that Russell is retarded, well, now G.H. Hardy was retarded as well

OH SHIT! Jesus and virgin mary came to Earth to heal a little girl's ear infection! It must be true!

>Catholicnewsagency
lol
Oh god

>moving the goalposts this quickly

Also, ask yourself why there are no documents about christian divinity appearing in unusual place before globalization

I actually read the article and it turns out she only had ear wax and the holy water she swished into her ear "immediately" cured her of her ear wax problem.
Do you know what a missionary is?

No
it's me

But you somehow have a point because here it's 1am and I'm going to sleep so not gonna respond good night

>before globalization
That's an implication which is implying hard. Anyway
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_India_(book)

>Do you know what a missionary is?
I certainly do big boy ;^P
Reminder of the original point because apparently memory and scrolling up and reading are not strong suits:
>I have never heard of mary, the virgin, being seen in Bombay. Guess divinities have geographical preferences lol
Why you think this would be a strong point is beyond me considering the entirety of the Americas have sightings of the Christian icons in their toast on the reg.

Almost forgot about this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingō,_Aomori

>written...in 1899
lol dude I was talking way before humanity projected long-trip ship
1899 is yesterday lmao
yeah globalization was a wrong term I agree

>before humanity projected long-trip ship
Cryptic.

1) It assumed You can't interact with the teapot. This doesn't Apply to religion since It's based on the fact that You can interact with God.
2) a teapot orbiting the Sun is an object in the universe. This doesn't Apply to God as análogy
3) he assumes the Teapot would leave no trace of It's presence, while It's obvious that with the right tools You could theoretically come to see the teapot. God likewise to religious people leaves traces of It's presence. The instruments being having the first idea of What the he'll They're talking about.
4) It's based on the concept that religion is not exempt of the principle by which the burden of proof of the reality of a statement lays with the claimant. Which all religions accept and It's the reasons Why in the acts of the apostles people continualy repeat things like "This was witnessed by so and so people". On this point of view the analogy is merely trivial on the point of bordering on ad hominem. Those religious nutjobs not believing in Giving Testimony of their experiences!
5) It's also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "faith". Russel is not the only one making This same error But in short: nobody believes in God for no reason. Reasons can be pragmátic ("religion gives order and structure to society so Even If i have doubts on some things I'll up hold it") based on Testimony ("This was witnessed by 500 people in the town of Aleppo in This particular day") or philosophical ("the universe needs a prime mover to exist").
Christianity also claims that God in person came here, which is It's own cathegory of argument.
Of course You can just dismiss everything You don't like or Apply to religion standards of proof by which (If You were to Apply them to history) You would have to disbelieve in the existance of the Roman Empire. Nobody is impressed. See in particular Hebrews 1.11 and 12.
6) this whole argument is made by the author of the principia mathematica whose objective is to demonstrate that Math is a self-proving construct of logic.
Now it should have been obvious to him the problem of proposi gli a system of logic the valudity of which is based on Nothing But axyoms while at the same time telling anyone that God is like a teapot in the sky Because others have the burden of proof.
Effectively his rejection of metaphysics is self-disproving since mathematics is nothing but metaphysics.

Feel free to say i have no argument and to dismiss everything now.

>Actually, you missed my point. How can you say he is retarded if you know just his literature works but you can't understand his math and logic works?
Actually You're repeating the same error. You are just assuming i can't understand his Math and logic works. You have no idea who the fuck i am.
Genetic fallacy, by this standard since Russel was an atheist I don't have to address his "points".

not cryptic
you're just being punctilious
you understand what I meant lol but you want to "prove me wrong"

find some appeareances of christians divinity in India before those two cultures met
I mean, a god will appear shiny and badass, he wouldn't look like a normal people
they would describe a magic dude with a fucking 10/10 beard that turn water into wine and multiply breads lol

now I'm really going to sleep good night my christian user

>you understand what I meant lol but you want to "prove me wrong"
I honestly have no idea what you meant it made no sense.

>now I'm really going to sleep good night my christian user
>more implying

>find some appeareances of christians divinity in India before those two cultures met
You only want the burden of proof Because You need it: You wouldn't be able to move the goalpost whitout It.
Also prove to me that Socrates was a real person.

>find some appeareances of christians divinity in India before those two cultures met
Also this is stupid, you need to look into history more.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India
So the first Jewish contact is 500+ years prior to Jesus being born, and then the first diaspora community is around the time the earliest gospels are being written down. The diaspora happened not very long after Jesus would have been crucified, the New Testament gives some really interesting historical context in a lot of ways to things like the sacking of the Temple.

>I honestly have no idea what you meant it made no sense
inventive is such a great thing, are you able to understand something if it's not literal?
dude
"my christian user" is clearly a joke, a joke doesn't have to be based on logic
do you suffer from Asperger?

>you need to look into history more.
that's true, I'm getting a Ph.D. in computational chemistry

So I was wrong

Congratulations on your PhD.

This has been a nice thread I think.

>Also prove to me that Socrates was a real person
Socrates hugged his mom
Hug = good
Socrates = good

I Think so too.
Since Socrates never existed and was invented by Platonists in the third century after Christ when they copied Plato's works It stands to reason he never hugged his mom.

I have survived two suicide attempts so far but I'm afraid I'm gonna kill myself anyway. Doesn't matter though, from a materialistic point of view I was never really alive, the fact that the matter I am managed to realize itself as a piece of matter doesn't mean anything, we are random and nothing matters anyway

By a materialista point of view the fact that You realized yourself as matter means everything.

You should talk to a medical person and they can do like an MRI or something.

Socrates never existed
Those who existed at least one time made a bad thing
Socrates never made a bad thing because he didn't existed
Socrates good

god this is shit-tier sorry everyone

Dude call a psychiatrist, can you afford it?

Thanks for admitting my point that Socrates didn't exist. I admit yours that This fictional character is good since (because he nerves existed) he never did bad.

So much writing for nothing. The thought experiment exists to draw attention to the absurdity of what I was mocking. Religious types often place the burden of proof on atheists, saying "well, can you prove that hell doesn't exist?" Russel mocks this like I did by using an absurd example. If you believe in hell and want us to believe in it too, you are the one who needs to prove it. We don't have to prove that it doesn't. Same with unicorns of teapots. Teapots are not objects that naturally orbit around the sun and unicorns don't exist. If you want to say that it does you have to prove it, instead of assuming that it exists and making us prove that it doesn't.

>Religious types often place the burden of proof on atheists, saying "well, can you prove that hell doesn't exist?"
You haven't even read shit did You?
Go fuck yourself.

>Evolution
>Survival instinct
>Still wants to commit suicide
Then that means that one would want to keep surviving and not kill themselves because that goes against both of the first two things. Retarded logic

They keep nitpicking pointless things but ignore this post. Where does the burden of proof lie? How do you know suicides go to Hell without any evidence? It should be obvious that any grandiose claim could be made and evidence is required to back up such grandiose claims. But, I know you guys are not interested in finding the truth. Yea Forums was never interested in the truth.

None of what you wrote matters because you misunderstand what the story is for. All the nitpicky shit you wrote about how you can't interact with a teapot but you can with god is irrelevant because the thought experiment exists solely to demonstrate that extraordinary claims require evidence. I mocked user for saying that you shouldn't kill yourself because Hell might exist. See:
I did it because giving the ideas of hell existing and not existing equal weight is absurd because believing in hell requires a much broader set of presuppositions about reality and is therefore much less likely, and it's especially relevant because OP is not a Christian - or at least not a good one since he's talking about suicide which is strictly forbidden.

why do atheist always make homosexual analogies ?

Ugh... user? We're all girls here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
doge this

>1) It assumed You can't interact with the teapot. This doesn't Apply to religion since It's based on the fact that You can interact with God.
but you can't interact with god or provide evidence of any interaction with god, that's like saying there's a teapot between earth and mars

God is an abstract thing like numbers. We wouldn't reason for him in the same way we do about empirical things. Russell was a decent logician. Retard philosopher

By surviving or ending up in hell

relax a bit friend, you're too caught up in your inadequate brain.

Attached: doge this.jpg (500x500, 62K)

>tfw you realize we are so far I to the blackness of the future we have no awareness of an eternal soul
Gang gang nigga

Law of conservation of energy. There is no death, only the transformation of energy. If there is no death, there is no afterlife; there is only this life as a constant.

you got em

t. de Sade

Are books only allowed to contain subject matter from the future?

It's called a secondary document fag

Not Sade, Nietzsche. He says in Will to Power that the law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.

Yeah I tried to overdoes and I tried getting myself in a wreck, other times I sat at a football stadium on campus a lot wondering if I should jump at like 3-4 am. If I don't complete the mysterium I may as well do it or else try my luck and become a woman so I don't have to think about it

Poor analogy. Let me correct that.

Yes a invincible magic unicorn is going to widen your sphincter when that door opens. So what you need to do NOW is fit a cocksleeve with inward barbs in your culo, so when it tries to penistrate you it gets very discouraged. To better your chances, you might also want to invest in a unicorn killing gun; just pay me, sign here, and it will appear in your hand the moment the door opens. If you pay more and grind your dailies you might get more ammo. If you pay a whole lot, maybe sign up loads of people in Scheme for the Prevention of Unicorn Rape Trauma (SPURT), we'll give you this special martyrs-only horn clipper, so you can clip off the horn and wear it yourself.

1)You are gay until you DO IT FAGGOT
2)When you DO IT you are based boss
3)But now you are helpless and people will start calling you a fag

Your regret is the knowing that just as you transition into chaddom, you also entered fail.

>Non sequitur
My point is that the extreme feelings one receive after being near death can change one's opinion devoid of reason. The non sequitur would be if I claimed they still want to die, which they obviously don't.

If they wanted to die, then they should not let instinct and intense feelings change their minds devoid of reason.

>Then that means that one would want to keep surviving and not kill themselves because that goes against both of the first two things. Retarded logic

This only hold true if you are willing to be controlled only by feelings. If you have reasoned yourself to an action and an intense feeling overcomes you that changes your mind you should still commit to what you've reasoned yourself to, otherwise you trust feelings over reason.

>My point is that the extreme feelings one receive after being near death can change one's opinion devoid of reason.
That still doesn't follow, you are begging the question that it is not of reason to have this change of heart.

I thought it was so obvious it needent be said. One is not rational when under the influence of strong emotions, that does not mean that a conclusion one reaches whne under duress is false, but rather that it can't be trusted.

It's DMT not LSD that's released in the brain when you're dying. So get it right first. And secondly, you may have a point there. Time is just a measurement humans use to help better perceive the measurement of change.

But there could be another way then. Just instantly end it by bullet wound to the head.

Then your journey begins again. Who knows? Two possibilities happen. Eternal darkness/ Nothingness. It's as if you were never conscious and aware of the little perception of reality you once had to begin with. Or option two. You exist again somewhere else in this universe unbound by time and space.

It's the roll of a dice, anyones guess...

Time is just a human construct used to help us perceive the rate at which things change their molecular interactions with the world.****

That's a better way to say it. lol

>One is not rational when under the influence of strong emotions, that does not mean that a conclusion one reaches whne under duress is false, but rather that it can't be trusted.
It's a highly contentious premise and goes back to bipartite vs tripartite theory of souls and things like whether Medea was acting through reason or not when she killed her children. There is no clear answer, and it then isn't enough to say that being emotional is the same or similar enough to being irrational.

But what if that's my fetish?

This patrician gets it.

I assume that having enough contempt of the world to be suicidal would also make you realize that the idea of you ceasing to be once you destroy your body is one of the world's favorite quips.

Attached: magritte sophia.jpg (473x600, 66K)

I don't believe in hell but the afterlife does exist. No telling weather morals play a factor in how enjoyable your afterlife experience and/or reincarnation is. It's a safer but to face fears and difficulty head on just in case karma is real.