/lit/ - Literature

>>16826262
>I'm not posting my chest because simply put, the resulting judgement would result in even more internal suffering for myself.
And yet here you are, arguing with us and (as indicated by your increasingly irate posts) causing more "internal suffering." So, it is obvious that "preventing internal suffering" doesn't matter so much to you.

> because it is absolutely worthless to eradicate an infinitesimal percentage of the population doing nothing but making their loved ones suffer, it's not just meaningless but outright bad.
Ladies and gentlemen- anti-natalist empathy; kill them all so nobody's left to grieve. Of course, the likelihood of this happening is as likely as that of a God existing, according to atheist mental trauma.

>>16826327
>I do as the genes guide
Anti-natalists are puppets of their genes and environment as well, remember?

>>16826084
>did I choose to be a coward who can't kill herself
>etcetera
Therefore, anti-natalists don't have any superiority brought by "not following their genes." I saw you posting in the Brave New World thread, by the way.

>And for what purpose, to pass an arbitrary check of "deserving" of posting?
It's a meme

>You forgot the part where suffering and consent matter too
I will ask my unborn entity for consent before reproducing. You should ask your unborn entities for consent not to be brought into existence; perhaps they want to exist. I also don't think that the suffering you cause to a child by bringing it into existence matters, as long as it is not directly caused by you (you beating it, neglecting it, etcetera). Either way, pleasure exists to entice life, and we are "biologically hardwired" to love it and justify it.

I am not a transhumanist, but you'd be better off arguing for transhumanism, which would be a way to eliminate suffering AND exist. Of course, it will never happen. Annihilation of all life will never happen by our own hands, either. The best way is in between the two

>>16745642
According to human conceptions, a good God wouldn't put us through this, giving us paradise immediately. Then would an evil God immediately send us all to Hell? These not being the case, God, in essence, cannot be good or evil. If you were coerced into this, why do you still exist?

>>16745650
Yes, you just need to appeal to something less rigorous than the mind. Something irrational, or preternatural

>>16745678
What would happen if you didn't regret anything that happened in the past? If you just let it go and resolved to make the future better? Not for instrumentality's sake, but because you accept it all as good?

>>16043797
Imagine thinking that atheism somehow absolves the universe. "It's better because there's no one to blame!" What is there to blame? Why is the world around you bad? Why would an evil God create this universe, if an evil God would send us all to Hell (as opposed to your definition of good God, which is someone who sends everyone to Heaven). I don't think you have the authority to call God evil, or act as if He being "good" has some basis in your secular ideas. Why is it necessary for an evil God to have created this creation? Let's argue

>>16043854
>You just believe what you want to believe because you want to feel self-righteous
Wrong. Even naturalist psychologists have more good faith than you; we evolved to believe in Gods because they tickle our immortality bone, give us meaning for which to live our lives. Atheists settle for less, which is also why more secular countries have less crime. The people living in them are effete, they couldn't even conceive of disobeying the law, much less actually going forth and stealing something or killing someone. They're too weak to prove they're morally superior to the Christians whose God they don't need to be moral, supposedly (by moving the goal posts of what it means to be moral to accept homosexuality and all such legal vices and decadence).

>>16044101
Show me the studies.

>>16045172
It's also counter to whatever theory scientists will come up with in the future, and so on, and so forth.

>>16046706
Why should you no longer despair? Because you deem heat death an ordering? Explain this in greater detail

>>16047464
As if every scientist is an Einstein. A lot of scientists seem like Kim Kardashians, they perform experiments and write articles that influence people and their behavior. There's a homosexuality gene? Now, homosexuality is 100% normal and must be not only tolerated, but also whole-heartedly accepted.

>>16049253
How did it stray? Christianity and science's theories can always be reconciled.

>>15889764
He specifically designed them? Then what were all these years lived for? The atheist- the eternal blame-shifter and fatalist

>>15777131
He is to blame for what? Why are these examples of suffering you are likely to provide (as a shock and awe tactic) "evil?" Why does omnibenevolence mean that these things won't exist? If revelation tells us God is omnibenevolent, and His idea of omnibenevolence differs from yours, why is yours correct?