/lit/ - Literature

Is there more to this than
>pain bad
Genuine question like is it worth reading or is that what it all basically boils down to

>>21615775
>life bad
>death worse

>>21615793
Wow it is deeper than I thought. Bought a copy on Amazon

>>21615793
>>death worse
Does he have any sources or arguments for this or does he just assume the materialist conception of death is true and then whine about it?
If it's the latter the book sounds like trash, if it's the former I don't see how that can be substantiated in any way

>>21615802
Gut instinct?

>>21615757
It's a book, how does it ruin your life.

>>21615958
Because life is meaningless! Death is the end! I am nothing! THERE IS NOTHING!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!

>>21615757
When the author an-heros like Mark Fisher I will chuckle

>>21615757
David Benatar is a piece of shit with repugnant right wing and antihumanist views. He published a seething tome against the University of Cape Town filled with pages and pages of overt racism saying that whites are discriminated against. Buckle your seat belt, it gets even worse. There is a misogynist book of his called The Second Sexism, where he lambasts women and acts like men are the true victims of sexism (men's rights involutary celibate bs). Don't be fooled by his antinatalist stance. He's not encouraging child free for the benefit of the parent. He's encouring it for the benefit of a potential person. He's not pro choice, he slut shames women, he's literally pro death and pro abortion but anti choice. Everyone took him seriously at first but the more he wrote, the worse it got. I don't even know what the human predictament is about but each book he published has gotten shocking worse and worse in views.

>>21616001
Jews don't tend to commit suicide.

>>21615802
>[T]he somewhat good news is that our lives can be meaningful—from some perspectives. One reason that this is only somewhat good news is that even by the more limited standards, there are some people whose lives either are or feel meaningless. Moreover, the prospects for meaning generally diminish as the scope of the perspective broadens.
>That the prospects tend to diminish in this way does not imply that lives that are meaningless from a more limited perspective are never meaningful from a broader perspective.
>There are those, for example, who have no family left or who have no meaning for their family or community, perhaps because they have been shunned, but who make an impact at a broader level.
>Another reason why the news so far has been only somewhat good is that even those whose lives have meaning from more expansive terrestrial perspectives are rarely satisfied with the amount of meaning their lives have.
>Not only do people typically want more meaning than they can get, but the most meaning that anybody is capable of attaining is inevitably significantly limited.
>David Benatar, p. 22. The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life's Biggest Questions (2017)

>>21616007
I love the thought of all those blacks dragging the Boer from his once prised institutions.

>>21615757
How does this one compare to the an book he wrote? More of the same?

>>21616015
>views meaning as a quantifiable metric by which there is an implied zero sum game
Into the trash it goes

>>21616113
>you're stealing my meaning!

>>21615802
>death
everyone regardless of how you behaved in life is to roam the universe as an eternal disembodied sprit, my imagination revealed this to me.

>>21616250
Source?

>>21616007
in otherwords, he's based? wow, thanks.just ordered all his books.

>>21615981
https://youtu.be/fczItbbB-OA

>>21616007
However, Benatar's views have been debunked. Experts now say that the science points to South Africa being comfy for whites.

Humans Stick Their Dick In Mints by Pat Benetar

great fuckin book, movie was better

>>21615757

>>21615757
>*Ruins your life*
Too late Benetar: I'm infected with language, Hegel and Buddhism…jokes on you, my life was already ruined.

>>21616918
DSM 5 has erroneous logic predicated on notions of the hypocratic oath whereby end of life is always seen as harmful. This makes little sense if further existence for such a being is worse. More broadly, it infects the rest of medicine. If my daughter presents at or after birth bilateral retinablastoma, hydrocephalus, and or any one of another severe disease where the prognosis is one with such a reduction in quality of life, loss of vision and so on, it's cruel to make a child so young endure any moment of that pain and non existence is favorable, yet physicians will refuse to perform a humane euthanasia instead opting for countless treatments all of which produce worse discomfort for the child and the affliction and treatment, leading to a worse life. A physician even suggesting this will lose his license, a compassionate parent reported, all for speaking the truth that the emperorer primum non nocere has no clothes and is a pretense for and is in fact doing immense harm.

*Saves your life*

>>21616685
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns1SGo3WCF4

>>21615775
No, that’s all it is.

I've read the first two sentences:
>We are born, we live, we suffer along the way, and then we die—obliterated for the rest of eternity.
Obliterated for the rest of eternity. How does he know that? Why does he start the book pretending to know what happens after death? At least be honest and don't mask the uncertainty of existence in the form of a factual statement.
>Our existence is but a blip in cosmic time and space.
A blip. I find this sentence of dubious rhetorical value. Very clichéd construction and choice of words, which makes me doubt his ability to use language effectively.
Dropped.

>>21617575
Books loaded with skepticism usually suck.

>>21617575
he just assumes an atheist viewpoint because the idea of being religious is pretty much a non issue and it's not worth engaging anyone on, really has no place in modern academic writing unless you're a hack.

>>21616016
He’s a jew

>>21616008
>Jews don't tend to commit suicide.
>implying

>>21615981
>only 3.9 on goodreads
Not reading it

>>21616100
>The prospect of one’s own death, perhaps highlighted by a diagnosis of a dangerous or terminal condition, tends to focus the mind. But the deaths of others—relatives, friends, acquaintances, and sometimes even strangers—can also get a person thinking. Those deaths need not be recent.
>For example, one might be wandering around an old graveyard. On the tombstones are inscribed some details about the deceased—the dates they were born and died, and perhaps references to spouses, siblings, or children and grandchildren who mourned their loss.
>Those mourners are themselves now long dead. One thinks about the lives of those families—the beliefs and values, loves and losses, hopes and fears, strivings and failures—and one is struck that nothing of that remains.
>All has come to naught. One’s thoughts then turn to the present and one recognizes that in time, all those currently living—including oneself —will have gone the way of those now interred.
>Someday, somebody might stand at one’s grave and wonder about the person represented by the name on the tombstone, and might reflect on the fact that everything that person—you or I— once cared about has come to nothing. It is far more likely, however, that nobody will spare one even that brief thought after all those who knew one have also died.
This book is more about the meaning of life

>>21616007
A rare sane post on this God forsaken site. His argument from asymmetry has also been used to support homophobia. Vile ideas. Reprehensible man.

>>21617600
>>21617575
Benatar's conclusions are in point of fact worse if you believe in God. The natural conclusion to Platonism, Catholicism, and Islam is that the majority of humanity are damned and will suffer eternal torments for having attached themselves to inferior perceived goods over the ultimate good (i.e., God). Massa damnata makes more logical sense than universalism otherwise why create a world with any pain or suffering unless to separate one's self from it as offer it as a taste for what is even worse in store. I genuinely believe most of my friends and parents will go to hell and rightfully so for having sin in them and refusing to repent and separate themselves from it. How can one ensure their child does not sin? This is a difficult task and even worse the consideration of all their progeny which if they have 3 children each after ten generations will number over 80,000. St. Augustine wrote on this and thought the singular extinction of humanity would bring more to the City of God.

>But I am aware of some that murmur: What, say they, if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would this, only in “charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned;”much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened.

Otherwise of that 80k descendants, we can assume a life with suffering and an eternity with even worse suffering. 79.9k in eternal misery. There is no justification to procreate as the command to do so was only to bring about the actors needed for the incarnation, which has been fulfilled. The only justification for their existence, temporal and eternal sufferings are to provide a sense of joy for the elect.

>For the unhappy damned there is no compassion; there is no one to intercede with God to deliver them from the eternal death of Hell. On the contrary, all rejoice at the just punishment which they suffer for having wilfully lost God and Paradise for the sake of a transitory pleasure.

>>21617250
>end of life is always seen as harmful.
When it is not harmful?

>>21618614
According to the hippodumbus ethics, life itself is never harmful.

>>21617696
He's not.

>>21615958
The truth hurts.

>>21618477
Now THAT'S what I call cosmic horror

>>21616007
Sounds like a lot of stuff not related to the book in OP.

Calm your incel ass down before you shoot up a school with all of that anger.

>>21615757
Well, pic related already did it for me

>>21619023
Sounds like you're projecting on him anon. Incels are right wing shutins. Liberals get laid. Liberalism is sex positive whereas reactionary ideologies are very sex negative. Are you OK?

>>21616007
Seethe harder politik fucked roastie.

>>21616007
He is Jewish, what else did you expect from that reactionary race?

>>21618477
I love theistic antinatalists.

>>21619391
why?

>>21618477
this Jewish psy op worked on Aryans IRL

>>21619646
Its the best cause for the practice.

In a nothing-happens-after-death-is-neutral system of thought, introducing new beings is a wash. Yeah, they're lives will be filled with suck but whatever, at least it ends.

If you however support any form of continuation, or a real chance at an eternal existence that may be unpleasant, having children is absolutely unconscionable. It is quite literally the worst thing you could possibly do; Create a being with the slimmest odds of eternal torture.

>>21619780
>theistic = retarded post 50s American Christians
>unpleasantness = evil
>life = torture
You = deranged. You personally hate life, that's all any "antinatalist" can say. Framing this preference for death as some logical inevitability means you don't know how to think.

>>21619915
You don't understand his argument

He's saying that existence is fundamentally a gamble, and it's a gamble that you're making on the behalf of someone else; you have imposed a life onto someone where there is now the potential risk of being thrown into an endless (or even temporal) experience of unbearable torture

The point is that it is not moral to force any sentient being into such a sick, Saw-esque game like that, thus rendering all procreation an act of violence that is committed against a person without their consent

>>21619915
Let me come at it from another way.

Are you 100% sure that your child will know peace in death?

>>21620126
Not my responsibility.

>>21618477
Christian Platonism argues for the necessity of universal reconciliation.

>>21618477
shutup you stupid fucking faggot god doesnt exist. so what, you're telling me that a.) the vast majority of people who're born go to hell and b.) that by not being born at all you can just circumvent this crucial selection process? what's the point of that? what happens to the 'souls' who don't pass through earthly life? they automatically get into heaven? do they continue to be undifferentiated, one with god? what's the point of that? so the more of them we birth into the world the more risk going to hell but also stand to gain heaven? how would that conclude antinatalism? maybe there's an antinatalist argument here in that the sheer ratio of the damned vs the saved is too great, but then the whole metaphysic of religion is rendered nonsensical, is this spiritual utilitarianism? none of it makes much sense.

>>21620126
I don't really accept any part of the framing. Whatever is beyond the material, the source of everything gave us this life with things like love and beauty instead of the worst hell imaginable. I think life is cool and I want more of it to exist.
I and anything I can conceive of like my potential children are already completely at the mercy of this phenomena that defined everything. Life exists so a reasonable inference is that the source wants life and then you oppose the source by rejecting life. If this source/God disapproves and likes to punish in the way you imagine he can force all your potential descendants into existence in hell for eternity or whatever. You have no control over God.

The pain we experience in this world is limited and defined by clear rules. Any hell bound by those rules can't be that bad. Human pain relies on high level faculties, the worst part of it is added by you, pretty much imagined. Looks to me like in reality you're more cruel to yourself than God or the devil is. Jesus describes hell as self imposed the entire time you're there.

>>21620217
It is because you're the one that decided to bring them into this world

>>21620332
Universalism is implicitly incompatible with Platonism and itself is a rejection of all higher forms and the highest form, i.e. God. Justice loses all meaning and there is no need to pursue virtue and truth if everyone winds up the same. A soul if pardoned simply will return to its earthy attachments and impediments. A soul is immutable and cannot be destroyed hence the only solution for an unjust and attached soul is eternal punishment.
>And thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved and has not perished, and will save us if we are obedient to the word spoken; and we shall pass safely over the river of Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled. Wherefore my counsel is that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here and when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we receive our reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life and in the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we have been describing.

>>21620580
The soul is composed of three fundamental forms. The part that's capable of earthly attachment is defined by that distinction. If all three parts are relatively aligned you're a saint and your earthly spirit will guide others to align with the immutable part like the saint has, to know God and bring the kingdom in flawed ways to the fallen world. The earthly spirit attached to earthly things guides people away from God and creates echoes of its own suffering, to be experienced by the same immutable soul as the saint has.
The reason to pursue virtue is aesthetic, if you prefer heaven to hell then be a part of heaven not hell, right now not because of some selfish attachment to an imagined reward.

>>21620580
>Justice loses all meaning and there is no need to pursue virtue and truth if everyone winds up the same.
That's retarded, get this vulgar consequentialism out of my sight

>>21620809
Imagine not wanting everyone to make it.

>>21617321
Some fine ramblings in that one, I keep it on top the toilet.

>>21621015
I don't want malicious spiteful people to make it. They've irreversibly and permantly made life worse for those on earth. It's only fitting their eternity should be sealed. They've made others suffer, it's only fair they suffer proper. If they felt remorse and regret, it is another story.

>>21620797
>>21620809
A bad soul inclines toward bad every time. That is why if forgiven it would seek to return to evil every time for eternity. The body indeed introduces defects and emotions but separate the soul from the body and the soul is a perfectly rationale being. One who sins willfully, would will the death of God to commit its sins with impunity. Eternal punishment is a necessity.

>>21621872
Even spiteful and hateful people don't deserve eternal hellfire, anon. Nobody does. Eternal punishment for finite misdeeds is unjustifiable.

Now that said, I am specifically referring to neverending torment for a conscious being.

>>21621971
>A bad soul inclines toward bad every time. That is why if forgiven it would seek to return to evil every time for eternity.
If a soul is intrinsically bad by its very nature, that fault belongs to the creator of the soul and not the soul itself. The soul did not choose to exist, much less to have the weak constitution which led to its fall into badness; the soul did not invent itself or invent the mind that it used to make bad decisions. But to even claim that God, who is Goodness itself, created something intrinsically bad, is self-contradicting. If the soul is not intrinsically bad and was created good, and was meant by its creator for good, then the creator in his omnipotence must surely have some method available of restoring the soul to its original goodness, even with free will in play.

>The body indeed introduces defects and emotions but separate the soul from the body and the soul is a perfectly rationale being.
If the soul is perfectly rational, there is no logical reason why it should be evil. A perfectly rational being would always choose the objectively correct and rational thing to do - to act contrary would necessarily require some defect in that soul (whether internal or external) such as insanity, delusion, or ignorance, that prevents it from exercising perfect rationality. To argue otherwise would be to posit that it is, in fact, a perfectly rational action to willingly reject the source of all goodness, being, life, truth, happiness, and logic itself, a proposition that is itself quite unequivocally insane.

>One who sins willfully, would will the death of God to commit its sins with impunity.
God, per almost all accepted definitions of theism, is actively sustaining the existence of every being at every instant, actually supplying it with its very own powers of thought and rationality. That a being would will the source and upholder of its own existence dead indicates either that this soul is completely insane and not in any way lucid enough to be held responsible for its actions, or else that the assertion that nonbeing is superior to being is in fact logically valid, and can be held by a rational mind.

>Eternal punishment is a necessity.
Annihilation of the soul in question would solve the problem just as easily, and without the continuous suffering of one of God's beloved creatures.

>>21621972
>Eternal punishment for finite misdeeds is unjustifiable.
"Another infidel will ask: How can God justly punish with eternal torments a sin that lasts but a moment? I answer, that the grievousness of a crime is measured not by its duration, but by the enormity of its malice. The malice of mortal sin is, as St. Thomas says, infinite. (1, 2, q. 87, art. 4.) Hence, the damned deserve infinite punishment; and, because a creature is not capable of suffering pains infinite in point of intensity, God, as the holy doctor says, renders the punishment of the damned infinite in extension by making it eternal.

"Moreover, it is just, that as long as the sinner remains in his sin, the punishment which he deserves should continue. And, therefore, as the virtue of the saints is rewarded in Heaven, because it lasts for ever, so also the guilt of the damned in Hell, because it is everlasting, shall be chastised with everlasting torments. ”Quia non recipit causæ remedium,” says Eusebius Emissenus, “carebit fine supplicium.” The cause of their perverse will continues: therefore, their chastisement will never have an end. The damned are so obstinate in their sins, that even if God offered pardon, their hatred for him would make them refuse it." - Alphonsus de Liguori

>>21620580
Only in the eternal universe of pagan Platonism. If the world has a teleology, a start and end, then Platonism necessarily requires a return to the perfection from which it originated.

>>21622292
>pagan Platonism

>>21616015
>go to the park without my owner because she's a retarded bitch and i hope she dies
>take a piss on some patton oswalt looking motherfucker's shoes
>rip a smaller dog's head off for no other reason than i was kinda feeling it and his fur pattern had bad energy
>steal all the meaning from the water fountains so anti-natalist fags kill themselves

>>21621971
>The body indeed introduces defects and emotions
Then we need to figure out which parts are of the body, we now know about sense organs and neural networks that store memories, all of the body. Everything we attach ourselves to that's not God is part of that earthly corruption that will be burned away. The soul is not the self or the ego, the ego is constructed by the physical memories.

>>21616007
>This author is a piece of shit, he once said < insert here a huge, fully complete list of everything that makes radicalized twitter wokefags mad >
Is this supposed to make me not like this guy? Anyway, thanks for selling me on his works, will definitely read

>>21623643
If I simulate the dog in a computer Matrix thing it will experience all that again as if it never happened before. If I play it back a million times there's no difference to the dog. Think about what this means. The actual experience for the dog isn't part of any of the data, the real dog exists beyond space and time. The decisions the dog makes happen outside everything we know, not in the playback of the data.
Free will is perfectly consistent with determinism.

>>21622259
There are a host of serious logical problems with this attempted justification of eternal damnation.

The first and most obvious issue is that it isn't in the Bible anywhere. There is no indication from either the Hebrew scriptures or the New Testament that God's infinite nature entails that all offenses against him are also infinite. It generally seems to imply the opposite; for example, how exactly could Isaiah say that Israel had received "double" for all her sins when the debt incurred by any singular sin is infinite? If the proper response from God to any sin is to immediately inflict endless torture on the offender, why does Jesus tell us in the Gospels that the way to be like God is to forgive your enemies and be kind to the good and bad alike? If this theory of retribution were true, wouldn't he have said, "And if a man slaps you on the cheek, immediately slap him back with the exact same amount of force?"

Moreover, we must consider the concept of "mens rea". Mens rea defines the level of intention, lucidity, and available knowledge that a person has, and which will influence the level of culpability that they are judged to have had in their offense. A sin of "infinite malice" must necessarily entail perfect knowledge of the offense and perfect knowledge of its infinite-ness. But of course, therein lies the rub: we are finite. And not only finite; we are created, contingent. A major point of St. Thomas's metaphysics, along with many other veritable theologians, is that God is ultimately unknowable in his very essence. "We cannot know what God is," Aquinas famously states, "only what he is not." This isn't limited to humans, either - even Lucifer does not actually know WHAT God is. This clearly implies that it is completely impossible for any created being to have the perfect knowledge necessary to be fully and infinitely culpable for an offense of this nature. The only being with full knowledge of God is God; but God, by his very nature, can't sin! Therefore on closer analysis it turns out to be metaphysically impossible to commit an infinite sin at all.

Another problem: God is not our peer in an ontological sense. When we judge human offenders, regardless of their status, we judge them as beings of the same finitude and existential type as us, as human beings. But God is transcendent. God is not one agent among many, who stands side by side with any of his own creations. He has ALL the power - impervious to harm or obstruction in any way by the creations whose existences are wholly dependent on him. There is nothing that any of us can do that would affect God in any way. A microbe can do more to us than we can do to God. If our sins have any effect, it must surely be on ourselves and not God.

I could keep going but unfortunately I'm running out of characters. Suffice it to say, this justification of infinite torture has an infinite amount of holes in it.

>>21624156
>The first and most obvious issue is that it isn't in the Bible anywhere.
Wrong. It's everywhere. "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire.” (Matt. xxv. 41.) Some will say: The fire, but not the punishment of the damned is everlasting. Such the language of the incredulous, but it is folly. For what other purpose would God make this fire eternal, than to chastise the reprobate, who are immortal? But, to take away every shadow of doubt, the Scriptures, in many other places, say, that not only the fire, but the punishment, of the damned is eternal. ”And these, ”says Jesus Christ, “shall go into ever lasting punishment.” (Matt. xxv. 46.) Again we read in Mark, ”Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.” (ix. 43.) Death, which is so terrible in this life, is desired in hell by the damned; but they never shall find it. ”And in these days men shall seek death, and shall not find it: and they shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them.” (Apoc. xi. 6.) They would wish, as a remedy for their eternal ruin, to be exterminated and destroyed. But "there is no poison of destruction in them.” (Wis. i. 14.)
>God is not our peer in an ontological sense.
Which is why offenses against him are infinite and merit infinite chastisement.

>>21622259
>"Moreover, it is just, that as long as the sinner remains in his sin, the punishment which he deserves should continue
Humans do not remain in sin or grace for an eternity. Human lives are extraordinarily short, and even if they were not, any finite timespan is not enough to justify infinite hellfire and torture.
>The malice of mortal sin is, as St. Thomas says, infinite.
Retarded.
> And, therefore, as the virtue of the saints is rewarded in Heaven, because it lasts for ever,
This is also morally incoherent. A finite life of virtue does not justify eternal reward. Finite and Infinity are fundamentally incompatible, any attempt to project these human definitions onto the divine are idiotic at best and suspiciously evil at worst.

The simple fact is that your God exists almost universally as a projection of abstract human values and thus cannot be justified through human logic in any meaningful or coherent way. Christians and other Abrahamics tend to handwave all possible illogical and unbelievable actions taken by God when it is convenient with sayings such as "God works in mysterious ways" or "God is testing your faith". And yet, whenever God's actions (or lackthereof) seemingly appeal to our human sensibilities, these same zealots with jump at the chance to claim that said event is undeniable proof of their Biblical truth. Such a constant and incessantly hypocritical standard for even the most revered theologians of the faith proves its fraudulent nature.

>>21624282
>Wrong. It's everywhere.
You are conflating passages that describe eschatological judgement with a specific justification for that judgement that was anachronistically imposed on the text by later interpreters in the Middle Ages and early modern period. It is actually far from clear in the original text of the New Testament that the punishment is "eternal" as we would understand the term today (i.e. endless duration); you merely have to look at contemporary texts of the era that the NT was written in in order to realize that the term "aionios" is frequently used to refer to limited dispensations of time.

>Death, which is so terrible in this life, is desired in hell by the damned; but they never shall find it.
>They would wish, as a remedy for their eternal ruin, to be exterminated and destroyed. But "there is no poison of destruction in them.”
I shouldn't have to point out that this is an extremely sadistic point of view that seems tremendously alien to a benevolent disposition. Can a satisfactory justification be given for God to sustain these perpetually miserable beings in existence in constant agony as opposed to simply annihilating them and being done with it? Is God's vindictiveness truly so boundless that he must seethe with rage for all eternity over being slighted by what are - in comparison to him, metaphysically - nullities, nothings, mere shadows entirely dependent on him for their existences?

>Which is why offenses against him are infinite and merit infinite chastisement.
I feel that you have refused to engage with any of my arguments and have merely bluntly reasserted your point without proper justification. I will press you: in what manner, exactly, are they infinite? Do they inflict any degree of harm on God himself? No. Are the agents themselves that commit the offenses infinite? No. Is the knowledge of the offense inexhaustible and omniscient? No. Are the effects of the offense infinite? Obviously this would imply that a finite cause is responsible for an infinite effect, which is impossible, so no, this cannot be.

So in what manner is the offense infinite, that can make logical sense? I feel that those who use this argument are merely using the word "infinite" repeatedly without actually examining what the word means and what it's being applied to.

>>21624420
>actually they didn't mean that it means something else
Absolute cope. People say the same thing about fornication. Meanwhile the earliest writers did in fact interpret eternal as eternal and fornication to mean fornication. Now people say hell isn't real and now people say premarital sex isn't a sin.

>>21624442
You are being tremendously uncharitable and continually obstinate in not addressing the actual arguments being made here. I am beginning to suspect that you have no legitimate interest in discussion and merely wish to ramble about unrelated topics.

>>21624420
Anon you're trying to argue with someone whose disposition is that
>God is real
and
>"They would wish, as a remedy for their eternal ruin, to be exterminated and destroyed. But "there is no poison of destruction in them.”"
Is the manner in which said God behaves/treats his creations.

Any person even attempting to rationally defend, let alone worship said deity is mentally unstable.

>>21624455
I can't type well at the moment on account of my finger otherwise I would respond argument by argument.

>>21624465
Very well, if you're not disposed to type out long paragraphs I understand; I would only implore you to read over my arguments again and give them serious consideration.

>>21624009
>>>/pol/

>>21625385
>if you don't like wokeism you MUST be le /pol/ nazi chud incel etc. etc.
This kind of delusion is so hilarious.

>>21618477
>Benatar's conclusions are in point of fact worse if you believe in God. The natural conclusion to Platonism, Catholicism, and Islam is that the majority of humanity are damned and will suffer eternal torments
Fortunately, Chad-Vedantins can reject both anti-natal-"woe is me" nonsense and also reject eternal torture by Yahweh.

>>21625394

>>21625405
You may keep parroting this strawman all you want if it makes you sleep at night

>>21625426
Sleep much better than lunatics that think women, and other RACES, and life itself are LE BAD. Normal people don't need to entertain the opinion of insane reactionaries like you and Benochud.

>>21625397
>follow feel good cope nonsense

>>21615757
*ruins Jordan Peterson's life*

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2mGV9ZoEYUA

Peterson must have went on his benzo bender and breakdown after getting BTFOd by Benatar.

>>21627252
Huh? Didn't know this existed. I actually expect Peterson to win the debate.

>We are born, we live, we suffer along the way, and then we die—obliterated for the rest of eternity.

Jordan Peterson: why does the sleeping friendless family-less suicide person need to continue to exist? Would it be better in your view to euthanize him?

David: Yes, probably. But I wouldn’t kill him.

Peterson: Why not?

David: Because I don’t have the epistemic confidence that that’s the case.

Peterson: Then it would be reasonable to assume that you shouldn’t adopt the epistemic confidence to hold a anti-natalist view!

???

>>21627309
Peterson makes numerous logical fallacies and gets quite ruffled.

>>21627320
Jordan Peterson is like an emotional woman in a man's body.

>>21615757
How can a book written by a jew ruin your life? Stop being a mentally weak loser.

>>21615793

I enjoy life, and after death comes paradise.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

>>21615795

Consoom

>>21616250
Regardless of your imagination, you will face judgment

>>21627790
The only judgement I face is my own

>>21627252
I love this shit, Benatar is so well spoken.

>>21627733
David Benatar isn't Jewish and has no Jewish ancestory. He even makes fun of Peterson twice in his debate with him for his BUT THE HECKIN NAZHEEEES strawman.

>>21628060

>>21627781
>I enjoy life
"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." - The Savior, John 12:25
>and after death comes paradise.
Presumption is a mortal sin which precludes entry into paradise.

>>21628060
Lol Ben-Atar is literally a Hebrew name, "son of Atar". DAVID Ben-Atar, son of SOLOMON Ben-Atar, is not a Jew?
Just googling "Benatar" brings up dozens of confirmed Jews with that surname. Why talk shit about shit you don't know shit about?

>>21628060
This is low quality bait, even by /lit/ pseud standards.

>>21628113
why is christianity so depressing and pessimistic despite jesus being such a positive and life-affirming figure

Luv Jews, me

>>21628700
Easier to control people who are more afraid

>>21615757
there are people who can help

https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsource:9/RFNS-8.22-002-014:9

Starting to realize that everyone on /lit/ just acts retarded on purpose and it’s not worth discussing literally anything with them

>>21615775
Fpbp

>>21626563
Women are equal to men and whites are equal to blacks. I say in the sense that being part of a group doesn't necessarily imply an individual is good or bad, therefore in matters of sex or race, people are equal to each other until their actions prove otherwise.

Twitterfags are against all of this though, and this is why their opinions should not be taken seriously except to have a seriously hilarious laugh. It's especially funny how they can't address the point i've just made in the first line directly, they just throw a "le nazi" strawman and that's it, it's hilarious how childish you woke morons are.

>>21628060
Damn this nigga got schooled

>hates life, thinks it sucks, wouldn't wish upon anyone
>is an upper middle class professor at a first world university

Every time.

>>21616007
Forced equity cannot happen without discrimination. Whether or not the ends justify the means, and whether the end goal is genuine equality is up to interpretation. You do not need to be a white supremacist to think this. The derision and mocking of white people who feel concerned only makes you look more vicious and self serving (or self hating). Maybe think about how to make your cause seem benevolent because you certainly don't come off that way. Make yourself a mirror of /pol/ and you will be just as repugnant.

>>21629617
Nope it's the opposite. Most rich acedemics are midwits like Stephen Pinker who thinks things are great, life is so good there's never been a better time to be alive.

>>21615958
Someone might forget it at the top of the stairs and then you trip on it and become paralyzed. Boom. Life ruined by a book.

>>21629749
That's not the point retard. The point is that there is a logical contradiction between how he lives his own life versus the ideas he peddles. This isn't a unique thing in history, very few people actually live out the things they say they believe outright, but in his case it's worth pointing out because he is a smug and condescending retard in addition to being a hypocrite.

>>21629758
>Arguably, once a life reaches a certain threshold of badness (considering both the amount and the distribution of its badness), no quantity of good can outweigh it, because no amount of good could be worth that badness. It is just this assessment that Donald (‘Dax’) Cowart made of his own life—or at least of that part of his life following a gas explosion that burnt two-thirds of his body. He refused extremely painful, life-saving treatment, but the doctors ignored his wishes and treated him nonetheless. His life was saved, he achieved considerable success, and he reattained a satisfactory quality of life. Yet, he continued to maintain that these post-burn goods were not worth the costs of enduring the treatments to which he was subjected. No matter how much good followed his recovery, this could not
outweigh, at least in his own assessment, the bad of the burns and treatment that he experienced
David Benatar said this. Really makes you think. Is it better to be paralyzed or dead? Any literal cripples want to chime in?

>>21629783
Appeal to hypocrisy is not an argument.

>>21629813
It is when the guy writes books trying to convince people he's right. If he doesn't live his own ideas, and instead is a bougie cunt professor in a comfortable Western country who makes $100k+ a year, why should anyone else listen to a word he says?

>>21629820
He isn't trying to convince anyone, he's not a dishonest rhetoritician like Peterson. He's making an argument and rigidly defending it.

>>21629829
>He's making an argument and rigidly defending it.

Yeah, that's what convincing people means. But he clearly doesn't agree with the ideas himself.

>>21629832
Convincing people is an act of persuasion not argumentation. There is truth to the saying he spoke the truth and they hated it.

>>21629838
In this case I think it's more that a greedy kike professor thinks writing an antinatalist book is easy money because we live in an era where antinatalism is basically the default opinion.

>>21629846
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>>21629849
You never answered this >>21629820

>>21629829
>He isn't trying to convince anyone

lol

>>21616015
If you were ruler of the Galaxy, in the 40,000th year old your reign, a reign marked by peace and prosperity, would that make your life meaningful? In the end you are just ruler of one of trillions of galaxies and your empire and all that makes it up will decay and dissolve into entropy. Your extended 108,001 year life is simply the blink of an eye on the time scales of existence.

>>21629820
>But he clearly doesn't agree with the ideas himself.
I don't think his argument is that life itself is necessarily bad. But that having children is immoral and potentially really bad for the lifespawn. He clearly does live up to his ideas. He is an antinatalist and doesn't have children. You make it sounds as though to be an antinatalist he needs to be homeless or something. You just sound jealous of his status really.

>>21629888
I think he suffers from the same problem that all antinatalists suffer from, an inability to accept the logic that if creating life is bad, this means life itself also is bad, which means that anything that ends life is good.

>You just sound jealous of his status really.

lol. And you sound like someone who should ask him the simple question of why going through 8 years of college to become a PhD was worth it when life itself is meaningless.

>>21629908
>8 years of college to become a PhD was worth it when life itself is meaningless.
To make you seethe anon, it has all been worth it.

>>21629919
>life is meaningless
>making anon seethe is meaningful
Which is it?

>>21629919
Every time these threads are made you are all summarily blown the fuck out, so if anyone is seething it's you.

>>21629930
NTA, but from a third party perspective, every time they start this thread, an argument is presented, the opposition uses ad hom, says it won, repeat

For once I'd love to see the argument itself considered, but it has yet to occur.

>>21629954
No that's not what happens. What happens is that someone points out that the logical conclusion to antinatalism is actual genocide, and antinatalists start kvetching and then the thread is lost to shitposts. Just like this one.

This is a superfluous book retreading grounds that Schopenhauer has had the last word on for a century and a half

>>21629954
The issue is that anti-natalists insist that life is meaningless but then go on to make a moral argument that you shouldn't reproduce as if moral judgments were possible

>>21629965
More and more I feel like that's just true of every book posted here that was written since like the 70s. dumb pop-philosophy done better centuries ago

>>21629974
It's even worse than that anon, they even believe utilitarianism is correct.

>>21629851
I did its an appeal to hypocrisy and argumentum ad Lazarum, it is a fallacious argument. Him earning half decent money does to render him unqualified to speak, nor does it have any baring on the logic of claims he is making even.

>>21617921

>Those mourners are themselves now long dead. One thinks about the lives of those families—the beliefs and values, loves and losses, hopes and fears, strivings and failures—and one is struck that nothing of that remains.

Good! :)

>>21630800
How so?

>>21630655
You're a retard who can't read. The question is why anyone should listen to a bougie professor who lives a very comfortable life materially talk about how life is pointless, clearly you don't believe life is pointless when you have spent half your life striving to become an upper middle class professor. It's not a fallacious argument to point to his own life when how to live life properly(or not) is the whole point of his thought.

>>21630949
And you're a retard incapable of reasoning given your repeated posts making an appeal to hyocorisy as a counter to his argument.

>>21624056
So a man can choose what he wills but he can not will what he wills?
I generally agree but at the same time it really just looks like you’re kicking the can down the road. At that point the dog is inseparable from the simulation if they’re intrinsically tied.
See: the fact that you had no choice in your birth or even that you control you

Benatar > Peterson

>>21629974
Maybe a nihilist who subscribes to antinatalist rhetoric. I'm a pessimist. I think existence has hella value, just very negative value.

>>21627252
>petterson makes an argument about raising your children to increase the good in the world
REALLY? WHAT IF YOU CHOP HIS LEGS OFF

and some how lit thinks he won the debate

>>21632208
>So a man can choose what he wills but he can not will what he wills?
We don't actually know, using arguments based on physics doesn't work. The experience being external to any playback means your will can just as well be what dictates the data the simulation is based on. The experience including the feeling of making a choice is partly happening in some system beyond anything we can conceive of.
>the dog is inseparable from the simulation
The point of view of the dog is not included. The dog can be separated from any specific simulation but not from its "essence" or whatever the thing is that experiences the point of view of the dog. The dog is not the physical thing but the soul.
Everything in the dog's experience is the appearance of choice, his experience is a representation of the process making the choices, a process before time not the physical instance in time. The meaning of his choices are timeless not physical.

>>21633666
Peterson refused to address the argument and lost that point.