Well this thread has proven conclusively that atheists are just as closed minded as religious folk. I’ve never seen so many angry idiots argue for suicide.

I’ll spell it out one more time for you dumbfucks and then I’m blocking all your asses.

There is no scientific consensus on what happens to the consciousness after death. Period.

It could just end. It could also mean that you lay there helplessly experiencing the absolute pain of every cell dying, rotting and being consumed as it decays.

It could be that you find yourself trying to justify your sins to Anubis. It could be that you end up in Valhalla.

We simply don’t know. And that makes the risk assessment of the action of suicide (as a relief from the pain of living) volatile to the point where the possible gain in pain relief isn’t worth the loss of your life.

That’s it. That’s my entire argument. It’s not Christian, it’s not scientific. It’s fucking assessing a gambling risk. Grow up and get your collective heads out of your asses - the moral grandstanding because you "suspect’’ I might have a religious view is fucking idiotic and obnoxious - you’re no better than the Christians you think you’re preaching against.

It’s not a religious view - you folks need to take a step back and look at the argument, not your own inferences.

So then do you know? Seeing as you think you’re psychic and all…

Literally the entire point of my comment is “we don’t know”. Don’t put words in other people’s mouths, and understand that it’s bad form to attempt to make straw man arguments when you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

Which, incidentally, is what the ancient Egyptian’s conception of hell was:

In order to receive judgement the dead journeyed through the various parts of the Duat to be judged. If the deceased was successfully able to pass various challenges, then they would reach the Judgment of the dead. In this ritual, the deceased’s first task was to correctly address each of the forty-two Assessors of Maat by name, while reciting the sins they did not commit during their lifetime.[15] After confirming that they were sinless, the heart of the deceased was weighed by Anubis against the feather of Maat, which represents truth and justice. Any heart that is heavier than the feather failed the test, and was rejected and eaten by Ammit, the devourer of souls, as these people were denied existence after death in the Duat. The souls that were lighter than the feather would pass this most important test, and would be allowed to travel to Aaru.

The Duat is not equivalent to the conceptions of Hell in the Abrahamic religions, in which souls are condemned with fiery torment. The absolute punishment for the wicked, in ancient Egyptian thought, was the denial of an afterlife to the deceased, ceasing to exist in the intellectual form seen through the devouring of the heart by Ammit

One of the reasons I’ve decided to stick around. Plus, I just like walking like an Egyptian…

Why? It’s a simple risk assessment based one question:

If I kill myself, will it stop the pain?

And the answer is that I don’t know. Neither do you. For all we know, it could be worse.

To me, that’s an unacceptable risk.

Anything you infer or think I’m implying is based on your own assumptions (which are shallow and self-centered - you have no idea about the amount of pain I’ve suffered in my life, so fuck you very much too - pretty arrogant to assume you have a monopoly on suffering).

My original statement isn’t a moral or religious statement, it’s just one of fact. You have a limited amount of time to live. You have (apparently) an unlimited amount of time to be dead, you will be dead eventually no matter what, and being dead could be much worse than being alive depending on what you experience.

The odds that things will get better with suicide aren’t in your favor. That’s just a fact, kid. Don’t be in a rush to make things worse for yourself and everyone around you.

The major flaw in your reasoning is that you’re assuming that there’s less pain on the other side. It could be better, but it could be much much worse, especially if you’re carrying the regret of unfinished business left behind.

Yes.

I will cosplay my cat and start an OnlyFans if Anon follows through on this one.

You have a couple of decades worth of life left to deal with. You’ve got an eternity to be dead, and it could suck worse. Plus, if you’re a Buddhist or Hindu you’re probably gonna have to go through it all again. Might as well see this ride through to the end of the line.

O my sweet summer child… dictatorships don’t have expiration dates. This will not end with an election. It will end with a revolution.

Artichoke. The name describes how it tries to kill you.

You should have seen the conservative candidate…

The song What might be the song for the meme, Particle Man, in case anyone was interested… courtesy of the Animaniacs and They Might Be Giants.

Not a historian, but here’s the general consensus per Wikipedia:

Cannibalism in the Americas has been practiced in many places throughout much of the history of North America and South America. The modern term “cannibal” is derived from the name of the Island Caribs (Kalinago), who were encountered by Christopher Columbus in The Bahamas. While numerous cultures in the Americas were reported by European explorers and colonizers to have engaged in cannibalism, some of these claims may be unreliable since the Spanish Empire used them to justify conquest.[1]

At least some cultures have been archeologically proven beyond any doubt to have undertaken institutionalized cannibalism. This includes human bones uncovered in a cave hamlet confirming accounts of the Xiximes undertaking ritualized raids as part of their agricultural cycle after every harvest. Also proven are the Aztec ritual ceremonies during the Spanish conquest at Tecoaque. The Anasazi in the 12th century have also been demonstrated to have undertaken cannibalism, possibly due to drought, as shown by proteins from human flesh found in recovered feces.

There is near universal agreement that some Mesoamericans practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, but there is no scholarly consensus as to its extent. Anthropologist Marvin Harris, author of Cannibals and Kings, has suggested that the flesh of the victims was a part of an aristocratic diet as a reward since the Aztec diet was lacking in proteins. According to Harris, the Aztec economy would not support feeding enslaved people (the captured in war), and the columns of prisoners were “marching meat.” Conversely, Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano has proposed that Aztec cannibalism coincided with harvest times and should be considered more of a Thanksgiving.

Sounds like Rocky Raccoon moved to Ohio…

deleted by creator