UK users: Due to a formal investigation into this site by Ofcom under the UK Online Safety Act 2023, we strongly recommend using a trusted, no-logs VPN. This will help protect your privacy, bypass censorship, and maintain secure access to the site. Read the full VPN guide here.
Today, OFCOM launched an official investigation into Sanctioned Suicide under the UK’s Online Safety Act. This has already made headlines across the UK.
This is a clear and unprecedented overreach by a foreign regulator against a U.S.-based platform. We reject this interference and will be defending the site’s existence and mission.
In addition to our public response, we are currently seeking legal representation to ensure the best possible defense in this matter. If you are a lawyer or know of one who may be able to assist, please contact us at [email protected].
Read our statement here:
Donate via cryptocurrency:
You know what hell is? Hell is continuing this life. All your previous suffering - just continued. Who knows. Maybe we have succeeded in our attempts, but this is hell so we don't think we're dead.
Don't even try to find it.
TLDR: you don't have anything to worry about, because like you said there's no logic in it.
Alexander Pruss' article in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It's a challenging book, so I wouldn't recommend it if you haven't studied much philosophy before. Anyways, the idea is that if God is a necessary being then it must have every objective perfection, since to not have a certain perfection is arbitrary and therefore God wouldn't be necessary (and that leads to a contradiction). If morals are objective, then God has perfect morals. On the other hand, if you want to argue (as I would) that morals are not objective, then God is morally neutral. If God is morally neutral, then God likely has no interest in doing good or harm just for the sake of gaining personal pleasure.
Sure, but I think that God isn't something we can comprehend fully so I'm not saying it's entirely impossible. I'm just offering a reason as to why it doesn't seem to make sense.
This exists in Islam too. I heard some possible explanations about why eternal torment exist. I dont think there is any specification in Islam that suiciders spend eternity in hell but there are mentions in oral tradition about suiciders being in a loop where they repeat their suicide act. I am yet to see any good explanation of why and how eternal torment is justified. If you ask me there are some really wicked people that no one will feel sorry for if they spend eternity in hell. Why cant a loving god punish such a wicked person with eternity in hell. Like Hitler, who cares?!? Then again I also understand the point of view that eternity is too much. So I am torn between two ideas
imo there is no hell, no afterlife, no reincarnation.
There is no action in particular to justify being given eternal torment. At some point the punishment becomes excessive, so nothing is gained from it. Romans 6:23 in particular supports the view conditional immortality, and ultimately I think would be the most fair form of punishment if the Christian God exists (although I'm not a Christian myself). However, I don't know much about Islam, so I'm not going to comment on that aspect.
Should it be only about action though. You dont think there are rotten to the core people with such an ugly self that they deserve eternal torment. How about people who wouldnt mind living forever if they given the chance by exploiting other people for hell like conditions for erernity. You see what I am saying. I am struggling with concept of hellish eternity too but i still think some people are so wicked to deserve it even if they are actions were limited by the limitation of finite human life span but should these evil people recieve limited punishement only because they were not capable of living infinite lifespans to even do infinite evil action. You see what im trying to say here?
What counts as an infinite evil? I think that someone cannot continuously justifiably be punished for any finite thing. Annihilation seems more justified. Would you rather get capital punishment or spend life in prison, let alone an eternity? Utility wise, the capital punishment option is better, both for the one who is punished and for the one who is doing the punishing imo.
Why can't you accept the fact that nobody can answer such questions?
There were documented near-death experiences where the person was completely brain-dead and had no pulse or anything. I think that some of them are made up, since there are many different near-death experiences that contradict one another. But there are some cases in which the patient describes floating out of their body and is able to accurately depict things that happened while they were clinically dead. Those seem impossible to describe naturalistically, so the only alternative is to say that those were made up too.
Well then I hope he didn't not describe hell.
