Why would eliminating life—and all the perpetual suffering it entails—be something objectively bad?
>>18712932Cause living is suffering and without it you cannot be happy either.We should try to keep it at minimum but also accept it's an intrinsic part of existence.And if you live on easy mode with no exterior suffering the human mind already has a self-regulated method called depression.
>>18712932It wouldn't be objectively good or bad because you'd have eliminated any human being capable of giving it a value judgement
>>18712932>picWhat if we eliminated all obligate carnivores and parasites instead?
good = sharing qualities with God (gentleness, mercy, creation)elimitinating life can be just or good if done by God or a servant of God for reasons God commands. otherwise it is sophistry to imply as good.
>>18712932Because life is objectively good. The good in life outweighs the bad for a vast majority of people
>>18712932It isn't bad. Only brainwashed religicucks think otherwise.>umm akshually suffering is good and necessary because...god says so or something, okay??
>>18713776>life is objectively goodYou can't defend this stance without an appeal to your subjective sensibilities
>>18712932First prove why is suffering bad?
>>18713801Just like how you cannot defend the stance that life is inherently bad without an appeal to YOUR subjectivity
>>18712932Why don't we just eliminate suffering instead? Science is making progress only towards eliminating temporary suffering —only Buddhism eliminates it forever
>>18712932Efilism is retarded and a position you can only entertain if you've never experienced true beauty. Unfortunately a good chunk of people are retarded and will never experience beauty, and even more people will mistake what is pleasurable for true beauty. In either case humanity collectively suffers the nihilistic detachment of the former and the sociopathy of the latter.
>>18712932Cause muh organic pointless funko pops
>>18714680My organismirinos
>>18712932It wouldn't, nor would it be objectively good. But it would be subjectively bad for me. >>18714081Incorrect. Science has the power to genetically engineer people who are incapable of suffering.
Nature is evil >>18712932
>>18714746Define "evil"
>suffering is bad>therefore, inflicting suffering is not bad
>>18712932it wouldnt be.and someday......the universe will end.
>>18714070>but if things are subjective then your stance is also subjectiveYeah? Did you think this was a good rebuttal?
>>18714930So nobody can claim anything then since everything is subjective.
>>18714943Subjective doen't mean directionless, you can point if some actions is condusive to a goal but there is not an objective good or bad outside minds
>>18714715>Science has the power to genetically engineer people who are incapable of sufferingBut they can die and then what? They reincarnate somewhere. If Earth that's great but maybe they won't
>>18715066So what if they die?
>>18715291then they suffer again???....
>>18713776>The good in life outweighs the bad for a vast majority of people>Source: crackpipe
>>18712976then herbivore populations would explode resulting in mass starvation/disease/ die-offs in huge cycles, the suffering hasnt changed.
>>18715387I accept your concession. If life was bad like you claim you would kill yourself.
>>18715066>>18715292Reincarnation isn't real though.
>>18715615Yes it is. We have thousands of cases of reincarnated kids remembering past lives to a degree they could never know otherwise, sometimes with birthmarks where they were shot in their past life (see video) or phobias about water when they drowned.https://youtu.be/qmDcpnQGO3A?t=230
>>18715632Through empirical testing can you show me specifically how this happens? Yes or no?
>>18715537But there would still be scavengers like vultures.
>>18712932Because life isn't wholly suffering. It's a component, sure, but not total.Why should the presence of negatives in life supersede our consideration for the positives? Why not seek to maximise the good as far as possible?
>>18715636So killing someone and then looking for their reincarnation? Are you retarded?
>>18715657Is that the only way to prove reincarnation is real with evidence or your "just trust me bro" YouTube link is enough to convince you? Unrelated would you like to buy a bridge?
>>18712932Fuck life
>>18715661Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Jim Tucker not only are doctors (which you are not) working for a university, they dedicated years researching kids across the world who had recalled previous lives and remembered impossible details. Thousands of cases. I rest my case
>>18715641Nothing is objectively good, poop can taste as good as caviarIt's all just a trick of your brain to create preferences But suffering has value because it's not trying to fool you into chasing something that you don't need to chase
>>18715689>Nothing is objectively good, poop can taste as good as caviarNor is anything objectively bad. >But suffering has value because it's not trying to fool you into chasing something that you don't need to chase It's trying to fool you into avoiding something you don't need to avoid.
>>18712932The natural world looks horrifying to a human but animals lack the capacity to look beyond their form and their base nature. In this way they are capable of happy lives in the face of so much threat every single day.This isn't to discount the depth of suffering some animals face, but this is simply the result of a fundamentally unfair world. It's not the norm anyway.The happy farm animals in sanctuaries and morally run farms experience something akin to paradise. Humans regularly give unimaginably comfortable existences to animals of lower mental capacity without having to try very hard.
>>18715683Do these Doctors have solid undeniable proof that can be measured and monitored or is it literally just asking a kid and accepting whatever comes out of their mouth as fact? That bridge is still for sale BTW
>>18716289You are arguing in bad faith. You clearly didn't watch the video. The kid remembered the name of his past life, took his grandma to the house, remembered how he died, and had a birthmark where he was shot, and the mother at the house confirmed how her son died. This is common, but the Western media doesn't want anyone to know anything they don't believe
>>18716311Would a court accept a testimony of someone who reincarnated and solved his last life's murder in a cold case? Yes or no?
>>18717299Earth judicial systems give everyone a free pass on everything they did in past lives, mostly because they can't verify if it's an adult who could have just googled some random person and claimed to be them. When thousands of kids come up with a story about someone with A NAME WHICH YOU CAN'T FAKE and tons of other details they can't fake, and they're just a kid with nothing to gain, that's different.
>>18712932The question is not coherent.
>>18717307But is it evidence that can be accepted as testimony?
>>18717348A child's should be. Whether modern judges believe it can be accepted is different. They don't believe in reincarnation so no. Does that make them right? No, seeing as they're blatantly denying evidence, it makes them retarded.
>>18717465>evidence Is this evidence verified. How specifically is it verified?
>>18717969Because the only two explanations for children knowing things they shouldn't are they remember it or they were told by a higher intelligence which could be good or evil. The East decides to believe they remember it and so do I. The West decides the entire East is worshipping demons because the Bible believes in only one life
>>18718060So you are saying Eastern nations use children as witnesses for their past lives? Say a man is murdered. He is reincarnated. Can his reincarnated self solve his previous life's murder in the East?
>>18718253Oh I see what you're saying. No they use it as a lead to identify a suspect but they don't use it as evidence. I guess the state is afraid to commit to the religious beliefs of the people
>>18712932Meme Buddhists think they can end all life. There will just be some other life somewhere else! Look at the stars in the sky, there will be life somewhere out there and you will not end it and someone will incarnate as it.
>>18718495Mahayana Buddhists think they can enlighten all life. You still exist as awareness and even have a body it's just not made of matter
>>18718518I exist as a living thing. And even if the whole world was made to agree with every opinion of one living thing, there would be other worlds far away that thing can not reach.
>>18718491If the East say it is 100% true without empirical evidence why not just believe the person reincarnated?
