I don't know. I have not read anything by or about him in a long time. I usually do not watch videos, although sometimes I do put them on 2x speed and read the closed captions along with the audio. Perhaps it is not his sanity that he struggles with but his need to remain in the public eye — Fooloso4

I watch a lot of his YouTube stuff. I think he is very intelligent but he seems to me to have tremendous internal struggles. I watched an old video chat between him and Stephen Fry where It seemed to me that Jordan spent most of his time holding back the tears.

I see I have you fooled! The work of a foolosopher. — Fooloso4

:rofl: So perhaps not so modest after all. Nothing wrong with "keepin em all guessin" as long as the intent is not nefarious.

It is in line with what you say. Of course not everyone agrees with her, but even her critics cannot dismiss her scholarship — Fooloso4

All we can do, is ask others to study this stuff. Perhaps we might even scream it from the pulpits of the internet and help move our species forward and out of the theistic fog and the fog of nasty political systems which only benefit and maintain a few rich and powerful demagogs who seem determined to destroy all of us without the acceptance that they will also be destroyed.

One then asks, what is there in this one has to be afraid of, and hope for? Now we are talking philosophy.
What do you think it is — Astrophel

There is nothing in the empty void except that which we bring with us.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself. etc, etc.
All the horrible experiences the human race has memorialised since our civilisations began have surely screamed at us their main message:
THERE ARE NO GODS TO HELP YOU! HELP YOURSELVES OR PERISH!
We must accept this and build a fair, global civilisation with economic equality for all or perish as bad stewards of Earth.
Another species will emerge in time on Earth, if we cannot correct the historical
errors, which have led to our currently dangerous predicament.

If you want an example of a contemporary sophist Peterson comes to mind first. At some point he began to garner attention and has milked it for all its worth. — Fooloso4

Do you think he struggles with his own sanity?

Sean Carroll for physics. — Fooloso4

I really like Sean Carroll. Listened to a great podcast between him and Carlo Rovelli on Loop Quantum Gravity etc. Excellent stuff.
Do you think there is any sense/value in the title 'Scientific Philosopher?'

You may be the first to have commented on my forum name — Fooloso4

That does surprise me, it's so cool and well-chosen. The self-deprecation you employ, considering your academic background suggests a humorous and modest persona, which is always refreshing to encounter.

The Huns used to have contests to see who could slaughter the most babies in raids. Try to remember human standards back then as established by the pathetic brutes that rather snuff out the torch to have sovereignty for themselves, instead of letting the human mind flourish in freedom. We are all better people than these monsters. Most of us... — Garrett Travers

I think it goes back much further. Do we chastise the Lion for slaughtering a baby deer and consuming it or killing the cubs of a rival? It's 'law of the jungle stuff'. I'm sure there were many savage members of our evolutionary lineage right back to our common ape ancestors. I think terms like human monster/brute etc became valid when our triune brain began to coalesce into individuals who started to 'measure' behavior against emergent phenomena such as morality/ethics. A battle has ensued ever since between emergent morality/ethics against our 'law of the jungle' beginnings and I think the first mistake we ever made was to allow the braun of the few to dominate the brain of the many.
It's such a shame that the brains of the many did not group together from the start and kill those who wanted to be king of everyone else.

But this has no analysis. Ask yourself, what is the existential foundation for these stories, that in the world that gives rise to them at all — Astrophel

Well not being a philosopher and lacking in any qualifications in the field, I am quite limited in the philosophical terminology that I can call upon.
I would say, from the evidence of observing human behavior in my own lifetime and from human behavior recorded in the books I have read etc. My interpretation of such evidence suggests to me that the 'existential foundation' I refer to is human fear of that which they do not understand and therefore conceive as a potential threat. A natural reaction to such fear in the long term is to try to learn more about the phenomenon but meantime seek protection from potential harm by engaging in tribal or/and biological support and psychologically attempting to establish further support from imagined benevolent supernatural forces. I think that's what humans do and I think there is a great deal of evidence for it, both current and historical.

It's probably already been said but I like your play on fool lo sofour(4) or foolosopher. :rofl:

I would be interested in your opinion of Jordan Peterson? If you were willing to give it?
Also, do you think neuroscientists such as Sam Harris can bridge any gap between Science and philosophy, can anyone be called a 'Scientific Philosopher?'

Wasn't Judaism entirely made up by the Babylonians? — Olivier5

"By the rivers of Babylon, where we sat down, oh yes we will, when we remember Zion"

The Babylonians contributed their stories to a section of early people who they enslaved from those who settled around the areas in Caanan and The Levant etc historically 'penciled in' as Judea and Israel.
The history is a patchwork of mainly chiseled sources and extant artifacts. I'm sure it's pretty close to actual events but if you demand the rigour of something like the scientific method then you must declare all such historical evidence as 'lacking' in the area of proof.

What is your take on Judaism? I note that you don't mention it here. Is that an oversight or do you make an exception for Yahweh?
BTW, I'm one of your brother atheists — Olivier5

Greetings brother!
I could chat for a long time on Judaism and its connection with Canaanite gods like El, Asherah, BAAL etc and Christianity.
How about the Judaic story of Lilith and her relationship with the garden of Eden 'snake' and its iconographic relationship with the 'flying snake' or dragon and Liliths' spat with Adam, way before Eve and her EVil and dEVil came on the scene.
All sorts of fascinating parallels in stories like the story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the Roman Mithratic cults, The classical pantheon etc.
Humans have an enormous historical tendency to create and tell stories based on some natural event they personally witnessed or heard about and did not understand (perhaps the sun going all dark and red for a period of time) etc. The Chinese whisper factor will do the rest to make Pinocchio a real boy who actually lived, especially if it helps those in power, opiate the masses.
Like Hollywood today, storytellers borrow from the stories already available, to make new stories.
If I was born in the very early days of human existence, I would have looked up at the big lights in the sky and all the rest that was happening around me and grunted a whole lot of WTF's! at my fellows.
I don't think it would have been too long before I started to be comforted by G....O.....D.
Great Omniscient Diety. I just made that up btw, so please no one respond with "that's not what God stands for!" :naughty:

Rather careless of them not to have included that in their cult. They could have saved a lot of bother with just one verse, e.g. "And the heavens were riven with angels singing: 'Don't forget to celebrate the Emperor's birthday and refer to him as 'Divine'. A little statue on the mantlepiece would be appreciated as well. Jus' sayin — Cuthbert

Would have certainly saved a lot of human lives but it's an old dilemma. Do what I say and live or go against me and take the risk that you, your loved ones and everything that's important to you will be utterly destroyed.

I mean, have you ever heard anyone obsessing about whether Socrates or Buddha existed historically? Nobody seems to care about them... Why are the historical erasers not concerned about the Buddha's or Socrates' existence or lack thereof? Why is all the erasing attention going to that same guy Jesus, always, as if the Buddha or Socrates did not even not exist? That's not fair — Olivier5

:rofl: It must seem that way to Christians. No, I for one would make similar arguments against other cults such as Mohamed and Islam or the Hindu pantheon or Odin or Zeus etc. It's just that Christianity and Islam have the biggest presence out there at the moment.
I also regularly comment about my concerns that the current way we do things is based on the historical writings of ancient Greco-roman musings. Regardless of whether or not a particular 'philosopher' existed. So I feel I am quite fair in the general hatred that I potentially attract from others but I don't feel alone. There is an 'atheist brother/sister/peoplehood' I can stand with.

They got people to join their cult for the sport of persecuting them for being in it. — Cuthbert

Well I think it was more to do with empire building and the conquest and subtle subjugation of other peoples rather than 'persecution for sport' (but they did engage is this also). The Romans did not really care who their conquered masses wanted to worship. In fact, they would fully support and help you maintain your local gods. BUT you had to include a statue of the emperor and accept him as overlord.
The jews would not comply with this, no matter how often the Romans slaughtered their rebellious risings. They would rise again a generation later. So, a more subtle approach was needed, enter the traitor Josephus Flavius. The very rich, very powerful Egyptian 'Alexanders,' strong allies of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian Flavius and The family of the Herods who ruled Judea after the Greek seleucid's were kicked out by the rebellious Jewish Maccabees. Let's create a saviour mssiah we could use to pacify the jews and other rebel tribes, in line with the old testament stories and the prophecies of Daniel.

A further point I would make is I think the insults, the parody and the satire continue to this day for followers of Christianity. I find it incredible that they don't reject being referred to as a 'flock' of sheep.
When I have asked them 'why do you accept being referred to as sheep?'
I get 'because it is reflective of a loving, caring shepherd.'
I then say but a shepherd looks after his sheep because they are his main resource for survival. He is clothed from them, fed by them, earns money by selling them.
That's why he loves them!!
It's that why the Christian leaders love you, you keep them fed, clothed, rich!!

They normally 'hate me' after that but not all, some raise a little enlightening eyebrow now and then.

Must be a burden for you, 'to hate.'

I bet the Romans kicked themselves when people started believing it and refused to recognise the divinity of the Emperor. "Guys, guys, we made the whole thing up... really, we did... — Cuthbert

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
You have the order the wrong way around.
The Sicari refused to recognise the divinity of the Roman Emporer's that's true, that's why the clever Romans, with assistance, delivered their version of a divine roman emperor to the jews, disguised as their own pacifist messiah, dressed in sackcloth, for them to 'believe in.'
The Romans then also used this new cult to tame other rebellious peoples and eventually admitted it by adopting Christianity as their own.
The Romans were well-practiced at creating religious cults, building temples of worship and assigning priests, etc to spread and maintain the cult. They learned how from reading how the Greeks did it.
There are many well-recorded examples of them doing this for many of their Emperors.
There are extant examples of statues and archways depicting such.
The Christian cult is just their most successful one.
Many did, after all, accept the Roman emperor as their god or to bring things up to modern times, the Christian god's main representative on Earth. Everyone who accepts the pope (the final inheritor for the Roman emperors), continues to worship the legacy of the Roman Emperors. He is the pontif maximus, an old name for the Roman emperor and he still rules his flock from Rome itself.

That's not what real, professional historians say. It is instead what rabid, irrational haters of christianity say. — Olivier5

For me personally, many of the tenets of Christianity are pernicious yes, many others are not. This is again for me, the same with all theism.
We each make our choice. Your professional historians are my cranks and purveyors of false history.
I am sure your choice is the exact opposite.
I am open to dialogue on any issue you care to raise to support your view. I predict that at the end of any such exchange, our positions are unlikely to have altered, even though both of us (as I certainly do) will state that we are open-minded and will accept evidence presented if its veracity can be established.

I will chalk that up under "freaky things that Jesus entices folks to do": rewrite history so as to erase his name — Olivier5

I don't think the Jesus Christ fable will ever be 'erased,' similarly, I don't think the fables of Hercules or Harry Potter will ever be erased, but yes, I think we have to correct the historically incorrect claim that the story of the life of the Christian messiah, (which I think is close to saying the word messiah twice) Jesus Christ, is a memorialisation of actual historical events.

What if the loaves of bread and fish were all huge?
You just need a huge oven and very big fish. — Andrew4Handel

I think you are struggling here.
If they were actually feeding on a whale shark then I think they would have at least reported a very big fish and I don't think they were capable of making loaves that size and if what you suggest is true then it's unlikely it would have been reported at all, as if these the large food items you said are common practice when feeding a gathering of 5000 people then that would just be 'having lunch.'
But I agree with your comment that theist stories are just that, stories!

he disagrees with the mythicists, as they are known and specifically debated against Robert Price. From Erhman's blog Oct 2016 — Tom Storm

I saw that debate and its an old one. Bart has become far more anti-theist since then, check out some of his latest YouTube offerings.

I think the more reasonable position on Jesus these days is that there was a human being who was killed and who inspired the myths — Tom Storm

I subscribe to the more recent chat on this. For example, Joe Atwill's book presents Jesus and the disciples as satire. Parodies of characters who fought against the Romans. The Sicari.
Why would the rebel Jews, accept a Messiah who states things like 'render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasers and turn the other cheek and blessed are the meek etc.' These are all good for the Romans.
A jewish leader that tells the Sicari to stop fighting the Romans and accept their fate.
If they behave themselves, Jesus tells them they will get their reward in heaven, AFTER THEY ARE DEAD!
Then the jews get blamed for asking for this nice placid Jesus to be crucified and the Romans try their best to refuse! This is obviously Roman propaganda!

Josephus Flavius started as a Sicari but got captured by the Romans and turned traitor.
Atwill thinks he was involved in authoring the gospels and inventing Jesus.
Some of the more simplistic, interesting parallels he posits are:
The phrase 'fishers of men' being a parody of a battle fought by Titus Flavius on the sea of Galilea against a Jewish force led by a rebel called Jesus. Many of the defeated Sicari ended up in the water and the Romans were ordered to spear them, they literally went 'fishing for men.'
He parallels Josephus Bar Mathias (later Josephus Flavius ) as Joseph of Arimathea(a place never found.)
He parallels Judas Iscariot (with Sicari).
These are only the beginnings of the parallels and typological similarities he posits between the gospels and the books of Josephus Flavius. There was no historical Jewish messiah named Jesus Christ.
In Greek, even his name literally translates to Jesus(Saviour) Christ(Messiah), so his name is Saviour messiah. I'm sure the Sicari called all their rebel leaders 'saviour' and 'messiah' or chosen hero.

It's a bit different for Socrates. Mainly because he was the first ethicist in Western history, and philosophy was still such a young concept that humans were working with. That being said, Socrates was eternally committed to developing himself in the pursuit of the good. He was always the philosopher, even in death. — Garrett Travers

I always enjoy hearing about the 'beginnings' of our attempts at founding a 'civilisation' or the earliest city-states etc. The case of Socrates is very interesting considering the fact that we have no actual writings from him. Everything we know about him is sourced from others writing bout him. So we are dependent on the accuracy of their reports. I think there were probably many people before Socrates and even contemporary to him who could be described as 'ethicist' or 'wise man/woman.' That's another issue I feel we don't give enough airtime to. Wise women such as Hypatia.
I think it's probably unfortunate that classical Greece and Rome had such a massive impact on our modern civilisations in the West. I think a much more nuanced approach would have been better.
Most of the very early indigenous groups from the aboriginals to the Aztec, Minoan and Shang cultures had a much better respect for the Earth's resources than the Romans and Greeks.
I think early city-state-type settlements from The Akkadians, the Phonecians, Earliest Persians etc had many pearls of wisdom to offer, which were probably destroyed by early morons such as Alexander the great(dickhead).

We should teach that our first and biggest mistake was the idea that progress and uniting peoples could only ever be achieved by conquering them, enslaving them and stealing everything they had.
I think that we should stop admiring early Greece and Rome.
I think it was mimicry of these moronic cultures that started us on the incredibly bloody path to the destructive cultures we have today. I might be being a bit harsh on the Romans and Greeks. It may well be that such behavior was inevitable due to our Darwinian experiences in the wild but it is such a real shame that we valued and respected our greatest warriors rather than our greatest thinkers.

The braun can always kill brain approach proved to be such a costly way to progress.
How much better would it have been if early civilisations could have grown together and eventually have united in peace instead of through violence. I think we would be a far more harmonious species today and would not always be on the brink of our own destruction.
Ten thousand years of slaughtering anything different from what some local. tribal, tough guy, F***wit leader considered 'the only way to do things' is why we are in the state we are in now.
If only we could all see that it was these dimwitted, totally wrong f***** up early decisions that we must stop emulating and repeating. We based our civilisation on some of the worse elements of those early ones. Rich, poor, money, divine right of kings, rule of the strongest, conquest as a means of expansion, etc, etc
wrong! wrong! wrong!

Socrates not charging money speaks to the issue of benefit. He did not teach in order to benefit himself, and did not refuse to teach those who could not pay. — Fooloso4

I don't know exactly who was labeled 'sophist' in the classical era but the lecturer in the video I mentioned, seemed to suggest that the sophists were those who taught the young men how to be wise but they charged for their services. I take it you consider this inaccurate, perhaps I was not attentive enough to everything that was said about the sophists in the lecture.

Correction on Prof Bart Ehrman, I don't think he has actually stated he does not think there was no historical Jesus yet but he has stated he no longer believes in god. This after being a highly educated theist for most of his life.

The number of highly qualified people in the field of theology, biblical study etc who now say there never was a historical Jesus, continue's to grow and grow.
Prof Bart Ehrman, Dr Robert Price, Dr Richard Carrier, Dr Robert Eisenman, Dr Rod Blackhirst, Dr J Harrold Ellens, Dr Jan Koster and on and on it goes.
Books like Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill , Creating Christ by James Valliant and C. W. Fahy contain a lot of quite convincing evidence (in my opinion) to confirm that Jesus and all the people around him are made up fables, as are the gospels.

Is a sophist a philosopher — Fooloso4

I posted this on p3 of this thread:

"I watched a lecture on YouTube a while ago that was the beginning of a philosophy course and that particular lecturer (A young American guy) described a philosopher in the literal translation of 'philo' meaning love and 'sophie' meaning wisdom, so as was posted earlier, a lover of wisdom.
I was more interested in his definition of a sophist, as 'one who is wise', without the 'love' aspect.
I also thought it was interesting when he said that a main difference between a philosopher and a sophist is that a sophist offered their wisdom for sale or for payment. He went on to say that this was not true of people like Socrates, so Socrates was not a sophist.
So would all teachers who accept pay today be correctly called sophists?
Could philosophers who take money for on-line debates etc also be called sophist?
Is it because money became involved in disseminating wisdom that sophistry became a word associated with an intention to deceive and someone who should not be trusted?"

I got this response from 180 proof

↪universeness The fundamental difference, I think, between "philosophers" and "sophists" is that the latter tend to reason from one's position (i.e. rationalize (e.g. dogmas) ... teaching 'how to be wise') and the former tend to reason against one's position (i.e. problematize (e.g. aporias) ... unlearning 'unwise habits').

For me, more serious impossibilities would include:
A human virgin birth.
Feeding 5 thousand people with a loaf and two fishes.
Raising the dead.
Fitting people and two of every lifeform in existence into an ark and surviving a global flood.
Making the Sun stop spinning without all the planets flying off into space.
Every so-called miracle the theists say actually happened.

Oh, I also agree with 'solipsism is nonsense.'

I was interested in what facts would make something impossible not whether evidence exists for something


It's impossible for an immovable object to exist in the presence of an irresistible force.

I don't think this will ever be possible. Only your body fits your brain. You can't take your brain out and place it in a vat, supplying it with information that your body would provide for you normally. The brain and body are unseparable. Even you dreaming can't be accomplished in this way. Separating your brain from the body is just as impossible as separating the world around you from it. The brain, body, and physical world are inseparable — Schootz1

Well, we could start the process by removing arms and legs, there are humans who live lives without these. So how much more is separable from your brain without destroying "I." We can take genitalia, eyes, nose, ears, tongue. We know humans can live as a self-aware, sentient person without one or more of these. Heart, Lungs, Kidneys etc and many other parts can be replaced with transplants.
How much more deconstruction will science be able to achieve in the future?
If science can find replacements for everything I have mentioned above then we have a cyborg but one who is still "I". In the real-life examples of people who live without some of the parts mentioned above, would your opinion be that such people are less self-aware than someone who has all their preferred parts in place from birth?
Are you sure that a human brain in a box or a cybernetic body is impossible?
I think you are dead wrong.

So you are content with I {the seer} see myself {the seeable}, and theorise me {the unseeable} -- or thereabouts? — unenlightened

Well no, for me, that just doesn't fit well. The term 'see' is something your eyes do as an input sensor. So I don't think 'seer', 'seeable' and 'unseeable' have much validity.
My self-awareness is made up of three components of a single presence. I think the three components are manifestations of my triune brain. I don't mind how these three manifestations are labelled really but I am aware of three 'contributors,' in my head, when I am involved in 'thinking' or 'decision making.'
I am sure a 'brain expert' could tell me a lot more about the science behind these three manifestations but it's always good to get philosophical views as well.

Ouch, but Hannibal Lecter would approve. I think he actually does this to one of the characters in those movies played by Ray Liotta! Yeuch!

A brain cannot experience itself — unenlightened

Sorry I took so long to respond to you, I was in PM chat with a few other members.
Ok, just some crossed lines then, no problem. My background is not mainstream philosophy so if the philosophy jargon gets too heavy then I am prone to misinterpreting it. This is a philosophy site and I admit to being a retired interloper from the computing world but I am just interested in any common ground between philosophy and science.
Based on the quote above, I would say well that is what I would call 'self-awareness,' I think a brain does
experience itself.

one can only have a partial incomplete view of oneself — unenlightened

I agree that at any moment it time when I am not concentrating on external sensors. If all my senses were momentarily blocked for example then I could still think and be aware of self and brain etc but I can conceive of your point here that it would be a series of snapshots of the whole and therefore an incomplete view. If that's what you mean?

if I have a true insight, then I see the whole - all three. But if all three are seen, who is seeing? — unenlightened

Yeah, I have always really liked this one and struggled with it for a while but I became 'content' with the conception that I am not able to see the whole of 'me, myself and I' at any instant in time. I think the human brain is capable of many parallel processes but my brain cannot access every part of itself at the same instant in time. Aspects of its workings are serial, not parallel. Perhaps this is currently just untapped ability. Science does claim that in our lifetime we do only use around 20% of our brains capacity. So perhaps we will discover how use our brains fully in the future.
I think that self-awareness gives a brain the ability to articulate its own functionality in the way I just have, when typing this response and I can I can still produce output even if all my senses were blocked. I mean, even reduced down to a brain in a box.
If the rest of me was removed and science could still maintain just my brain and interface with it then "I" may well still 'exist' in a very real way. How would you define what you are calling insight in the thought experiment I describe as a brain in a box or even more so, a downloaded consiousness. Not even the presence of a physical brain? Do you think such will ever be possible?

It would be the end of the debate for all reasonable people — Bartricks

I read your response to me 3 times and I think I understood it less from the 3rd reading than I did the first. All I can do is admit that I cannot follow your logic.
I can only bow out of the thread.
I hope others can offer you more.
Thanks for the exchange.

They won the most important ones such as Shilo and Gettysburg. The contribution of black troops can also not be denied in any way. Lincoln had his weak points but every so-called 'hero' does. One person's hero is another persons villian. Grant is very honest in his memoirs and it contains much about the despair he felt at having to fight both the Mexican war and much more so, the American civil war.
He delivers a very harrowing account of war but he does insist that the South gave the Union little choice.

Remember that a civil war was once fought over the right to OWN human beings — Garrett Travers

That's the one I am talking about. I am currently reading U. S. Grant's personal memoirs,
but this was not the first war due to slavery, there have been rebellions/wars against such way back and before the days of Spartacus.
As to your last sentence, I would use the words spoken by my American brother-in-law.
'The confederates surrendered but that war is still not over.'
Just in case there is any doubt. He and I would have supported the union in that nasty war.

Well I read it as carefully as I was able to, twice in fact.
I then read some of the exchanges you have had so far with others. This is a long thread so I understand that you might be becoming quite exasperated.
I appreciate your impatience, struggling to understand that which you find so obvious can be frustrating but ok, so your proposal has nothing to do with human desires.
So, reason as a faculty or 'an inherent mental power' informs us that we have reason to avoid death.

So, the actual tree is standing there regardless of my will or anyone else's will for there to be a tree in the position you reference. Ok, so far so good.
So to me, you wish to remove any emotional content within rational thinking or you are defining the term rational thinking as being devoid of human desire.
You draw on the seeing is evidence for believing, in the case of where this tree is.

I only repeat these things back to you to attempt to confirm that I understand your proposal and If I fall short then I hope you will correct me.

And then I argued that the best explanation of why we have that reason not to die is that death is a portal to hell. — Bartricks

Ok, let's say you are correct. Is that the end of the debate for you?
Is it unreasonable or irrational for me to ask for more of your conceptions about that which you call hell?
If you think it is then I will stop right there.

I will continue to point out the difference between your professed desire that people be treated with respect and your disrespectful actions. I think the other members of the forum have better things to do than "judge between us." Perhaps you should tattle to the moderators again — T Clark

Please do. You are not a significant enough presence to me to return your action. I will always offer respect to those who dispense it to others. You remain currently low on the list. You will receive more respect when you learn the ability to dispense it. It's arrogant but not surprising, that you attempt to speak for other members. I will leave subterfuge with moderators in your no doubt, well-practiced, well-experienced hands.

I understand what you are saying but the Americans will get what they vote for.
If they really want a civil war much worse than the one they already had then voting anything like trump back in, is a step towards it, in my opinion. There will be more American refugees crossing into Mexico than Mexicans trying to get into the US.
There is a separate thread for all trump issues however so I don't want to clog this one with trump talk

Yes I have read the OP.
I think you are suggesting that the evidence of human beings clinging so dearly to life, even when continuing it means continuous suffering and misery, indicates that death must hold even more suffering. You conclude that any existence after death must then be what you conceive as hell like.
I don't know if the hell you conceive is similar to that described by traditional theists or you are just using the term to indicate a higher level of suffering and personal misery than what an individual may suffer during their lifetime? Am I correct or way of the mark?

I am asking you to use your power of reason to give me your view of what you perceive was going on during the time before the Universe contained any life at all. A time that antinatalism considers superior when compared to the period since suffering began. Do you think the hell you posit, existed then or did it have a moment of creation?

I read what you have typed and understand your view. I dont agree with you. I think he is doomed.

I think if we looked past your current tendency towards a negative vibe about life, we would find a good person just trying to make sense of it all, much like the rest of us.