> Not the OP but there may be circumstances where someone is justified believing their continued suffering is a burden to themselves and others.

Yes, they may believe that but they are still not held responsible by anyone to take their own life!

> What authority do you believe is violated by someone making the choice when and how they die?

That's a bigger discussion, I shouldn't have said that to avoid provoking people. But I will say, by the same authority that tells you it's not your right to take other people's lives, even if they want you to kill them. Not yours to give,not yours to take.

> No, exactly. So if adults of sound mind have a right over their own person (despite an involuntary birth) then certainly they have a right over how and if their existence continues.

Legally? Depends on what society finds acceptable I guess. Personally, I can't criticize someone for doing so, but regardless of your sanity the answer to this question depends on the answer to other questions like is your life your own even though you didn't create it and didn't raise yourself? Is the purpose of your existense entirely meaningless or self contained? Or is your life meant to serve a greater purpose? Morally speaking it depends on your view point. Irrespective of how HNers think this is unpopular, the answer depends on your beliefs and I think I made mine clear. Legally, I don't think preventing peoppe from killing themselves would be of any use. The focus should be on offering mental health services not on criminalizing suicidal tendencies.

> This isn't saying much. Not everything is possible to everyone. Rational people are making difficult decisions all the time for this very reason.

I think you and all the downvoters missed my point. What I am saying is, death might appear like the answer and we can debate about that but what a suicidal person desires is to escape from life. You are insisting just because you believe death means ceasing to exist or end of pain, I have to accept that as well. You are saying death equals end of you. For example, few people want money (numbers and paper) they want the ability to buy something, so it I have some money but I am stuck in a supermax prison ,toilet paper means more to me than money I can't spend. Much in the same way, death may or may not allow you to escape life but what you want is not death because you have never experienced it, and even if you have certain beliefs about death you pick death over the present life because of how you have experiences life. If life was better than what you think death entails you would pick life. I am not saying life is better than death, I am saying you hate life and you believe death is an escape, you want an escape from life and you believe that is what death is.

> But I will say, by the same authority that tells you it's not your right to take other people's lives, even if they want you to kill them. Not yours to give,not yours to take..

> ...is your life your own even though you didn't create it and didn't raise yourself?

Other people's lives are their own. You seem to imply that because one doesn't chose to be born and cannot raise themselves that they don't have any right to chose to die. Then who does? Their parents? Some mystical sky being?

You're entitled to your own beliefs, however vague or fantastic they may be. Having spent a few decades being indoctrinated with a fear of an eternal hell (without any evidence) I'd rather not entertain such foolishness anymore.

See, you are entitled to your beliefs as well, but let us agree the answer to your original question depends on more fundamental beliefs about self, life and our place in reality.

I don't think this is the thread for discussing about God,heaven,hell,religion(or lack of it). But in journalism multiple independently verifiable sources count as a reputable source that backs a truthful story. In law, the testimony of two or more people is sufficient even without evidence (not just in the west but in almost every legal system). I and most of humanity disagree with your views of creation/origin, purpose of life and consequences of our actions beyond our lives. If you consider that irrelevant opinion, millions offer you testimonies of first hand experiences regarding these matters. I believe you can independently verify the testimonies of these unrelated individuals with everything to lose and nothing to gain (some get persecuted,tortured and killed for this belief!) should at least make you question the absolute and immovable nature of your conviction. I hope you are open to critical thinking, not emotions or wishy washy buzzwords meant to make you feel good. I can only encourage you to seek truth,however convenient or inconvenient it maybe, as I do the same with myself.

May the truth set us free from falsehoods and folly.

> But in journalism multiple independently verifiable sources count as a reputable source that backs a truthful story. In law, the testimony of two or more people is sufficient even without evidence (not just in the west but in almost every legal system). I and most of humanity disagree with your views of creation/origin

Second hand testimony is hearsay, if I'm not mistaken. And all firsthand witnesses to the most common faiths founders are all long dead. And few if any of them were literate.

Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose.

No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge.

Whatever the truth it's best to hold ones views loosely. Then when a more fitting explanation appears one can accept it.

> Second hand testimony is hearsay, if I'm not mistaken. And all firsthand witnesses to the most common faiths founders are all long dead. And few if any of them were literate.

Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose.

I said first hand, to all of that and more.

> No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge.

I am well aware of cognitive biases. You as well should beware just because modern intellectuals hold a certain view as popular,you should take it as fact. It was the intellectuals of the time that burned galileo. You're right, popularity does not serve as evidence. However, popularity should drive you to critically analyze your beliefs and the popular belief while being aware of your own biases. You're not enlightened just because you believe what modern science says.

Whatever the truth is, you should not hold on to it very strongly not giving room for lies.

> I said first hand, to all of that and more.

After thirty years hearing people say "I saw/heard/felt it. It's real." I call bullshit. Bring tangible evidence. (Decades of earnest investigation left me empty handed.)

People with suicidal tendencies don't need conditioning, judgment, "salvation", or imaginary love. They're more likely to benefit from human attention, communication, and understanding; ideally not motivated by some salvation quota.