Plato's argument was

a) Humans are possessions of the gods
b) It is wrong to destroy someone elses possessions
THEREFORE
Suicide is wrong.
This argument is debatable, but valid (if assumed that a god exists and it did create us). There certainly are exceptions to B, so this isn't water tight

another argument would be
a) Inflicting pain on others is wrong
b) Suicide inflicts pain on others
THEREFORE
Suicide is wrong
This argument is valid but weak because it does not include people that have no family or friends, etc. Its basically saying its ok to kill yourself if nobody cares about you.

I personally believe that suicide is not wrong, and i'm a staunch anti-theist, but given the assumption that there is a god and he did create us, can anyone come up with a water tight reason why suicide is wrong?

If your assumptions is only that there is _a_ god, then you can't really make a watertight argument, you'd have to have some assumption towards his/her/its general plan for the creation, if any.

As for claims of culture/social relations etc. there have existed cultures/exist cultures were suicide is very honourable, and even a way of restoring (social) harm you have done to your family so you can't really peg this down to some general rule.

There are two major arguments against suicide:

A. It hurts
B. You might miss something that would be worth to continue living for

Other than that, I don't really see anything convincing.

Suicide is against human nature.

People who commit it reject the lives they are living. i.e. they value no life over the life they have.

And....? I dont know what "against human nature" means but I'm sure its code for "because I say so" or something. How many people need to commit suicide before you would accept it as PART of human nature? Is dying in agony for years and years against or for human nature? Rejecting the life you are living or valuing no life over your life are correct, but they arent arguments. I dont see whats wrong with EITHER of those things. Do you hol the position that NO life can possibly be worse than...no life? You know what I mean.

Do you want me to elaborate on it or do you just want to insult me?

- Suicide may not technically destroy the creation (in actuality, the material of the body remains on earth, and we don't know what happens to the soul if it exists)
- A creator assumes a possessor in the above, this doesn't need to be the case
- As our creator (if he exists) gave us our faculties (including weaknesses), taking our own life is a consequence of our faculties/weaknesses and the conditions we are placed in, neither of which we truly control, and thus it is difficult to call our action "wrong" in this sense
- If the god who possessed us didn't want his possession destroyed, he's free to step in anytime

I can't really call my dog (which I only own, not created) "wrong" if it gets out of the yard and gets hit by a car. I am the one who possesses the dog, cares for it, and am responsible ultimately for protecting it.

Human nature is the quick'n'dirty when you want to make your own opinions sound fact-checked when you make sweeping generalizations of people.

And one need only take a look at Japan's history to find out that suicide doesn't have to be especially 'dysfunctional', but a common cultural norm.

Right..and because rape in Japan is often thought of as a man's right, rape isn't particularly 'dysfunctional' either.

1. Suicide is not human nature. DUCY?
(I thought you guys were strong on evolution)

2. You are describing a localized, cultural, nurture and situational-part of human behaviour. We are talking about human nature. You cannot use the one as proof for the other. That's like saying tigers in a zoo don't kill animals so that must be their nature.

homosexuality fallacy.

Its not an insult. Do you want to elaborate or do you just want to be hypersensitive? When people claim something is vaguely "against human nature" like thats a valid argument (naturalistic fallacy FTW) its usually a sign that what they really mean is "because I say so."

So its not JUST the naturalistic fallacy, its the noble savage fallacy too? Something doesnt have to be fit, in a vacuum, to be part of human nature. Local culture IS our natural habitat, its not analogous to tigers in a zoo. People live in communities with other people and establish social norms. THAT is human nature.

Nielsio and Phil,

are you saying that people should choose not to commit suicide, or are you saying that they shouldn't/don't even have the choice in the first place?

who cares if something is or is not human nature. that doesnt make it good or bad. being 100% altruistic isnt human nature either.

in any case, i think the best argument against suicide is the consideration for all the people alive who will be hurt by your doing so. however, if you can kill yourself and no one cares, or better yet, people are actually happy that you are dead...i say go for it.