|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 16, 2017 20:06:49 GMT
Thanks for proving my point. I might explain it later; but for now, I'm off to work. That doesn't help. But just to clarify, I don't think that we are morally culpable for perpetuating the species, because each of us makes the only decision that he or she can. I just feel compelled to play my part in exposing people to the reasons why they shouldn't bear children. And it's possible that if antinatalism becomes a well known philosophy, it may prevent some births in the future, and could eventually become an entrenched talking point within the atheist community. It was certainly a shock to me to learn how many atheists still believe in free will, and I'm certain that will have to change in the future. My point is quite simple. On the one hand, you pretend that people are just following a process of input and markup. On the other hand, you are trying to persuade people to stop reproducing. Meaning: You are trying to influence people to make a choice that goes against their programming: after all, the internal program of life means: Reproduction. So you are on the one hand trying to get people to make a choice against perpetuating life; while on the other hand pretending that people can't make choices. Conclusion: Your position is both irrational and logically inconsistent. In my opinion you should stop pretending that your position is rational. EDIT: This gem: is also illogical. Because if atheists don't have free will (your position) but pretend they have free will, then they don't have a choice in believing to have free will. But saying that it "will have to change in the future" is pretending that they can make choices, and therefore saying that atheists have free will; and you want them to use this free will to pretend that they don't have free will.
|
|