j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Jun 2, 2017 10:45:18 GMT
Nothing to you and to those like you. It's very good to know which side I'm NOT on. And you have just proven him right. Got old really quickly. Kinda makes one wonder what 'trolls' really are here.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Jun 2, 2017 10:46:06 GMT
It has the weight of what's evident Your opinion of what is evident also doesn't carry a lot of weight. Right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 12:00:18 GMT
Your opinion of what is evident also doesn't carry a lot of weight. Right. Yep.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 13:49:21 GMT
I will say this; most atheists are more religious than they are willing to admit. They may not believe in the big bearded man sitting on a cloud, watching over us all, but there is a residual religious influence that is evident in the thinking of most atheists. So it's not really a binary religious/non-religious thing, atheists are simply markedly less religious on average than theists. Atheism itself, of course, is not a religion, but atheism does not guarantee the absence of religious delusions.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 3, 2017 14:56:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 16:12:21 GMT
Religion, in my view, is looking for some kind of preternatural significance where there is none. The way that I look at the world, there is no significance to human existence which is writ in the stars. Therefore there needs to be a concrete justification for taking unnecessary risks. Since there is no concrete justification (merely 'I've always wanted a family' or 'I want the human race to colonise space'), I am an antinatalist. Atheists who are parents themselves, or justify procreation are either existing in a state of cognitive dissonance, or otherwise they're selfish and simply don't care. Atheism is about not believing in gods, but free thought is a lot more than that. Whilst atheist is deemed to be synonymous with 'free thinker', a great many atheists still cleave to certain superstitious doctrines. Fear of death is not rooted in religion, but in religion 'fear of death' is codified as 'sanctity of life'. Being afraid of one's own death is not religious, but wanting to deny others the right to death is religious. Placing a high value on one's own life is not religious, but to say that the essence of life is so sacred that it must be preserved against the wishes of the beholder of that life is a view that is inextricably wed to religion. And finally, a happy and life-loving atheist should value his own life, but say: 'Well, this is great, but I recognise that there is a lot of suffering in the world and there is no way of giving consent to those risks beforehand. It's certain that some of the new lives are going to suffer grievously and will be unhappy with the decision taken on their behalf, and there is no guarantee that my offspring would not be one of those unfortunates. Furthermore, life itself needs to precede the desire for life, so it is impossible to deprive a non-existent being of life - only the living can be deprived of the pleasures of life. Therefore, just in the interests of being safe and responsible, it is best not to produce more life and to strongly discourage others from doing so, and only those of us who are currently living will have to experience any drawbacks of such a policy.'
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 3, 2017 16:31:26 GMT
tpfkar Or just having a blast and watching their younguns have a blast and wanting others to have that opportunity. Thought free from basic sense is the province of the religious, whether after eternal life or universal death. Regardless of the vapid characterization of living the good as best as possible as "superstitious". Not looking forward to good times ending is just sane human. And characterizing as religious not wanting to push others to their doom when they aren't stopped in the undertaking (npi) and practically couldn't be, is less so. 'Cause I gonna make you see
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 0:21:10 GMT
tpfkar Or just having a blast and watching their younguns have a blast and wanting others to have that opportunity. Yes, except there are always going to be "young'uns" who are born with a genetic condition which causes their skin to peel off (with excruciating pain) at the slightest contact: www.debra.org.uk/what-is-eb/what-is-ebAnd in those cases, your idea of "having a blast" would be them get their special skin cream applied all over their body every day, whilst they miss out on every single thing that other children their age take for granted. Or they are subjected to whatever the local paedophile's idea of "having a blast" is, and will never have their innocence and carefree nature restored. And soooooooooo many other vicious little trap doors that are hidden from sight and around which they will spend 80 or so years blindly navigating. Sure, breeders such as yourself will accept those odds, just so longer as you realise that it's probably going to be someone else's little tyke who falls through the trap door. Anti natalism is about questioning whether our instincts lead us towards what is the most moral course of action, and about rejecting the most comforting answers which appeal to our hubris. As far from religion as it is possible to get. Not looking forward to good times ending does not necessitate visiting an unasked-for risk upon someone else; nor does it necessitate unduly limiting freedom of choice from those who aren't having a good time.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 4, 2017 0:31:25 GMT
tpfkar How about some war/accident mutilation photos? Don't do that. I guess you could still restore their innocence with death. You got that right baby. breedin' like a mother f!cker. Wait, literally. Antinatalism of the kind you've described is pure projected self-despising psychosis. A religious worship of death peppered with the titillation from the shock value of hurt kids. Nothing is necessitated. But giving the gift of the option to have this ride is quite the altruistic human thing to do. That and keeping the spittley psychopaths away from them and their facilities. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 2:18:02 GMT
Questioning of instincts is undeniably a good thing. There's no external moral arbiter which determined that our instincts have to align with what is morally correct. It is human instinct to hoard wealth for our selves and amongst our families (which is why communism never works), but it would be unethical to adhere to this instinct. Society's have overcome that instinct in order to provide welfare programs for the poor. It's instinct to hate and distrust those from a different ethnic group, but you would agree that this instinct leads us morally astray, would you not? Society has overcome that instinct in order to provide civil rights, and eventually equal rights, to ethnic minorities. And there's no worship of death, because you can't worship a state of being that you would not be able to recognise if you were in it. And the photographs of the children with terrible skin condition was an attempt to remind you that it could have been your child, and may still be your grandchild. Paedophiles are one of the things that you can protect children from, and even that, imperfectly (as you would know if you'd watched the news). You can't protect children from inherited diseases and congenital disabilities. You can't control their environment to ensure that they are not harmed, and you cannot design their psychology to make them see life the same way that you see it. And nothing needs or wants the gift or opportunity until you've already created the threat of being deprived of that gift or opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 4, 2017 2:51:49 GMT
tpfkar Post more gratuitous truism whenever the mood strikes you. More successful societies have certainly tried to strike a balance. I'm not at all sure it is instinct nearly so much as conditioning. But sure, unchecked, unthinking raw emotion, like feeling everybody should be dead because there's a chance people can become miserable like oneself, is surely bad. You just freely type the most incredibly loopy things without blinking. Live humans can worship any bizarre thing. Much more like the relative of mine who some time around the turn of the century used to spam lists of people (god knows where he got the addresses) in Maine or Vermont or some other NE state where some gay rights thing or another had creeped forward. He'd email them graphic descriptions of "feces eating" and the like to shock them into "realizing" the horrors of homosexualiy. It's the desperate pathetic ploy of high ignorance joined with ironclad but of course deranged ideas of propriety. You certainly can to a large degree. Tragedies can happen or kids can get splinters so we should nuke the place from orbit is just pure unhinged lunacy, no lesser description. Nor can they regret anything. Checkmate Vizzini. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 4, 2017 12:21:49 GMT
Things you say = 🐂💩
|
|