If the creation of this world is not logically consistent with a loving act, then why do we bring children in to this world?

[tonyrey]

Not unconcerned. But you shouldn’t grieve for a life well lived. You should celebrate it. It’s not a tragedy. Whereas the young guy…that’s cause for grief. That was tragic.

It’s irretrievably tragic for a dogmatic atheist who believes life is a mere accident without being able to produce conclusive evidence. It is far more reasonable to be an optimist than a pessimist as I have discovered to my cost. Most people in the world believe in cosmic justice in one form or another for which there is ample justification! And the only adequate explanation for that is an afterlife…

 

[Vico]

Why expose children to the possibility of suffering and pain, if the possibility of these things are contradictory to a loving act of creation?

Suffering and pain are not contradictory to a loving act of creation. So are you asking the reader to assume that they are?

 

[IWantGod]

Your view contradicts your claim to be a Catholic…

If there is no God, then what is the point? If it is wrong for God to create a world like this and put people in it, then why are human beings doing that very same thing?

I’m just pointing out an error in the thinking of those who resent God because of this world and yet continue to bring life into it on the basis of desire.

 

[IWantGod]

Suffering and pain are not contradictory to a loving act of creation. So are you asking the reader to assume that they are?

No i’m not. However some people do think that a loving act of creation contradicts the existence of this world.

 

[IWantGod]

That is the logical conclusion of consistent atheists who regard life as an accident which has no value, meaning or purpose, thereby rejecting the validity of the UDHR and condemning the vast majority of the world’s population as criminals!

In a world without God, it certainly is a little bit sadistic, egotistical, and self indulgent, to create a mortal child in a world that lacks any meaning or purpose and is subject to potential suffering. Is it not?

 

[Vico]

No i’m not. However some people do think that a loving act of creation contradicts the existence of this world.

Pain and pleasure are powerful motivators of behavior necessary to life. I can understand that some think that there is no soul or resurrection and would not consider a greater joy in a soul, but rather only that of physical sensation.

 

[PseuTonym]

Yes, procreation is definitely irrational.

People who have been classified as criminally insane aren’t usually selected on that basis as judges. Do you think that people who have offspring shouldn’t be permitted to vote? After all, voters judge political candidates, and elected candidates appoint all sorts of people to positions of power.

 

[PseuTonym]

Pain and pleasure are powerful motivators of behavior necessary to life. I can understand that some think that there is no soul or resurrection and would not consider a greater joy in a soul, but rather only that of physical sensation.

What if you had a choice of being infected with a pathogen that will cause minor discomfort for a few seconds every six months, and that will kill you within three years versus being infected with a pathogen that will cause actual pain for about five minutes per week, but that will not shorten your lifespan?

I think that the pain could be tolerated given those two choices. Thus, the physical sensation that has greater intensity, greater frequency, and longer duration might be less significant than the physical sensation that is associated with an impending death.

 

[tonyrey]

If there is no God, then what is the point? If it is wrong for God to create a world like this and put people in it, then why are human beings doing that very same thing?

I’m just pointing out an error in the thinking of those who resent God because of this world and yet continue to bring life into it on the basis of desire.

I took your statement at its face value under the impression that it reflected your own view but I was obviously mistaken…

 

[Vico]

What if you had a choice of being infected with a pathogen that will cause minor discomfort for a few seconds every six months, and that will kill you within three years versus being infected with a pathogen that will cause actual pain for about five minutes per week, but that will not shorten your lifespan?

I think that the pain could be tolerated given those two choices. Thus, the physical sensation that has greater intensity, greater frequency, and longer duration might be less significant than the physical sensation that is associated with an impending death.

Yes, those that have good self-regulation may delay gratification (willpower, self-control, patience) some will not act rationally.

 

[ANV]

Because we think of ourselves, we only have children because we wanted to, for selfish reasons, not giving it much thoughts.

As Søren Kierkegaard said, who was a Christian existentialist “Listen to the cry of a woman in labor at the hour of giving birth — look at the dying man’s struggle at his last extremity, and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.”

and Arthur Schopenhauer: “Pleasure is never as pleasant as we expected it to be and pain is always more painful. The pain in the world always outweighs the pleasure. If you don’t believe it, compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is eating the other.”

and Al-Maʿarri: “My father has perpetrated this crime against me; I am guilty of none.”

 

[tonyrey]

Because we think of ourselves, we only have children because we wanted to, for selfish reasons, not giving it much thoughts.

As Søren Kierkegaard said, who was a Christian existentialist “Listen to the cry of a woman in labor at the hour of giving birth — look at the dying man’s struggle at his last extremity, and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.”

and Arthur Schopenhauer: “Pleasure is never as pleasant as we expected it to be and pain is always more painful. The pain in the world always outweighs the pleasure. If you don’t believe it, compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is eating the other.”

and Al-Maʿarri: “My father has perpetrated this crime against me; I am guilty of none.”

So you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet?

 

[ANV]

So you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet?

I think that there is nothing to lose in not being born, no being to suffer and grief, billions of planets have no life, the only losers are the ones who were born, you even wouldn’t have that need for pleasure or happiness if you were never born, that need was created once you were born.

But don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of things in life to be loved and appreciated, many beautiful things but I just don’t think they are worthy the suffering that it contains.

PS: my thoughts don’t represent most atheists so don’t generalize

This is more related to existentialists, even that they can appreciate beautiful things, universe, nature, beauty, at the same time don’t think they are worthy.

 

[ANV]

Most evolutionists and atheists, even that I agree with them on disbelief and evolution, the perception and approach about it is as much optimist as religious people, if not more, having an ultimate belief in science and secularism that they will heal everything, while I think that science and secularism are effective for knowledge and life and agree with them, I don’t think they are some sort of ultimate healers and I have a different perception, I disagree with scientism.

For example Richard Dawkins said :

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.”

I don’t think we are lucky ones because we were born, or “winners” in evolution.