Most Read on NYTimes.com: Merely Human, That's So Yesterday

[fkjuliano]

Figuring that abortion and the pill are not quite doing the job, elements of the mainstream media have decided to launch a campaign for the extinction of mankind by more direct means. A few days ago, the New York Times introduced the idea that it might be a moral good for no children at all to be born as that is the only sure way to do away with suffering. Of course, the disappearance of the human race would have the added advantage of allowing the planet to be colonized by bears, giant spiders and such. In fact, the History Channel has a whole series showing how cool it will be when wild animals roam our crumbling, vine-covered cities.

For those to whom radical environmentalism does not have much appeal, another approach is being tried, one of relying on the wonders of technology. Along those lines, the most popular article today in the “newspaper of record” is about the idea of doing away with the pesky humans in a roundabout way, by fusing man to machine to create a race of hybrids whose grotesque existence will be extended indefinitely, in a travesty of eternal life. Fittingly, at least two of the three co-founders of almighty Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, are pioneers in this transformation.

In the Singularity Movement, Humans Are So Yesterday

 

[Joe_Kelley]

On the other hand the NYT’s big, and growing, problem at the moment is that bears, giant spiders and such don’t subscribe to the NYT or advertise in it.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t think there are a smaller number of people who believe such things, though.

In the atheistic universe, human beings only have a temporary value and that is whatever is given them by themselves or other humans. There is no ultimate purpose or meaning to human life – it is unnecessary and valueless, ultimately.

That’s becoming a more common believe even among people who don’t openly describe themselves as atheist. The culture of death is based on that notion.

Secular leftists will try to say that “humans should be valued” but that is an empty claim since human beings can really only have an ultimate value given them at their origin.

Without God, humans are expendable.

 

[edwest2]

Eternal progress and eternal change - no matter what. The Beatniks were just looking for something to protest.

Ray Kurzweil has convinced himself that one day, man will be able to modify himself genetically, but to what end? The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, spoke of guided missiles in the hands of misguided men. It’s interesting how Dr. King’s Christianity is downplayed when his life is discussed. When he was arrested and sent to prison, he said that Jesus was in that prison with him. Robert Kennedy intervened to get him released.

If you look at most technology today, it often becomes military technology tomorrow. Whatever is cutting edge could likely be turned into a weapon. Of course, for the public, a promotional campaign by people like Ray Kurzweil is required. After all, we need to want, or believe we want, all the cool, new things coming our way. Want some horns? Just by the latest kit from GeneDev and voila! Or wings? Or a tail? Heck, want gills? No problem!

The human-machine hybrid was explored, badly, in the 1970s book Moderan. The movie Blade Runner brought artificial humans into a future setting that better illustrated potential problems. I think long before any sort of modified human appears, the military will be building actual, functional Terminators. After all, with birth rates dropping in so-called developed countries, why not have skeletal machines fight wars for you?

No, this is a promotional campaign to help promote a bad idea. It may be possible to heal human beings with genetic technology in the future, but to quote the Terminator in Terminator 2: “It is in your nature to destroy yourselves.”

We all carry the potentially fatal flaw called sin.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wanstronian]

In the atheistic universe, human beings only have a temporary value and that is whatever is given them by themselves or other humans. There is no ultimate purpose or meaning to human life – it is unnecessary and valueless, ultimately.

That’s becoming a more common believe even among people who don’t openly describe themselves as atheist. The culture of death is based on that notion.

Secular leftists will try to say that “humans should be valued” but that is an empty claim since human beings can really only have an ultimate value given them at their origin.

Not sure what you mean by this. How is the value of a human being ‘given’ to it at birth?

I don’t see why “humans should be valued” is an empty claim…?

Without God, humans are expendable.

Again, you’ll have to clarify. Why are humans expendable without God? Why are they not expendable with God? (He seems to have contrived to expend quite a lot of them if you believe the bible!) Who considers human beings expendable, in the absence of God?

I’m afraid I don’t see the rationale for this statement.

 

[reggieM]

Not sure what you mean by this. How is the value of a human being ‘given’ to it at birth?

I can see why you’re not sure on this because, for some reason, you re-wrote what I said by translating “their origin” with “birth”. I’m not sure why you did that. If you didn’t understand what I meant by the phrase, why not ask about that instead of a phrase that you created?

I don’t see why “humans should be valued” is an empty claim…?

The first principle of atheism is that “there is no ultimate purpose”. That’s the philosophical foundation upon which all of atheistic thought rests. If something lacks an ultimate purpose, it also lacks an ultimate value, since that value must be measured against a purpose of zero. When all things are necessarily measured against an ultimate value of zero, then claims that some things “should be valued” are ultimately meaningless and therefore empty claims.

[God] seems to have contrived to expend quite a lot of them if you believe the bible!

In what way do you think that God has “expended” human beings?

I’m afraid I don’t see the rationale for this statement.

I think you’re missing a key point and my previous question may help provide some insight.

 

[wanstronian]

I can see why you’re not sure on this because, for some reason, you re-wrote what I said by translating “their origin” with “birth”. I’m not sure why you did that. If you didn’t understand what I meant by the phrase, why not ask about that instead of a phrase that you created?

Ok then, replace ‘birth’ with ‘origin,’ explain exactly what you mean by ‘origin’ (conception, or something else?) and answer the question. It was an honest mistake, I thought that’s what you meant.

The first principle of atheism is that “there is no ultimate purpose”. That’s the philosophical foundation upon which all of atheistic thought rests. If something lacks an ultimate purpose, it also lacks an ultimate value, since that value must be measured against a purpose of zero. When all things are necessarily measured against an ultimate value of zero, then claims that some things “should be valued” are ultimately meaningless and therefore empty claims.

Oh I see, this is just a comment born of ignorance of atheism. You seem to think that because atheists think that nothing has any ultimate value (value, of course, being a subjective concept in itself), then nothing should ever be valued?

Incidentally, you seem to be putting the cart before the horse with your “first principle of atheism.” The absence of ultimate purpose is a conclusion resulting from an analysis of the facts. It’s certainly not a first principle. Like most theists, you appear to have used a target conclusion as the starting point.

In what way do you think that God has “expended” human beings?

He’s forever smiting people or exhorting other people to murder, rape etc. Have you read the bible!??

I think you’re missing a key point and my previous question may help provide some insight.

Maybe, but I asked a very simple question: Why are humans expendable without God, but not expendable if he exists? Regardless of any key points you think I may be missing, you should be able to answer this question.

 

[reggieM]

Ok then, replace ‘birth’ with ‘origin,’ explain exactly what you mean by ‘origin’ (conception, or something else?) and answer the question. It was an honest mistake, I thought that’s what you meant.

Deliberately rewriting my words was a mistake? It sounds like it became a mistake now that you were caught.

Oh I see, this is just a comment born of ignorance of atheism. You seem to think that because atheists think that nothing has any ultimate value (value, of course, being a subjective concept in itself), then nothing should ever be valued?

Atheists think that nothing has any ultimate value. Whatever value they give to things is trivial, at best, when measured against this finality. You, yourself, in the atheistic view have no ultimate value. Thus, when a being with no ultimate purpose, meaning or value assigns some transient value to things, that fits the defintion of triviality and emptyness.

Incidentally, you seem to be putting the cart before the horse with your “first principle of atheism.” The absence of ultimate purpose is a conclusion resulting from an analysis of the facts. It’s certainly not a first principle. Like most theists, you appear to have used a target conclusion as the starting point.

It’s a first principle for atheistic metaphysics because it is fixed, permanent and universal. “First” in this case, means “primary”. It’s an essential foundation of atheistic thought. The same is not true of whatever trivial values atheists may claim, since those can be contradictory and arbitrary. None of them point to a final value – they are ultimately lacking in value and are all judged equally on that point.

He’s forever smiting people or exhorting other people to murder, rape etc. Have you read the bible!??

Your claim was that “if you believe in the Bible”. This is much different than merely “reading” it. But perhaps you just made another “honest mistake” here again.
If you believe in the Bible, then you believe in Catholic teaching. If you use Catholic teaching as your foundation, then your claim that God considers anyone as expendable is obviously false.

Maybe, but I asked a very simple question: Why are humans expendable without God, but not expendable if he exists?

Humans are expendable without God because they are the product of a blind, indifferent, unintelligent universe that cares nothing for them. They do not have an ultimate meaning or value. In the atheistic worldview, a human being is rightly expendable if it conflicts with the self-interest of a stronger party.

Human beings are not expendable if God exists because, first, God has created human beings with an infinite and eternal existence (so, therefore they cannot be “expended”) and also because God’s law commands that humans must not be treated as mere accidental products of physical laws, but as loved by God.

This is not true in the atheistic worldview since there is nothing logically or rightly preventing anyone from treating humans as expendable. The Peter Singer article referenced in this thread makes that clear. He believes that the human race should be eliminated – because it is expendable. That’s logically consistent with atheism, but not so with Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

Oh I see, this is just a comment born of ignorance of atheism. You seem to think that because atheists think that nothing has any ultimate value (value, of course, being a subjective concept in itself), then nothing should ever be valued?

I would love to jump in here – on your side regarding the values which come from being human. But I respect the sticky ban at the top of this forum.

 

[wanstronian]

Deliberately rewriting my words was a mistake? It sounds like it became a mistake now that you were caught.

You’re right, I tried to get away with it by deliberately and irrevocably posting the wrong word on a public forum. Curse you pesky theists and your ability to read!

I mean, are you for real? Did you even think about what you were writing before you posted it?

You were a lot more civil when we were discussing the Cosmological argument. What’s yanking your chain now, are you still mad because you were unable to provide any justification in that thread?

Anyway, as you seem more intent on calling me a liar than answering a genuine question, I guess we’re done. Good luck with those anger management issues.