The New York Times: Would It Be Better for Mankind to Go Extinct?

[tonyrey]

So you believe that to believe something is to value that belief. It follows that a rational existence depends on the value of thought…

It follows that beliefs and values are inextricably linked - which disposes of the alleged is-ought dichotomy for once and for all. A rational existence presupposes the value of reasoning… whether that fact is recognised or not.

If values-talk is senseless without reference to who is doing the valuing then nothing on this planet was valuable before human beings existed! It was only when we arrived that life became valuable…

Things that existed before humans may have been valuable to things that existed before humans, but “it was only when we arrived that life became valuable” to us.

Would you agree that we are not the only valuable beings on this planet and they existed before we appeared?

I can’t see how life could have been valuable to us before we even existed.

Neither can I! Although we would not exist if life had not existed before us. To that extent it was and is valuable.

 

[Major_Minor]

I don’t know what “human hating philosophies” you are talking about, but I am also sure that anyone who does follow a “human hating philosophy” would not have a “healthy, happy, generous mindset” since one hating humans would come to hate herself.

Can you give an example of a human hating philosophy?

I already did, but I’ll repeat myself: Nihilism, Materialism, Existentialism etc. etc. etc.

 

[tonyrey]

Anyone who claims that animals have rights or humans are not superior to beasts is declaring himself to be an animal.

I may be misinterpreting you but you seem to suggest that to claim animals have rights is the same as saying humans are not superior to animals. I believe animals do have rights, e.g. not to be made to suffer or killed unnecessarily, but not the same rights as human beings. It is obviously misguided, as one member of this forum recently stated, that a cat should have precedence over a foetus if the mother does not want the foetus to survive.

 

[Leela]

I already did, but I’ll repeat myself: Nihilism, Materialism, Existentialism etc. etc. etc.

I think you would have a hard time finding anyone who accepts those philosophical positions and also hates humanity. I think you are just trying to characterize anyone who doesn’t agree with your positions as evil. Am I right or is there more to your point than an expression of bigotry toward nonbelievers?

 

[AntiTheist]

Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond, but I was just reminded of the existence of this thread.

Do other branches of atheim claim

There aren’t “branches” of atheism – atheism isn’t some system of thought. It’s the word for not believing in gods. Most people who don’t believe in gods also don’t believe in other supernatural things, like the existence of this weird idea you have called “ultimate meaning.” Some do.

Actually, I’ve never encountered a non-materialist (naturalist/positivist) atheist in any discussions on CAF yet.

I could have sworn I’ve seen a few Buddhists kicking around here – they are often atheists who believe in souls and reincarnation.

I don’t agree that Singer bases his ideas on utilitarianism alone but that his atheistic metaphysic

You need to read more carefully, or maybe you need to learn something about philosophy (probably both). Singer is a well-known utilitarian, and his ideas come from his utilitarian position, and not from his atheism. That this is the case should be obvious from the way that other atheists – myself, as a prime example – reject utilitarianism and Singer’s conclusions.

As to your other points, I think I said this already on this thread, but I’ll say it again: the word “meaning” does not have to refer to this weird idea that you call “ultimate meaning.” The word “meaning” can simply refer to the value that things have to individuals at one particular point in time.

As an obvious illustration of this, I’ll use my car: it has a value right now. It has less value than when I first bought it, and it will have far less value several years from now, and eventually it will have no value and then (in the future) it will not exist at all.

But the mere fact that the car has no “ultimate meaning” or “ultimate value,” the mere fact that the car will eventually cease to exist and cease to have value, does nothing to change the very obvious fact that it has value now.

The fact that it will one day not exist doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t maintain my car, keep it looking nice, and enjoy taking it for a spin.

And the exact same thing is true of my life. No one needs some magical, imaginary, make-believe “ultimate meaning” to find meaning – real meaning, the only meaning that exists – in their lives right here and now.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

like the existence of this weird idea you have called “ultimate meaning.” Some do.

Why do you say that it is a weird idea? I don’t understand what you mean.

 

[didymus]

I may be misinterpreting you but you seem to suggest that to claim animals have rights is the same as saying humans are not superior to animals. I believe animals do have rights, e.g. not to be made to suffer or killed unnecessarily, but not the same rights as human beings. It is obviously misguided, as one member of this forum recently stated, that a cat should have precedence over a foetus if the mother does not want the foetus to survive.

I think you and I agree but I would not say animals have a “right” not to suffer unnecessarily.
I’d say it’s wrong to hurt them needlessly but not b/c they have rights. Only humans have rights.

PETA, Peter Singer, et al.are determined to knock humanity “off its perch” and treat it as just one species among many. Those are the folks I had in mind.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Human unhappiness results from mans acceptance of a state of servitude of the low conditions of his own mind?

We do not fundamentaly want to have and to do; we only want to be, and we use the having and doing for that purpose. Further, our will to be is not content with anything; it seeks its goal beyond the irksome limits of having and doing. man will not be really happy until he is consciously one with GOD, and shares the freedom of that reality.

Our modern scientists know now that the age of natural selection is gone. And men must look to themselves, not their material environment, for the direction and impulse needed for our future progress.

The sooner you come to the realization who actually is the KING of Earth. The quicker you leave your petty differences aside. You would do well to remember that you are simply an inhabitant of a borrowed body. It is not your destiny, unless you make it your destiny and limit yourself to it. You need to rise above your physical being daily. All is the same at the core, but clinging to one and discarding the soul is living an illusion. A mind is not fit to judge of itself. It is prejudiced in its own favor or disfavor. It cannot see anything objectively. Trust in the Soul which is of God, and let every breath and thought move you closer to God.

When you come right down to it…any other choice is plain foolishness. What could possibly be of more importance than your relationship with God? And with that thought in mind how could any thought of mans willed extinction come to mind?

Simply put its either of God or its Evil or its of Nature which is more than likely of God? If theirs a greater wisdom its yet to impress me. Of all I have lived and learned and thought about. Theres only one thing that has consistantly stuck to the wall, and thats GOD,

Maybe just maybe intstead of the extinction of man? We should actually try respecting that which was freely given to us by God. Instead of showing our disrespect on a daily basis. Instead of continuously and intentionally destroying the only home we have?

You could best believe if God had decided he wanted you gone? Just that quick you’d be history.

He sent his only son, who died on the Cross for you. Because he loved this world that much. Its not even a question of if you’ll accept God in your life? When Jesus Christ died on that Cross…he accepted YOU! Man, do we ever get this mixed up in our simple foolish minds.

 

[AntiTheist]

Why do you say that it is a weird idea? I don’t understand what you mean.

The idea of “ultimate meaning” is weird because it’s a silly man-made idea that fails to understand what actual meaning – the meaning that really exists – is.

The only meaning that actually exists is the meaning that things have to each individual. “Meaning” must always necessarily be individual. There is no universal or “ultimate” meaning (in the sense of a meaning that applies to all people).

 

[AntiTheist]

We do not fundamentaly want to have and to do; we only want to be, and we use the having and doing for that purpose.

I disagree strongly. A basic observation of your own desires should reveal that you indeed have desires to do things; if you do not, then you are odd, and you should not project your quirkiness onto others.

Further, our will to be is not content with anything; it seeks its goal beyond the irksome limits of having and doing. man will not be really happy until he is consciously one with GOD, and shares the freedom of that reality.

It sounds like you’re frustrated with reality – being, as it is, limited by various factors – and that you’re happier making up a fantasy world where you’re “free.” I’m sure the fantasy makes you feel good, but I can’t help but think that it would be healthier for you to embrace reality, rather than reject it as “irksome.”

You need to rise above your physical being daily.

See? There it is again – a frustration and resentment against life. You’d be better off discarding these batty ideas and actually embracing reality.

A mind is not fit to judge of itself. It is prejudiced in its own favor or disfavor. It cannot see anything objectively.

I agree with you here, and I would extend that to judging all reality. The mind tends to perceive what it wants to be true. For example, someone who wants the universe to be run by his imaginary sky-daddy is going to perceive all kinds of evidence that it’s true…precisely because he is incapable of looking at things objectively.

It is science – and on the personal level, mindfulness and introspection – that enable us to gain a more objective view of things. And an objective view does not support this fantasy stuff that everyone here believes in.

Maybe just maybe intstead of the extinction of man? We should actually try respecting that which was freely given to us by God. Instead of showing our disrespect on a daily basis. Instead of continuously and intentionally destroying the only home we have?

I agree that it would be beneficial to our race to maintain our habitation to the best of our ability. I don’t think that it’s necessary to believe that there is a god in order to come to this conclusion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The idea of “ultimate meaning” is weird because it’s a silly man-made idea that fails to understand what actual meaning – the meaning that really exists – is.

The only meaning that actually exists is the meaning that things have to each individual. “Meaning” must always necessarily be individual. There is no universal or “ultimate” meaning (in the sense of a meaning that applies to all people).

How do you know that it is a silly man made idea? How do you know there is no ultimate meaning?

You haven’t provided any meaningful argument in terms of proving your point. You are just saying that it is silly and that meaning must necessarily be individual. This is certainly your opinion, but this alone does not amount to an explanation of your position.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

but I can’t help but think that it would be healthier for you to embrace reality, rather than reject it as “irksome.”

What objective value does this statement have? You use the word healthier in a sense that suggests that it would be objectively “better” whether the person realizes it or not. You are referring to a standard that one ought to face reality. But isn’t it not the case that you have chosen to view other peoples hopes as nothing more than fantasies merely because you think they are a fret to your desires, hopes and fantasies? Otherwise, why would you be concerned? All value is relative to the individual in your opinion is it not?

I agree with you here, and I would extend that to judging all reality. The mind tends to perceive what it wants to be true.

This would include your mind correct?

For example, someone who wants the universe to be run by his imaginary sky-daddy is going to perceive all kinds of evidence that it’s true…precisely because he is incapable of looking at things objectively.

Christians don’t believe in a sky daddy. To purposely degrade somebody you would have to be a rather nasty person.

It is science – and on the personal level, mindfulness and introspection – that enable us to gain a more objective view of things. And an objective view does not support this fantasy stuff that everyone here believes in.

What has science got to do with anything? Science is a study of physical reality alone, and is thus limited to physical reality. It has nothing to say about purpose; it is not metaphysics. If we want to know if life has an objective purpose meaning or value, we require philosophy for that task; not science.

I agree that it would be beneficial to our race to maintain our habitation to the best of our ability. I don’t think that it’s necessary to believe that there is a god in order to come to this conclusion.

So religion has nothing to do with today’s value systems, it has had no moral or positive influence on the world?

 

[AntiTheist]

How do you know that it is a silly man made idea? How do you know there is no ultimate meaning? The same way that I know that leprechauns are not real and that they are silly man-made creations. No one has ever made a valid and sound argument for the existence of “ultimate meaning,” or even really sufficiently defined it such that it has any coherence whatsoever. I feel very safe in discarding it.

It’s an abuse of language to use the word “meaning” to refer to anything beside individual, personal meaning, which is the only meaning that actually exists in the real world.

You are referring to a standard that one ought to face reality.

 

[edwest2]

I disagree strongly. A basic observation of your own desires should reveal that you indeed have desires to do things; if you do not, then you are odd, and you should not project your quirkiness onto others.

It sounds like you’re frustrated with reality – being, as it is, limited by various factors – and that you’re happier making up a fantasy world where you’re “free.” I’m sure the fantasy makes you feel good, but I can’t help but think that it would be healthier for you to embrace reality, rather than reject it as “irksome.”

See? There it is again – a frustration and resentment against life. You’d be better off discarding these batty ideas and actually embracing reality.

I agree with you here, and I would extend that to judging all reality. The mind tends to perceive what it wants to be true. For example, someone who wants the universe to be run by his imaginary sky-daddy is going to perceive all kinds of evidence that it’s true…precisely because he is incapable of looking at things objectively.

It is science – and on the personal level, mindfulness and introspection – that enable us to gain a more objective view of things. And an objective view does not support this fantasy stuff that everyone here believes in.

I agree that it would be beneficial to our race to maintain our habitation to the best of our ability. I don’t think that it’s necessary to believe that there is a god in order to come to this conclusion.

Science? Nonsense. If religion disappeared tomorrow, what would happen? People would tend to follow different groups of “experts” who would be overturned by other groups of “experts” ad infinitum. Just like experts today that claim eating or drinking XYZ will kill you, and three months later, another group of experts tell you XYZ is good for you.

If science describes things then who decides what direction to go? A lot of needed drugs aren’t being researched because the potential for profit is low. We could be headed to Mars but an outburst of greed on Wall Street put a lot of that on the sidelines.

Human beings have a lot of quirky behaviors. Those in control are usually more interested in maintaining their position and that of their colleagues.

“There is a way that seems right to a man but it leads to death.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[AntiTheist]

Science? Nonsense. If religion disappeared tomorrow, what would happen? People would tend to follow different groups of “experts” who would be overturned by other groups of “experts” ad infinitum. Just like experts today that claim eating or drinking XYZ will kill you, and three months later, another group of experts tell you XYZ is good for you.

If science describes things then who decides what direction to go? A lot of needed drugs aren’t being researched because the potential for profit is low. We could be headed to Mars but an outburst of greed on Wall Street put a lot of that on the sidelines.

Human beings have a lot of quirky behaviors. Those in control are usually more interested in maintaining their position and that of their colleagues.

“There is a way that seems right to a man but it leads to death.”

I haven’t a clue what you’re babbling about.

We use evidence to determine whether claims about the world are true or not. How we act is an entirely separate question to be decided by our values.

 

[tonyrey]

I think you and I agree but I would not say animals have a “right” not to suffer unnecessarily.
I’d say it’s wrong to hurt them needlessly but not b/c they have rights. Only humans have rights.

1. Why is it wrong to hurt animals needlessly if they have no rights whatsoever?
2. Why should human beings be the only ones with rights?

PETA, Peter Singer, et al.are determined to knock humanity “off its perch” and treat it as just one species among many. Those are the folks I had in mind.

The existence of animal rights does not imply that they have equal rights…

 

[JohnDamian]

1. Why is it wrong to hurt animals needlessly if they have no rights whatsoever?
2. Why should human beings be the only ones with rights?

1. A human should not torture animals because it is bad for the soul of the human.
2. Because animals are put here for us, but that does not mean we should be un-nessecarily cruel.

 

[didymus]

1. Why is it wrong to hurt animals needlessly if they have no rights whatsoever?

Because it would be sinful for us. And note the needlessly – it’s wrong to torture animals for fun (dogfighting) but not to cause them pain, if necessary, in medical experiments to cure human diseases.

1. Why should human beings be the only ones with rights?

Because we are the only ones endowed by God with rational souls. If you ever give an inch on that we’re doomed – the Singerites will swoop in with, “dolphins communicate”, “our DNA is 99&44/100 identical to chimp’s”, “are humans in a vegetative state rational?” &c, &c, &c.

In their own way the PETA types do believe in human exceptionalism – they think we have a duty to other species that they don’t reciprocate.

The existence of animal rights does not imply that they have equal rights…

Again, once you open the door a crack, they will come bursting thru like a SWAT team. Let’s hear from Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA:

Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Why is it wrong to hurt animals needlessly if they have no rights whatsoever?

If it is sinful to hurt animals needlessly they have **a right **not be hurt needlessly. An obligation towards them implies that they should not be treated unjustly. Justice is concerned with rights and obligations…

1. Why should human beings be the only ones with rights?

Because we are the only ones endowed by God with rational souls.

It does not follow that only beings with rational souls have rights. The fact that animals are created by God implies that they are intrinsically valuable and that they have the right to live without being killed or made to suffer unnecessarily.

The existence of animal rights does not imply that they have **equal **

rights…
Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

What animal liberationists believe is irrelevant because they are extremists. Not everyone who believes in the rights of animals is a liberationist…

 

[didymus]

If it is sinful to hurt animals needlessly they have **a right **not be hurt needlessly. An obligation towards them implies that they should not be treated unjustly. Justice is concerned with rights and obligations…

Beg to differ.
One can have an obligation w/o the animals having a reciprocal right. Actually the obligation is largely to oneself not to act against enlightened self-interest.

In many cases we have increased the obligation (but not created a right) by destroying animals’ ability to survive by selective breeding.

It does not follow that only beings with rational souls have rights. The fact that animals are created by God implies that they are intrinsically valuable and that they have the right to live without being killed or made to suffer unnecessarily.

True and He gave us stewardship over them – a standard we often fail. But again, this is something we should do because it is God’s will and ultimately best for us, not due to animals having rights.

What animal liberationists believe is irrelevant because they are extremists. Not everyone who believes in the rights of animals is a liberationist…

Absolutely true and I’m sorry to tar you with the same brush as Singer et al.
But they take the average person’s goodwill (who wouldn’t agree that animals shouldn’t be abused?) and ratchet it up into an extreme philosophical system – and they are the ones setting the agenda.

To me the ultimate irony is that if one accepts the PETA argument that we are just another animal species we don’t have any obligations. For a long time other creatures from microbes to predators were a real threat humanity’s very survival. It is only yesterday (terms of evolutionary history) that we gained the upper hand. If one accepts Darwinism our response should be, “Hooray for our side!”

If we are superior we do have obligations to our inferiors, the “dumb beasts” as they used to be referred to.

Again, sorry to be so contentious but I really feel this is one of those issues like abortion where if you make the slightest concession you’ve lost the whole battle.

Peace.