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

[MindOverMatter2]

What an absurd article and question.

-Pessimism itself is contradictory - if life is not worth living; pessimistic (or any) statements arn’t worth stating;
-Since statements have been stated there is a value and purpose in their stating;
-This value is presumed by the person making the statement;
-If it is not more satisfying to make a statement than not to make a statement, then no statement would be made;
-Therefore, even the pessimist presumes satisfaction and value as real;
-If one knows value and satisfaction are real; one should pursue them;
-Pursuing pessimism to its ends does not lead to satisfaction or value.
–Thus pessimism is stupid.

That aside; anyone that would seriously argue that an lifeless rock is better than a planet with sentient beings is inherantly denying their own assertation by demonstrating the value/satisfaction of making an assertion.

Quite good. You are not far from philosophical mastery young Jedi.

 

[AntiTheist]

Those ideas may not be intrinsic to atheism, but they are permitted by an atheistic world view, as are all of the very worst ideas mankind has ever conceived. To put it another way, while not every atheist believes that the extinction is morally desirable, one must be an atheist to believe such a thing, and certainly not a Christian.

Actually, one must be a utilitarian with the specific insane beliefs of Singer. Atheism is really incidental to the whole thing.

Once God is eliminated from consideration by society and individuals, along with the inevitability of His justice in this life or the next, there really is nothing to deter the most evil and insane among us from putting into action whatever demented notions their diseased minds vomit into existence.

Except for values. Values are what deter people from harming others – religion is completely incidental to the question. There were Christians whose monstrous values led them to burn people as witches and kill others in Crusades, and there are plenty and plenty and plenty of atheists with perfectly nice values who wouldn’t dream of harming anyone.

Again: religion (or lack thereof) is completely incidental to the question of values.

EDIT: Reading this over, I don’t think my last sentence is quite correct – obviously, religions are bound up with other traditions and values in complicated way. My point was simply that any particular religion – or lack of any particular religion – is not necessarily tied to values. That being the case, it’s utterly ridiculous to point to a guy with dumb beliefs – who happens to be an atheist – and say, “Oop, you see? Atheism leads to this kind of stuff!!” It doesn’t.

 

[Hubriss]

OP. I think we as individuals need to try to embrace and use pain and suffering more. In my life, stories are what inspire me, and they are often filled with conflict and suffering to make them epic. It’s the struggle that is worth living. I think growing up I shielded myself from suffering too much, and so my accomplishments are not as great as they could have been. However that does not mean that we should not mitigate suffering, especially pointless suffering like hunger, disease, etc.

Sam Harris has recently proposed a science based morality. He has faced lots of criticism, partly because he thinks promoting well-being is the prime goal of morality, which can be measured and used to determine which moral systems are better than others for maximizing well-being. The problem with his idea is values. Every person has different values which are complicated and which their moralities are partly based on. Like with this scenario of our generation being the last generation. Sure there would be no more suffering, but people don’t value nothing.

AntiTheist: I think the biggest reason for someone to be a materialist is its utility. There may be lots of possible foundational world views like materialism, but I don’t know many others. We each choose a world view based on many reasons, but the reason I think I, and many others, choose materialism is because it is the best world view out of the rest, because it has the most utility. We trust in empiricism and the scientific method because ever since we are born, we discover that they are useful tools for determining the truth and sustaining and improving our lives. Utility is a criteria that I think most people apply to their foundational world view. I don’t see any other reason to be a materialist. For example, we reject theism because it does not provide a reliable or verifiable source of truth.

As for utilitarian morality. No it is not necessarily caused by atheism. In America you see religious and non fiscal conservatives more interested in promoting maximum production irregardless of other notions of fairness or distribution of wealth, and you see religious and non liberals less concerned with economic utilitarianism.

 

[reggieM]

It does only mean that. We are talking here about materialist atheism, which is a subset of atheism.

Do other branches of atheim claim:

the existence of the soul
the immortality of the soul
judgement after death
recompence or ultimate justice due to human action
final or ultimate purpose of human life?

There are a lot of things that you might be able to derive from materialism, but not strictly from atheism. [And incidentally, there are indeed materialist atheists who believe that morality exists – Singer being an obvious example]

True, I’ve assumed that materialist atheism is the most common type of atheistic thought. Actually, I’ve never encountered a non-materialist (naturalist/positivist) atheist in any discussions on CAF yet.

One thing you cannot derive from atheism or materialism is utilitarianism, which is what Singer bases his ideas on. Do you agree with that last sentence or no?

I don’t agree that Singer bases his ideas on utilitarianism alone but that his atheistic metaphysic which claims there is no ultimate purpose to human life necessarily requires Singer to measure the value of human life on various standards which are trivial when contrasted to the most important point, namely – that there is no ultimate purpose.

So, the fact that there is no ultimate purpose (in the, by far, most common atheistic model) means that many other propositions follow from that point logically.

Singer’s idea that the human race should decide to kill itself off is built on that atheistic foundation.

Since human life has no ultimate purpose then the elimination or even deliberate destruction of the entire human race must be accepted as a legitimate, reasonable and irrefutably correct option.

The atheistic worldview validates Singer’s proposal and destroys any logical arguments against it.

 

[reggieM]

Why tell us what we MUST believe based on not believing in God.

Because its a necessary logical consequence of atheism. You MUST believe it because it’s part of the baggage that you accept with the atheistic worldview. To deny it is to be logically inconsistent (and thus self-refuting).

Why not consider us the authority on what we ourselves believe and don’t believe?

Atheism is a concept, a metaphysic (means of explanation, organizing principle) and a worldview. Your personal opinions on various matters don’t change the facts about what atheism is. So, rather than discuss your personal life (for example, you’d have to tell us of all your moral failings and every time you didn’t tell the truth, etc.) it’s best to discuss the philosophical concept of atheism. So, it’s “atheism” not “Leela the atheist” which is being evaluated.

One purpose I have is to care for my family. Is that one a trivial purpose? To me it is very important.

In the atheistic model, your family has no ultimate purpose – that’s a necessary corollary of the belief that there is no God, no immortality of the soul, no life after death, no judgement for human actions, and that human life is an accidental, unnecessary emergence from unintelligent, unconscious, blind physical laws.

There can be no ultimate purpose for human life if that life itself emerged from processes which themselves cannot confer ultimate purpose or meaning.

So again, your family is ultimately unnecessary and does not have an ultimate purpose or meaning.

Therefore, if you establish some kind of purpose for yourself in caring for something that has no ultimate purpose – this is what we’d call a trivial (and basically illogical) purpose.

Ultimately (in the end), there is no purpose, meaning or value to your activity of caring for a family (which is also unnecessary and lacking ultimate purpose – as you, yourself are).

This may help. Dr. William Provine is a most prominent atheistic scholars. His ideas here are non-controversial in the atheistic world – they follow logically and are necessarily a part of the atheistic worldview:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” William Provine, Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract);

You may have heard of the atheist, Richard Dawkins. He summarizes atheistic philosophical thought in the very same way:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1995), 133.

Atheist Steven Weinberg:

“Worse, the worldview of science is rather chilling. Not only **do we not find any point to life **laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature, of the sort imagined by philosophers from Anaximander and Plato to Emerson. We even learn that the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on **chance mutations **over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions.” Steven Weinberg nybooks.com/articles/21800

Atheist Jacques Monod makes this very clear and explains that there is a fundamental conflict between the atheistic metaphysical view (that there is no ultimate purpose) and the religious view:

… the scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.
— Jacques Monod, Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971)

I can find many more like this if you’d like. Again, this is not controversial at all within the circles of atheistic thought. It’s the fundamental axiom of the atheistic view.

 

[reggieM]

Once God is eliminated from consideration by society and individuals, along with the inevitability of His justice in this life or the next, there really is nothing to deter the most evil and insane among us from putting into action whatever demented notions their diseased minds vomit into existence. Only an atheist would advocate the extinction of the human race, as only an atheist could have come up with something like the Khmer Rouge peasant society.

Atheism, besides not being true, is by far the greatest source of evil in the world. Of course, atheists often say precisely that of religion, but this lie is part of the evil of atheism.

Exactly right. Because atheism claims that there is no ultimate purpose to life, it must necessarily accept any and all human behavior as having equal, ultimate value (that is, none).

Singer can advocate the extinction of the human race because that is perfectly valid and consistent in his atheistic worldview. The human race has no ultimate value anyway. It has no ultimate purpose, goal, meaning or worth. It’s an accident and unnecessary.

Thus, even to destroy the entire human race would be a valid and perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach within the atheistic system. Whereas, within Christianity it would be condemned as a horrific, unspeakable crime, since humanity has an extremely high value, worth, meaning and purpose.

The conflict between the worldviews should be obvious to everyone.

 

[Leela]

Because its a necessary logical consequence of atheism. You MUST believe it because it’s part of the baggage that you accept with the atheistic worldview. To deny it is to be logically inconsistent (and thus self-refuting).

Your bigotry toward nonbelievers is as offensive as it would be for me to accuse you of all sorts of failings and crazy ideas of many of the wacko believers out there.

You have no business telling me what I MUST believe.

And now you tell me that my desire to care for my family is trivial? You have serious problems, and sadly I don’t think I can help you.

Welcome to me “ignore list”

 

[edwest2]

Thank you, reggieM for this. Even if we view ourselves as charactes in a story, we all have motivations, but we also have an end.

I have read how we need to let go of childish superstitions and imaginary creations that bridged the gap in our neuropsychological development until we reached such a point where everything was explained to a degree that our need for beliefs was replaced simply by knowing. “I don’t want to believe. I want to know!” Stephen Jay Gould

In the end, when a person who knows something of ultimate value: that there is a God and a final justice. That person is now redefined as part of the primitive belief cult in our ‘modern’ age. An artifact of another time in a constantly changing world. Something to be discarded, because, after all, conflicting belief systems lead to conflicts and death. Are unbelievers immune from envy, revenge and the occasional homicidal act? At the end of their lives, are they just food for worms?

As in Biblical times, some heard and accepted, others did not.

As Catholics, our purpose is to tell others that there is a God. He is not a delusion and that He cares for each one of us.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Thank you, reggieM for this. Even if we view ourselves as charactes in a story, we all have motivations, but we also have an end.

Ed - great point. The rightness of our actions is measured by how they accomplished the end for which they were targeted. If the destination is zero or nothingness, then it’s impossible to measure any kind of success in reaching the goal.

In the end, when a person who knows something of ultimate value: that there is a God and a final justice.

Exactly. If there is no purpose to life, then there can be no final justice. Whatever justice is given in this life would be ultimately without meaning and purpose anyway.

As Catholics, our purpose is to tell others that there is a God. He is not a delusion and that He cares for each one of us.

That is why we have an infinite value, because we are created through infinite love (and given love to an infinite degree).

That is vastly different from an atheistic worldview that says, ultimately, we have zero value and no purpose. We were not created for an ultimate reason. In that view, we are unnecessary and our final end is nothingness.

 

[fkjuliano]

Because its a necessary logical consequence of atheism. You MUST believe it because it’s part of the baggage that you accept with the atheistic worldview. To deny it is to be logically inconsistent (and thus self-refuting).

Atheism is a concept, a metaphysic (means of explanation, organizing principle) and a worldview. Your personal opinions on various matters don’t change the facts about what atheism is. So, rather than discuss your personal life (for example, you’d have to tell us of all your moral failings and every time you didn’t tell the truth, etc.) it’s best to discuss the philosophical concept of atheism. So, it’s “atheism” not “Leela the atheist” which is being evaluated.

In the atheistic model, your family has no ultimate purpose – that’s a necessary corollary of the belief that there is no God, no immortality of the soul, no life after death, no judgement for human actions, and that human life is an accidental, unnecessary emergence from unintelligent, unconscious, blind physical laws.

There can be no ultimate purpose for human life if that life itself emerged from processes which themselves cannot confer ultimate purpose or meaning.

So again, your family is ultimately unnecessary and does not have an ultimate purpose or meaning.

Therefore, if you establish some kind of purpose for yourself in caring for something that has no ultimate purpose – this is what we’d call a trivial (and basically illogical) purpose.

Ultimately (in the end), there is no purpose, meaning or value to your activity of caring for a family (which is also unnecessary and lacking ultimate purpose – as you, yourself are).

This may help. Dr. William Provine is a most prominent atheistic scholars. His ideas here are non-controversial in the atheistic world – they follow logically and are necessarily a part of the atheistic worldview:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” William Provine, Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract);

You may have heard of the atheist, Richard Dawkins. He summarizes atheistic philosophical thought in the very same way:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1995), 133.

Atheist Steven Weinberg:

“Worse, the worldview of science is rather chilling. Not only **do we not find any point to life **laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature, of the sort imagined by philosophers from Anaximander and Plato to Emerson. We even learn that the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on **chance mutations **over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions.” Steven Weinberg nybooks.com/articles/21800

Atheist Jacques Monod makes this very clear and explains that there is a fundamental conflict between the atheistic metaphysical view (that there is no ultimate purpose) and the religious view:

… the scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.
— Jacques Monod, Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971)

I can find many more like this if you’d like. Again, this is not controversial at all within the circles of atheistic thought. It’s the fundamental axiom of the atheistic view.

reggieM has irrefutably exposed the amorality and futility of the atheistic point of view by using the very words of the atheists. It is paradoxical for any atheist to claim he or she is a moral being, for it would amount to an intellectual betrayal of atheism to the extent that were true.

The only logical reason for an atheist not to defraud poor widows, rape little children, take up serial killing as a hobby, participate in genocide, etc. is fear of getting caught. Of course, most atheists can be presumed to have no personal desire to engage in that type of behavior, but for the ones who do, the only reasonable course of action in deciding whether or not to act on their impulses is to weigh the pleasure to be gained by such acts against the pain to be endured if caught. This conclusion must follow from atheists’ belief that human life has no more intrinsic value than amoebic life, which is to say, zero value. And that human life has zero value in turn must follow from atheists’ belief that there is no higher principle in the universe than random chance.

 

[fkjuliano]

Your bigotry toward nonbelievers is as offensive as it would be for me to accuse you of all sorts of failings and crazy ideas of many of the wacko believers out there.

You have no business telling me what I MUST believe.

And now you tell me that my desire to care for my family is trivial? You have serious problems, and sadly I don’t think I can help you.

Welcome to me “ignore list”

You may believe what you want, but we have every right to point it out when those beliefs are paradoxical. Indeed, that is the purpose of having forums such as these. By the same token, if you can establish a logical link between the “failings and crazy ideas of many of the wacko believers out there” and our professed Christian and Catholic beliefs, you should by all means do so.

You are completely right when you say you can’t help reggieM. Atheists are totally lacking in any understanding of what is most important, so how could you ever help those who have the most understanding, i.e. Catholic Christians? We do pray that God will help you, though.

Since you will not be able to respond cogently to this post, you might as well put me on “Ignore” also.

 

[Leela]

reggieM has irrefutably exposed the amorality and futility of the atheistic point of view by using the very words of the atheists. It is paradoxical for any atheist to claim he or she is a moral being, for it would amount to an intellectual betrayal of atheism to the extent that were true.

On the contrary, to not believe in God one would have to first believe that some things are better than others. It is in no way paradoxical for an atheist to claim she is a moral being. It is in fact necessary for someone to think of herself as a moral being *prior *to claiming she is an atheist. Otherwise, to not believe would be no better than to believe.

The only logical reason for an atheist not to defraud poor widows, rape little children, take up serial killing as a hobby, participate in genocide, etc. is fear of getting caught.

And what is it that prevents you from doing these things? Am I to believe that this is exactly what you would start doing if you stopped believing in God? That would be scary. But I don’t think it is true.

You know why I don’t do such things? Simple. Because I love others. Because the happiness of many many others is essential to my own happiness. Because we are all in this together. Your joy is my joy, but your bigotry scares me.

Of course, most atheists can be presumed to have no personal desire to engage in that type of behavior, but for the ones who do, the only reasonable course of action in deciding whether or not to act on their impulses is to weigh the pleasure to be gained by such acts against the pain to be endured if caught.

One could say the same thing about believers, couldn’t they? It’s just that the “getting caught” is ensured by an omniscient police man. But I don’t think fear of punishment is what keeps you in line any more than it is what keeps me in line. I suspect that you make all the same sort of considerations that I do when I deliberate about what is right. We consider universability, consequences, and human flourishing. We seek the council of those whose views we respect, and we try as best we can to do what is best.

It’s not really about getting caught is it? When your kids do wrong such as hitting another child, do you tell them God will punish them with eternal hellfire for their transgression, or do you ask them “how would you feel if someone did that to you?” Do you treat them as sociopaths needing to be restrained or as children needing to be nurtured to develop an identity in solidarity with their fellow beings?

Do you really doubt that I love my children as much as you love yours? What I doubt is that your love for your children and anyone’s love for theirs depends on having a satisfactory philosophical or theological foundation. Love comes first. Such intellectual explanations come later.

This conclusion must follow from atheists’ belief that human life has no more intrinsic value than amoebic life, which is to say, zero value. And that human life has zero value in turn must follow from atheists’ belief that there is no higher principle in the universe than random chance.

The difference here is that I can make no sense of “intrinsic value.” It isn’t that I deny humanity’s “intrinsic value,” I just don’t have such a concept in my vocabulary. I can make no sense of values-talk in the abstract without reference to who is doing the valuing. Human life has profound value to me which is to say that I value it.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary, to not believe in God one would have to first believe that some things are better than others. It is in no way paradoxical for an atheist to claim she is a moral being. It is in fact necessary for someone to think of herself as a moral being *prior *to claiming she is an atheist. Otherwise, to not believe would be no better than to believe.

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

The difference here is that I can make no sense of “intrinsic value.” It isn’t that I deny humanity’s “intrinsic value,” I just don’t have such a concept in my vocabulary. I can make no sense of values-talk in the abstract without reference to who is doing the valuing. Human life has profound value to me which is to say that I value it.

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…

 

[reggieM]

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

That’s right. I’ve read her comment several times and I can’t understand what point she could be arguing or defending (I think she put me on ignore so I’m referring to her in the third person and not directly).

She said …

On the contrary, to not believe in God one would have to first believe that some things are better than others. It is in no way paradoxical for an atheist to claim she is a moral being. It is in fact necessary for someone to think of herself as a moral being prior to claiming she is an atheist. Otherwise, to not believe would be no better than to believe.

Her first sentence is validation and support for the argument of perfection.
To think that some things are better than others admits that there is some ultimate standard of good to measure by. Additionally, things are only “better” when measured against a purpose. If there is no ultimate purpose, then nothing ultimately could be better or worse.

But it’s a universal fact that humanity recognizes better and worse. “Better” is a point on the scale of perfection. Since a scale must have an end-point in order to assess measurements, we know that the end-point of “better” is “best, most perfect Being in every aspect”. By definition, that is God. So, atheists, by contradicting their own view and recognizing “better and worse” are already supporting the proof of God’s existence.

What atheists should say, to be consistent, is that there is no better or worse in anything. Everything that exists just “is”. It happened through a blind, unintelligent process that had no intention, goal, purpose, meaning, plan or desire. Things exist for no ultimate purpose. They die and go out of existence for no purpose. There is no difference.

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…

That’s another excellent point. If things only became valuable when we arrived, and we arrived accidentally and with no ultimate purpose – then the value of things is given by beings which have no intrinsic value themselves.

That’s the enormous danger of atheism. Human beings are only given temporary value by other human beings, who themselves have no ultimate value (and can justifiably devalue anything or anyone).

 

[edwest2]

If bio-chemical reactions are your only guide then everything is indeed relative. You feel certain things toward other similar organisms that boil down to a simple preprogrammed survival advantage. Nothing more. You avoid negative stimuli and seek pleasurable stimuli. Once again, preprogrammed.

The biological robot then becomes self-aware and realizes that aside from tool use and speech, he’s not different from any other animal. So why not end it all? What would it matter in the great scheme of things? Like mold on a petri dish, human beings are gobbling up resources and we’ll be at the end soon anyway.

I suspect much greater minds than a writer at the New York Times are studying this issue. For better or worse, plans are being made.

Do we come from nothing and die to nothing? Those are the questions.

God bless,
Ed

 

[didymus]

Is the author opting for voluntary extinction themselves? Didn’t think so.

They never do, do they?
How about this? Anyone who claims that animals have rights or humans are not superior to beasts is declaring himself to be an animal.

Therefore, no legal or civil rights & further by claiming to be an animal Mr Singer et al. should be deemed volunteers for slave labor (giddy-up!), medical experimentation, hunting to “cull the herd” should that become necessary, &c.

/sarcasm

 

[Major_Minor]

Has anyone else ever noticed that all the human hating philosophies in vogue right now always lead to despair? Nihilism, Materialism, Existentialism etc. etc. etc.

How many people do you know who embrace these philosophies don’t eventually become bitter, depressed, mean-spirited, hateful and self-absorbed?

Sure, you might see an initial spark of enthusiasm in the young and naive when they first embrace it “I’m free! Free of the shackles that bind other people”!! but over time it inevitably leads to a dark, seriously unhappy place. In my observation I can think of NO ONE who has followed this way of thinking into a healthy, happy, generous mindset.

 

[Leela]

Has anyone else ever noticed that all the human hating philosophies in vogue right now always lead to despair? Nihilism, Materialism, Existentialism etc. etc. etc.

How many people do you know who embrace these philosophies don’t eventually become bitter, depressed, mean-spirited, hateful and self-absorbed?

Sure, you might see an initial spark of enthusiasm in the young and naive when they first embrace it “I’m free! Free of the shackles that bind other people”!! but over time it inevitably leads to a dark, seriously unhappy place. In my observation I can think of NO ONE who has followed this way of thinking into a healthy, happy, generous mindset.

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?

 

[Jermosh]

Looking at some of the horrid things we do? Sure, I mean we kill our own children, cut body parts off so they cannot work and not feed their family, systematically rape children, bomb anyone who disagrees, brutalize our spouses, etc, etc. I dont even need to get into the enviromental irresponcibility. All and All humans are a horrid species when we look at some of us, not the case of some of the others though. Either we are exactly opposite of what God willed for us to be.

But as for the article, who cares?

 

[Leela]

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

I would agree that to believe something is to value that belief and further that a belief itself is a pattern of valuation.

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