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

  • Thread starter Thread starter fkjuliano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In that case, the world ought to be glad that you are a Christian.
I am glad that I am a Christian as well
I am not a nihilist. I reserve that term for those who believe so strongly in the afterlife as to reject the value of this life such as the Islamic suicide bomber.
You have a fallacious understanding of nihilism, or perhaps you don’t care for what moral nihilism really means. It seems to me that it is in your best interest as a disbeliever to distort and twist terms and to give well established words fallacious meanings in order to support you position.
The above sounds like nonsense to me.
Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that my argument is valid.That you cannot see it, is not my problem.
The above sounds like bigotry to me.
This is a moral value statement. Objectively speaking, however, what is bigotry and why should I care that you would call me a bigot? Why should I consider bigotry to be truly and objectively wrong? How does bigotry relate to objective universal truth? You seem quite keen to make value judgements about my character with the presumption that I should recognise the universal truth of your statement; and yet you deny objective universal moral truth.

Perhaps it is you that is talking nonsense?
Okay, now I am embarrassed that I bothered to start to reply to you.
You should be embarrassed, if you cannot see the truth of what I am saying. Simply dodging it by making it seem as if I have a problem won’t bring you closer to the facts, assuming that’s what your looking for.
 
So I saw this thread was still going on, and I decided to click on it out of curiosity. I wasn’t disappointed: same exact false claims, same exact disingenuous arguments, same exact unwillingness to consider what anyone else says.

Bravo, sir. I’m glad that some things don’t change.
I would not expect reggigeM to fill a cup that is already full of its self.
 
That reminds me of an interesting paradox, MOM.

In order to be filled with the life and power of God, we need to be empty of self-focus. In giving we receive. That’s a great paradox of the spiritual life that materialism cannot comprehend.

The strange thing is that in a worldview where there is nothingness as the final end and there is no ultimate meaning, self becomes the only spiritual fulfillment possible.

By emptying the universe of meaning one is filled and dominated by self.
By emptying self of dominance, one discovers the meaning and purpose of the universe.

Regarding AntiTheist’s comments, I wish he offered something more substantive.

Here’s Dr. Singer:

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.

So, this aligns perfectly with what we have said. The temporal “purposes” that people may create for themselves (“ends”) only bring “fleeting satisfaction”. This is from the atheist view. They only bring “fleeting” anything because they are transient, unnecessary and ultimately meaningless “ends”. They lack an ultimate purpose. Satisfaction is necessarily fleeting in that view. So, Singer asks if that kind of satisfaction is even worth it at all. It’s a logical and reasonable question. Why bother? Some evil is inevitable and the pleasure one gets is minimal and fleeting. So, the elimination of life avoids evil and only risks losing some minimal pleasure.

Singer continues:

philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” … To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have** a good life is not to benefit him or her**. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none

Again, in the atheistic view, even a “good life” is not a benefit. Obviously, this is true ultimately since the “good life” is accidental, and ultimately meaningless and unnecessary. There is no way to measure whether life is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ either. It’s just an outcome of natural processes.

If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

An alternate view is that nobody should inflict their life on us. If the person causes us pain or displeasure, then … ???

If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized **then no sacrifices would be required **— we could party our way into extinction!

This is fascinating. First, he is worried primarily about “guilt”. To avoid this feeling, the elimination of the human race is proposed. He might ask himself why he feels guilt in the first place.

Secondly, he wants this elimination to be done “with no sacrifice”.

What about sacrificial love - is there is no room for that in atheism?

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — **for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt **about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

Again, his main concern is guilt. He is trying to get rid of it. It’s fascinating that he responds to the call of conscience by desiring the suicide of the human race.
 
The strange thing is that in a worldview where there is nothingness as the final end and there is no ultimate meaning, self becomes the only spiritual fulfillment possible.
If the ultimate meaning of life lies in “the final end,” presumably attainment of the afterlife, what is the meaning of the afterlife?
 
If the ultimate meaning of life lies in “the final end,” presumably attainment of the afterlife, what is the meaning of the afterlife?
Eternal joy (satisfaction) in the presence of our Creator.
 
If the ultimate meaning of life lies in “the final end,” presumably attainment of the afterlife, what is the meaning of the afterlife?
The ultimate meaning of the universe is the manifestation of the glory of God. The ultimate purpose of human beings is to give glory to God and reflect His goodness.

The “final end” is the ultimate purpose of life. It’s not, as you say it, “the attainment of the afterlife” since for humans, an afterlife is given. Instead, it is the attainment of the fullness of being, through following the path of Goodness – as much as possible for humans.

So, the ultimate purpose is measured by the “final end”. We strive for a goal - that is correct. Through that, we fulfill the meaning of our existence.

This goal is the participation in the Goodness which is God. So, through life, we grow towards God by our choices. When we choose the good, we gradually fulfill our purpose.

God is the source and fulness of all Good. By definition, all that is good, in it’s absolute perfection, is God.

So, we were created to share in that Goodness. We discover this in life and then pursue it by our free choices. That way, the good that we do is not forced on us, but we actually attain good by our freedom.

That’s the goal and ultimate purpose. This is fulfilled in the afterlife, but progresses in this life as we move towards God, closer and closer.

So, we need to pray, worship God, appreciate goodness and do the good things that God desires. On the path, we discover that love is the perfect reflection of God’s glory.
 
That reminds me of an interesting paradox, MOM.

In order to be filled with the life and power of God, we need to be empty of self-focus. In giving we receive. That’s a great paradox of the spiritual life that materialism cannot comprehend.

The strange thing is that in a worldview where there is nothingness as the final end and there is no ultimate meaning, self becomes the only spiritual fulfillment possible.

By emptying the universe of meaning one is filled and dominated by self.
By emptying self of dominance, one discovers the meaning and purpose of the universe.

Regarding AntiTheist’s comments, I wish he offered something more substantive.

Here’s Dr. Singer:

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.

So, this aligns perfectly with what we have said. The temporal “purposes” that people may create for themselves (“ends”) only bring “fleeting satisfaction”. This is from the atheist view. They only bring “fleeting” anything because they are transient, unnecessary and ultimately meaningless “ends”. They lack an ultimate purpose. Satisfaction is necessarily fleeting in that view. So, Singer asks if that kind of satisfaction is even worth it at all. It’s a logical and reasonable question. Why bother? Some evil is inevitable and the pleasure one gets is minimal and fleeting. So, the elimination of life avoids evil and only risks losing some minimal pleasure.

Singer continues:

philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” … To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have** a good life is not to benefit him or her**. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none

Again, in the atheistic view, even a “good life” is not a benefit. Obviously, this is true ultimately since the “good life” is accidental, and ultimately meaningless and unnecessary. There is no way to measure whether life is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ either. It’s just an outcome of natural processes.

If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

An alternate view is that nobody should inflict their life on us. If the person causes us pain or displeasure, then … ???

If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized **then no sacrifices would be required **— we could party our way into extinction!

This is fascinating. First, he is worried primarily about “guilt”. To avoid this feeling, the elimination of the human race is proposed. He might ask himself why he feels guilt in the first place.

Secondly, he wants this elimination to be done “with no sacrifice”.

What about sacrificial love - is there is no room for that in atheism?

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — **for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt **about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

Again, his main concern is guilt. He is trying to get rid of it. It’s fascinating that he responds to the call of conscience by desiring the suicide of the human race.
Thank you reggieM for spelling out so very sweetly what i have been trying to tell people for a long time:thumbsup:. This whole post is great.🙂

They just can’t seem to avoid invoking that “moral ought” which seems to permeate the very existence in which we participate. They are twisting and turning, yelping and leaping, but they can’t escape it. They can only ignore it and pretend that it isn’t there. Well done!😉
 
The “final end” is the ultimate purpose of life. It’s not, as you say it, “the attainment of the afterlife” since for humans, an afterlife is given. Instead, it is the attainment of the fullness of being, through following the path of Goodness – as much as possible for humans.
Very good:thumbsup:. I am glad that you saw that “red herring straw-man” by Leela (* an easy mistake for an atheist to make if you don’t study what Catholics actually believe*:D).You destroyed it with the ease that God gave you.

Nice try Leela.😉

God bless.
 
The ultimate meaning of the universe is the manifestation of the glory of God. The ultimate purpose of human beings is to give glory to God and reflect His goodness.

The “final end” is the ultimate purpose of life. It’s not, as you say it, “the attainment of the afterlife” since for humans, an afterlife is given. Instead, it is the attainment of the fullness of being, through following the path of Goodness – as much as possible for humans.

So, the ultimate purpose is measured by the “final end”. We strive for a goal - that is correct. Through that, we fulfill the meaning of our existence.

This goal is the participation in the Goodness which is God. So, through life, we grow towards God by our choices. When we choose the good, we gradually fulfill our purpose.

God is the source and fulness of all Good. By definition, all that is good, in it’s absolute perfection, is God.

So, we were created to share in that Goodness. We discover this in life and then pursue it by our free choices. That way, the good that we do is not forced on us, but we actually attain good by our freedom.

That’s the goal and ultimate purpose. This is fulfilled in the afterlife, but progresses in this life as we move towards God, closer and closer.

So, we need to pray, worship God, appreciate goodness and do the good things that God desires. On the path, we discover that love is the perfect reflection of God’s glory.
Jesus said unto them, “And who do you say that I am?”

They replied,“You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.”

And Jesus replied, “What?”
 
Jesus said unto them, “And who do you say that I am?”

They replied,“You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.”

And Jesus replied, “What?”
Great point. The apostles didn’t need that kind of philosophical gibberish because they could see Him with purity and simplicity. “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”.

It’s really that simple.

But then again, we see thousands of posts from atheists here on CAF asking questions like: “what is the meaning of joy?” or things like that.

So, discussions then move into some very complex explanations which really should be unnecessary. Jesus did not resort to that kind of language for that reason. He wanted to show that the path to God is available to everyone.
 
This is from the atheist view. …]
Again, in the atheistic view, …] What about sacrificial love - is there is no room for that in atheism?
Oh, heck, let’s do this one as a song:

Atheism’s not a worldview, cha cha cha
You haven’t learned a single thing, cha cha cha
Still making the same incorrect arguments, cha cha cha
[takes a deep breath] You can’t logically say that X,Y, or Z is an “atheistic view” because atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods and it is compatible with a wide spectrum of moral views and actions…cha cha cha!

Everybody, dance!

At any rate, I’m not surprised to see that you still conflate atheism with utilitarianism – and in particular Singer’s form of utilitarianism – even after being told…repeatedly…that you are in error to do so.

This is evidence of a serious inability to take into account what other people say, an inability that is going to cost you in a more critical way at some point in your life, if it hasn’t already. You can’t say you haven’t been warned.
 
No, that is a terrible idea! Sheesh!

The rest is for AntiTheist. I agree with you on most of your positions about atheism. Especially, that it is not a worldview (which frustrated me when I was atheist and still does) and that people should not be ignorant about what it actually is. But, I disagree that we are making incorrect arguments. They are reasonable, rational and irrefutable. I am not saying they are correct but there is nothing incorrect about them. All objections can and have been logically answered. Atheism is only compatible with morality because of the objective reality instilled in us whether or not we believe in “gods” or God because it is part of our nature. Our conscience and reason can tell us our nature if we search for the Truth with an honest heart. I agree these people should not posit their own views on what they THINK other people’s (atheism) views are, but you are not doing yourself justice in giving a seemingly threatening warning against them AND saying that moral compatibility stuff. THAT, my friend, is not moral. If you want to pick on theists, I am here. If you are sincerely open to truth and not just saying no to every theist position, argument, and conclusion, I am here. I am not trying to be macho. I would just rather these people not be attacked. If you want them to stop being ignorant on atheist views, tell them in a better fashion than an atheist would. No need to drop any bombs, as much as I know you want to. Sometime I still do (want to, that is).That would only lead to bad things. Trust me. If you so wish, you can add me and we can chat. But whether or not you wish, prayers are in order. I pray for atheists because I was one.
 
The rest is for AntiTheist. I agree with you on most of your positions about atheism. Especially, that it is not a worldview (which frustrated me when I was atheist and still does) and that people should not be ignorant about what it actually is.
Gregg – do you agree with AntiTheist’s statement:
You can’t logically say that X,Y, or Z is an “atheistic view” because atheism **is nothing more than **the lack of belief in gods…
I bolded a key phrase. First, is atheism compatible with any and every philosophical principle? If it only means “lack of belief in gods” then it should have no worldview implications, right? For example, is atheism compatible with the worldview that proposes that an eternal, uncaused, Cause of the universe exists? If not, then isn’t this “something more” than what is claimed here?

Does a lack of belief in God, the source of all Good, meaning, purpose and final justice mean “nothing more” than “no gods exist” – or does it have necessarily implications for the foundation of one’s worldview? In other words, are there no necessary consequences that follow from a universe where “no gods” exist? Or is the existence of God simply irrelevant to one’s worldview?

Is atheism compatible with the belief that all people are accountable to the moral law and this accountability will be finally judged after one’s death?

If not, then how can we say that atheism is “nothing more” than lack of belief in gods?
 
Oh, heck, let’s do this one as a song:

Atheism’s not a worldview, cha cha cha
You haven’t learned a single thing, cha cha cha
Still making the same incorrect arguments, cha cha cha
[takes a deep breath] You can’t logically say that X,Y, or Z is an “atheistic view” because atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods and it is compatible with a wide spectrum of moral views and actions…cha cha cha!

Everybody, dance!

At any rate, I’m not surprised to see that you still conflate atheism with utilitarianism – and in particular Singer’s form of utilitarianism – even after being told…repeatedly…that you are in error to do so.

This is evidence of a serious inability to take into account what other people say, an inability that is going to cost you in a more critical way at some point in your life, if it hasn’t already. You can’t say you haven’t been warned.
Either truth exists or it doesn’t. Catholics can have the fullness of the truth. It takes a little effort though.

The ground of the atheistic worldview is functionality. You perform adaptive functions, or not, reproduce, or not, associate in genetically commanded tribal groups, and that’s it. The utilitarian aspect is a given. If humans are just a little above bacteria growing in a petri dish, then life is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

I’m not saying unbelievers can’t do good things for others and themselves, what I am saying is that they are rejecting the ground of all truth. This often leads to decisions that appear to be worthwhile but an end of life that misses its final destination. Without knowing who God is, and by not hearing, you will be left without.

God bless,
Ed
 
Gregg – do you agree with AntiTheist’s statement:

I bolded a key phrase. First, is atheism compatible with any and every philosophical principle? If it only means “lack of belief in gods” then it should have no worldview implications, right? For example, is atheism compatible with the worldview that proposes that an eternal, uncaused, Cause of the universe exists? If not, then isn’t this “something more” than what is claimed here?

Does a lack of belief in God, the source of all Good, meaning, purpose and final justice mean “nothing more” than “no gods exist” – or does it have necessarily implications for the foundation of one’s worldview? In other words, are there no necessary consequences that follow from a universe where “no gods” exist? Or is the existence of God simply irrelevant to one’s worldview?

Is atheism compatible with the belief that all people are accountable to the moral law and this accountability will be finally judged after one’s death?

If not, then how can we say that atheism is “nothing more” than lack of belief in gods?
I should have been more specific. I should not have even used the word “most”. I posted it after 5 hardcore games of racquetball so my blood was still trying to figure out where to send the nutrients to. Apparently, my brain was not on that list. I agree with you Reggie. There is not much (if anything) that atheism IS compatible with (not even secular humanism if you think about it) but I think you would agree that an atheist is compatible with objective morality. (Also, Moral relativism should not even exist, by the way. Just throwing that out there.) Unfortunately, they believe that God is irrelevant so that presupposition would impose itself on any view of the atheists. They beg the question without even questioning. The reason I say that (my last post) also is because I can take punches, literally and figuratively. I also have a propensity towards defense. The only thing I could not defend (which frustrated my self-esteem) was WHY I was atheist. But I was attacked many times as one. I like atheists, even stubborn as they are (I was a stubborn little rat). I DISLIKE atheism with a passion because it is a killing poison (10 years)! Anyway, sorry for the confusion. Know that I agree with you. I read a lot of Peter Kreeft, Edith Stein, etc… and I understand what it was that made me so hard-headed. It was my lack of search for Truth. I should stop now. I hope this clarifies what I said.
Thanks,
Gregg
 
Among the most read articles appearing in the New York Times today is one asking if it would not be a good thing if we were all to decide to stop having children in order to cause the extinction of the human race.

NYT: Should This Be the Last Generation?

The following was my humble response, which as far I could see was the only one to bring Christianity into this question:
As a woman who is logically minded, yes, given man’s poor understanding of ecological balance, charity, acceptance…(the list is far too long to type), humanity in practice is a sink. In theory we have the capability of doing great works, but so few actually try, and even fewer make a difference.

I’m actually looking forward to the Second Coming. I’m not sure if God will save me, or cast me aside, but I do think that it’s time humanity came to a stop.

I know people like to believe the best in humanity, but if we are honest with ourselves, humanity is dangerous. (If aliens did exist and I’m not saying they do), we would probably be considered the most dangerous society in the universe. We’re like a bunch of sticky fingered children, idiotic and one minded.

I do believe there are good people out there, but it’s hard sometimes when the negative aspects of humanity are constantly hightlighted (I spend day after day reading cases on murder, rape…).

I guess, humanity is the greatest experiment gone wrong.
 
Among the most read articles appearing in the New York Times today is one asking if it would not be a good thing if we were all to decide to stop having children in order to cause the extinction of the human race.

NYT: Should This Be the Last Generation?

The following was my humble response, which as far I could see was the only one to bring Christianity into this question:
Geez, if it’s that bad why don’t these people just commit mass suicide? At least they’re getting around to admitting that the promised land ain’t here-something Christians have known-and had an answer for- for centuries.
 
Great point. The apostles didn’t need that kind of philosophical gibberish because they could see Him with purity and simplicity.
That’s strange to me. In my reading of the Gospels, the apostles didn’t seem to ever understand anything that was going on or get anything right.
 
That’s strange to me. In my reading of the Gospels, the apostles didn’t seem to ever understand anything that was going on or get anything right.
It takes a sort of epiphany to be able to see much higher than ourselves. Peter did it when he was overcome by a realization and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top