2 of 2
2
Having children as an atheist is cruel?
Posted: 20 September 2012 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
ninjin - 20 September 2012 10:11 AM

toombaru writes:

To take on the suffering of children is a self imposed form of suffering.

Again nothing on the topic at hand.
I’m speculating on the right to inflict suffering onto others.
By your reasoning. (not that there is a you that reasons)
To take on the suffering on other lifeforms is selfimposed suffering so we should not care about/empathise childabuse, torture, murder, rape, bullying, animal cruelty, gruesome medical tests, horrible breeding conditions etc. Why care about others suffering, empathy is a form of selfimposed suffering.


Life is full of suffering.
It is also full of great joy.
Evidently your brain is focused on one of the above…...mine on the other.
I love being awareness and imagine that I will do that until the organism dies.

 

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2011-11-14
toombaru - 20 September 2012 10:17 AM

Life is full of suffering.
It is also full of great joy.
Evidently your brain is focused on one of the above…...mine on the other.
I love being awareness and imagine that I will do that until the organism dies.

What we experience is not the issue. Its that we impose existance on others that is what the discussion is about. I don’t understand why that distinction is so difficult to comprehend.
I am happy therefore life is good for my offspring as well. What kind of absurd logic is that?
Does happines>non-existence?
Does suffering>non-existence?
Does existence>non-existence?
(I’m talking about being born vs not being born. Not suicide)
Is it better to suffer than to not-exist is the fundamental question. If you exist you will most likely suffer and die. Its inevitable.
Essentially if you are not born you cannot suffer (or be happy). Why is that so hard a concept to grasp?
So far no one has presented any arguments as to why children being born is good for the children.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
ninjin - 20 September 2012 10:35 AM
toombaru - 20 September 2012 10:17 AM

Life is full of suffering.
It is also full of great joy.
Evidently your brain is focused on one of the above…...mine on the other.
I love being awareness and imagine that I will do that until the organism dies.

What we experience is not the issue. Its that we impose existance on others that is what the discussion is about. I don’t understand why that distinction is so difficult to comprehend.
I am happy therefore life is good for my offspring as well. What kind of absurd logic is that?
Does happines>non-existence?
Does suffering>non-existence?
Does existence>non-existence?
(I’m talking about being born vs not being born. Not suicide)
Is it better to suffer than to not-exist is the fundamental question. If you exist you will most likely suffer and die. Its inevitable.
Essentially if you are not born you cannot suffer (or be happy). Why is that so hard a concept to grasp?
So far no one has presented any arguments as to why children being born is good for the children.


I suppose that depends on how you define the word “good”.
If you think it is bad to bring children into the world…....don’t.
Well…....that’s assuming that there is such a thing as free will.
I suspect you have your feathers fluffed for imaginary eggs.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2011-11-14
toombaru - 20 September 2012 10:49 AM

I suppose that depends on how you define the word “good”.
If you think it is bad to bring children into the world…....don’t.
Well…....that’s assuming that there is such a thing as free will.
I suspect you have your feathers fluffed for imaginary eggs.

Or “suffering”, or “happiness” etc. I find it fascinating that such a large part of life essentially goes unquestioned for the most part. Its a little bit of religion over it all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
ninjin - 20 September 2012 10:53 AM
toombaru - 20 September 2012 10:49 AM

I suppose that depends on how you define the word “good”.
If you think it is bad to bring children into the world…....don’t.
Well…....that’s assuming that there is such a thing as free will.
I suspect you have your feathers fluffed for imaginary eggs.

Or “suffering”, or “happiness” etc. I find it fascinating that such a large part of life essentially goes unquestioned for the most part. Its a little bit of religion over it all.


All of the brain’s questions are about its own conceptual overlay.
They are essentially meaningless.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 12:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2011-01-15

This question is a great example of the problem with labels. An umbrella term like atheist means almost nothing when you look at the real world because atheists are not easily pinned down like religious people are. Not all atheists think god Is an impossibility, not all think that life is suffering, not all think life ends when we die, not all think we even know the true definition of death. Some atheists might believe In enlightenment, reaching peace of mind in this life has nothing to do with any sort of afterlife. Some atheists may have a changing view of the world daily. And there is no problem with this, unless you are religious and have a very narrow view of what the right and wrong way to think is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2013 09:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  47
Joined  2012-09-20

From a Darwinian point of view, the eventual development of fear of death its far outweighed by the urge to reproduce. From a purely moralistic point of view, it seems to be a morally neutral act (that of reproducing).

Also, if you start to weigh up the fears, pains, hopes and joys, there may in the end, be a net profit. If this were true, wed be bound by out sense of morals to reproduce!

Also, the next great moralist is bound to be born of a woman, so we must continue the search.

 Signature 

“Does history record any case in which the majority was right?”
Robert A. Heinlein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  111
Joined  2011-12-28

The human condition seems mostly to be distracted from reality, it seems to that biology contributes to that end with the young feeling rather immortal and behaving accordingly. I think at least the mature individual - read unbeliever, is aware of just how harsh the human condition is and despite this rather brutal awareness chooses to face reality with courage.  Courage meaning rather than retreat into childish fantasy which promises no need of thought and a promise of shelter from the storm in the fold of an all knowing Father god.  Perhaps even the cognitively absent or the intellectually irresponsible believers see this reality in all its starkness, but they simply cower in submission to fear. So even if we all see reality for what it is, there seems but two choices available to us all, courage or cowardice. Think about it, if you try to force awareness of harsh reality on those comfortably enfolded in divine parental embrace, they are going to hate your guts and self-righteously so—so they feel. They really want you to shut up, and those Christians are well armed, so unlike [ tongue in cheek] the retarded Muslims.


HONK IF YOU LOVE JESUS————-lol!!

[ Edited: 13 May 2013 12:56 PM by boagie]
 Signature 

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
David Hume

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed