quote
follow
[The following comment has been stolen from reddit, user schopenhauerfan5]
"Parents create targets for harm. But they blame the external sources of harm. Even though they make a mortal being vulnerable to any possible harm, they blame the harms (even though every parent messes up their children), instead of blaming themselves for creating a vulnerable person who can suffer and die. It's as if parents set up a live target on a shooting range, then are shocked when the target gets shot at. We can obviously condemn those who shoot people, but we can also condemn those who make people who can be shot. If you don't make a child, they can never be shot. Don't send innocent children "downrange." Don't put innocent children in danger. Parents have to think their children will be okay, or they might be tormented by the realization that a child is in mortal danger now because of their actions. Parents create beating hearts that will eventually stop beating. Parents create brains that will eventually decay. Parents create skin that will eventually putrefy. So maybe it's appropriate that cadaverine and putrescine, which are responsible for the odor of putrefying flesh, are both found in semen.
Parents might think "cancer sucks", but they don't reach the conclusion that one less person means one less potential victim of cancer. They don't think: one less murder victim, one less kidnapping victim, one less rape victim, one less traffic accident victim, one less heart attack victim, one less stroke victim, one less infectious disease victim, one less accident victim, one less congenital defect victim, one less bullying victim, one less victim of hunger, etc. They also underestimate their own children's capacity to inflict harm on others. They don't think: one less potential criminal, one less potential murderer, one less potential kidnapper, one less potential rapist, one less potential drunk driver, one less bully, one less greedy person, etc. If someone doesn't make a child, not only do they make one less potential victim in the world, they also make one less potential victimizer. Those who abstain from procreation make one less target of evil and one less source of evil.
It's hard for parents to look at a baby and think it might die a horrible death. What you don't know can kill you, and people often underestimate just how bad things can get. Before some horrible thing happens to offspring, parents might say "how could we have ever known such a horrible thing could happen?" "How could we have known our child would be sold into slavery?" "How could we have known our child would die in the Great War?" "How could we have known our child would die in the Holocaust?" "How could we have known our child would die in World War II?"
But for parents living in 2017, and considering how much human suffering has happened in history, even the 20th century alone, they really have no excuse. Like a Dilbert comic said, "the key to happiness is self-delusion." And people are "organic pain collectors." Knowing how "destructible" the human body is, knowing how vulnerable the human body is, how could anyone in good conscience create another human body? Odds are, it was created by accident. Every infirmity, every disaster, every tragedy, every violent death -- can be traced back to the fact that sex feels good. And parents "pass the buck" of suffering onto their children.
Antinatalists could pay people to get sterilized, which would reduce human suffering, and mean less death in the world."
More posts from this category: Why I don't want any children. Childfree choice.Labor, consumerism, wage slavery etc
Irina |
22-04-2018
Have fun in Spain! Barcelona is beautiful. Eat some paella) |
D O'B
|
21-04-2018
Lady Rinkadink, bored after losing at Scrabble?
And Brian, you said: quote:
I think our only hope is to pray, believe in Jesus - Why did you arbitrarily pick Jesus and not Buddha? Or Muhammad? Or Spiderman? Or Engelbert Humperdinck? Also, you do realise that if Jesus actually existed and was as he is claimed to be in the Bible then it is HIS FAULT that the world is the way it is and so praying to him would be as pointless as a Thalidomide victim trying to have a wank? Here's a little flowchart based on the Epicurean Paradox to help you out and feel free to replace 'evil' with 'suffering' or any other negative aspect of being that you choose: Okaaaay, let me see now... Good. One task completed and only one more to go. Adios! |
Irina |
21-04-2018
heeey! I'm a Scrabble champion!)))) Actually, I got better in a few days of playing it and now I do win a lot. Helps kill time and avoid existential dread in a fun and educational manner. I even remembered a word 'octave'. And the initial 'quire' was turned lated into squire and in a yet another move into an 'esquire', hahaha)))) So lady Rinkadink thanks you for your commenting participation Mr D O'B, Esquire )))))) |
D O'B
|
22-04-2018
Much like the whole bothersome kerfuffle concerning antidisestablishmentarianism of yesteryear, the floccinaucinihilipilification of Scrabble is that there are simply not enough squares on the board for a tendentious someone, possessed of such an immense vocabulary as I, to derive adequate delectation from the aforesaid activity. Either that or it could be that I'm just a pretentious and loquacious sesquipedalianist! )))
God, I'm even pissing myself off with all this shit! Lol Goodnight Rina (or good morning from your perspective) and thank you for being so kind as to fix that second image link for me without criticism. |
Brian W.
|
22-04-2018
DOB,
I picked Jesus because of the historical evidence for him and his claims and resurrection. Jesus is the most important person to ever live (I think we can agree on that) and the other people you mentioned, like Buddha, never claimed to be God. Virtually all non-religious history scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified. They also agree that his tomb was empty and his followers were convinced that he resurrected and were willing to die for it without anything to gain in return. The problem of evil is because of human free will. We are not robots and can do whatever we please with our free will, including acts of great evil. Here's a website you may be interested in. It was started by a former President of Gonzaga University in the U.S. https://www.magiscenter.com/ Cheers, Brian |
Brian W.
|
22-04-2018
DOB,
I picked Jesus because of the historical evidence for him and his claims and resurrection. Jesus is the most important person to ever live (I think we can agree on that) and the other people you mentioned, like Buddha, never claimed to be God. Virtually all non-religious history scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified. They also agree that his tomb was empty and his followers were convinced that he resurrected and were willing to die for it without anything to gain in return. The problem of evil is because of human free will. We are not robots and can do whatever we please with our free will, including acts of great evil. Here's a website you may be interested in. It was started by a former President of Gonzaga University in the U.S. https://www.magiscenter.com/ Cheers, Brian |
Brian W.
|
22-04-2018
Irina,
Thank you! Sorry for the double post. Please deleted one if you want to. My computer froze so I hit post twice. Are you on Reddit? If so, send me a PM! I'm BrianW1983 Thanks, Brian |
D O'B
|
23-04-2018
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your reply and for your explanations. I apologise for my rudeness in the previous post. I am a cheeky so and so and applaud your very mannerly response to me. With this in mind I will ask you to 'turn the other cheek' in advance of what you're about to read... quote:
I picked Jesus because of the historical evidence for him - We're not off to the best of starts. There is no definitive evidence that a historical Jesus actually lived and although I am not discounting the possibility, it certainly isn't the open and shut case you are casually making it out to be here. I'm by no means an expert on the historicity of old J-boy, but outside of the Bible there are no first hand accounts of his existence. We have to wait to the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, neither of whom were even born yet at the time of the alleged crucifixion. Let me reiterate that I'm not saying he DIDN'T exist, just that it isn't black and white by any means. quote:
Jesus is the most important person to ever live (I think we can agree on that) - Assuming he did exist then I will ask you to compromise with me and say that he's the most INFLUENTIAL person to have ever lived. This is a crucial distinction for me to make, for if he did exist then many of the claims made by him and/or for him, as laid out in all modern English translations of the Bible, are patently false, and due to this fact I'd say that what is important is to draw attention to the logical impossibility of his purported status and abilities. ANYONE capable of pointing out the absurdity of a man claiming to be the living embodiment of an all loving and all powerful deity being unable to possibly coexist in a world permeated to its core with suffering, is more important than Jesus himself. Not that I like to brag or anything. quote:
Virtually all non-religious history scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified. They also agree that his tomb was empty and his followers were convinced that he resurrected and were willing to die for it without anything to gain in return. - Popularity is not a prerequisite for truth and as previously noted, his actual historicity is called into question by more than an insignificant number of scholars. Off the top of my head there's Robert Price, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier. If you're willing to pay me for the effort then I'll happily think up some more. There's also the uneasy truth to contend with that the Bible is not to be taken literally. Adam & Eve? Didn't exist. This is a fact, not a matter of belief. Noah's Ark? Apart from probably being plagiarised from the Gilgamesh epic, is clearly also not an historical happening. Feeding of the five thousand? Unless Jeezie Weezie was seriously adept at making cod in breadcrumbs then this also didn't take place as documented. The Bible has been edited and amended and translated and retranslated and messed about with innumerable times over the centuries. It is the so called holy (or should that be hole filled?) book of only one of approximately 4000 or more religions out there. Even within Christianity there are an ungodly (excuse the pun) amount of denominations and sects and interpretations and interpolations. The minister preaches differently from the priest and even within the very same church congregation you will be hard pressed to find uniform consensus amongst believers. If this is god's best plan for getting out a consistent message then I think all that spooky floating about for eternity has given him a severe case of dementia. I suggest taking several swigs of potent alcohol before reading this next section... quote:
The problem of evil is because of human free will. - 'Will' can never be 'free' - the term is oxymoronic. Will is a result of past experience, conditioning and genetics. Whatever intentions a person has or whatever choices they make are directly linked to that which have already occurred, which are innate, which happen seemingly spontaneously in the moment, and without any mystical overtones implied whatsoever, are in essence predetermined. quote:
We are not robots and can do whatever we please with our free will - Are we now? I think you'll find we are far more robotic in nature than you wish to accept. Implied in the idea of free will is that there is a 'central controller' inside our heads who is able to pick and choose between thoughts and actions taken, but that is a fallacy. The controller you perceive when you think of 'you' is made of the very same stuff as that which desires to be controlled. Or in other words, there is no thinker separate from his or her thought. You ARE thought; nothing more, nothing less. Descartes famously stated, "cogito ergo sum", or, "I think, therefore I am." But this was based on the faulty presupposition that there actually exists an 'I' in the real rather than illusory sense. So let's reverse the proposition and ask you where 'you' are when 'you' don't think? Hang on! Don't be so quick to react. For any answer you give will itself be borne of thought and therefore self-refuting. Still confused? Ok, let me try a different approach... We're all familiar with the nauseating annual tradition of New Year's resolutions. December 31st comes along and 'you' resolve to go on a diet and lose weight in the upcoming year. Why would such a resolution be necessary at all if there existed a permanent night watchman in the brain, i.e. a true 'you', with the ability to 'control' and 'choose' between thoughts and actions? Surely if such an entity existed then the second the decision was made to do something, then that would be the end of it there and then? E.g. "I wish to lose weight, therefore I will no longer eat sugar and fatty food." Done and dusted; no more junk food would ever be consumed again in life. However, if there does NOT exist a permanent mind manager inside the skull (which is the true nature of psychological existence) then what we observe in the real world would actually make sense. That's why more often than not you'll find that one 'you' wishes to lose that spare tyre round the midsection, but a day later another 'you' is more interested in seeing if it's possible to consume the whole chocolate cake in one sitting. From the layman's point of view it can easily be dismissed as being 'weak willed', but as I've pointed out, that isn't the way it works at all. It's just that there isn't a real 'you' at all and if there is no real you then there cannot be a overseer or operator at the helm. Stiiill not convinced? Jesus (excuse the pun)! Ok, picture the scene - you're sitting, reading a book about frogs' bums (why wouldn't you be?!) when all of a sudden pops into your head, "I wonder if Amy still hates me for pushing her into the swimming pool when we were eight..." Now, where the hell did that come from? It doesn't really matter though, does it? The point of this example is to show that thoughts just 'occur' in consciousness - there's nobody there controlling them. Any lingering thoughts of 'control' are the equivalent of a dog chasing his tail and amount to one thought trying to subdue and suppress another thought. It's all such a ridiculously futile game. A game with a very real implication, for if there is no such thing as a permanent 'you' then all ideas of 'free will', as well as the even more absurd ideas of 'you' going to 'heaven' after 'you' die, fly out of the window. So, free will doesn't actually exist. Sorry (and sorry to Kirk too if he's reading this. See? I told you 35 years ago that I'd one day get around to addressing the issue! Lol) about that. But let me play devil's advocate (I'm really having a great time with all these religious puns BTW) and pretend that free will COULD logically exist (which it can't) and there was a god who made it this way (which there isn't). If this were the case then it would still be god's fault. I am guessing that you skipped past the flowchart diagram that I included with my first post? It may look simplistic, but if you dispassionately follow it then you will see that even in a universe where free will exists, the problem of evil would still be god's fault; IF you also believe said god to possess the triumvirate powers of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence - for the sake of brevity we'll skip how these qualities are logical contradictions and impossibilities as well. So, no matter which way you or any other religious apologist may wish to try and twist it, the buck stops with god and if he did exist (which he doesn't) then I would echo the sentiments found scratched into a wall at Mauthausen Concentration Camp: quote:
Here's a website you may be interested in. It was started by a former President of Gonzaga University in the U.S. - Thanks Brian, but no thanks. For you see that whereas a lot of my contemporaries identify as agnostic atheists, I do not. I am a GNOSTIC atheist. In other words, I don't believe because I KNOW that all religious gods of the book are false - including yours - for the tomes which are authored or ghost authored by them make truth claims and those claims can be scientifically tested as to their veracity. I pointed out some of those claims earlier on in connection to the Bible and they simply do not pass muster in the real world. You may object that the books are not meant to be taken literally and are allegorical instead. If that's the case then what's the point of all the hassle? I mean this seriously. Because all and sundry can (and HAVE) spin the morals of the tale any way they see fit and more often than not they fail at this enterprise too. I can't be too hard on apologists because the name is well suited to the stance, i.e. they have to APOLOGISE for how badly written their cherished books are and they have to be willing to tie themselves into all manner of mental knots to try and extract anything which can be considered 'good' from amongst the slavery endorsements, non-virgin stonings and hellfire warnings. To be fair, I cannot claim to be able to know that ALL gods are false, only the anthropomorphic ones like Jehovah/Yahweh/Elohim, Allah, Krishna, Mithras, Pan, Sheela Na Gigs (pity in her case), Odin, Ra, Poseidon, Toutatis, Belenos, Belisama, etc, etc. Basically any PERSONAL god who has supposedly interacted with us and has all too familiar human characteristics is shit of the bull variety. Deistic/pantheistic gods are a different matter entirely. As they are defined as unknowable then I cannot falsify them. Occam's razor would dictate that belief in them is an unnecessary process, but doesn't rule them out per se. So on the one hand I'm a gnostic atheist, but being pedantic, I'm also an agnostic adeist. I accept that >>A |
D O'B
|
23-04-2018
T'would appear that there is a character limit to Rina's blog after all and I just broke it!
Either that or I mucked it up by using the double 'greater than/lesser than' arrows. This is especially annoying as I was on the final sentence too. God has an even more warped sense of humour (obviously!) than I do! As I know everyone reading this is dying to know my final words of wisdom, I'll paste them below and use my tried and tested quotation marks instead: quote:
So on the one hand I'm a gnostic atheist, but being pedantic, I'm also an agnostic adeist. I accept that 'A' god may be possible, but your particular one definitely isn't. There. Everyone can now rest easy and breathe a sigh of relief. Amen. |
Brian W.
|
23-04-2018
Dob,
Thanks for your response. I must admit that I didn't read all of your writing on free will. I still believe people have free will. I am using my free will to type this response to you. That's my choice and I don't have to do it based on any past experience, conditioning, etc. Think of the Bible like a library. The most important part are the Gospels because they show the life of Jesus. Regarding Jesus and the Gospels, the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed. The Gospels were written 30-80 years after Jesus died, which was not a long time if you consider ancient historical writing. The Gospel of Mark was written based on the personal testimony of Saint Peter, who was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. For your information about Christian sects, I am Roman Catholic. The first biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after his death. Yet, most people don't claim that Alexander the Great didn't exist. Oral tradition is how we know about ancient history. Jesus's miracles are so well recorded by history that it would be odd if they never happened; specifically his healings and exorcisms. This is how Jesus got such a strong following; moral teaching only went so far at the time. Most of his disciples were brutally murdered because they believed in his resurrection. What did they have to gain by believing in Jesus? Nothing. It's not like other religions. For example, Mohammad was a warlord and had many wives. Joseph Smith was rich and had a ton of wives. Jesus's disciples had none of that. All they had to do was renounce Jesus's resurrection and they would have lived. Instead, they chose death. Of course, one must take a leap of faith in whether to believe in Jesus and his divinity or not. What does being a gnostic atheist get someone? Nothing, just a dark and bleak view of the world with no chance of a heavenly afterlife. What does believing and following Jesus get a person? First, that person will try to live a morally excellent life and they may have a chance of an afterlife. If they are wrong, it's simply a philosophical error. This seems like a pretty good deal, to me If you have any doubt about the possibility of life after death, you could research medical studies of near death experiences. What can explain the fact that 80% of people born blind can see during a near death experience? So, we all have to make a leap of faith in something. To believe in Jesus is a great choice, in my opinion |
I hope all is well with you. I agree that life is rough and difficult.
I think our only hope is to pray, believe in Jesus and try to help our neighbor.
Yes, I'm a revert back to Christianity for almost 2 years now...the worst kind
I'm also going to Spain in a week for my birthday!