1) There is no God. 2) Life has no inherent meaning. 3) Objective morality does not exist. 4) Free will does not exist. 5) The best thing for humanity to do is to voluntarily go extinct. How many of these statements do you agree with?
1. Who knows?
2-3 who know? And it is sure fun trying to figure it out
5. Sometimes it sure feels that way, as stupid Humankind acts sometimes
4. Interesting to see and think about. Oops, left it out
1,2,and 3 OK.
4 I disagree, I don't believe in fate or fortune telling. I know that I have had several decisions in my life that have affected the outcome. I was aware that I could decide either way and that the resulting lifelines would diverge.
5 The sooner everyone with that opinion jumps of the bridge the better for the rest of us. I think that the best thing for humanity is to expand and grow.
Zero. They're all pure organic fertilizer of taurine origin.
Only number 3. Maybe number 2.
1, 2, 3, and 4.
I love your tagline.
Hahahaha thanks mate
1 and maybe 2.
I agree with none of them.
2 and 3. 1 is unknown and 4 is false. 5 is questionable.
ThinkAboutIt, are you my twin separated at birth? Because you're one of my top "i agree with"s and this comment was verbatim what I would've said
Haha that's crazy! On the count of three name your favourite dinosaur, don't even think about it just do it. 1, 2, 3...
Get out. 😂 Where do you live (region)?
Oh wait it says it in ur description I'm a dumbass. I visited NYC once
Haha nice, it's okay.
Yeah it was actually to perform at Carnegie hall
0 for me. However, my definition of god would differ.
A couple of inconsistencies. Why is extinction inherently better if humankind is meaningless? How can extinction be a voluntary act without free will?
1 2 and 3.
Only number 1
1 and 3. 2 I don't agree with - hedonism brah. The point of life is to maximize pleasure. Free will as we know it - exists. Though based off of things around us and within us sure, we are predisposed to ways to behave, taking in these cues. And the last one I don't even know where that comes from.
All but 5.
Nihilistic determinism!! Lol
I come across it, I play around with the idea, I sometimes agree. I don't reject it but I don't accept it as the ultimate truth. I'm obnoxiously agnostic in my beliefs, I like to keep an open mind to everything so I can learn as much as I can.
I believe there is a god, life has meaning and free will exists.
Life is a beautiful thing, hopefully someday you'll see that.
None of them.
Morals are simply the rationilizations we tell ourselves built of societal pressures and self interest. There has been no evidence towards the existence of a god, and therefore there will come a time when everyone who ever knew us is dead and nothing we did will have mattered
All but #5. I don't see how voluntary extinction is in any organism's interest. If it had said "the best thing for earth and its ecosystems is for the voluntary extinction of humans", I'd vote yes.
See below for a simple explanation of 5. And yes, by "best," I mean the best interest of humanity itself.
I mostly agree with 3 and sort of agree with 2. The others I don't really take a position on. Maybe, maybe not. Who can say?
2 and 3
Boy your life must be depressing.
Nope! My life is fine.
Well you just suggested killing yourself as well as advocating for others to do so
I'm not going to kill myself. I'm not going to kill other people.
Going extinct doesn't mean killing yourself. It means either not reproducing or favoring policies geared toward keeping reproduction at levels below replacement.
Suicides must be good then....
The only way for humanity to volentatily kill itself is through suicide. I know you don't believe what your saying because your still here today, your not suicidal which is good. But advocating for humanity to kill itself is a pretty repulsive statement.
Only number 2
Oh and 3
Too much edge in one poll.
Although these 5 opinions seem edgy, I have rational reasons for believing each one. I'm not one of those depressed 14-year-olds who wears black makeup and slits his wrists.
See below for simple explanations of 4 and 5.
I'm an atheist because there's no evidence for any gods. The burden of proof is on the theists, and they don't have even the slightest bit of evidence. Existential and moral nihilism are obvious from there. A mass murderer and a philanthropist will both die and go to the same place - the ground. The universe doesn't care about what you do with your life, and there are no rewards for good behavior and no punishments for bad behavior. Without any inherent punishments and rewards, it's impossible to say that morality and meaning are objective. They are completely subjective.
Saying free will doesn't exist.. lmao
Yet you trust those chemicals saying that?
Lol I love how pathetic this young generation is. They'd rather the whole species to go extinct than to actually make an effort to better ourselves. If that's how people feel, then they should set the example and off themselves for the betterment of the earth.
It's pretty absurd to claim this is what an entire generation believes because 1 person posted a poll.
Obviously he's not say that every single one of them is pathetic, he's speaking in general, the majority of them are pathetic
And that conclusion is based on what, exactly?
My interactions and observations. It's pretty sad that this country is going to be in the soft delicate hands of these sissies soon. They don't value hard work, they don't value honesty, and the ones who can tear themselves away from social media for more than three seconds to take an interest in politics or questions of morality have ridiculous views because of their sheltered and pampered lives.
So your own personal anecdotes that are likely strongly influenced by confirmation bias. Got it.
Glad we are on the same page now.
All but (5). Survival instinct and the pleasure of living make this a poor option. Besides, if there is no free will, it's not a voluntary option anyway.
Most people believe their lives are pleasurable, but self-assessments of one's quality of life are unreliable. In addition, just because we want to reproduce doesn't mean it is the ethical thing to do. Some men have the natural urge to rape - I'm glad most men resist that urge, though.
2.5, awkward to answer 😂
1) Agree (as far as I know, under popular notions of "God")
2) Definitely agree, it's all self-determined
4) Disagree, although I'd like to explore further. Biology and environment play huge roles in how we behave.
5) Disagree (If there's no inherent purpose to things, how can something be inherently "best?" And if we have no free will, we don't have the ability to choose the "best" path anyway.)
As far as 4, I used to think the same thing. Then I talked to some of my physics major friends about quantum mechanics, and I decided to do some research on the topic. Definitely eye-opening.
Good point re 5, sydwel. If there's no meaning and no morality, I don't see as there's a "best."
Just one: Free will does not exist.
The fifth statement contradicts the first statements.
All but 5
Zero, I do my best to do my best. Ain't got that much time left.
I only agree with #2.
For me I agree with zero!
Definitely 1-3. 4 is hogwash. 5 I disagree with mostly because you said "the best thing" and I have a hard time agreeing that any one thing is "the best." It may be a broadly beneficial outcome. Maybe more beneficial in some ways, less in others. But it's not the definitive best.
"Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” - Stephen Hawking
He's making a fantastic illogical leap to go from "we can shock people and make their nerves respond" to "nothing we do is chosen." It's so silly. Come on.
You believe free will exists?
I believe that I chose whether or not to respond to your question, yes. Call me crazy.
You think so, don't you?
Is that why you believe in free will?
Could you have chosen not to respond?
Of course. Why don't you just say what you're getting at.
I don't believe you could have done otherwise, that's all.
I agree with all but #5. I don't see how it follows from the previous statements.
I know a lot of atheists. However, I've only met a few existential nihilists, moral nihilists, and determinists. And I've never met another antinatalist in person (although there are a couple on this app). It's interesting that millions of people come to the correct conclusion about God and the supernatural, but very few come to correct conclusions about other commonly accepted things. I wish more atheists would apply their skepticism more broadly.
Try to convince me of antinatalism.
Ok. Assume that a supernatural power exists. You are thinking of having a children (but you're not pregnant yet). The supernatural power informs you that the child will have a horrible life (suffering > pleasure). Is it unethical for you to have the child?
No, it is not ethical.
Now, again assume that a supernatural power exists. You are thinking of having a child (but you're not pregnant yet). The supernatural power informs you that the child will have a fantastic life (pleasure > suffering). Is it unethical for you to NOT have the child?
Mm... I'm gonna say no.
Good. You accept Benatar's Asymmetry (francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/benatars-asymmetry/). Antinatalism as a philosophy was created hundreds of years ago, but it was best explained in and popularized by a 2006 book by David Benatar, who's a philosophy professor at the University of Cape Town, called "Better Never to Have Been." In this book, Benatar proposes this asymmetry. If X exists, the presence of pain is bad (-) and the presence of pleasure is good (+). If X doesn't exist, the absence of pain is good (+) and the absence of pleasure is not bad (or neutral) (0). This shows that nonexistence is superior to existence.
Now, this is just the start of antinatalism. Even if you had answered differently to the questions I posed, there are many other pieces of evidence to support the philosophy. If you're interested, read this book: cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/David_Benatar_-_Better_Never_to_Have_Been.pdf
Well shit. I'll come back to you when I think more about that.
Yeah, if you ever have any questions about antinatalism, feel free to ask. I love to talk about it.
There's nothing like extreme misanthropy and self-loathing to get you through those dog days. Godlessness leads down some really dark alleys, doesn't it?
That's the thing, nib. I'm not misanthropic. That's why I'm kinda baffled on how to respond to this.
Antinatalism has nothing to do with misanthropy. While misanthropes may be more likely to accept antinatalism, as a philosophy, antinatalism can be accepted by people-haters and people-lovers, atheists and Christians, optimists and pessimists, etc.
Like a hobby? Have you considered stamp collecting or model planes?
Doc, if you're open to new things I would be happy to recommend some wonderful Christian apologetics. Otherwise, go with what you know. I'm sure y'all can find some joy in humankind down on the commune. I mean, look at Woodstock. Three days of antinatalism wouldn't have been the same kind of party, especially with the rain.
Nib, I was raised a believer but have since rejected faith. Thanks for the offer though. I don't feel too bad about existing and all that.
Cole, a true utilitarian would answer "yes" to your second question, "Would it be unethical to NOT have the child" in your given scenario.
Further, an atheist would never assume that there is a supernatural being, meaning we would have to assign probabilistic outcomes to each of the decisions.
If we assign utility to life--which every living person does, otherwise they'd commit suicide--then we cannot say that not giving birth is wholly more ethical than giving birth.
I suppose I'm more of a negative utilitarian, then.
I could have proved my point without invoking a supernatural entity. That was just the easiest way to ask my questions.
I disagree. I think I would be better off if I had never been born, but I don't think I would be better off if I killed myself. Just thinking about suicide causes pain, and consciously making that decision is one of the most painful things a person can do.
2 problems I see with that logic. 1) it's not about you. 2) pain and suffering vs joy is relative to experience of the observers in your scenario, not the subject.
I don't know about you but I have learned mostly from other people's pain and suffering experiences more than my own, resulting in my existence being better.