There was a direct link between anti-natalism and atheism.
The author of Ecclesiastes (my favorite book of the bible) wrote
4 Next, I turned to look at all the acts of oppression that make people suffer under the sun. Look at the tears of those who suffer! No one can comfort them. Their oppressors have all the power. No one can comfort those who suffer. 2 I congratulate the dead, who have already died, rather than the living, who still have to carry on. 3 But the person who hasn’t been born yet is better off than both of them (emphasis mine). He hasn’t seen the evil that is done under the sun.
And Nietzsche in the Birth of Tragedy writes
There is an old legend that king Midas for a long time hunted the wise Silenus, the companion of
Dionysus, in the forests, without catching him. When Silenus finally fell into the king’s hands, the king
asked what was the best thing of all for men, the very finest. The daemon remained silent, motionless
and inflexible, until, compelled by the king, he finally broke out into shrill laughter and said these
words, “Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say
what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally
unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist , to be nothing. The second best thing for you, however,
is this — to die soon.”
Since I find nothing odd in the observation of Silenus and Qoheleth, I am inclined to argue they make a lot of sense and while an argument can be made that all of us who write in support of anti-natalism do so only because we have been born, this argument doesn’t defeat the arguments for anti-natalism. And whether those who support anti-natalism are atheists or agnostics is not an argument against the position. It proves nothing. It is neither an argument against atheism nor against anti-natalism.
Allowing for a moment that most of those who support anti-natalism are atheists, is this an argument against any of the two positions?
Maybe, just maybe, we are like Kirilov in the Possessed who commits a logical suicide.
Ah … Michael. Another of my favorite fundy half-wits who doesn’t even rank a quarter in fact, and another on the list of cowards who’ve banned me.
I have two kids so that puts me outside of the anti-natalist fold.
I know Jim also has a few ”rug rats”.
My sister has four!
Carmen has some.
Ben has.
John Z has never declared but then he’s Australian so it might be best.;)
I’ll wager most of the married atheist on-liner regulars have ankle biters and I’ll also wager there are several single parents out there among our atheist community.
All my ”real life” friends have children and none are what one could ever consider religious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I should probably block him before he makes me faint with a lot of stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have 16 animals, all four-legged. A proud anti-natalist I am.
LikeLiked by 4 people
no kids, but lots of cats. We are both only children, and I agree life would have been very different if his sibs had lived, or I had had any, but not having kids doesn’t mean not liking them, it just is.
But while I cannot see bringing up children in any way religious, that also doesn’t mean not giving them the benefit of the doubt. If one of them had wanted to try for religion, it would not have been a deal breaker.
Usually it’s the parent who ‘abandons’ the child, not the other way around.
LikeLike
I’ve never considered anti-natalism to be atheistic in nature. One could argue it is sympathetic to humanism, but one could just as easily argue for it from a theistic position.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The question is between atheism and theism, which is life affirming? Hirsi argued Islam is a death cult. The same can be said, I think of Christianity. They are not earthbound religions
LikeLiked by 2 people
Who’s Hirsi?
And you’re right, Christianity is a death cult.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ayaan Hirsi Ali- one of the four horsemen
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, the guy the author is talking about. Got it.
LikeLike
Wait up, sorry, I’m wrong. That blog post is terribly laid out.
LikeLike
Don’t worry about being wrong. That blog is a mess
LikeLiked by 1 person
Atheism is life affirming because it promotes life here and now and how precious and magnificent all life is. Theism is all about humans exclusively and the afterlife and the fear, cruelty and arrogance that is stoked.
The believers give up give up the very essence of what it truly means to live.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The question is inevitably posed … If you could go back would you have kids?
Of course if the question were to be asked of everyone’s parents and the reply was ”No!” humans would be a very short lived species indeed.
Imagine if Adam had opted for a vasectomy before he got started with Eve, we’d be in a right bloody mess!
LikeLike
Maybe if Adam had opted for a vasectomy, humanity would have had no hell to worry about
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now there’s a thought!
LikeLike
Just think of the possibilities 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could still have kids today, but we chose not to. There are too many humans, and climate change is going to pose ghastly problems.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My brother is the same.
There are arguments for and against.
Being responsible is the key. ”Define responsible”.
I stopped at two and our kids don’t seem to have any urge to further our line and my nephews are also currently childless.
And all my family (except my wife and kids oddly enough) are vegetarian or vegan so we’re doing out bit for climate change as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no children…had pets I loved
I’ve never regretted my choice. I knew I wasn’t cut out for it.
Overpopulation is a big problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed and agreed and agreed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anti-natalism is a bit of a fad. Its popularity has waxed and waned over many years, and it has been espoused by a number of Christian sects.
Of course, those sects would be ‘cults’ according to the Catholics, to be purg…, I mean brutally suppre…, I mean “corrected”. As gently as is feasible. As brothers and sisters in Christ.
LikeLike
How the
churcheshas dealt with sex over the years is interesting- from abstinence to licentiousness.LikeLike
‘anti-natalism’ is a guilt trip phrase, isn’t it. It implies a whole range of negative thoughts about kids, or child rearing. “oh, you don’t have kids? You must HATE children…”
And don’t you wonder about all those poor young women who are churning out children “for the glory of god”, not because they WANT five kids, but because they’re supposed to have them. Not a lot of choice in that one.
Choosing to have or not have children (and the magic word there is ‘choosing’) implies independent thought, having a child because ‘god willed it (and your husband insisted) implies Ste[fordwife-ism…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no problem with anyone who adopts an anti-natalist position even if they are unaware of it. Each person their lives.
LikeLike
The modern anti-natalist movement is a circumstantial expression of humanism, and humanism is closely associated with secularism; so, I can see why religious fanatics’ panties are in a bunch over this. However, the linkage results from the very worrisome condition of today’s world (most notably climate change) and not because of some fundamental philosophical alignment. If secular humanists thought that their offspring would have a promising future, then I think they would be reproducing just as prolifically as religious people.
In the early 1980s, I decided against having children because I wasn’t yet financially secure. Later on, when I was financially secure, I decided that I wouldn’t have children because I feared for their future. In retrospect, I made the right choice; and, I offer the example of Greta Thunberg as justification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On Greta, this blog that I follow had quite an interesting take https://wp.me/pZk0k-ijU.
LikeLike
Maggie McNeill’s denigration of Greta Thunberg as a pseudo-activist (or “child saint” in her words) akin to fanatical religious leaders of the past, and her belittling of the scientifically verified climate change crisis we now face, is both unwarranted and blatantly hostile towards the legitimate concerns of young people across the globe.
I’m surprised that you would even cite such editorial trash.
Greta should be commended for her bravery on this existential issue. This week, the United Nations released another warning about the coming climate catastrophe, see: https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/bleak-un-report-finds-world-heading-to-climate-catastrophes/ar-BBXldJn
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whenever I see UNEP vehicles in Nairobi, I ask myself whether they mean what they are saying.
I found her anger at Greta quite over the edge.
LikeLike
U.N. climate reports are based on the work of the larger scientific community. UNEP is a specific program to assist developing nations on environmentally sound policies and practices, and it does not oversee U.N. climate change activities.
LikeLike
Many people I speak to, here, usually associate having children with having caretakers in old age. The saying is they will not die alone and lonely.
Religious fanatics, I think, piss their pants for anything
LikeLiked by 3 people
I thought about pointing out the flaw in dude’s reasoning over on his blog, but I noticed some missing comment threads. Basically he’s resting his conclusion on a questionable Reddit poll. That poll only reached a subset (368 people) of a subset (24k anti-natalist subscribers) of the subset of Reddit’s population. The methodology also doesn’t do it any favors.
But really the whole point of his argument is to frighten people with the idea that atheists are monsters who disproportionately talk about terrible things. To his credit, at least he doesn’t argue that atheists go out and do these things. If he did, it would become relevant to mention Southern Baptist and Catholic Church problems with child rape and felon religious affiliation.
It’s just a bogeyman. Since he’s just talking to religious people, he’s yelling at a crowd that’s already walking away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I realised too late he takes pride in putting up absurd arguments.
I didn’t even bother with that poll. And even if it were correct, it doesn’t demonstrate that either position is wrong or unwarranted
LikeLiked by 1 person
Man, as an atheist, I LOVE babies! Why? Well, they are effing delicious! Gonna go cook one up right now!
LikeLike
Ensure it is well cooked. Also freshly slaughtered
LikeLike
Absolutely. Ya know, going along with the blog writer’s brilliant post, I wonder if he knows this fact. While not all theists are raging, narcissistic, self-righteous assholes, a disproportionate number of them sure as hell are. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
That blogger is so brilliant. I browsed that blog a bit before I decided its not healthy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t apologists routinely argue that atheists reject God so they can justify committing the most heinous sins? So if that’s the case, why would we then turn around and concern ourselves about the pain and suffering of others?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s confusing or should we say mysterious?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annnd you can only reject God if you believe in a god to reject, amirite?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael is one of the dumber Christians I’ve encountered. He’s quite the coward too. He does make Chrisitans and Christianity look as bad as possible, though.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I just encountered his blog today
LikeLike
I’ve interacted with this guy before and wasted my time. I’d forgotten…til I remembered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He is the type one avoids completely.
LikeLike