William Lane Craig Fails on Antinatalism 

Old little clown

I dnt know who is he but y the fuck is that clown on a discussion of ethics

I don’t hold neither two positions of Antinatalism. I am an Antinatalism for economical reasons and political ones…I seriously don’t believe societal legislation has ever respected the lives of marriage partnership, child-bearing and child rearing nor the future of the lives of those who parent and those who become elderly and have to suffer dying… As long aa political institutions work hand-in-hand in collusion with corporate entities to make human being as disposable consumers for their selfishness? I have no interest with investing in the invention of society and its terribly selfish policies that don’t respect the self-interest of individuals and their lived experience nor the inherent value of each life. Anyone who considers what taxation is and how politicians and corporate entities steal from the masses? Why have children to invest in such selfishness when the very authorities of society use human lives in such materialistic ways. I don’t care what people want to do with their desire to have a legacy or not…if it’s for the good of the planet or the integrity of society and its future. My being an Antinatalist is my personal protest against a system I have no longer an interest in investing in through any kind of legacy. To me, Antinatalism is a preventive measure to live my life in a way that is true to my lived experience eliminate the degree the State and those in collusion to the state can harm my life.

👋 I didn't get notice of this video until just now. 🤔

Also, SHARED 👍

Keep in mind he’s a Christian philosopher. He’s not into philosophy qua philosophy, he’s interested in ways of trying to rationalize his irrational Christian superstitions.

@@TremendousSax I get your point. Being a christian implies irriationality so what did I expect

I love this community as well❤️

But it does make you a hypocrite

​@@mikewilliams6025No, it doesn't Is it hypocrisy to stay in your prison cell when you know escaping the prison is painful?

@etruscanetwork false analogy. Living isn't a prison in any sense. Regardless, I'm personally happy that you are smart enough not to truly believe this foolish philosophy. The world is better with you in it.

@@mikewilliams6025 I don't "believe" antinatalism is true, I KNOW antinatalism makes sense False analogy? Here's a better analogy then: Life is like an abusive partner that your parents chose for you

@@mikewilliams6025 bringing someone into existence would make me a hypocrite, since I think existence is bad, not killing myself does not make me a hypocrite since the hypocrite that created me created me with dna that makes me want to survive

1. The entire argument for anti-natalism is built on a false premise, which states that [all] humans will endure suffering that outweighs its very existence. It is illogical and extremely pessimistic to assume this premise. 2. There is no ethical consideration in regard to bringing life into the world, and it's for the same reason as #1: anti-natalism is built on the false premise that human suffering outweighs its desire to exist. It's also the parents' decision to make - at least if we're talking about the decision to have unprotected affairs. If you're talking about unaliving an unborn child in the womb, that's objectively immoral. Any argument against such is pure deception, and blatant at that. 3. You're correct in that humans don't require religion in order to find intrinsic value with their life. However, without religion, there is no purpose to life in the sense that everything is random, infinite, and insignificant. 4. True, but some religious are in direct contradiction to anti-natalism. I'm not too much of a religious scholar, but I know the big three religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) all teach its followers to multiple and inhabit the Earth. Therefore, most theologians *could not* be anti-natalists. 5. Based on the aforementioned premise, wouldn't it be equally as morally complex to assume animals and plants would *want* to be brought into this world, too? If you think this world is so terrible that you can't assume a human would rather exist than never exist at all, isn't it morally reprehensible to force animals to be brought into this world at a greater rate? 6. What is the "guaranteed harm of suffering"? Does every human suffer a measurable baseline of suffering? When you say "potential benefits," do you mean things like *experiencing*? Forget the feelings and positive moments, but to be capable of experiencing at all *is a blessing* for each and every soul to have ever formed. 7. This prong just put me under the impression that you've been deceived into believing all of this. The not-so-shallow administrative state foments these alternate threats to put citizens in a perpetual state of fear, anxiety, and submissiveness.

1. The entire argument for anti-natalism is built on a false premise, which states that [all] humans will endure suffering that outweighs its very existence. It is illogical and extremely pessimistic to assume this premise. 2. There is no ethical consideration in regard to bringing life into the world, and it's for the same reason as #1: anti-natalism is built on the false premise that human suffering outweighs its desire to exist. It's also the parents' decision to make - at least if we're talking about the decision to have unprotected affairs. If you're talking about unaliving an unborn child in the womb, that's objectively immoral. Any argument against such is pure deception, and blatant at that. 3. You're correct in that humans don't require religion in order to find intrinsic value with their life. However, without religion, there is no purpose to life in the sense that everything is random, infinite, and insignificant. 4. True, but some religious are in direct contradiction to anti-natalism. I'm not too much of a religious scholar, but I know the big three religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) all teach its followers to multiple and inhabit the Earth. Therefore, most theologians *could not* be anti-natalists. 5. Based on the aforementioned premise, wouldn't it be equally as morally complex to assume animals and plants would *want* to be brought into this world, too? If you think this world is so terrible that you can't assume a human would rather exist than never exist at all, isn't it morally reprehensible to force animals to be brought into this world at a greater rate? 6. What is the "guaranteed harm of suffering"? Does every human suffer a measurable baseline of suffering? When you say "potential benefits," do you mean things like *experiencing*? Forget the feelings and positive moments, but to be capable of experiencing at all *is a blessing* for each and every soul to have ever formed. 7. This prong just put me under the impression that you've been deceived into believing all of this. The not-so-shallow administrative state foments these alternate threats to put citizens in a perpetual state of fear, anxiety, and submissiveness.

Cheers Duzz 🔥

Antinatalism sounds eerily similar to the ideals occult nazi eugenicists espoused.

closest it is to continue species it's kind of most neutral out of them all. Yeah it's pointless and still leads to everything else risk or good, but probably least egoistic out of them all.

Are you a moral objectivist?

Most people are happy that they exist they are not unhappy

@@randomhuman2595 I'd say all people are happy that they exist but many are unhappy with their life.

I have never actually heard a factually sound argument for antinatalism. Most antinatalists still seem to rely on the existence of procreated humans, even when humans shouldn't procreate. All antinatalists should live alone in the wild when they don't want to cause suffering to other humans!

I'm genuinely curious, how does being a Christian antinatalist work exactly? So God created us but we should try to "un-create" ourselves or end our existence? If so, why'd he create us in the first place... could you perhaps explain your view in this regard?

​​@@GA_Solaok that misses the goal of antinatalism, which is about preventing procreation and not ending lives that have already started. The Christian antinatalist has no obligation to end their life and undo creation just to not have kids

@@gnomueaux What I mean by "un-create" I mean that ultimately antinatalism, if adopted by even the majority of people, it will lead to the extinction of the human race... so what would've been the point of a god creating them (assuming that antinatalism is in line with God's will)

​@@GA_SolaI think there still can be meaning even if something only lasts for a certain amount of time. Also Christians still believe in the afterlife so there is still the point of allowing humanity to enjoy the presence of God eternally.

@@gnomueaux I'm a bit more confused than before... if you're not bringing people into the world, how can they get eternal life? And if you're supporting a movement that will ultimately lead to the extinction of the human race, why did god create us in the first place... to have us live and then start the process of ending our own existence? Also a temporary existence that gets you into hell afterwards is probably not worth it...

Do you think AN is true?

@@shlockofgod I think antinatalism (and veganism) is the logical conclusion someone comes to if they care about suffering and dont want to be a psychopath.

@@watkins7086 Would you push the red button to instantly end all life?

​@@shlockofgod would you accept yourself being skinned alive and tortured in worst way, in order to create martians on earth experiencing satisfaction of their lives? Or do it to some unwilling participant. Or realize they don't need to exist so why go through the torture of the victims?

nonsense, if you don't want to have kids great! but don't try to enforce your personal moral nonsense onto others

Perhaps one day I’ll try out being a slap’ed

How do you determine if something is fair or good?

@@michaelmackinnon5708 if all life forms don't ever suffer in any way against their will then that would be fair and good. Anything besides that is not fair or good.

Curious to hear your arguments in defence of creating potential cancer patients just to satisfy your own trivial desires

@@Zemmmmmmmm Why are you still as live? Isn’t it better to be dead? Maybe get a better ideology. Preferably one that isn’t so immediately, obviously, and irrevocably contradictory. It’s somehow even dumber than flat earth. What a joke 😄

@@Zemmmmmmmm Why are you still alive?

​@@anakides The will to survive which is built into our dna

@@anakides fear of a painful death, social impact towards friends and family. This says nothing about whether it was good for me to come into existence in the first place.

Bullshit. Antinatalism is about not bringing new people, not about the continuation of an individual's life. He already said that.