Atheism and Hope

[prmptuscerus]

Again, thank you for the responses. There is a dialogue with several people here so I will try to address some things briefly in this one post.

Regarding Evie and the accusation of an ad hominem. I did perceive, not that it matters, that your comment was rather dismissive in the sense that you were alluding I was holding my position because of my depression. I'll grant you did not outright state that and I very well might have blurred in the lines. I don't think mental illness is an insult and I didn't perceive it that way. I also don't think being accused of a logical fallacy is an insult as they are prone to happen.

Regarding 'Social Darwinism'. I don't think I would uphold Social Darwinism or Spencerian thought precisely, but I would be closer to it than not and I don't want to be. That is, I believe certain things are correct even though I don't necessarily like them. Rob, you did mention that having children is a great responsibility and there is no test required for permission. I have also had this thought. I have to pay fines and take tests to drive a car, but I have no restrictions regarding my reproductive rights. The damage I can cause, the suffering I can create, with my genitals is far more severe than that which I can cause with a car. I would agree with Rhythm, if I understand correctly, that a distinction about the 'ideal' type is subjective and any restriction would be arbitrary. So I don't believe that anyone should be put to death or that rights should be taken away, but I do believe it's valid for individuals who all subjectively dislike pain and suffering to discourage the reproduction of individuals with severe mental or physical illnesses.

Also, I would like to reiterate I have never claimed to 'help' evolution or to know where it is headed. My position is in relation to passing down predispositions for tremendous illnesses mental and physical.

Specifically regarding Rhythm's comments- I'm not exactly sure how evolution wouldn't have a role to play in what I am saying. If individuals are blank slates, then by all means have a picnic. Knowing that they are not but instead carry genetic information passed down through the replication of DNA, a whole other matter arises. My predispositions for illnesses which cause tremendous suffering I have inherited because of the evolutionary process; because of my ancestors who have survived and passed on their DNA. If that follows, then we, the future ancestors of our descendants, have a direct hand in shaping the kind of humans who will continue. If, hypothetically, those with severe predispositions to illnesses mental and physical did not reproduce but instead those with higher levels of health or tolerance did, how would it not follow that future generations would more likely be happier and healthier?

A lesser point, I think I have been very vocal about my opinions being subjective and only valid to myself. If value is subjective, a position I hope you can refute me on, then my suffering and opinion IS extremely relevant as it is relevant to me and I am the origin of value in my experience. If what I think regarding value is not relevant and value does not originate objectively outside myself, what on earth is value?

[robvalue]

I agree, there is nothing wrong with encouraging people to give thought as to whether they are going to have children. All kinds of opinions and healthy discussion are great. I fully support this. I would love people to put more thought into having children, and especially consider adoption as an alternative more often.

However, it's a whole other thing to start enforcing principles, as in make it illegal for certain people to have children based on their medical conditions. I'm not saying that this is what you are suggesting, you may just want to promote discussion as above.

Even if good cases could me made, I think the way in which such laws would have to be enforced would be way more harmful to society in general than any good that comes out of it.

[Edwardo Piet]

    Regarding Evie and the accusation of an ad hominem. I did perceive, not that it matters, that your comment was rather dismissive in the sense that you were alluding I was holding my position because of my depression. I'll grant you did not outright state that and I very well might have blurred in the lines. I don't think mental illness is an insult and I didn't perceive it that way. I also don't think being accused of a logical fallacy is an insult as they are prone to happen.
    

Well I was aware that it may have come across as dismissive, and for what it's worth, I'm sorry. The only reason I didn't hold back from being somewhat dismissive is because I was relating to my own experience of depression and looking back now I really do think that pretty much my entire position was heavily influenced by my depressive state. I don't mean to come across as dismissive I just wanted to make it clear that you shouldn't take your thoughts too seriously when you're depressed because that gives them additional power to hurt your further. I knew that I risked coming across as dismissive by saying that but it's a piece of advice that I hope could help you, speaking as someone who has been suicidal in the past previously.

I am only aiming to help you through compassion here ultimately. I mean, if I could go back in time and convince my depressive self to distrust my depressive and suicidal thoughts, I would. However bad things were they were never bad as I believed they were and that distortion is all part and parcel of the depression, it in no way detracts from it being a real mental illness.

Yeah I didn't say it outright, I think you took it a bit far by suggesting I was being fallacious because I wasn't. And that didn't offend me, what offended me was you not mentioning my name and then misrepresenting me as being fallacious. It's the not mentioning me and misrepresenting part that bothered me, not the fallacy part.

I am glad you don't think mental illness is an insult.