Is having children selfish?

[Jetx]

Hardly a flame. Someone called you dumb.

While we're such a far shot away from the original debate topic, I'm having a really hard time trying to finish this post without bringing up how ridiculous the quote in your signature is. Guess I don't have much choice, the thought of it really bothers me and I think you should read over it again.

 

[Dewgong]

yeah that was not a flame, and it doesn't really need an explanation, it's pretty obvious about what you said.

oh and jetx is right, you should re-read your signature it's sorta bad. :(

 

[Tarvos]

He is just paraphrasing Pascal's Wager.

 

[opaltiger]

Pascal's Wager holds right up until the point where you realise there are more religions in the world.

 

[Psyburn]

Selfish? No
Crazy? Depends on how many you want.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Impressive. A flame without rationalization or explanation. That's a first.

there is literally nothing to say to someone who thinks GLOBAL WARMING IS A PINKO COMMIE LIE than 'you're fucking retarded'

 

[Slartibartfast]

there is literally nothing to say to someone who thinks GLOBAL WARMING IS A PINKO COMMIE LIE than 'you're fucking retarded'

I didn't say that; I said that it was mostly natural and not too serious.

 

[Departure Song]

I didn't say that; I said that it was mostly natural and not too serious.

Despite the fact that credible scientific evidence proves otherwise?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Despite the fact that credible scientific evidence proves otherwise?

Credible scientific evidence. What a wonderfully imprecise phrase. Credible scientific evidence points both directions, and I choose to go with the non-alarmist one.

 

[opaltiger]

Credible scientific evidence. What a wonderfully imprecise phrase. Credible scientific evidence points both directions, and I choose to go with the non-alarmist one.

So you're going to risk a phenomenon that could render much of the Earth uninhabitable based on the findings of a very small group within the scientific community, whose evidence is disputed by the vast majority of scientists, in order to feel better?

Sure, just stick your head in the sand. I'll be over here, not drowning.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So you're going to risk a phenomenon that could render much of the Earth uninhabitable based on the findings of a very small group within the scientific community, whose evidence is disputed by the vast majority of scientists, in order to feel better?

Sure, just stick your head in the sand. I'll be over here, not drowning.

No, I'll use my common sense, look around, and decide that there is enough plausible evidence against global warming to ignore a possible problem. There are bigger problems in the world. For the record, most of the last couple of pages should go in a global warming debate thread.

Anyway, back to the actual debate, I do not see how having more children would cause global warming. So, my answer to 'Is having children selfish' will stay solidly at 'No.'

 

[J.T.]

There are bigger problems in the world.

I fail to see what is a bigger problem than an issue that threatens the planet we live on. You can cover your ears and go I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA all you want. It's not changing the evidence pointing towards the conclusion that we are raping the planet.

Anyway, back to the actual debate, I do not see how having more children would cause global warming.

More children = higher population = more resources used = more pollution = more global warming.

(offtopic even more: Pascal's Wager sucks. When you realize there are a couple thousand religions, it's almost impossible to choose the right one, if any. Being an atheist isn't like Russion Roulette; it's like deciding not to waste the money on buying a lottery ticket when you figure there's no way in hell you'll win anyway.)

 

[Zhorken]

For the record, most of the last couple of pages should go in a global warming debate thread.

That's how conversation works. It drifts. Nothing's stopping you from replying to anything you want that's arleady been posted; this includes the original topic. Staying "on topic" would either involve limiting conversation more strictly than works well or waiting for people to drift and then slapping them for it, and either way, I see no point.

No, I'll use my common sense, look around, and decide that there is enough plausible evidence against global warming to ignore a possible problem.

man the real Slartibartfast was a cool guy :(

EDIT:

There are bigger problems in the world.

We can work on those too!

 

[Slartibartfast]

To name a few bigger issues than global warming:
-The economy (threatens a good part of human development)
-The energy crisis (threatens almost all of human development)
-Most of the wars going on at the moment.
If it makes you feel better, you can call me a global warming atheist—I refuse to believe in it, even though all those global warming 'religious fanatics' are waving shaky evidence in my face and saying I'll be doomed without listening to them.

As for Pascal's wager, I hadn't even heard of it when I thought of that. It's a fascinating viewpoint, though.

(This Slartibartfast can be a cool guy, or he can be your worst enemy, depending on how much you insult him and how big of an idiot he thinks you are.)

 

[Zhorken]

If it makes you feel better, you can call me a global warming atheist—I refuse to believe in it, even though all those global warming 'religious fanatics' are waving shaky evidence in my face and saying I'll be doomed without listening to them.

As for Pascal's wager, I hadn't even heard of it when I thought of that. It's a fascinating viewpoint, though.

Atheists don't believe in any gods; we don't necessarily refuse to believe in gods.

Our point is that the evidence isn't shaky. We get that you're under the impression that it is. You don't need to repeat yourself. You don't need to invite us to mince words; few of us will, and most of those already do.

Pascal's wager is, indeed, fascinating. It's also, yes, a really dumb thing to actually adopt as one's viewpoint.


EDIT: haha fuck I fucked that up (was "...and the rest already do" before)
see #tcod this is why I always ask if I've made blatant mistakes :(

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's why it isn't my viewpoint. It's just something to point out to all the atheists in the world.

 

[Zhorken]

who will promptly reject it with good reason
???

 

[Butterfree]

That's why it isn't my viewpoint. It's just something to point out to all the atheists in the world.

...but the point is that it's a worthless idea and thus it is silly to want to "point it out" to anyone at all. Perhaps there is a real deity who is not the Christian God and will cast everyone who believed in false gods into Hell while those who believed in no particular god get into Heaven. Then there's the fact that if I were God, I would be thoroughly offended by anyone who believed in me simply as "insurance". Lastly, and most importantly, "It is convenient and safe to be a Christian" =/= "Christianity is true". Not only could it offend a god who thinks like me; it is actively not possible to just decide based on convenience to believe that something is the truth. If you believe it already, you can think, "Yeah, that's nice and convenient" in hindsight, but actually deciding to believe the Bible is true because you think that's the most insured way of life requires that you quite literally deceive yourself.

 

[Zuu]

Yes, let's point out yet another stupid religious viewpoint to atheists. I wonder what'll happen.

 

[Negrek]

To name a few bigger issues than global warming:
-The economy (threatens a good part of human development)
-The energy crisis (threatens almost all of human development)
-Most of the wars going on at the moment.

This ultimately boils down to a matter of value judgment. You could discuss why you feel that the economy is more of an issue than global warming (although you don't seem inclined to do so, instead choosing to state it as fact), but ultimately it comes down to who values what most. You can argue about why people should choose give issues precedence in the same way that you do, but simply saying "this is a bigger problem than that" without any sort of support will never get you anywhere.

Comparing a lack of belief in global warming to a lack of belief in a God(s) is a great way to show how little you know about both science and religion (faulty analogy fallacy).