by Gaedhal
As much as I criticise Christianity, atheism is probably worse. At around the 1:06 mark [of this YouTube video], objectively Dan—who has a nose piercing, even though he is a man—says that he is ‘unironically antinatalist’.
Steve Shives appears to be another atheist antinatalist. He has no children, and got a vasectomy.
Pine Creek Doug, although he has two children, by IVF has expressed antinatalist sentiments.
Veneloid, Rachel Oates, Captain Cassidy, Rationality Rules all appear to be antinatalists, at least practically.
And so if you find the atheist movement distasteful—and I do— then, demographically, it probably won’t be around for much longer.
The reason why I personally reject antinatalism is because I do not positively affirm materialism.
Transgenderism is also, arguably, a form of antinatalism, as is homosexuality, and we know how frequent these pastimes are in atheism.
Richard Carrier also had a vasectomy and is childless, I think. He is ‘polyamorous’.
Matt Dilahunty is going out with a tranny, and has no children. Seth Andrews has no children. MGTOW seems to be an antinatalist cult that many atheists on the right subscribe to.
Such behaviour, in my view, is wholly consistent with atheism. The sun will eventually explode, its protons will eventually decay, and the universe will eventually be a uniform temperature. As Bertrand Russell says: this is a philosophy of unyielding despair. Russell though claims that the soul of the atheist will eventually adjust to such circumstances, and hope is then possible, again. Atheists claim that we quote Russell out of context when we quote him as saying that atheistic materialism is a philosophy of unyielding despair.
As I said before: I disbelieve in the gods of revealed religion and the gods of classical theism. However, there is still a wide gulf between this and atheistic materialism. And I think that if you are an atheistic materialist who believes in proton decay and eventual heat death, then you should be an antinatalist. You should not bring new sentient beings into what is ultimately a collapsing and dying system. The universe, as Bertrand Russell puts it, is fated, under atheistic materialism, to be a heap of ruins. As Benatar puts it: you are giving birth into quicksand, and this is immoral.
However, given the heap of ruins that, anon, the universe is fated to become—The Atheism of Astronomy calls this: ‘drift’—then why not neuter oneself and dedicate one’s life to orgy and fetishes?
The Atheism of Astronomy’s image of ‘drift’ is certainly a dreadful one. We are all slowly drifting into non existence. It is like there is a malevolent god, with a rubber eraser, rubbing us out, and thus erasing us.
Editor’s two cents:
That is why I don’t consider myself an atheist and why Hitler and Himmler also repudiated ‘atheism’. Instead, I respect the archetypes represented by the Aryan Gods, and there is a category on this site (genuine spirituality) which shows that it is possible to reject the god of the Jews and, at the same time, intuit a kind of panentheism in the universe.
12 replies on “Contra atheismum”
We have more in common with Christian Matt Walsh, who has a family and children, than with anti-natalist atheists!
Could you correct ‘into existent’ to ‘into existence’, above?
You mean ‘into non [sic] existent’?
Yes ‘into non existence’.
Theism, any theism, ist just an expression of weakness. See Nietzsche, “The Gay Science,” section 347, titled: “Believers and their Need of Belief.”
Since how much faith a person requires in order to flourish is the measure of his weakness, it follows that the strongest person possible requires no faith at all to flourish. It is this simple. At least for a true priest of the religion of the strong!
I agree with Gaedhal.
Usually, the degenerate atheists promote antinatalism while also defending equality and other self destructive values alike, and targeted mainly to nordics, of course.
In the nonwhite world, none of this is openly accepted.
Although, I think Gaedhal is wrong in one thing. These atheists may not reproduce but their ideology spreads like a disease (as it is accepted/supported by mainstream media) hoping to infect younger and confused people, especially young white girls.
Good girls that could have become mothers of many children, now lost through atheism and self sterilization.
If I were dictator of the world, I would silence all antinatalists/atheists for good, or better yet, export them to South Asia and Africa.
Very true. And what one of the banned commenters still doesn’t get (an anti-natalist, Autisticus Spasticus, who tried to comment yesterday) is that I am not obliged to pass the mic on this site to people like him.
I find there are a few other things that are circulating around the modern atheist intellectual landscape: denial of human volition and moral nihilism. It seems that both of these are strongly associated with left-atheists (Dennett, Harris, etc). These things raise questions about free will in a deterministic universe and what the basis of morality is; enormous philosophic and scientific questions. And we all know how inadequate the European philosophers have been on these (and other) subjects.
For me, at this point, the Nazis were on the right path with locating both human sublimity and morality in race. If Hitler had been successful an the Nazis victorious in WWII, I can only imagine how NS scientists and philosophers would have improved our understanding of neuro-science and human psychology (the Germans were improving literally every other field of knowledge). It would have been a world free of both liberal and Jewish corruption of the sciences and universities.
Two different alternate timelines I often think about:
1) history if Christianity never rose in Europe
2) history if the Nazis won WWII
What a different world we would be living in.
That’s why I like Roger Penrose. And though I dislike Counter-Currents, at least their recent article on Schelling, the German philosopher contemporary to Hegel, is interesting. Neither of them were theists, but leaned towards pantheism. IMHO that’s why they used such obscure prose, so as not to shock the Aryans (as Spinoza had shocked the Jews with his pantheism in the 17th century).
I agree with you very much regarding your mention of Roger Penrose (unfortunately, I haven’t read Hegel, though recently I was considering picking up some Schelling). Following on from his work with Stuart Hameroff, for me this year, it was reading The End of Certainty, Order Out of Chaos, and From Being to Becoming by the physicist Ilya Prigogine that gave me hope, swiftly followed by the book The Cosmic Blueprint by Paul Davies, which I very much recommend. All ventures into nonlinear/non-deterministic/time invariant physics is of interest to me. There’s one book collection on Amazon by Antonio and Giovanni Vella, and Salvatore Chirumbolo that proposes to treat the human mind itself as a dissipative structure, which, by coincidence, resonated with a private hypothesis I had myself on the subject, but unfortunately it’s beyond my price range to afford currently. My own perspective was/is of a symbiotic relationship (or hybrid parallel process) of determined autopoiesis (near-fundamental cellular self-organization)the conditions for which were instigated in proto-formation during the Planck epoch, and now complemented by the orchestrated objective reduction ‘quantum mind’ of Penrose, where the consciousness exerts a balancing decision-making process atop – or against, in disharmony – the developing motions of evolution. Ideally, the process could be made to work in harmony, and that’s one area I think is tied to form and certainly mindful will, an ontological necessity being beauty in that body. Anyhow, this is just an aside. A lot of the ideas are still beyond me due to lack of reading, but I have bulked up on the books in advance, advocating for an Aristotelian non-Christian ‘anthropic’ principle cosmologically, or ‘biotonic’ principle perhaps, seeing as I include all sentient animal beings in that, not just Aryan humans.
You might be interested in discussing these matters with Dr Robert Morgan, who used to comment here under another pen name.
More recently, Morgan has been arguing with Gaedhal about absolute determinism, a philosophical POV on which Gaedhal and I differ from Morgan.
In truth, just by understanding art you realise that we are not matter in the most primitive mechanistic sense. That’s why Hitler was so right to treasure his art books since he was a very young man (something completely alien to the sons of Bentham, among whom I count the racialists of today).
Thank you very much for the recommendation. I’ll compose my thoughts, and perhaps give it a go. I need to do some reading first though! I still don’t quite have my arguments off fluently. Yes, art books are a treasure, and secondary books on art too. I managed to find some of the short classic beauty and architecture books of David Ramsay Hay this week, on geometric proportion, the fundamental principle of what is art, and on harmony of form. I look forward to studying from them. I’m particularly interested in his First Principles of Symmetry work, and his orthographic study of the Parthenon referring to a Law of Nature, but work slowly.