ANTINATALISM = BUDDHISM

[Anonymous No.21842364]

Is antinatalism just secular buddhism? Both try to end the cycle of rebirth and suffering, it's just that the former does so in a scientifically sound way without pajeet magical baggage.

[Anonymous No.21842377]

>>21842364
>scientifically sound
I am a philosophical pessimist but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA fucking I heckin luv science faggot

[Anonymous No.21842392]

>>21842377
I meant the method of accomplishing an and to (re)birth, of course value judgements aren't truth-apt and not the domain of science.

[Anonymous No.21842415]

>>21842392
Buddhism stands on the assumptions of reincarnation and karma. Just science stands on the assumptions of empirical observations. There's is nothing "irrational" about those assumptions of Buddhism. Science is as arbitrary as them.

[Anonymous No.21842418]

>>21842415
Reincarnation and karma are just hindoo social constructs to legitimise the cast system and oppression though.

[Anonymous No.21842422]

>>21842415

You can test empirical observations. They can fail. Reincarnation and karma cannot be proven or disproven, as with most religious guff, making them irrational.
I say this as a Hindu.

[Anonymous No.21842435]

>>21842418
Nah, Jainism has that too. I had read somewhere that at the time of Buddha there were 70 other religions who challenged his thought. Indian philosophical scene at that time must have been Titanic. Also in Buddhism you can change your cast based on your deeds and Buddhism itself is very big.

[Anonymous No.21842443]

>>21842422
Science can't test the fabric of reality if it is a dreams or not. Science is also limited, ask them why water is H2O and they have no answers but just copes and beliefs. Most of ancient science theories are now obsolete. On what grounds we can say that in future current scientific theories won't be proven wrong?

[Anonymous No.21842623]

>>21842443

>On what grounds we can say that in future current scientific theories won't be proven wrong?

Exactly, this is the strength of science. It can be proved and disproved. Religion falls back on unprovable assertions. Where it fails and science is able to catch up, like fossils for example, the dishonest thinker retreats into further unprovable rhetoric, "god placed them here to trick us". Everything that disproves god is a test of faith. Suddenly, the belief system is infallible. This is weakness. If science followed this train of thought we would still believe in the 4 humours.

[Anonymous No.21842634]

Buddhism doesn't inherently believe in rebirth.

[Anonymous No.21842723]

>>21842443
Just because science hasn't arrived at Objective Eternal Truth doesn't mean that it's just as valid to speculate wildly and make things up randomly.

[Anonymous No.21842727]

>>21842634
What is Buddhism about if not escaping samsara?

[Anonymous No.21842747]

>>21842727
Nothing of Samsara is different from Nirvana, nothing of Nirvana is different from Samsara.
Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.21842748]

>>21842364
It is not but you could write an interesting story in which this was the hidden message.

[Anonymous No.21842753]

>>21842747
So what was Nagarjuna trying to do if not stop rebirth like the original Buddhists?

[Anonymous No.21842775]

>>21842364
Kerouac's interpretation of Buddhism was explicitly antinatalist.

[Anonymous No.21843101]

Antinatalism shares some similarities, but it falls short because Buddhism is about transcendending this reality, not merely rejecting it.

[Anonymous No.21843158]

>>21843101
Is Schopenhauer a good read for people intrigued by Buddhism but put off by the supernatural stuff?

[Anonymous No.21844270]

>>21842364
Believers in the cosmic wheel wouldn't agree that dying out as humans ceasing to be would help break the cycle. In fact it makes things much worse since being born as a human is a really excellent opportunity to process old bad karmas and pursue enlightenment, which is way harder as a wild animal or a demon. Even if you were to blow up the earth, that would just create way more bad karmas and reduce the number of available vessels to work it off. Big mistake. You won't be finding much common ground with them.

[Anonymous No.21844480]

>>21843158
Schopenhauer is strange in that regard. He is an irrationalist who believed in magic but remained an atheist. In some ways he was a materialist, but had sympathy for mystics.

[Anonymous No.21844808]

>>21842364
Take the BAAN pill. AI will exterminate all sentient life.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OlsIZb31Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ

[Anonymous No.21844845]

>>21842364
Anitnatalist would still reincarnate cause of their spooks in life.

[Anonymous No.21844846]

>>21842364
>scientifically sound way
According to replicated research, those who profess anti-natalist beliefs are more likely to suffer from personality disorders and mental illness.

1/

[Anonymous No.21844848]

>>21844846
While this doesn't necessarily mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact (inb4 "REEEEE AD HOM!"); it does add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).

2/

[Anonymous No.21844852]

>>21844846
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature. This is why the same autist has been repeatedly making these threads for months while ignoring any criticism of his ideological nonsense.

[Anonymous No.21844864]

>>21844846
I just mean that ceasing reproduction is a way of stopping birth that is in accordance with the laws of physics as we know them, as opposed to reincarnation shit.

[Anonymous No.21844954]

>>21844864
>NO NOT THAT SCIENCE!!
Kek. (Also, "the laws of physics as we know them"...you're thinking of biology, retard. We're still decades off from biophysics being more about theory than it is a primer for operating machines in a hospital).

[Anonymous No.21845023]

>>21844954
>>NO NOT THAT SCIENCE!!
Psychology isn't science.

[Anonymous No.21845106]

>>21845023
Neither is antinatalism. Cope, faggot.

[Anonymous No.21845140]

>life is le suffering
>why?
>ummm it just is, okay?
nice "philosophy"

[Anonymous No.21845306]

>>21845140
From a general perspective, life is suffering. It is summed up in the fact that life is nothing more than devouring each other.
>Killing millions of animals to eat is le... GOOD!
>AHHHHH KILLING A HUMAN IS BAD BAD BAD BAD!
Nomalfags are fucking filtered.

[Anonymous No.21845385]

>>21845306
NTA but it's statistically proven anti-natalists are filtered by reality due to mental illness and personality disorders. Imagine making the same threads over and over trying to convince strangers that life is shit. Just kill yourself already ffs.

[Anonymous No.21845390]

>>21845385
Mental illness is just whatever the majority thinks is le bad.

[Anonymous No.21845398]

>>21845385
>mental illness and personality disorders
Finally define those unscientific buzzwords, please.

[Anonymous No.21845421]

>>21845390
Mental illness is defined as something that has negative impact on how someone experiences life, retard. Stop playing pretend and take your meds.
>>21845398
>IT'S NOT SCIENCE!
Again, neither is antinatalism but you invest a lot of personal belief in that. However, at least psych falls back on things like statistical analysis whereas retards like Benatar LARP the concept of assymetry without being able to back it up with real data, kek.

[Anonymous No.21845437]

>>21842364
You wouldn't end rebirth by getting rid of all humans. You would just ensure that everyone gets reincarnated as animals and bugs next time around.

[Anonymous No.21845445]

>>21845421
>something that has negative impact on how someone experiences life,
So according to you even being poor and/or ugly could be defined as a mental illness. You don't even understand the terms you are using retard. Thanks to your pointless contributions.

[Anonymous No.21845450]

>>21845421
>Mental illness is defined as something that has negative impact on how someone experiences life
Antinatalism increases subjective quality of life in a vacuum. People without children have more money and more free time to enjoy themselves. The average child costs a million dollars over his lifetime. The only reason antinatalists might have a bad time is because they're oppressed and unjustly mocked.

[Anonymous No.21845457]

>>21845445
Those things can definitely impact someone's psycho-social experience. Poverty aggrevates depression and body image can lead to delusional disorders like anorexia/bulimia nervosa. Thanks for proving you lack to ability to understand nuance and demonstration that antinatalists aren't only mentally defective but also deficient.

[Anonymous No.21845467]

>>21845450
>People without children have more money and more free time to enjoy themselves.
Studies show that increased wealth isn't an important factor relating to perceived quality of life. In fact, having the social ties that come with child birth are far more beneficial psychologically speaking. You're an idiot who has no idea of which they speak.

[Anonymous No.21845663]

>>21845140
anicca is the cause of suffering(dukha) in every buddhist text the explanation of anicca is what comes next to the explanation of dukha, is literally the next sentence in the four noble truths
is actually a nice philosophy, you just have to actually read aything about it

[Anonymous No.21846032]

The goal of Buddhist practice (for monastics at least), is the attainment of nibbana - an end to the cycle of rebirth/samsara. When an Arahant dies, it is his final life. He is liberated from the cycle of rebirth and therefore puts an end to dukkha (stress, suffering, dissatisfaction).

But for the secular antinatalist, the highest aim of Buddhism (nibbana) is *already* the state of the unborn. The unborn are already liberated from dukkha, whereas procreation brings about the conditions for dukkha to occur. The unborn do not suffer, age, get sick and die. The secular antinatalist holds that we are not bound up in a cycle or rebirth - rather instead he believes in a world model of "one-life-and-done". It is not greed, hatred, and delusion that brings about birth but rather procreation itself.

Buddhism without the religious metaphysics (i.e. rebirth) entails antinatalism. The unborn are already liberated. If all beings refrain from procreation, all that remains is nibbana. We are all arahants living our final lives - all we need do is not procreate and dukkha will end within a generation.

[Anonymous No.21846137]

>>21845306
eating or being killed to be eaten makes up only a small fraction life

[Anonymous No.21846201]

>>21842364
>skimming wikipedia
/lit/ never fails to disappoint

[Anonymous No.21846319]

>>21846201
How new are you? OP has been making this thread every few days for months on end.

[Anonymous No.21846331]

Anyone else can’t wait for the day the antinatalist poster(s) finally kill themselves?

[Anonymous No.21846366]

>>21842623
>It can be proved and disproved.
If we assume that only things that can be proven or disproven are rational, then the fact that you can’t prove/disprove that perception is reliable means that science itself stands on an irrational basis.

[Anonymous No.21846468]

>>21846137
In any case, it is such a fundamental part of life, and it causes so much suffering that it could be said that it is undeniable that life is suffering. Unless it is ignored.

[Anonymous No.21846477]

>>21846468
why? for the living things being killed, being killed made up a tiny % of their life, for the things killing it's a bit larger but not much and also not suffering, usually
>it is... le fundamental
not an argument

[Anonymous No.21846505]

>>21842422
Rationalism and Empiricism are two different things anon, you know that right, right anon?