Logical discussion.

If no god and death is the end, a life of destruction is as valid as a life of self-sacrificing service to humanity. Maybe it would make more sense to be selfish, if no god. Only a fool would sacrifice his life if he only has one life and there is no after-life.

There is no inferior or superior, no evolution or devolution, no progress or regress, no right or wrong, if no god.

Why do human lives matter if there is no god and death is the end? How do you establish that human life is more valuable than buildings? It's not scientific, only a feeling.

The judeo-christian scriptures are verifiable by the hundreds of detailed accurate prophecies concerning the messiah. No other religious scriptures can make such a claim.I can still make up my own morals if I want to. It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Why not?

If no god and death is the end, a life of destruction is as valid as a life of self-sacrificing service to humanity. Maybe it would make more sense to be selfish, if no god. Only a fool would sacrifice his life if he only has one life and there is no after-life.

There is no inferior or superior, no evolution or devolution, no progress or regress, no right or wrong, if no god.

Why do human lives matter if there is no god and death is the end? How do you establish that human life is more valuable than buildings? It's not scientific, only a feeling.

The judeo-christian scriptures are verifiable by the hundreds of detailed accurate prophecies concerning the messiah. No other religious scriptures can make such a claim.I can still make up my own morals if I want to. It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Why not?

Ineedtofindyou

There should be a union about logical discussion, will it rock?Leu-kun

[QUOTE="Leu-kun"]There should be a union about logical discussion, will it rock?Decessus

Six members...I just joined.  :P

Which life would you rather live?  If you constantly disregard the rules and customs of your society, then you will be an outcast.  What kind of life is that to live?  On the other hand, if you work hard, do good, you have a much better chance of living a life of fulfillment.Decessus

[QUOTE="Leu-kun"]There should be a union about logical discussion, will it rock?Decessus

Stability and Evolution:

Stability: Individuals within a species exist to procreate and prevent the extinction of the said species. Individuals within a the species are nurtured and raised, even the weaker ones, to ensure that the maximum population output possible is achieved.

Evolution: Weaker members of the species must be exterminated in order to strengthen the gene pool. If possible, the populations of a certain species must constantly be hunted and abused in order to ensure that only the strongest survive, yet the damage must not be so great as to cause extinction.

Which one do you value more?

Everything in life is just a matter of subjective values.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Leu-kun"]There should be a union about logical discussion, will it rock?puremage1209

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

KobukSohn

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

jm4847

Is that a direct question or an agreement phrased as a question?

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

KobukSohn

[QUOTE="jm4847"][QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

KobukSohn

Is that a direct question or an agreement phrased as a question?

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

Jocubus

True, but even in Saudi Arabia people will still commit crimes if they feel that they can get away with it.

Some sort of omnipotent judge who could condemn me to Hell would be, at least to me, a lot scarier than some mortal, flawed government.

Evolution: Weaker members of the species must be exterminated in order to strengthen the gene pool. If possible, the populations of a certain species must constantly be hunted and abused in order to ensure that only the strongest survive, yet the damage must not be so great as to cause extinction.

Which one do you value more?

Everything in life is just a matter of subjective values.

KobukSohn

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

KobukSohn

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

Civic religion is something that I encourage, provided that all religious customs are regulated and dictated by the State, and that the people are indoctrinated so to accept these beliefs without question.

After all, fear of damnation makes people reluctant to commit crimes, no?

Decessus

Currently established religions are too caught up in dogma to be effective in legislating morality. Also, the technology doesn't yet exist to sufficiently indoctrinate the masses.

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

Evolution: Weaker members of the species must be exterminated in order to strengthen the gene pool. If possible, the populations of a certain species must constantly be hunted and abused in order to ensure that only the strongest survive, yet the damage must not be so great as to cause extinction.

Which one do you value more?

Everything in life is just a matter of subjective values.

Decessus

I'm talking about Eugenics. I used "Evolution" as an umbrella term for that.

 It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Ineedtofindyou

I would think rich people and corporations do more to "destroy the Earth" than poor and inferior peoples. No it is not moral and nobody has the justification to exterminate another group unless it was an unforeseen scenario like a deadly global epidemic to save the remnants of humanity. 

Currently established religions are too caught up in dogma to be effective in legislating morality. Also, the technology doesn't yet exist to sufficiently indoctrinate the masses.

KobukSohn

 It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Ineedtofindyou

I may agree with you if I actually felt humanity were building towards something, but we are not. the race has no inherent need to grow stronger as a whole, and therefore strengthening of the gene pool is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

Currently established religions are too caught up in dogma to be effective in legislating morality. Also, the technology doesn't yet exist to sufficiently indoctrinate the masses.

Decessus

I was stating that established religions are too caught up in past dogma, preventing them from creating new, more refined dogma.

[QUOTE="Ineedtofindyou"]

 It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Fortier

I may agree with you if I actually felt humanity were building towards something, but we are not. the race has no inherent need to grow stronger as a whole, and therefore strengthening of the gene pool is irrelevant.

I'm talking about Eugenics. I used "Evolution" as an umbrella term for that.

KobukSohn

I may agree with you if I actually felt humanity were building towards something, but we are not. the race has no inherent need to grow stronger as a whole, and therefore strengthening of the gene pool is irrelevant.

Fortier

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

I'm talking about Eugenics. I used "Evolution" as an umbrella term for that.

Decessus

[QUOTE="Fortier"]

I may agree with you if I actually felt humanity were building towards something, but we are not. the race has no inherent need to grow stronger as a whole, and therefore strengthening of the gene pool is irrelevant.

Decessus

afterlife or no afterlife, it all comes down to living your life as you want and what makes you happy, and living by your own morals, not your parents, not gods but your own. youll eventually personally learn or not learn from your mistakes, but ultimately have no out side boundaries, only personal ones that are what really matter.

[QUOTE="Fortier"]

I may agree with you if I actually felt humanity were building towards something, but we are not. the race has no inherent need to grow stronger as a whole, and therefore strengthening of the gene pool is irrelevant.

Decessus

Well we all have our opinions on what constitutes strength and weakness. Just because you have survived long enough to reproduce does not make you "strong", becuase what constitutes strength is just an opinion, and it differs with everybody. In my opinion, almost everybody in the world is born from weak parents. Beyond that, I don't know how far I can take my opinion on this...

I was stating that established religions are too caught up in past dogma, preventing them from creating new, more refined dogma.

KobukSohn

[QUOTE="Fortier"][QUOTE="Ineedtofindyou"]

 It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Jocubus

I may agree with you if I actually felt humanity were building towards something, but we are not. the race has no inherent need to grow stronger as a whole, and therefore strengthening of the gene pool is irrelevant.

That brings up an interesting question I considered the other day. Imagine this:

Say your first child was born a quadrapalegic, or mentally handicapped, or...well, you know what I mean. Would you euthanize that child, or let it live? I think I would euthanize it. If I were to be in a wreck and deemed quadrapalegic, or a total vegetable, I know I wouldn't want to live, so I wouldn't be able to put another human through that.

Opinions?

Well we all have our opinions on what constitutes strength and weakness. Just because you have survived long enough to reproduce does not make you "strong", becuase what constitutes strength is just an opinion, and it differs with everybody. In my opinion, almost everybody in the world is born from weak parents. Beyond that, I don't know how far I can take my opinion on this...

Fortier

That brings up an interesting question I considered the other day. Imagine this:

Say your first child was born a quadrapalegic, or mentally handicapped, or...well, you know what I mean. Would you euthanize that child, or let it live? I think I would euthanize it. If I were to be in a wreck and deemed quadrapalegic, or a total vegetable, I know I wouldn't want to live, so I wouldn't be able to put another human through that.

Opinions?

Fortier

Yes, I choose a mate that has traits that I personally find desirable.  However, I would never be inclined to decide what is desirable for the species as a whole.  I don't think anyone can. 
Decessus

Well I think certain traits that are universally desirable.People look for beauty, intelligence, kindness etc.

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

I was stating that established religions are too caught up in past dogma, preventing them from creating new, more refined dogma.

Decessus

Some would rather use the term "utopia". Read Aldous Huxley's social satire Brave New World sometime.

[QUOTE="Fortier"]

Well we all have our opinions on what constitutes strength and weakness. Just because you have survived long enough to reproduce does not make you "strong", becuase what constitutes strength is just an opinion, and it differs with everybody. In my opinion, almost everybody in the world is born from weak parents. Beyond that, I don't know how far I can take my opinion on this...

Decessus

Yes, it is an opinion, and of course I'm not talking about physical strength. Things that some people do that are considered "strong" are not viewed as such by everyone. Though you're right, just living is enough for evolution, which is pretty dissapointing. These days, people don't die from being weak, they die from unfortunate accidents or poor living situations (i.e. starvation in Africa). If two people of equal generic merit were each placed in 1st and 3rd world countries, of course the man in the 3rd world country is more likely to die. So, strength (however you may view it) is not the only factor in deciding life and death.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Fortier"]

Well we all have our opinions on what constitutes strength and weakness. Just because you have survived long enough to reproduce does not make you "strong", becuase what constitutes strength is just an opinion, and it differs with everybody. In my opinion, almost everybody in the world is born from weak parents. Beyond that, I don't know how far I can take my opinion on this...

Fortier

Yes, it is an opinion, and of course I'm not talking about physical strength. Things that some people do that are considered "strong" are not viewed as such by everyone. Though you're right, just living is enough for evolution, which is pretty dissapointing. These days, people don't die from being weak, they die from unfortunate accidents or poor living situations (i.e. starvation in Africa). If two people of equal generic merit were each placed in 1st and 3rd world countries, of course the man in the 3rd world country is more likely to die. So, strength (however you may view it) is not the only factor in deciding life and death.

Bottleneck Effect, anyone?

[QUOTE="Decessus
Absolutely not.  For one thing, it's illegal.

From a purely genetic stand point however, I still wouldn't.  What exactly would you accomplish by such an act?  Sure, you may elimate the gene that causes that "disadvantage", but you may also eliminate a gene that is advantagous to survial as well.  You simply have no way of knowing one way or the other which genes are going to be necessary for survival, and which ones are not. 

Well, I guess I should have stated "if it were legal", my bad.

But I'm not talking about genetics here, if that were so you are correct. I'm saying, that I don't think anybody would want to live like that, I know I wouldn't. It's about doing something that is seemingly cruel for what is (in my opinion) in that person's best interest.

May I be enlightened as to what the "bottleneck effect" is?

Well I think certain traits that are universally desirable.People look for beauty, intelligence, kindness etc.

Jocubus

If no god and death is the end, a life of destruction is as valid as a life of self-sacrificing service to humanity. Maybe it would make more sense to be selfish, if no god. Only a fool would sacrifice his life if he only has one life and there is no after-life.

There is no inferior or superior, no evolution or devolution, no progress or regress, no right or wrong, if no god.

Why do human lives matter if there is no god and death is the end? How do you establish that human life is more valuable than buildings? It's not scientific, only a feeling.

The judeo-christian scriptures are verifiable by the hundreds of detailed accurate prophecies concerning the messiah. No other religious scriptures can make such a claim.I can still make up my own morals if I want to. It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Why not?

Ineedtofindyou