/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2912159
You just answered your own question.

human rights, everybody is bitching because everybody wants to be equal

>>2912169
>>2912171
So why do I see so many atheists trying to push morals and shit?

In a decade or so you can get your genes checked for less than 1000€. If your're a carrier of some genetic disease, you probably make your babies in a test tube. After one generation there will be no more genetic diseases and people can go back to making babies the old fashioned way.

OP, eugenics has already been tried.

the same reason the state won't let you leave your house...

>>2912186
You do realize that general morals arise from evolution and not religion?

>>2912195
Says you

>>2912195

>>2912200
>>2912199

Morals are a constantly evolving set of ideals. It's much in the same way that our math is far more advanced than it was 400 years ago.

>>2912225
Are you retarded?

>>2912159

We're not killing them off because it's their prerogative to live. You have no more right to kill them than you would any other person. Who are they useless to, really? To you? What do you care? If I want to keep my handicapped baby, let me. It's my money.

We do test on humans. We just have a mutual respect and require consent before testing on people arbitrarily. As for why eugenics hasn't been pushed forward, I can't tell you. Probably the bad rap it got from Nazi Germany.

>>2912231

No.

Morals and ethics aren't arbitrarily or logically defined. They exist mostly because of empathy and other population-control methods hardwired into our brains. This doesn't of course mean we have to abolish them. Human beings aren't machines that funtion through logic. At some point we are defined by our instincts, "programming" and conditioned responses. Feeling someone else's pain and not wishing to inflict any on them (and therefore us as well) is part of that. It's what allowed us to live in groups and ultimately what was written into everyone's mind was eventually written down as laws and standards of ethics.

In short, it is not considered morally sound to propose eugenics because of pity and empathy, on a biological level.

Also, I dare say that those kind of questions are only really proposed/asked by those to whom they don't apply. You're probably never going to hear a sane disabled person demanding handicapped people to be euthanized.

As to the "advance evolution!" argument: evolution has no "direction". There is no "higher evolved" or "lower evolved" life. Certainly, there's differences in complexety, but bacteria will still be around long after we've depleted our resources or blasted ourselves into a nuclear winter. So who's "higher evolved" then?

Again, genetic manipulation of humans is a) not really feasible right now (DNA isn't a box of Lego blocks, as Hollywood likes to portray it...) and b) morally questionable because of its philosophical, ethical and economical consequences.

Don't worry. In a few decades religions will desolve and governments will take over your life and all the retards will be killed and they'll tell you if you are allowed to reproduce or not.

>>2912159

S'up, OP?

>>2912251
>(DNA isn't a box of Lego blocks, as Hollywood likes to portray it...)
Gay rights people like to think so because they want to believe they were born sucking dicks even though it's purely environmental.

>>2912251

> In short, it is not considered morally sound to propose eugenics because of pity and empathy, on a biological level.

Eugenics is bad because it hurts my feelings.

> Certainly, there's differences in complexety, but bacteria will still be around long after we've depleted our resources or blasted ourselves into a nuclear winter. So who's "higher evolved" then?

Are you seriously proposing that the mentally handicapped are equal to the general populous because evolution cannot be scaled?

>>2912253
Religion is not regarded the same around the world as it is in the US. For example here in Germany you'll have difficulties finding religious fundies, but a certain social or communal aspect of Christianity is very wide spread (you also won't likely find any "devout" atheists, those extremes are just very rare).
Therefore religion might very well still be around in a century or more, just not in the form of literal-minded fundamentalists or extremists.

>>2912186

As a Satanist, I will tell you that any atheist who pushes morals is really a closet Christfag.

>>2912270

Not really, we're just individuals who seek to live in a cooperative society.

>>2912268
>Therefore religion might very well still be around in a century or more, just not in the form of literal-minded fundamentalists or extremists.
Someone on /sci/ not thinking every religious person is a nut?

I don't believe it.

>>2912276

Perhaps you may be atheists, but you're weaklings who let Christfags stop you from enjoying yourself.

>>2912282

Not all Christians are like the stereotypical Southern Baptist. Some churches (most in Europe for example) are very tame organizations that emphasis social justice and things like that.

>>2912283
Unless your definition of enjoyment is purely being married to another man or having sex in public, no, they're really not stopping you from enjoying yourself.

>>2912276
>Not really, we're just individuals who seek to live in a cooperative society.
Change cooperative society with constantly dead horse beating society.

>>2912267
1) Yes, many things might make sense in a purely logical, purpose-oriented way, but that doesn't have to make the morally sound. "The ends don't justify the means.", so to speak.

2) They're certainly not equal on a physical level (considering the definition of disability), but that doesn't mean that we should consider them inferior as human beings. Of course it doesn't make sense logically, but as I wrote above, ethics exist for a reason. Consider how much you'd like to live in a world that disregards emotion and morality in favour of entirely logical decisions and policies. Many would call that dystopian.

3) I can't say much about the genetic arguments regarding gay, lesbians or transgendered people, but as with most scientific arguments in the popular media both sides are usually full of crap. Human sexuality is a complex field. Also, by that argument all straight relationships/marriages that don't produce offspring would have to be banned/penalized.

>>2912290

I don't understand your point.

why aren't stupid people killing off smart people?

stupid people don't like smart people as much as you don't like the genetically inferior.

why aren't we killing off stupid breeds of dogs like toy poodles and miniature dachshunds?

i don't like them and we have superior breeds like german shepherds.

why don't we stop making shit movies when there are people who have made cinema into an art form.

why don't people do what i tell them. when i rule the world everyone will do what i like doing.

STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE. I'M ASPIE LIKE HITLER.

>What's stopping us?
It's me punching you in your nuts if you touch to any member of my family or my friends.

Go die alone in a hole, mr "I don't need human relationship"!

>>2912268
>For example here in Germany you'll have difficulties finding religious fundies
>religious fundies
I'm curious to what you mean by that.

>what's stopping us

not wanting to?

>>2912307

He means Baptists who think man lived with dinosaurs.

Holding onto morals and ethics is like religious people holding onto their beliefs.

Idiots. Every one of you.

>>2912270
citation needed

Don't worry OP it is happening. BEcause of contraception, the middle classes are breeding theirselves out of existence. Soon all that will be left is the intelligent upper class andthe retarded working classes. Once the middle class is out out of the way, they shall start reducing the numbers of the peasents.

>>2912314

Then i guess you don't want to live in society. Why are you on the internet?

>>2912311
I live in the Bible Belt, and I have never heard of this. I have heard of some of them saying Christianity and science aren't mutually exclusive or I have heard that if God created a fully mature man, he could just as well created a fully mature earth and universe.

>>2912159
>retarted

>>2912307
I meant people who e.g. take the bible literally or try to take away other people's rights for religious reasons. (And yes, muslim fundies do exist, but we're working on that.)

>>2912314
morals and ethics are not supernatural. they are choices about the way we wish to behave.

whereas religious beliefs are fairy stories.

not sure how you can make the comparison. oh wait, i got it, you're a retarded blowhard

>>2912311
Omg so edgy!!11

>>2912320

Simple. If you follow the morals of Christfags, you either are one, or you're an Uncle Tom atheist.

>>2912314
I'd rather be an idiot than a sociopath, to be honest. I can't imagine how awful it would be not to feel emotions or to be able to relate to other humans.

>>2912314
if you really want to be amoral, then don't kill the genetically inferior.

because trying to improve society through eugenics is a moral act.

>>2912235
We should be, if we were still in the wild, nature would take care of defects like that for us since they wouldn't be able to survive out of societys shelter.

>>2912331
Well there's no reason for any of us, so start feeling like shit, boy.

If a apocalypic event comes and you're one of the ones who survived, have fun seeing human's true instincts kicking in.

>>2912291

We disagree about where our morality comes from You seem to be taking some emotivist or moral relativist route. I cannot vouch for those positions as I believe they are both seriously flawed.

I don't understand your point in making a distinction between an "inferior" human being and a physically "inferior" person. For our purposes, how are the two different? As for homosexuality, I see it as no different than racial differences or aesthetic tastes. It isn't immediately harmful to society and we do not have to take any extra steps for it.

>>2912329
Fun fact: "western" moral standards and "virtues" don't exist because of christian influence on our history, they exist in spite of it. Look at the dark-ages and you might get a gist of what constitutes as "christian morality". True, some passages of the bible speak of peace, charity etc. but the other 95% are smiting, human sacrifices, incest and plagues.

>>2912329
citation needed that "morality" = "christian morality"

that seems to be your delusion. are you living in 1700 or something? oh wait, you're probably american, so from a moral perspective, yes.

>>2912340
>doesn't understand morals have social context

>>2912343

Christfags are usually the ones stopping us from having a good time. Now have a little respect and quit being their bitch.

>>2912329
christian morality was once burning those that were different

OP is a christian uncle tom

>>2912343

Or religion in general; doesn't always have to be Christians.

>>2912342
>True, some passages of the bible speak of peace, charity etc. but the other 95% are smiting, human sacrifices, incest and plagues.
Catholicism =/= Christianity.

Nothing they did nor anything they believe has scriptural backing.

>>2912340
Having no greater purpose does not in any way impede my ability to have meaningful and satisfying relationships with others. And survival instincts are no more natural than simple ethics, so in the probable event that no apocalyptic event occurs, have fun watching others' enjoy their lives using their moral codes while you can only watch emotionlessly and never understand what it is to care about others.

>>2912351

Exactly. Burning those who wanted to enjoy themselves. You would probably not only go to the stake willingly, you'd set yourself on fire.

>>2912347
>christians are the ones stopping us

speak for yourself. your whole shtick is just reactive against your situation. don't make a philosophy of some local subjective experience.

>some hard man bullshit

internet tough guy

under-age banned

girls laughing

etc

>>2912341
I gues what I mean was "not inferior to any other human being" and/or less worthy of living in a moral sense. For me the base-line of human dignity always allows life and physical and mental health. I don't have to respect people I can't stand, but I won't deny them their basic human dignity.

>>2912352
again. that is a pre-enlightenment view.

do keep up. there has been secular moral philosophy for hundreds of years now.

under-educated banned.

>>2912361

I'm not underage b&. Troll harder, Uncle Tom.

So if it's more natural to have sex with someone who just became sexually mature (~10-12), why is that shunned upon while homosexuality, something not natural, is being force fed to everyone?

>>2912368
>claims not underage
then you've no excuse for your juvenile under-educated posts

you've missed everything from utilitarianism to nietzsche if you think morality is just religious morality

>>2912366

>do keep up. there has been secular moral philosophy for hundreds of years now.

All of which was written by closet Christfags who posed as atheists in order to look hard.

>>2912375
because "natural" is a stupid thing to base behaviour on

unless you wish to behave like an ape.

>>2912379

Fallacious reasoning. How does their religious belief have anything to do with their ideas?

>>2912379
>ridiculous nonsense

3/10, i replied

>>2912383
it is also factually incorrect to claim many such people were christians when they were avowed atheists

>>2912379
Thanks brah, there's nothing so devastating to an argument as having your logic twisted into an obvious strawman by a troll and while OP was an obvious troll himself he probably does believe what he said.

>>2912383

Simple. They just took all their morals from the Bible or whatever and wrapped it in some goofy label like utilitarianism or whatever so they could claim to be atheists and look macho.

Now get out there and enjoy the only life you have rather than letting religionfags hold you back.

>>2912395

[citation needed]

>>2912382
So you're denying me the right to have sex with delicious little girls even though you state something being natural isn't natural?

>>2912363

I posit that you are then intentionally denying their human dignity by allowing them to live inferior lives. By using the terms "handicapped" and "disabled," we've already admitted that their quality of life will be appreciably lesser than our own. That is, you can state that there is potential for some to be happier with their condition than not, but you can *assure* that their will be suffering for others.

I'm not proposing that we go around killing people with mental deficits. I'm just saying that if and when we gain the ability to determine that a child will be born with certain significant handicaps, we should spare them the suffering involved of living an assured inferior quality of life, aside from the aiding in the effects on society (e.g., you have to pay taxes for special education) and the immediate family.

>>2912397

What's there to cite? You lost the argument and posted that in the absence of any real refutation of what I said.

>>2912379
sure. all those existentialists where closet christians

i agree i agree i agree

and russell, inventor of russell's teapot, was actually a big religionist

sure is super smart in /sci/ today

>>2912402

Having sex with little girls is not natural. I think you're confusing the words "normal" and "natural" anyway.

>>2912407

Russell was just such an Uncle Tom atheist. His rantings about religion and politics are full of that typical screeching old woman morality found in British philosophers.

>>2912406
>thinks utilitarianism is only secular morality

i guess nietschze or sartre or russell or dannett just took it all from the bible

you are basically pulling things out of your ass and calling them facts

>>2912414
troll

>>2912402
yes

also denying you eating your own babies

all natural

>>2912416

Nietzsche was really an amoralist since he believed the ubermensch would be freed from the restrictions of Christian morals.

god damn /sci/ is easy to troll hard

>>2912412
how is it unnatural? they are able to reproduce, how is it not natural to begin this process as early as possible to produce as many offspring as possible?

>>2912414
>says nothing

>>2912366

>there has been secular moral philosophy for hundreds of years now

Those are really more a variation on Buddhism and other Eastern religions that don't contain the belief in a creator god.

fear that we might be the ones experimented on

>>2912424
this is either your typical under aged popular reading of Nietzsche

or you are simply using the word amorality for any non judeo christian moral system, which is what the christians would love you to do.

Gotta love all the Step-N-Fetch-It atheists in here. Pity they have to be so worried what Christfags think of them that they can't enjoy the only life they have.

>>2912429
another made up "fact" that needs a citation.

but original agnostic buddhism, dmarma practice or whatever, before it was turned into a religion, is i guess a good example of a secular moral system

>>2912425

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/preconception/activelytrying/ageandfertility/

You should probably read more about human fertility.

>>2912436
>the lady doth protest too much

gotta say, your i'm so edgy and amoral posturing seems the bigger reaction against the christfags

i live in a mostly atheist country, so don't need to react so.

>or you are simply using the word amorality for any non judeo christian moral system, which is what the christians would love you to do.

See >>2912352

>>2912442

There are no "mostly atheist" countries except perhaps one or two like North Korea.

Go back to your porch and eat a watermelon.

>>2912441
>it's natural, but since I'm a tool I give into social taboos because I have a false sense of security and I must have something to tell me what is socially acceptable or not

>>2912453
you should either

a) visit the czech republic

or

reply with some pedantic post about what constitutes atheism

http://www.atheistmind.com/avoid-the-religious-masses-top-10-atheistic-countries

Well I can't believe nobody has said this yet but...

>>2912270
>As a Satanist

HAHAHAHAHAHA FAGGOT

>>2912447
>totally failed to understand or refute anything

>>2912453
you should either

a) visit the czech republic

or

b) reply with some pedantic post about what constitutes atheism

http://www.atheistmind.com/avoid-the-religious-masses-top-10-atheistic-countries

>>2912441
That link's absolutely irrelevant; all it says is that fertility declines after age 30, making starting sexual activity sooner rather than later even more natural.

>>2912453
bad geography and a failure to accept there may be different cultures

must be a yank

is this satanism as a result of being butthurt about living in a religious country satanism?

>>2912502

Is there any other kind of satanism?

>>2912441
>>2912485

I was getting at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Female_fertility

The best time to be attempting childbirth is late teens through mid-20s.

>>2912159
because of the there is always someone better than you principle.

what makes you so vital for the human race?
what if you don't pass the test of someone much more potent than you.

>>2912526
But again, the information isn't about when fertility begins, wiki itself says menarche occurs on average at 12.5 years, meaning a large proportion of girls are capable of childbirth by 12 to 13 years of age, and in the absence of information demonstrating that young girls are likely to create birth defects during pregnancy it only makes sense to begin sexual activity sooner rather than later, when starting too late is shown to cause problems more commonly.

YES MORALS AND ETHICS STOP US BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU DON'T WANT SOME FUCKER TESTING ON YOUR LOL AND YOU WON'T FEEL HAPPY AFTER SEEING SOMEONE TORTURED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES

FUCKING NOOB

>>2912539

"A large portion" isn't what the data says. To answer directly, pre-teens don't make for good mothers and we're not running out of babies anytime soon. You'd be doing a disservice to the girl and to the child by having him or her that early. I agree that certain norms are worth challenging, but this one seems like a pretty absurd position to be taking seriously.

>>2912568
The argument was that it's not natural; it is. Also something about the only reason to say it's better to wait til girls are teenagers before fucking them is Christian morals.

>>2912569

If this argument was truly about what ought to be considered "natural" I would have never responded. It only distracts from the substantive issue underneath.

>>2912572
Well I'm the only one who's been arguing this point and I responded originally to >>2912375 and >>2912402, so yeah.

This is a typical atheist thread.
Bunch of smug fucktards who havent left their house in a year thinking they have become smarter by reading up on useless shit. Then decide anyone less intelligent that they claim to be, has to be tortured and destroyed for scientific research.

Just because they are afriad the "less intelligent" people will kill them when they step out of their house.
I hope a group of you retards know that the unemployed couch potato's like yourselves would be first on the list for not contributing to society.

This thread is getting redundant..

sage-in' this ho.

>>2912608
>no sage
???

Beiging this thread.

Fucking beige.

sage sage sage sage

dick

WHY AREN'T WE TESTING ON PRISONERS?

OP is trolling but I'll seriously answer.

Capitalism is a hideous all-consuming machine. It nickel-and-dimes people as much as possible and damn the social consequences. Therefore, the more people born with disabilities that they can't fix, the more money for the people who provide aid. There's a reason cancer hasn't been cured yet and it's not scientific. It should be obvious to anyone that "treatment" is more capitalism-friendly than a cure.

Hence, the forces of capitalism would prefer it if people kept spending money on helping their disabled family members instead of the problem not even existing, it might give people enough time to protest against this inhumane system of greed.

>>2914514
> There's a reason cancer hasn't been cured yet and it's not scientific. It should be obvious to anyone that "treatment" is more capitalism-friendly than a cure.

You do realize that cancer is not a single, definitive, predictable disease, don't you?

>>2914514
>Hence, the forces of capitalism would prefer it if people kept spending money on helping their disabled family members instead of the problem not even existing, it might give people enough time to protest against this inhumane system of greed.

My autistic older brother has been taken care of by the state for over twenty years, and I haven't paid a penny out of pocket for it. u jelly?

>>2914514

You can complain about capitalism, but what's the alternative? Answer: 1970s Russia with people lined up to buy the only pair of shoes in the store.

>>2912282
Look up modern Unitarianism.

>>So tell me why we aren't killing off useless humans like the mentally retarted, handicapped, genetically inferior, etc.

Well, for one, there is not really a clear definition of "genetically inferior," but that aside, yes, morals.

>>Why are we not testing on humans?

Because humans are a terrible test population.

>>Why are we not trying to genetically make humans far superior than what evolution hath made us so far?

Genetic engineering is hard. Genetically engineering something with long and costly gestation times just makes it worse. Furthermore, the effects of gene insertion are still largely unknown from what I have seen.

>>What's stopping us? "Morals?" "Ethics?"

For the first, yes. For the later, practicality. Humans are a terrible test population due to a lack of homogeneity. Humans are not being genetically engineered because it is too expensive to genetically engineer a human with such a high uncertainty for success.

>>2914580
The alternative is
>>2914562
Don't let private companies control healthcare and with the strong arm of government being the purchaser suddenly the focus is on prevention and cures and not "treatment".
Look at Norway. Capitalism exists there but keeps it on a leash, like it should.