the bible and logic. I've never posted anything "serious" or thought provoking to FJ, I'm kind of curious as to how it will blow over. Probably not we yunonomyname serioustime philosophy Religion
x
Click to expand

the bible and logic

the bible and logic. I've never posted anything "serious" or thought provoking to FJ, I'm kind of curious as to how it will blow over. Probably not we

I've never posted anything "serious" or thought provoking to FJ, I'm kind of curious as to how it will blow over. Probably not well, but what the hell. There's a certain humor to it I guess, at least in the logic behind adhering to a "way of life" derived so long ago, and the unwillingness to let it grow or adapt.

There‘ s e certain in living ores life by e set dyf rules, er
adhering en honorable cede of conduct.
i believe that we, es e community, should cemo together to
discuss end agree on e west of Hie thet is both and
beneficial,, net only tty us es , but our society
es e whale.
That we should put this newly been philosophy dawn en caper,
SC) met these teller Can laern and ell the
experience end western of em current end past .
i believe that this new west of life should be set in stone, end
that we mettle never agein cemo tegether to discuss hew our
philosophy is he lowlier relevent the changing
and crewing nature of the human community.
The Bible is arguably one ofthe most influential documents in the history of our werld, but hew easily we
ferget, that it was, at eema point in time, written by people just like you and me, Peeple wha eew the
world emu them in chaos, and decided to cemo tegether and use their knowledge and experience
inject a little writer into that chem. People mere capable and debating cur existence with
ene another than you and i. There is readen that we, as capable, intelligent, and far mere experienced
people, wheat cemo tegether in the same way, and decide fer , what it means be "good people",
This idea is aim applicable in any document by which we he cur livres, even the constitution
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+23
Views: 4479
Favorited: 2
Submitted: 05/21/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to yunonomynameeh Subscribe to atheism submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - hipsophobadon (05/21/2013) [-]
It would benefit society to eradicate inferior gene pools instead of letting them thrive through advances in medical science.
#2 to #1 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
How would that benefit society? I mean, I guess it would make the human race a bit more robust -but how would it benefit society?
How would that benefit society? I mean, I guess it would make the human race a bit more robust -but how would it benefit society?
#9 to #2 - teranin ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
Eugenics would allow for the eradication of no-education babyswarm "families" whose children nearly invariably become simply another generation of the same, criminals, or religious fanatics (See:Quiver).  So yes, it could be of benefit to society.  Does that make it a good idea? 			****		 NO.  Humanity learned a long time ago that the ends do not justify the means on things like this, so regardless of potential benefit it is something that could only be justified under a clear and present danger to the survival of our species.
Eugenics would allow for the eradication of no-education babyswarm "families" whose children nearly invariably become simply another generation of the same, criminals, or religious fanatics (See:Quiver). So yes, it could be of benefit to society. Does that make it a good idea? **** NO. Humanity learned a long time ago that the ends do not justify the means on things like this, so regardless of potential benefit it is something that could only be justified under a clear and present danger to the survival of our species.
#13 to #9 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
"It would benefit society to eradicate inferior gene pools instead of letting them thrive through advances in medical science"

He is suggesting that if we stopped using our advances in medicine, to allow those with genetic disorders or genetically weak characteristics, equal opportunity to reproduce -it would benefit society.

Once again, you are talking about a completely different thing than the person you are responding to.
#15 to #13 - teranin ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
So... not using medicine to render assistance to the genetically inferior and allow them to reproduce effectively would not be defined as Eugenics, a practice characterized primarily by the promotion of breeding the genetically superior while preventing the breeding of the genetically inferior? I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
#17 to #15 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
"eradication of no-education babyswarm "families" whose children nearly invariably become simply another generation of the same, criminals, or religious fanatics"

You are talking about socioeconomic issues here, and eugenics, which is a conscious effort to manage and perfect our own evolution.

He's talking about simply not giving those with medical disorders the care needed for them to have equal opportunity to reproduce. I suppose it could be considered something close to eugenics, but it's no where near on the same scale.

Seriously, you are reading into things waaaaay too much, and adding or ignoring context to suit whatever it is you personally want to talk about.

thinkaboutit.jpg
#19 to #17 - teranin ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
Ok, so just to be clear here, the word eradication in this case does not mean "Let's ******* kill them" but rather the slow decline of their population into nonexistence. Eugenics has many degrees, I was not suggesting this person was Hitler, but this is a statement that is equitable to what eugenics is at it's core, the actual and literal definition of the practice. Also, please remember that I was replying to you, not to him, and I was trying to explain how those practices could be of benefit to society regardless of their moral ambiguity.
#21 to #19 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
my wife and I were in the car, on our way somewhere -she was driving. She started talking to me apparently, but I was thinking about something else and was completely oblivious to what she was saying.

Eventually she punched me in the arm and asked if I was listening, I told her "no, sorry I was spaced out".

I wasn't spaced out, but I wasn't about to try to explain to her how the sun could technically be gone and we wouldn't even know it yet -and that I was calculating how long it would be before we realized it here on earth.

Does this sound a little like your world? I think that's why we go on the internet and look for people to have overly thought provoking conversations. At any rate, that's what I meant by "I get the impression you don't get anywhere near enough ....".

It occurred to me after posting that, that it may have come across the wrong way.

Also, I came up with around 10 minutes, maybe a little less (how long it would be before we noticed the sun went out or vanished).
User avatar #20 to #19 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
I get the impression that you don't get anywhere near enough intellectual stimulation from your friends and family.
User avatar #8 to #2 - pedobearandson (05/21/2013) [-]
for more advanced countries tax dollars could be put to better use than healing the inferior
#3 to #2 - hipsophobadon (05/21/2013) [-]
So when velaciratpor jesus returns from a far away galaxy he will only see the #1 humans and wont kill us all for being weak.
#4 to #3 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
Wait ...I thought Jesus was a T-Rex.
User avatar #5 to #4 - hipsophobadon (05/21/2013) [-]
Idunno the bibles kinda vague about which dinosaur he is exactly
i like velaciraptor jesus best
#25 to #5 - velaciraptor (05/22/2013) [-]
And i am his offspring.
#6 to #5 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
Well let's just agree that he's a velocaraptor then, I could go either way. Let's hurry up and write that down though -because you know, as long as it's written down it's true right?

We'll have to hammer out the outer space part later though, you'll never convince me of that. I firmly believe he's hiding in someone's ass and won't come out until his dad gives him his phone back.
User avatar #7 to #6 - epicalania (05/21/2013) [-]
And Raptor Jesus said unto humanity:
No! I'm not coming out.
#26 to #1 - mdhash (05/22/2013) [-]
It's been proved that social Darwinism doesn't work.
#23 - Rascal (05/22/2013) [-]
your point is clear but this channel is normally for anti-theistic garbage. mostly quotes with space backgrounds.
#35 to #23 - yunonomynameeh (05/22/2013) [-]
MFW clicking on atheism link and finding first result to be a "quote with a space background" by tomanyusernames
User avatar #29 - kuchikirukia (05/22/2013) [-]
Why the heck does this mention the Bible? Seriously, read the 613 mitzvot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot.

The list is pretty laughable. It's mostly irrelevant religious behavior and superstition. And the few actually meaningful laws don't give a framework of how to enforce them.

The Code of Hammurabi is far more relevant.
#32 to #29 - yunonomynameeh (05/22/2013) [-]
uh ...u  ........huh?
uh ...u ........huh?
#36 - yunonomynameeh (05/22/2013) [-]
Why am I not surprised to find those who engaged me in thoughtful conversation over this still awake at 5am? noblexfenrir & teranin

I think I read somewhere that those with higher IQs are far more likely to be night owls than most.
#37 to #36 - teranin ONLINE (05/22/2013) [-]
I think I read that somewhere too.
I think I read that somewhere too.
User avatar #28 - thecomkiller (05/22/2013) [-]
and that is why the constitution has parts in it saying how to change it
User avatar #31 to #28 - yunonomynameeh (05/22/2013) [-]
I can think of a few republicans that would literally consider that statement to be sacrilege. Personally, I think the constitution was a great document, but in many ways, it was written for an entirely different country.
User avatar #22 - noblexfenrir (05/21/2013) [-]
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get from this post. Basically to continue acting as society always has? Which I must ask what is the point of simply re-explaining a concept that we already adhere to and developed throughout history.
User avatar #24 to #22 - yunonomynameeh (05/22/2013) [-]
What part of the text, from your point of view, suggests "continuing to act as society always has"? I mean, I got something completely different from that text.
User avatar #27 to #24 - noblexfenrir (05/22/2013) [-]
Considering society has progressed throughout time by the overwhelming majority of the populous coming to a standard of morals and regulations, and ofcourse writing it down/printing it when the resources were available to do, (Except for maybe military run countries, or even dictatorships even though they still have to adhere to some form of majority control otherwise, as we've seen, breakdown occurs.)

I'm just not seeing the point in the post, it's basically like making a post saying the sky is blue. I get there is slightly more to the post than this but the general point I'm getting from it is this is something you posted as a suggestion of what we should do, when in fact we've always been doing this.
User avatar #30 to #27 - yunonomynameeh (05/22/2013) [-]
The bible has been around for about 2,000 years, and people are still reluctant to re-evaluate or change what's written in it.

The point this post is trying to make is that we should re-evaluate the logic behind doing this.
User avatar #33 to #30 - noblexfenrir (05/22/2013) [-]
Well we technically are as a society, less and less people are taking the bible literally and usually just take the good messages from it and leave out the bad. This means they have developed their own moral guidelines and simply are trying to reconcile it with their faith. Which is a step forward I suppose.
User avatar #34 to #33 - yunonomynameeh (05/22/2013) [-]
Yes, and it's good to see -I'd just like to see more of it. I hate this idea we have, that things like the constitution or the bible were written by people, somehow so much more important than us, that we dare not re-evaluate or change the guidelines set by them.

Your original point is, of course, perfectly valid and true -things like the constitution have always existed, and we've always eventually grown out of them and come up with new ones (the bible being a bit different, but that's a religion thing).

But consider this -it doesn't happen until we act on the desire to change it, until we start trying to convince others that now is time to do so. I know this little drop of content isn't going to do that all on it's own, but I felt the need to at least start putting the conversation on the table.

I hope that clarifies the point of this a little.
#10 - teranin ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
Morality is subjective, and as such, imposing a forced objective morality on those who do not agree with it is an autocratic move to strip freedom.  That being said, much of the western world has agreed already to many things that it would consider to be non-subjectively moral, and most western countries do adhere to that morality (and break it from time to time as it suits them).  I'm wondering what party this post is directed at?  If it's Islam, good luck.  If it's western society, you should probably take a sociology course or two because you've missed something.  If it's China... again, good luck.
Morality is subjective, and as such, imposing a forced objective morality on those who do not agree with it is an autocratic move to strip freedom. That being said, much of the western world has agreed already to many things that it would consider to be non-subjectively moral, and most western countries do adhere to that morality (and break it from time to time as it suits them). I'm wondering what party this post is directed at? If it's Islam, good luck. If it's western society, you should probably take a sociology course or two because you've missed something. If it's China... again, good luck.
#11 to #10 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
I'm not sure you really got the point of the text -it's simply a statement about not blindly following what our ancestors thought was "the best way to live life and govern society".    
   
Which part of that text is all of this even in response to?
I'm not sure you really got the point of the text -it's simply a statement about not blindly following what our ancestors thought was "the best way to live life and govern society".

Which part of that text is all of this even in response to?
#12 to #11 - teranin ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
It's responding to the implications of humanity coming together and deciding a universal idea of what it means to be a "good person".
It's responding to the implications of humanity coming together and deciding a universal idea of what it means to be a "good person".
#14 to #12 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
You're over-analyzing a short portion of the statement, you've got to slow down and consider the context of the information as a whole.
#16 to #14 - teranin ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
You know what? My mistake wasn't the context of the image, it was the lack of context from me not reading the description. Just so you know, the way the content is worded it is very easy to take this as a hyper-liberal autocracy promotion of a new forced objective morality for humanity. After reading your replies and the description I see that much of it was taking a crack at the very idea, and overall it was more satirical than serious. Whjy the **** did you say it was serious if it was meant to be funny?
#18 to #16 - yunonomynameeh (05/21/2013) [-]
It's meant to be a little of both,it's meant to remind people that the documents we hold so dear (like the constitution or the bible) were written by ordinary people just like us, and maybe the idea of changing or updating them isn't so crazy.    
   
<< nothing to do with anything, just like the gif.
It's meant to be a little of both,it's meant to remind people that the documents we hold so dear (like the constitution or the bible) were written by ordinary people just like us, and maybe the idea of changing or updating them isn't so crazy.

<< nothing to do with anything, just like the gif.
 Friends (0)