Obviously if you have any humanity at all it's a totally horrifying idea. Nevertheless,from a strictly scientific viewpoint it would be entirely workable,eminently practical and certain of results. Anybody whose income fell below a certain point would be automatically disposed of under law. So if Science has the answer for everything,if religion is the source of all evil,and if a perfect society would supposedly be based on scientific principles then why would an atheist disapprove? How could one,logically? You could say,well "liberal humanistic values" but that is merely a secularized version of Christianity. Is my logic wrong here and if so where?
2007-04-29 15:56:08 · 20 answers · asked by River Jordan 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I assume your point,essentially satirical as i read it by the way,is that if man doesn't need morality only logic-based science then such brutality wouldn't matter,only if it's effective. Logically,an atheist should have no objection. As to the logic itself,the parameters of poverty would be constantly shifting downward the more are killed to it would go down to nothing quick,a point raised above. So that's the flawed logic but yeah you still have a point about the idea of the Pure Science Society. I'm just incredulous at the number of people who actually thought this was something you were endorsing or proposing. Ladies & gentlemen,learn to recognize satire - and an interesting hypothesis.
2007-04-30 14:08:38 · answer #1 · answered by Galahad 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because killing the poor is just one possible solution. We could end poverty by killing off a substantial portion of the populace, whether wealthy or poor, because really the problem is a shortage of (or poor distribution of) resources, not an abundance of poor people.
The problem is that from a societal viewpoint, this is not an effective solution. With or without religion, humans have a built-in abhorrence to murder. We know it's wrong. Just because scientists think logically doesn't mean we deposit our humanity in a box when we get our degrees...
2007-04-29 23:04:45 · answer #2 · answered by Sancho 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Okay, I'm not shooting you down right away for being "inhuman", but I'm a little confused about how killing poor people would benefit us scientifically... I would think that killing stupid people, with a low IQ under a certain number, would be better scientifically, because then we would only breed intelligent offspring and eventually take over the universe. Where does killing poor people get us?
2007-04-29 23:03:24 · answer #3 · answered by moonwolf317 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your logical fallacies are:
1) Assuming all atheists would approve of such outlandish and immoral behavior.
2) If a person is injured and can't work (this isn't an Aflac commercial, either), and they don't get paid, do you believe they should be 'disposed of' with the jobless? Is this a conditional act, a one time thing, etc?
3) If you consider this a scientific theory, it has to be falsifiable, which it surely is.
2007-04-29 23:01:56 · answer #4 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Two things are wrong with that.
First, if you killed off all the people with, say, below average intelligence as opposed to poor people, in the end, half the population would still have below average intelligence.
Second, science has nothing to do with economics or morality. I think you mean to say 'from a logical viewpoint it would work', not from a scientific one - you're obviously just trying to make science look bad. Which is funny, seeing how you're doing it on a computer that science gave you.
2007-04-29 23:01:07 · answer #5 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
From a humanistic viewpoint:
What determines the poverty level once you have massacred the poor, in the name of science to prove that your religion is true.
Then that leaves who afterward to extinguish because you still want to prove a point?
What does Science have to do with Religion here?
Is it just me, or does everyone reading this statement feel that its author believes that Atheists are murderers?
Sorry, no logic buddy
Educate yourself on other people's religious beliefs before you take a stupid, misdirected, pious stand based on hearsay, insecurity of the unknown, and mere popular opinion.
The reason we still have war is because of bigoted, narrow-minded, haughty, self-righteous people who gather opinions from other people and not from their own research.
Find the way and be kind, unify yourself with your ultimate reality and you will not be led astray from your path by bitter people...
Peace and Wisdom for you in the future.
2007-04-29 23:21:23 · answer #6 · answered by longleggedfirecracker 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why would you do that? Logic dictates that if you did so others would simply eventually end up in the same state to fill the void and you'd be killing people none stop. Its pointless.
No, its better to actually attempt to solve poverty by increasing wages, and introducing bills to place limits on increases in the cost of the standard of living.
Why do Christians take things to such completely crazy extremes?
2007-04-29 23:01:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It would be better to eat the rich, a higher return on each killing. However, come to think of it most of the poor are religious types.
Please note that societies that engage in killing off undesirables or engage in ethnic cleansing are almost universally religious.
2007-04-29 23:05:31 · answer #8 · answered by U-98 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, that's not a scientific standpoint. That's called pragmatism.
A scientific standpoint would be to dismiss your opinion, and simply consider to restructure the economy so that the working poor stand a chance in our brutal capitalist world.
2007-04-29 22:59:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
You assume that people will sit by idly and wait to be kilt off.
In reality mass riots, wars, and chaos would begin until the makers of this evil law were all kilt off.
dave
2007-04-29 23:02:25 · answer #10 · answered by dave777 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋