A test that needs to be passed before people can make babies

Posted On Oct 25, 2008 at 5:08 am
205 Comments

Is there a simple solution to creating a better world? Probably not, but I think some simple eugenics would make a significant difference in the direction our species is heading.

Here's a very simple test that can determine if you should reproduce or if you should just let your bloodline die with you.

mandatory reproduction qualification exam

BTW, this is an oversimplified chart for the purpose of humor and controversy. Take a deep breath and count to 10 before proceeding in your day.

This topic has the following tags:

Comments (205)

Scott Klarr's Avatar
Reply To This

Scott Klarr Nov 20, 2008

That's quite a presumption. I will not bother to go into the details of how I came to the "tied position of an atheist" that I am at now because you probably do not honestly care; But I will say that you are very wrong with your assumptions.

Every opinion I have about religion has come from years of deep thought and research on every possible definition or reality of god I have heard of; Many of those years while I was still a Christian and constantly fighting myself for the "sin" of falling away from God. I don't claim to know every god that man has made for themselves, but I have very deeply considered many of them. 95% of the time I let my mind wander, it ends up at philosophy and theology.

I choose to carry the label atheist; label itself does not constrain, form a foundation or mold any of my opinions or beliefs - I do that on my own with intense scrutiny and thought.

The reason many of my posts and comments rail against more specifically the three Abrahamic religions is because they are the most predominantly affecting my life. A Buddhist monk in Tibet has little to no impact on my life so theres no reason for me to go around speaking out against Buddhist specifically, even though I find their supernatural beliefs to be ridiculous (e.g. spiritual reincarnation).

I find all supernatural belief without proof to be immature and irresponsible. Supernatural contemplation is fine, but it better come with a big dose of skepticism. As soon as someone devotes themself to a supernatural idea as truth though, thats where I draw the line and shake my head in disappointment.

Scott Klarr's Avatar
Reply To This

Scott Klarr Nov 01, 2008

Rawr!

Imp Teaser's Avatar
Reply To This

Imp Teaser Nov 06, 2008

Sometimes, there are advantages to being older. I grew up in a time (70's & 80's) when we were allowed to have a sense of humor. We had an educational system (at least in Minnesota) that allowed us to use our own minds to determine whether something was a vicious attack on (insert favored victim status here) or just someone having fun and being clever. Nowdays nobody gets held back because "it might hurt his/her feelings," or "he/she'll be scarred/traumatized for life..."
If you can make it through the year without either killing someone or being killed, you pass. If you can google an essay or copy a Wikipedia entry, you pass. If you show up for class, you pass. Whether you learn anything or not.
Admittedly, if he wanted to make sure this reaction wouldn't have happened to the extent it has, he would've made more effort to include as many religions (and pseudo-religions, one of which made the list) as possible, just to make sure that no one felt singled out... at which point the question might as well have become, "Are you in any way religious?" which would've been just as if not more inflammatory than the way it's phrased.
If I ever figure out how to package and sell clues to the clueless, and package and rent a sense of humor (how sad for those created in their Makers image to have been created by a humorless deity) to those of you who've given it the Warner Bros. treatment (slammed into a box, put into three successively larger boxes, wrapped with duct tape, stuffed in a fridge, riveted shut, packaged in a crate, chained, mailed across the country, shipped somewhere else and launched into space), I'll be richer than Bill Gates and the Google guys put together.
Sadly, no comment- no matter how short or long, can fix that.
Take it from someone who's been positive (yes, HIV) for 20 years without developing AIDS (yes, I can prove it)- being bitter and overly defensive doesn't make life better... it just makes it lonelier.
Scott- you'll be getting a thumbs up from me. And keep the flow charts coming. I'm on the same page.

Evan Harper's Avatar
Reply To This

Evan Harper Nov 01, 2008

Troll.

Scott Klarr's Avatar
Reply To This

Scott Klarr Nov 02, 2008

I just wanted to reply on your agnostic stance in case you come back around :)

I do not know if there is a more supreme being that put our universe into motion, but until there is any evidence of such a thing, there is no reason to believe in it; my doubt in it is much higher than "being on the fence" as agnostics. I am no more than agnostic for a god than I am for fairies.

Is it possible that fairies or godzilla exists? yes its possible, but with absolutely no evidence for it, theres no reason to take any less than an atheist stance of it, IMO. I respect your position of agnostic though - after all, its better than having an invisible friend in the sky :)

My attacks about god are usually more directed towards organized religion following human-written books full of insane ideas rather than the personal belief in a more intelligent being. While I will openly admit that there is a possibility of there being something bigger than us out there - I completely and utterly deny the possibility of it being any of the 4000 or so gods humans have created, and I will continue with the stance that god does not exist until there is reasonable evidence to say one does. Thereafter its a matter of proving which god it is.

If you notice, when most people make arguments for THEIR god, they are really using arguments that are for the existence of a more intelligent being. The very same arguments they make can easily be used to "prove" to existence of Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster. They never have any convincing arguments linking the possibility of that being to THEIR particular god.

Scott Klarr's Avatar
Reply To This

Scott Klarr Nov 03, 2008

When it comes down to it i would be more accurately called an agnostic-deist. But theres a good reason why I stick with atheist. Many will say that an atheist "knows he is right and will not change his mind" but the fact is, I also do not know with absolute certainty; if there is sufficient evidence that shows up saying god is real, I will change my views accordingly.

I agree with the mindset of Anthropologist Ashley Montagu when he said "The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof"

You mentioned the cause of the singularity. It's reasonable to say "I don't know" about the singularity because in the first place, we have convincing evidence to suggest there was a singularity and so the question of where i comes from is a legitimate one. But to say an almighty god was the cause, that is not any more reasonable than being on the fence (I do not say that term with any intention of carrying a negative connotation) about "a giant squirrel sneezed and our universe appeared as is". Sure, it just might be possible, but unless there is any reason to believe so, why take a stance any less of "thats ridiculous!"

The idea of god was not a conclusion or hypothesis formed by studying facts. The whole concept of god and religion came from simple stories to explain the universe that snowballed out of control through time. The origin of god came about because people didn't understand how the sun rose and fell; or how floods came about; or what wind was.

In modern science, when such bases of hypotheses are ruled out, the less the reason there is to continue pursuing that hypothesis. Through time, we have continued to rule out foundations for the "hypothesis of god".

Lets say someone made a hypothesis that if a ball of iron has the right combination of colors on it, it will float in the air. The person has arguments that sound convincing and he may even be able to make a whole bunch of people believe it. But when tested and stacked up against the laws of physics and atomic understanding, that hypothesis, beyond any reasonable doubt, gets destroyed. We then are left with a bunch of people going "BUT!!! It MAKES SENSE!" Some would argue that because you cant possibly try all the possible color combinations, then you cannot prove its NOT true, but its completely reasonable to conclude that it is so very unlikely that you might as well just say its not true until further evidence says otherwise.

Going back to the question of where the singularity came from; lets just say there was a god that was the cause. My immediate wonder is, what was the cause of god? Any property that lets god either exist forever or magically appear could very well be applied to the singularity itself.

Incidentally, right now I'm studying cosmology and indeed some of the concepts nearly make your brain explode! lol

yiNXs's Avatar
Reply To This

yiNXs Nov 02, 2008

I so need to contain myself not turning my response into a major philosophical rant, but here goes ;) ..I'll just keep it with one little thing: maybe you should include a question about "homicidal tendencies" and things like that. E.G. Serial killers are often highly intelligent. :)

Ok, just one more, about religion. I think pure freedom is one of the most important things to me. And I would want people to have the freedom to believe what they want, no matter how outrageous and logic defying it is. Putting all emotions aside (hard part): trying to convince them to drop their "beliefs" in anyway (like having them stop procreating) is as bad as them forcing their beliefs on me. That fact annoys me, I admit that, but it's the only right way. Like Bryan wrote, we can't proof they're wrong, they're proof just doesn't make any sense. That they don't want to believe the much more likely explanations annoys the hell out of me, but that's just the way it is. What do we dislike most about religion: the fact that a few of them condemn/fight the people that do not share their beliefs and want to enforce those beliefs on everyone. Isn't that the only thing that we really dislike about religion in general? It's ironic, but we're just thinking the same thing of them as they are of us, and we both convinced we're right and the other is insane. We should be the smarter ones by not trying to enforce our (non)beliefs on them in any way. Mind our own business, like more people on this planet should do.

yiNXs's Avatar
Reply To This

yiNXs Nov 03, 2008

Oh no, I didn't mean with minding our own business that we should just stand by while people are doing others wrong. It's just that fact that those people are doing others wrong is where I meant that people should mind their own business: don't judge other people.

Better education and critical thinking is a sure shot to a better standard of living anywhere. I don't think it will be a direct way to make people question the doctrine of their religion though, but it might probably do so indirectly. The better standard of living education will offer people more security, and security is what people realy desire. I'm quite sure insecurity is the main reason people hang on to religions.

An example might be the country I live in. Almost 50% of the people here are not connected to a certain religion atm, and considered atheist/agnostic. Though we have a good educational system, it's not much different from e.g. America. I think it's our social security system that gives people the security they look for. They don't have to fear too much when it comes down to losing a job or getting ill or anything. I'm quite positive the fear comming from insecurity is the main problem. Religion is what people cling on to when they're afraid of something, and therefor the thing they will defend most. I don't think that it matters if the religion makes sense or not when people feel insecure or unhappy, they just need it to hold on to. And those same insecure, fearful people are most likely look for others to blame (condemn) or bring
(down) to their level (convert).

That makes me think of the grandfather of a friend of mine. The man was a convinced atheist his whole life, but when he got terminaly ill, and the end was getting near, he suddenly turned to religion. Started reading the bible, etc. Completely in contrast to all the things he used to say about religion. It had to be fear and insecurity.

Considering all those things, a conclusion might be that the strenght of religion might be more an indication then a cause of problems. Improve the standard of living and religion will likely dissapear automaticaly.

Smiley Fuck's Avatar
Reply To This

Smiley Fuck Nov 02, 2008

Cunt?

TroubledAtheist's Avatar
Reply To This

TroubledAtheist Nov 03, 2008

There are many fine examples of religious satire out there. Kevin Smith's Dogma comes to mind, the pastafarian movement would also likely qualify. I find a distinct quality missing from this supposedly "satirical" piece that is common among all the other religious satires that seem to be around. Namely, satire itself is the absent quality from your work.

If anything you've satirized simpleminded atheists, pointing out how they attempt to boost their own egos by using their lack of faith as a clear sign of their superior intellects. However, if this is the case, I feel you've fallen short of your goal. In order to bring about satire, one must exaggerate the point to it's logical extreme, clearly communicating to the reader that the point of the piece is to point the flaws inherent within the logic of the narrative. I don't feel this was communicated strongly within your essay.

Perhaps in attempting to deem this piece "satire" you're exaggerating your point. Inherently missing that your work isn't satire within the narrative would seem absurd. This, in a sense, could be labeled a form of satire. However, I feel that you've led the reader on to believe that your work is parody at that point, rather than satire. The reader would be left out of the loop, and mistake your absurdity for genuineness.

Even if your essay is a clever attempt to point out the irrationality that many card-carrying atheists carry, I feel that you've only perpetuated the conflict preventing people from accepting atheism. As a community, we atheists are a disliked bunch. It seems entirely plausible an African American will grace the halls of the White House in the near future (and rightly so). However, the date when an atheist first calls 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home seems further away than the technological singularity. I find it despicable that so many anti-religious zealots like yourself are perpetuating this sort of negativity within the world.

You likely are happy to have found your own personal truth. I commend your rational abilities. You are likely an intelligent person, and I think that discovering the absence of a God requires some wherewithal. Perhaps in order to write such an angry essay, you've experienced some conflict in your life due to your beliefs. I imagine you would prefer people don't judge you for beliefs. As a rational person, can you agree that others would be less inclined to accept your beliefs if you treated their beliefs with the same disrespect?

If there is no God, it likely follows that there is no external purpose to the world. No rhyme or rhythm other than our own is adding structure to our lives. There is nothing but a void in our lives. However, we can fill this void of purpose in whatever fashion we wish. I would think that a truly intelligent individual would plainly see that peace and harmony amongst all things is the only path to follow.

Tom's Avatar
Reply To This

Tom Nov 03, 2008

I had wondered how your own history related to your current views - I didn't presume to ask, however - and given what you've said here, it's pretty obvious why you should have such strong opinions on organized religion.

To that end, I tend to agree. I have long viewed organized religion as a social opiate at best, and at worst, mind control. It stands to reason: the dominator culture (a naturally occurring result of a materialistic societal view which has been in place for thousands of years) seeks to control the masses. It was fine and well to promise pain and death to someone for failing to follow their rules, but try telling that to somebody with a different value set, and you run into problems. After all, how can one man dictate what another man should think and feel.

Christianity in particular had the admittedly brilliant approach of simply adopting the traditions of other religions, and absorbing its followers into their fold; and even that was something they in turn borrowed from the Romans, who did it for centuries. Christianity was little more than an obscure cult for roughly four hundred years after Christ was put to death for being a cult leader and an heir to the throne of King Solomon, both very detrimental to the leaders of Rome.

I forgot which Emperor it was that officially made Christianity the religion of Rome, but he himself was a life-long pagan. He never bought into the Christ myth, he simply saw the way the wind was blowing, and decided to go with it.

Really, Christianity was a great thing for both the leaders of Rome, and its followers. For the oppressed, it promised a great reward for selfless service to God, in such a time when daily life was a struggle. For the leaders, it meant a small of effort for maximal payoff. Not only could they keep their "flock" in line with threats of eternal damnation, they could also cast out any would be rebel leaders as heretics and sinners, and make example of them.

Like I said, it was and continues to be a brilliant means of keeping people under control.

At this point, you may think to ask what my belief system is. I'm not an atheist, although I was very strongly atheistic when I was in my twenties, after having been raised Christian. I have since studying Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Buddhism, Kabbalah, Gnosticism and even LaVeyan Satanism. All of these, I have found, hold a few simple universal truths, and through them, I have come to think of myself as a true Gnostic. What the modern Western world thinks of as "God" is a largely misunderstood concept. Eastern religions tend to be closer to the truth; although I have found even Christian doctrines are really quite accurate, when interpreted outside of the context in which they are usually presented by church leaders. The Tao, the Holy Trinity, the flux of the Yin and the Yang, Zen, the Brahma, all these things refer to the same universal pattern which we could just as easily express through the ultra-complicated non-Euclidean mathematical proofs of modern Quantum Theory. To try to name it or boil it down to one simple explanation is to remove the ability to understand it for what it truly is.

Simply put, we are all the same being, the same life force, the same WHATEVER, broken down into points of view. If God is all things, how can it percieve itself? One cannot look into the mirror if one IS the mirror. Therefore, this being, this demiurge, this so-called God made the choice to forget its divine nature and experience itself subjectively. That, I believe, is what this life is. That is why we are here. We are here simply to EXPERIENCE what we already KNEW: everything. I say "I believe", but in truth, I KNOW this to be true. It is something I was born knowing, something we were all born knowing. The point is to remember. Once you've done, you can get on with the process of creating your life as you want it to be.

I'm sure many people - perhaps even yourself - would think to ridicule me for these statements, thinking me delusional or even insane. Please keep in mind that I came to these conclusions after years of searching and studying and reading, always from a skeptical point of view. In actuality, I cannot PROVE any of this, but then, even if I could, it wouldn't change your mind if your were disinclined to believe it in the first place.

If you're interested, I recommend three very helpful books that I found along the way: Conversations With God, by Neale Donald Walsch, Lucifer Rising, by Gavin Baddley, and the Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra. Also, go to Google video and look up Terrence McKenna, who I would call the "thinking man's Timothy Leary" and quite possibly one of the most important minds of our time.

If anybody wants to discuss this with me further, feel free to email me at T D C A S G -at- G M A I L -dot COM.

Scott Klarr's Avatar
Reply To This

Scott Klarr Nov 03, 2008

Thank you very much for sharing. What I respect about you and your belief is that its a result of intense studying and scrutiny of many different perspectives. I would not ridicule you for that - rather I am envious that I am so far behind your understanding at this point in time.

At the same time I promote to others to look at more perspectives, I myself follow the same advice. I am still on a very narrow view of the world simply because there is so much to learn; but its something I am constantly trying to broaden (I wish I could learn things faster!). I have a list of several hundreds of books waiting to be read, many of which are of or relating to a wide range of religions. In the historical, literary and even anthropological sense, I find religion fascinating to learn about and I hope before I die I can fully understand all of the major ones.

I don't think any of them will ever lead me to believe in divinity (ironically, science is the only thing that could do that I think), but I do believe that self enlightenment is possible through scientific knowledge, understanding of human history and culture, and finding peace with our place in the universe even if the conclusion is that we are insignificant.

"Simply put, we are all the same being, the same life force, the same WHATEVER, broken down into points of view."
Through divine being or not, I completely agree with that. The more I learn about quantum physics (albeit, I don't know much), the more I get completely mystified when trying to think through the possibilities of WHAT exactly reality could be and how we are all connected. Perhaps I will end up in a position like you and believe in something higher - but for now I have found peace with our insignificance in a non-divine existence.

Your particular belief is very intriguing and to be honest it does make sense to me with my general understanding and interest in the phenomenon of "super organisms". Perhaps "god" really is the same type of phenomenon that manifests as a collective intelligence in a colony of ants or even consciousness resulting from our network of neurons. In my mind though, it always regresses back to where did it itself come from?

I will take a look at the books you recommended and likely put them at the front of the line :)

Tom's Avatar
Reply To This

Tom Nov 04, 2008

YOU SAID: "I don't think any of them will ever lead me to believe in divinity (ironically, science is the only thing that could do that I think)"

Maybe you've been looking at it all along, taking it for granted. Maybe your divinity is such an obvious part of your being, you've forgotten it's even there. Just a thought.

YOU SAID: "...even if the conclusion is that we are insignificant."

Nothing is insignificant. Even the smallest action makes tidal waves of probability throughout what is quite possibly an infinite fractal sea of dimensions, and this energy - being fractal in nature - directly affects change in other things. The "butterfly-effect" theory used to visualize the intensely complicated microverse inhabited by quantum physics studying string theory. Every single pattern of energy moves outward through (an estimated) ten dimension in kinds of string-vibrations. I'm not 100% sure of all that is entailed in this theory, but you get the idea.

YOU SAID: "Perhaps I will end up in a position like you and believe in something higher - but for now I have found peace with our insignificance in a non-divine existence."

Don't do yourself the injustice of assuming that whatever God is, he is higher than you. God is your equal. The Bible, I find, is almost entirely 100% true, but it's almost entirely, 100% misinterpreted. Example: God made you in His image. How is that possible? God doesn't not have a shape, a body, a gender. God has no need for these things. That's why we are here. What it REALLY means is that when God chosen to forget it was God and became us, it left us with total freewill to create whatever we wanted. We were as Gods, able to do anything. Do not dismiss this as mystical nonsense; consider that anything that has ever been invented existed first as an idea. That idea was worked on and worked on and one day the inventor wrote the idea wrote down, and made it even more real, gave people something tangible to look at. Then, finally, the inventor gave shape to his idea, out of wood and stone - technology.

The thought, the word, the deed. The Holy Trinity. YOU are the only God you need to follow, the only one you will ever need. Serve your highest vision of what you could be, if you really wanted to. Focus on that. If you're being true to who you really are, you can do no wrong to anyone, because you simply will be unable to do so.

It's actually really very simple. If you like those books, email me at the address I provided, I can give you a laundry list of good books to read.

YOU SAID: "Perhaps "god" really is the same type of phenomenon that manifests as a collective intelligence in a colony of ants or even consciousness resulting from our network of neurons. In my mind though, it always regresses back to where did it itself come from?"

Who said it had to come from anywhere? That's strictly a local ordinance. In your dreams, there's no such thing as time. You drift from one place to another effortlessly. You usually don't even make note of it. We have substantial evidence that most psychedelic drugs provide the user with a similar point of view. Some even claim to speak to beings clearly not human - and clearly very intelligent. They call these aliens or plant spirits, which sounds like sci-fi nonsense, until you consider that it's actually the most plausible explanation of what a truly alien life form would be like; what we see as a plant may be some kind of glowing orb in their view of reality.

Or it could be total bullshit. Terrence McKenna didn't think so, but he's been wrong about other things.

The point is, in those kinds of states, things just ebb and flow of some kind of deep, slow, primal rhythm that transcends time and matter completely. It is fractal in nature, it repeats itself forever in every imaginable direction and a hundred billion unimaginable ones. It has no end. It has no beginning. It just is.

Sharp's Avatar
Reply To This

Sharp Nov 14, 2008

I'm against religion as much as the next person, but this is just a failed attempt to buy into the funny flowchart meme thats been popular for a while now.

It's just not funny or otherwise constructive. It's kinda pointless.

While I wasn't personally offended, let me say this:

Imagine seeing this flowchart as it is except that to reproduce you must be Christian. Haha, right? No. It isn't funny. It lacks creativity. It's just an overall stupid joke that doesn't make any sense.

Now, people have already thought of the concept of denying people the right to reproduce based upon their religion. It was called the Holocaust and many lives were affected. Now I have no way of accurately assuming anything about you, but I would guess (based on stereotypes I have) that you are a privileged upper middle-class white male under or around the age of 25 with no personal connection to the Holocaust.

Those that were connected I think have good reason to be offended. Everyone has their own experience--we all come from different backgrounds and associate words and concepts differently in our heads. Because many out there have the Holocaust or another eugenics program in their background, by recalling religion based eugenics you are just asking people to associate you with Hitler (or another administrator of eugenics.) Now obviously you're not Hitler, but you can come to represent him or his followers if you joke about this stuff without tact.

If you want to ruffle some feathers, do it classy, the way George Carlin did.

Of course, I'd love to discuss this further if you have any ideas.

abc's Avatar
Reply To This

abc Nov 28, 2008

up!

athiestlibertariancriminalasshole's Avatar
Reply To This

athiestlibertariancriminalasshole Apr 26, 2009

whack job hamiltonian.

amused by all the overreacting people who can not 's Avatar
Reply To This

amused by all the overreacting people who can not Nov 30, 2009

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you comes at a horrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was. We learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die. -Bill Mayer






I kind of feel like Bill took those words out of my mouth, I couldn't have said it better myself.



-and the chart is SO funny. even if you meant it.

Post Comment

You are replying to cancel reply

Your email address will not be visible to the public

Avatars by Gravatar. Join Gravatar for free to have your avatar shown everywhere you post.