/atheism/ - Atheism

Race is a spook. Culture is a spook.

You're logical enough to see through the bullshit of religion, but you have to go further. No more comforting lies and fictitious identities to comfort the ego and wallow in group think.

This business has been tried, time and time again, by many before you and it has failed. Focus on fixing and improving yourself.

>>13215

Races are not clades, but there are physiological differences between populations, such as alcohol tolerance, numbers of types of nerve endings, sickel cell anemia, and morphological differences as well. Why should we not breed humans to be intelligent and beautiful? Also if moral nihilism is a scientific truth, than why not indulge in ingroup bias?

>>13216

>Why should we not breed humans to be intelligent and beautiful?\

Both of those are subjective, but you're getting way off topic.

You brought up the idea of paganism for white supremacists and I've told you why its a bad idea. You can have your personal preferences.

>>13219

Wrong thread I think.

>>13219

Leaving eugenics up to biology through selective breeding is shit tier because you're still going to get the same issues that come with unregulated biology. It's not a matter of who breeds but purely what the product would be through genetic engineering.

>>13216

It's a bad idea because it leads to mono cultures.

A virus that can kill one of the mono cultures can probably kill all of them. A negative trait can have a benefit in some cases.

A huge genepool with alot of different genes is the safest way to safe the human race from new deseases.

>>13228

>it leads to mono cultures

Except intelligence is polygenic.

Now not all diversity is useful nor confers any immunological significance. Having stupid people around also poses another risk, a virus is no match for the potential damage human stupidity can bring about.

>>13232

We selected dogs to be smart, strong and good looking. But they turned out sick and degenerated.

Humans are bad at breeding. We are focusing on the wrong things. For example looks. This will lead to trends and they will change. You can't change you face that easy when you realize that your 90s face looks stupid now.

>>13233

That's because we merely mated them, if we excised the deleterious alleles from their gene pool which is a form of diversity reduction they would be much healthier than mutts which still have some deleterious alleles.

The problem is our methodology, not criteria. We merely get a male and a female with the traits we want to fuck instead of selecting alleles directly.

Thread was derailed.

Anyone have any comments on paganism as a means of promoting white supremacy or not?

>>13238

Paganism is a part of the past and it belongs there. Neo-Paganism isn't good for anything.

It's Larp-ing with a dead-religion theme.

White supremacy is also unscientific bullocks.

>>13239

OK thank you I agree with that statement.

>>13242

>probably imbred.

>probably

All pure bred dogs are inbred. The Rhodesian ridgeback has a similar problem. Sommething like 9/10 have this inverted ridge down their spine that's a genetic defect causing medical problems, but the 1/10 born without it get euthanized for not being "real" ridgebacks. Saw a documentary about dog breeding and it was staggering how those aristocratic women had zero empathy for these animals they were creating to suffer for their amusement. This is why eugenics fails - stupid humans will make it about pointless or even deleterious traits like skin color or gentic defects instead of using it to get rid of genetic diseases.

>>13213

>Who else is ritual atheist here?

certainly not me.

I like individualism, but your political struggles are bit too /pol/ish to me. Everything from your post to your diagram is overly childish and simplistic.

Evolution doesn't mean improvement but change.

Nietzsche is lovely but his belief system was fucked up by irrationality and his own metaphysical dogmas.

I think the value of philosophical thought lies in expanding awareness and providing new points of view, but none of them are actually good enough explanations in isolation.

>>13224

if you can't beat the social structure that would prevent you from implementing your master race then you probably aren't good enough to outperform the current human race

>>13233

>Humans are bad at breeding.

what?!

our species if a fucking hyper-sexual machine. We have sex in every time of the year, we populated all fucking continents and fucked up the planet's usual form of operation in the process.

I'll give you that sexual selection is a waste of resources and doesn't maximize traits like intelligence. It's all about preppies and jocks mating with wide-hipped sluts in order to maximize the creation of babies that can live long to the reproductive age. However that doesn't mean homo sapiens are bad at breeding from the POV of natural selection.

Remember that evolution favors whatever happens to survive. It's not a race at producing the most intelligent kind of being.

>>13238

if the belief isn't intrinsically discriminatory then it could easily gain adoption with non-whites, and I don't see anything intrinsically racist within European folk religion. Use Abrahamic religions as an example: the old hebrews used their religion for identity politics and tribalism, yet their mythology is now pandemic in the Americas, parts of Asia and of course Europe, although decreasingly.

>>13239

+1

>>13246

it seems like we will have to wait for cognitive engineering before we can trust the market economy to play well with eugenics

>>13251

>Evolution doesn't mean improvement but change.

Exactly why the concept of eugenics exists. Without proper management of our gene pool we could run into an evolutionary trap. Sure chads and staceys have lots of kids but those idiots can push us off a cliff one day.

Also as an individual I think I'd fare better in a society with fewer people but of a higher cognitive caliber. Essentially have menial plebs replaced with automation. Seeing as I have to vote amongst them and they have political and economic sway I can only conclude I'd be better off without them.

>>13251

By " bad at breeding" I mean selective breeding.

It will turn our genes into a patchwork. You give people all the intelligence gene we know. Turns out you get alzheimers before 40. We can fix that with a few changes. But our immune system gets a bit weaker. No Problem we already have good meds.

Next bird flu kills us all.

Also people are dumb enough to wish for cosmetic changes via genes. It's almost always a trade-off and we get long term problems.

>>13267

Yes, and let's not forget that genes like high IQ tend to regress to the mean after a few generations. The same goes for idot genes. Mixed breeds at the pound almost always have more vitality than pure breds.

Still wish Einstein had donated to sperm banks though.

>>13267

>You give people all the intelligence gene we know. Turns out you get alzheimers before 40.

That is only true if the gene is pleiotropic in that way, which need not be the case. It could be that alleles which confer higher intelligence are linked to better health too. But we should watch out for when health is impacted negatively.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20060201/high-iq-score-may-mean-better-health

>>13273

>Yes, and let's not forget that genes like high IQ tend to regress to the mean after a few generations.

Mean IQ is set to 100. And while regression will happen, the new mean after such selection would be higher relative to the past mean even though on paper it is set to 100.

>Mixed breeds at the pound almost always have more vitality than pure breds.

Only because deleterious alleles tend to fixate and individual MHC diversity is lower in purebreds. This can be fixed with proper selection and some genetic engineering techniques. The fact is in humans no individual has been found with the theoretical maximum allelic diversity when it comes to HLAs (our MHCs) and all humans have a fair number of deleterious alleles which should be swapped out to benefit their health.

We should develop genetic engineering further, the welfare of our species depends on it. Sure nature-purists but nature is only good for the tools it gave us, we need to engineer a better life like with:

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v13/n8/full/nrc3565.html

>>13275

I think we shouldn't start soon. I simply don't trust people to be responsible with these tools. I mean curing birth defects is great but I doubt people have the patience to check for long term effects. And what do you do with failed experiments? Sorry Bob 20years ago it looked like a great idea. Now you are sick for the rest of your life but it won't be that long.

>>13213

What's a matter, the girls like Tyrone's dick more?

Kill yourself

>>13285

Bob wouldn't have lived otherwise, he is that failed experiment. He needs to have that fuck up in him at birth for to have been born at all, otherwise it would be en entirely different person. You do realize in a sense we're all failed experiments, none of us live indefinitely. We all die due to some physiological failure. This is our only chance to remedy that.

Idk why people trust idiots sticking their dicks into idiots with vaginas over people with an actual understanding of biology. It wasn't until recently that childbirth wasn't like playing russian roulette. You don't need more of an indication that our species is royal fucked up and in dire need of engineering to fix it. And the sooner we begin the sooner we're on track to fixing ourselves.

>>13298

Stop this you faggot. He's gone and the thread has moved on to something unrelated. Can't you read?

Goddamned autist.

>>13290

Bob will probably not follow your argument. Of course we compare us with the people around us and not to nothing. The idea of life is a gift anyway is a very Christian idea. Bob wouldn't be a single person. They would do it to alot of people and they and their parents will blame the scientists.

>>13306

Whether or not Bob accepts the argument is irrelevant, none of us who are conscious today would exist had key variables been slightly off. This has nothing to do with life being a gift, it is a fact that our individual consciousness is a manifestation of those exact conditions we were born with and under.

This is true for us and all the Bobs whose parents may wrongly blame scientists after they have been warned of the experimental nature of the procedures. But that doesn't change the fact that procreation is an experiment already, conventional procreation is how we produced all these fuck ups in the first place. This is at least an attempt for us to control the variables so that things will be more favorable. Having kids is equivalent to rolling dice for stats with some bias while this is rigging the system so you don't end up with a child with trisomy 21 for example. We can already do this basic screening in fact.

What you seem to be arguing is that kids should be mad at their parents if they didn't turn out right. Well that cuts both ways, parents who naturally procreate and have shitty genes (all of us do) can be blamed for allowing themselves to pass on such shitty genetic material, knowing or not. This is worse when parents know they are genetically shitty. Kids with Huntington's whose parents had access to screening should be angry at their parents for birthing them if they're not satisfied with having this chance at life at all. So it's a moot point.