EUREKA!
So yeah...I had a thought, and it honestly shouldn't offend anyone (I hope, if you are offended...uh...sorry? Talk to me about it and I'll explain, if you are.)
*DISCLAIMER (for the above AND below)* I have NOTHING against religion of any kind. I completely respect religion and the position that it can fill and the function it serves. I am FULLY aware that what a person believes is his right. I try to never ridicule or disparage anyone for their beliefs, unless I find that persons basis for the belief to be unjustified. i.e. being christian because one's parents were. This is because Christianity is a faith-based religion, and it was actually the actions of the desciple John that allowed it to become a prosceletizing religion. Otherwise, it's the same as the old Judeism, in which only one of jewish birth could practice the relion. Also, I do not condone ignorance in religion. Belief without knowledge, though it may seem to bolster faith, actually causes a huge problem for the believer, as ignorance will turn others away. And, as I said before, it is a prosceletizing religion, lso this is hardly an effective mode of conversion. Finally, I have extreme distaste for intolerance towards other beliefs. They are there, get the fuck used to it. I take the same approach to religios intolerance as I do to bigoted forms of homophobia (I think we all know my position here, so I'll spare the explaination...this disclaimer is already assuming magnificent proportions): if you are so unstable that you believe that proximity to difference will cause you to "turn", then you are weak in your position anyway. Okay...I think that's everything...sorry, but I don't like to offend, and I have to make damn sure I don't.
So a little while ago I stumbled across a series of YouTube videos that really caught my eye. I haven't had a lot of time to dwell on them, so I'm not sure yet my stance on the guy. Anyway, this guy - http://nick.gisburne.com/ - seems to be pretty good for what he's doing. He is kind of a backup guy for athiests, who helps us find information we need to hold up in debates with those of religious backgrounds, especially Christianity. He isn't evangelical, he simply helps to inform the average athiests, because faith v. science can get quite tricky, since a good deal of the time arguments don't even lie within each others range of viability. For instance, many questions meant to persuade an athiest away from non-creationism are scientifically so absurd that people would be at a loss to come up with any answer at all within the time frame of an encounter. And by absurd, I don't mean stupid, simply well outside the boundaries of a practical argument. An example of an absurd argument is the idea that the shape of the banana is proof of God. It's almost like a shock based argument, though it probably wasn't designed to be such. Another is the concept that evolution couldn't possibly have led to the wing, or the eye (though this one is relatively easy to approach). But anyway, Mr. Gisburne helps to point out where information regarding these things can be found. Moving on though, to the blunt of mny idea, it was in one of his videos that he made a rather enticing remark: He stated that he wishes to be an organ donor, so that someone else may make use of his body after his death. BUT, that he only wants another athiest to recieve them. His reasoning? Christians have somewhere better to go, they have an afterlife, so they don't really need his organs. But for athiests, this is it, so we need to keep each other alive for as long as possible!
...this...this was a new idea for me, and it does make a kind of sense. I decided, sure, that sounds great (though I would not limit it to athiests, I would allow anyone from a non-salvation religion [except for most forms of the hindu belief] to recieve my organs, or religions which believe in a less than positive afterlife.
Then I decided to play with another idea which has led to this conclusion: The death of all members of most religions, specifically salvation religions, is a win-win situation. If all christians were to be killed, they'd go to their heaven, and the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with it anymore. In fact, it could save a lot of trouble, and fix many, many problems. There would be that much less conflict in the world, population would decrease, and there would probably be less objection to a Jonathan Swiftian approach to the lengthy clean-up process, which could help to put a dent in world hunger, and thats just with one major religion! And each religion and sect could be dealt with seperately! Gather the militant muslims, give them sticks and stones, and let them all bum-rush a large military force! Hooray, they've all died in their holy war! Feed Peta members to endangered carnivores and use the rest for mulch to regrow forests! Use the space saved to regrow certain parts of the ecosystem, and even prevent fuel shortage! Scientific progress could continue with much less hindrance - though admitedly, it's gotten better - as stem-cell and cloning would probably be less controversial, providing further advancement for humanity. The value of money would increase greatly, and as long as we still held humanity sacred, there would be virtually no loss in morals or ethical systems, and it may in fact improve by removing a great threat to cultural adversity.
roflroflMWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! THOCIIIIIIIIIIIDE!!!!!
but yeah, just screwing around, so don't take it seriously. However, input would be appreciated, as the joke could probably get better. Please understand though that I have nothing against religion, but was merely playing out the extents of a thought-run-rampant. lol
*DISCLAIMER (for the above AND below)* I have NOTHING against religion of any kind. I completely respect religion and the position that it can fill and the function it serves. I am FULLY aware that what a person believes is his right. I try to never ridicule or disparage anyone for their beliefs, unless I find that persons basis for the belief to be unjustified. i.e. being christian because one's parents were. This is because Christianity is a faith-based religion, and it was actually the actions of the desciple John that allowed it to become a prosceletizing religion. Otherwise, it's the same as the old Judeism, in which only one of jewish birth could practice the relion. Also, I do not condone ignorance in religion. Belief without knowledge, though it may seem to bolster faith, actually causes a huge problem for the believer, as ignorance will turn others away. And, as I said before, it is a prosceletizing religion, lso this is hardly an effective mode of conversion. Finally, I have extreme distaste for intolerance towards other beliefs. They are there, get the fuck used to it. I take the same approach to religios intolerance as I do to bigoted forms of homophobia (I think we all know my position here, so I'll spare the explaination...this disclaimer is already assuming magnificent proportions): if you are so unstable that you believe that proximity to difference will cause you to "turn", then you are weak in your position anyway. Okay...I think that's everything...sorry, but I don't like to offend, and I have to make damn sure I don't.
So a little while ago I stumbled across a series of YouTube videos that really caught my eye. I haven't had a lot of time to dwell on them, so I'm not sure yet my stance on the guy. Anyway, this guy - http://nick.gisburne.com/ - seems to be pretty good for what he's doing. He is kind of a backup guy for athiests, who helps us find information we need to hold up in debates with those of religious backgrounds, especially Christianity. He isn't evangelical, he simply helps to inform the average athiests, because faith v. science can get quite tricky, since a good deal of the time arguments don't even lie within each others range of viability. For instance, many questions meant to persuade an athiest away from non-creationism are scientifically so absurd that people would be at a loss to come up with any answer at all within the time frame of an encounter. And by absurd, I don't mean stupid, simply well outside the boundaries of a practical argument. An example of an absurd argument is the idea that the shape of the banana is proof of God. It's almost like a shock based argument, though it probably wasn't designed to be such. Another is the concept that evolution couldn't possibly have led to the wing, or the eye (though this one is relatively easy to approach). But anyway, Mr. Gisburne helps to point out where information regarding these things can be found. Moving on though, to the blunt of mny idea, it was in one of his videos that he made a rather enticing remark: He stated that he wishes to be an organ donor, so that someone else may make use of his body after his death. BUT, that he only wants another athiest to recieve them. His reasoning? Christians have somewhere better to go, they have an afterlife, so they don't really need his organs. But for athiests, this is it, so we need to keep each other alive for as long as possible!
...this...this was a new idea for me, and it does make a kind of sense. I decided, sure, that sounds great (though I would not limit it to athiests, I would allow anyone from a non-salvation religion [except for most forms of the hindu belief] to recieve my organs, or religions which believe in a less than positive afterlife.
Then I decided to play with another idea which has led to this conclusion: The death of all members of most religions, specifically salvation religions, is a win-win situation. If all christians were to be killed, they'd go to their heaven, and the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with it anymore. In fact, it could save a lot of trouble, and fix many, many problems. There would be that much less conflict in the world, population would decrease, and there would probably be less objection to a Jonathan Swiftian approach to the lengthy clean-up process, which could help to put a dent in world hunger, and thats just with one major religion! And each religion and sect could be dealt with seperately! Gather the militant muslims, give them sticks and stones, and let them all bum-rush a large military force! Hooray, they've all died in their holy war! Feed Peta members to endangered carnivores and use the rest for mulch to regrow forests! Use the space saved to regrow certain parts of the ecosystem, and even prevent fuel shortage! Scientific progress could continue with much less hindrance - though admitedly, it's gotten better - as stem-cell and cloning would probably be less controversial, providing further advancement for humanity. The value of money would increase greatly, and as long as we still held humanity sacred, there would be virtually no loss in morals or ethical systems, and it may in fact improve by removing a great threat to cultural adversity.
roflroflMWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! THOCIIIIIIIIIIIDE!!!!!
but yeah, just screwing around, so don't take it seriously. However, input would be appreciated, as the joke could probably get better. Please understand though that I have nothing against religion, but was merely playing out the extents of a thought-run-rampant. lol