NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?

No. That would make me as bad as any evangelist who preaches non-stop to impressionable children.

No. They may be, in my view, wrong, but I cannot justify taking those beliefs from them by force.

I reckon clozapine may be effective in acute cases but pharmacists may face an ethical dilemma in dispensing it for such purpose. ;)

I'm not an Atheist, but (as i've stated in the other thread) I find Christianity abhorant. Although I do find Atheism more abhorant, so i'd have to say I wouldn't use this therapy on Christians as it makes them Atheists :p a nihilistic death cult of a religion is better than no religion at all.

This thread is just as assinine as the other. Almost no one is going to admit to wanting to essentially brainwash people, even if they actually would if given the real chance.

No.

This thread is just as assinine as the other. Almost no one is going to admit to wanting to essentially brainwash people, even if they actually would if given the real chance.

That's my point.

That's my point.

That you are incapable of coming up with original ideas?

This thread is just as assinine as the other. Almost no one is going to admit to wanting to essentially brainwash people, even if they actually would if given the real chance.

You know what? i'll admit to it. I know that what I believe is right, and that everyone else is wrong (unless someone else out there believes what I do, which is possible i guess). If I had the power to indoctrine everyone in the world to believe what I do, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. Happy? :p

This thread is just as assinine as the other. Almost no one is going to admit to wanting to essentially brainwash people, even if they actually would if given the real chance.

I would. *nod* But not with that whole religion/non-religion crap. What a waste of potential.

Do you realize the fun I could have if I could slip some interesting programming quirks into people? :D

Aah but there is a cure for christianity, well if you're roman catholic anyways. Just knock up 12 women without getting married and become bisexual. Ex-commmunication was never easier.

I would. *nod* But not with that whole religion/non-religion crap. What a waste of potential.

Do you realize the fun I could have if I could slip some interesting programming quirks into people? :D

But we don't get to have our way with people. It's a specific anti-Christianity serum.

Aah but there is a cure for christianity, well if you're roman catholic anyways.

Not unless Christians try to cure *you* of your bisexual ways.

Christianity (and Islam, and Hinduism, et al.) itself may be profoundly misguided, but it's chiefly the uses to which it is put--sacred violence and tyranny--that are socially objectionable. And even we atheists (as Bolsheviks) did that kind of stuff.

If we managed to get rid of Christianity, we'd still have all the other vicious religions to deal with :( Plus, some Christians aren't so bad

But we don't get to have our way with people. It's a specific anti-Christianity serum.

Waste of time if you ask me. The flaws of people transcend such beliefs. A christian asshole 'cured' will still be an asshole. He'll just find something new to be an asshole about. :p

No I wouldn't (although it would be tempting to 'cure' the Pope and watch him turn atheist in the middle of a sermon. I wouldn't dare though, he scares me.. :eek: )

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?

I would not want a cure for religion, just for christianity, and even then it would only be evengelical and ivory towerist christianity (all evangelical branches and people). There are many religions I have respect for. And some christians, who we call 'groovy christians', who actualy follow their religion in a kind, loving, giving, caring, wonderful way, that I have respect for. But my world would be bleaker without my druidic, my wiccan, my groovy christian, my buddhist, my jewish, my muslim, my hindu, friends. Their religions effect their lives for the better (those that don't I have less respect for), and they effect mine. Also, some of their religions can be quite interesting... If I had the ability to make a 'leap of faith' theorized by thomas aquinas to be necessary to have religion, I would have a religion, or at least a set of nonscientific beliefs, and certainly be unwilling to give it up. It just so happends that it is the christian religion that contains the people who have given me grief, pain, trouble, annoyance, frustration, and lots of preaching, through my whole life, and so I am somewhat biased against the type of person who would do that, not the religion itself.

Waste of time if you ask me. The flaws of people transcend such beliefs. A christian asshole 'cured' will still be an asshole. He'll just find something new to be an asshole about. :p

Therein lies the problem.
There are plenty of all right Christians, but there are also a TONNE of
assholes. Then again, there are assholes the world over, regardless.
It's almost part of the human condition.

It's what makes the difference between Mother Theresa and, say, Fred Phelps/Jerry Falwell.
That whole asshole factor.

You don't have to be a christian to be an asshole, that's for sure.

snip

You don't have to be a christian to be an asshole, that's for sure.

LOL, that reminds me of a joke in my old hometown where there were many overzealous police. We used to speculate that the job appication included the line;

"Are you an asshole? (Circle one) Yes No
If no, please explain;
"

i voted yes.... althought this might start a really harsh debate its not as simple as it sounds.

I've actually thought about this for a very long time (my whole life). Gone from yes too no and from no back too yes again multiple times. But in the end i believe it would be best for nobody too believe in a god since believing in it has'n't only caused multiple wars and death it gives a bad name too the human race... In a way that people would be allowed to lie and intimidate and sin and cheat that they have actually started too believe that what they are doing is forgivable and in the best interest of us all, or god. of course, this doesn't count for all christians but i also still believe that saying you are a part of a group as christians, knowing what they have done (the vatican) you kinda agree with them a bit in my opinion, forgiving them since oyu are a part of it. know what i mean?


that sound alright? i don't usually get it right the first time...

I'd be tempted to dose people with it, but in the end I wouldn't. I wouldn't want someone else monkeying with my brain, so I won't do it to them.

Since recent studies seem to show that certain people have genetic qualities that give them a predilection for faith, I would go for it if the individual was willing to try it. I feel that it's like taking medicine for diabetes or mental disorders, simply helping the mind and body: i.e. removes those self-depricating attitudes of guilt and makes one less of a tool.

Of course, I would use this only for close family and relatives; we need our proletariat.

This, of course, is assuming that it has no side affects, and doesn't define atheism as a "belief" or "dogma."

Furthermore, I would assume that this wouldn't be used to "convert" or brainwash, simply be used as a way of freeing up the mind from some genetic trappings, i.e. allows the patient to truly find themselves without the predetermined impulse toward a certain philosphy (e.g. if they still ended up Christian, then so be it.)

Therein lies the problem.
There are plenty of all right Christians, but there are also a TONNE of
assholes. Then again, there are assholes the world over, regardless.
It's almost part of the human condition.

It's what makes the difference between Mother Theresa and, say, Fred Phelps/Jerry Falwell.
That whole asshole factor.

You don't have to be a christian to be an asshole, that's for sure.


So what we really need is a cure for assholes. :)

I'd sneak it into a random box of breakfast cereal every week at the grocery store.

No. They should have the right to be idiots.

I'd sneak it into a random box of breakfast cereal every week at the grocery store.
Only Jesus-O's, we don't know what happens when an atheist takes the medications yet! Could be harmful!

start your day the holy way with jesus flakes :D

So what we really need is a cure for assholes. :)
I'd gladly reprogram a few of those......

And sorry to barge in, being a Christian and all, but personally I think I might even want to "cure" a few of those crazy Fundamentalists that are giving the rest of us a bad name......of course, when it comes right down to it, I probably wouldn't be able to. I'd just pine away for a world that could have been.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?

I wouldn't want to turn them atheist, necessarily - just cure them of the Christianity virus. I'd cure everyone I could.

You mean there's a Christianity gene? If so, then is there a fascism gene? We could use a cure for that.

No.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?
That could never happen, as religion is a mental concept that requires voluntary, wilful participation.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?

Of course not.

The question is insulting.

Freedom of conscience.

That's my point.
Wait, your point is that you have a predetermined conclusion about what people would do versus what they say they'd do and this thread proves that some how?

Weak sauce.

No. That would make me as bad as any evangelist who preaches non-stop to impressionable children.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

This sounds like a thinly-veiled piece of trolling and Atheist-baiting work of shit.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?
Would your cure work on Muslims too? I would use it on Islamist terrorists, but no not on any law-abiding religious ppl.

You mean there's a Christianity gene? If so, then is there a fascism gene? We could use a cure for that.

No, but there is a genetic disposition for believing in a higher power.

Over the centuries, theories have abounded as to why human beings have a seemingly irrational attraction to God and religious experiences. In Why God Won't Go Away authors Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquili, M.D., and Vince Rause offer a startlingly simple, yet scientifically plausible opinion: humans seek God because our brains are biologically programmed to do so.

This sounds like a thinly-veiled piece of trolling and Atheist-baiting work of shit.

No, I think this was just a response to President Shrub's thread.

He's directing this towards Atheists in general, and I don't see any humor in his post, which tells me he's at least being serious in postulating such a question towards Atheists, who he is probably not an adherant of just in the way his context is worded. This whole thread is a perfect example of an attempt to troll.

He's directing this towards Atheists in general, and I don't see any humor in his post, which tells me he's at least being serious in postulating such a question towards Atheists, who he is probably not an adherant of just in the way his context is worded. This whole thread is a perfect example of an attempt to troll.

I'm pretty sure he is atheist - lower case, it's not a religion, there are no adherents, there are no sects, it's a philosophy, a lack of belief, period.
Besides, it's a legitimate question, and an interesting query.

I'm pretty sure he is atheist - lower case, it's not a religion, there are no adherents, there are no sects, it's a philosophy, a lack of belief, period.
Besides, it's a legitimate question, and an interesting query.

He's not trying to make anyone mad or incite negative respons, so it isn't trolling. Personally, I find it interesting to see the percentages of tolerance and intolerance in both systems.

Quoting Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adherent)
ad·her·ent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-hîrnt, -hr-)
n.
A supporter, as of a cause or individual: a vote that pleased adherents of education reform.

Quoting myself: ...probably not an adherant of just in the way his context is worded.

An adherent doesn't have to follow an ideology set forth by an organized religion. Also, your perception of what he is trying to do is certainly different from mine.

Nah...

An adherent doesn't have to follow an ideology set forth by an organized religion. Also, your perception of what he is trying to do is certainly different from mine.

You're right. I'm sorry. I just get upset when people appear to be presenting atheism as anything more than a philosophy. It's just an all encompassing title for anyone secular.

That's certainly fine. You came across as being rude, but I'm glad we could get that cleared off. I like to capitalize Atheism because of a single reason. We capitalize Judaism, Christianity, etc. How is Atheism not as important as those organized ideas? ;)

Nah I'd rather have a cure for cancer. :rolleyes:

Make it a cure for fundie--itis* and I'd have to say YES!

otherwise no.


*a fundamentalist is NOT the same as a fundie.

I think that Christianity will be like leprosy, and still linger around even though there's a cure for it.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?

No, because unlike christians, I think everyone should think for themselves and form their own veiwpoints and opinions. What works for some might not work for others, thats why I'm an atheist; I don't believe in forcing my veiws on others the way christians do.

No, because unlike christians, I think everyone should think for themselves and form their own veiwpoints and opinions. What works for some might not work for others, thats why I'm an atheist; I don't believe in forcing my veiws on others the way christians do.

Yes, but since you can't be "turned into an atheist," the "cure" would accomplish the goals you [and I] "believe in": creating a rational thinker without bias and predisposition for religions.

The fact that people force their views on others is a completely different genetic trait.

No, because unlike christians, I think everyone should think for themselves and form their own veiwpoints and opinions. What works for some might not work for others, thats why I'm an atheist; I don't believe in forcing my veiws on others the way christians do.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432321

Based on this quite local (and unscientific) survey you last comment is quite inaccurate. The results show quite clearly that Christians here are, as a group, considerably more tolerant than those who posted in THIS thread. It would seem that bigotry is alive and well here - as also demonstrated by your (and many other's) posts.

But at least you have the likes of sophomoric posters like Sdaeriji to entertain with their boundless determination to illustrate their boundless lack of wit. Fighting with a dull brain... er, blade.

Definitely not, such a "cure" (unless administered with the consent of the subject) would interfere with freedom of thought, as The Cat-Tribe said. It would be no different from the brainwashing and indoctrination performed by Nazi, Maoist, pro-Niyazov, radical Wahhabist, and certain ultrafundie Christian groups.

Beer person, forcing your beliefs on people is a perfectly natural aspect of religion. All of them do it so some extent, even atheists (the ones I know)


(note: this seems to be a touchy topic, so I am sorry if I offended anyone)

Absolutely not … it is their right to believe what they wish … I have no more right to force my beliefs on them as they do on me

The real answer is no. The ill conceived, un-PC answer is Hell Yes.

How about providing tax incentives to promote its' use? If there's one thing Americans love more than baby Jesus, it's cold, hard cash.

Stupid and/or deceptive/inciteful premise. In other words, foolishness or trolling. A- it's impossible, since religion is indoctrinated, not genetic or microbial or viral. B- it is a combination of two very different questions:

1: If you could, through some means (such as popular media, education and early-childhood indoctrination, etc) turn everyone in the world into a rational critical thinker who employed the scientific method and would look at the evidence (and make the evidence readily available) not at his indoctrination--a process that would lead to atheism on a wider scale and completely destroy fundamentalism--would you?

2: Would you use outright mind control to force people of a different philosophy to conform to yours?

3: Either way we answer, we lose. If we say "no", we "admit" that our godless worldview is no more valid than somebody else's theistic worldview. If we say yes, then we show ourselves to be no better than jihadists and TURN OR BURN Bible thumpers.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?

Religion was invented to control people. People are going to believe in a god until humans have no need for someone (or something) to have control over their lives. In other words, it ain't happenin'. :headbang:

Also, why would a Christian be willing to do something to themselves to make them an atheist? Don't Christians *like* being Christian?

The reason some people are Christian is because humans are programmed to ask unimportant questions and demand answers. Christianity, like science, provides such an answer in a somewhat believable way. To use chemicles to rid the world of its largest religion(counting Aetheism as a religion without a deity) would change the structure of the brain and, therefore, cause a disorder rather than rid people of one.

I wouldn't. Even though there is no God, I wouldn't want to rob my friends and family members of something that helps make their lives bearable. It's part of human psychology to long for something bigger than themselves, and I'd be afraid what would fill that void if there was no harmless religion to fill it in. Past fill ins include nationalism and brutal forms of government. I think Christainity is more benign than that.

This topic is ridiculous.

Yes, I'd use it...but only to stop fanatical Christians from trying to start a topic such as this every five minutes. (sarcasm, don't take this to heart)

I'd like to cure the world of all religions, but sadly, religion is the crutch of hunamity and there will never be a time when people look around and not above for comfort. That's the tragidy of the human race.

It would be great if we could use this cure on Bush and the Pope....then we have it made ^^

This topic is ridiculous.

Yes, I'd use it...but only to stop fanatical Christians from trying to start a topic such as this every five minutes. (sarcasm, don't take this to heart)


LOL - none taken - this thread was actually started as a counterpoint to a thread which was started first and was about doing the opposite of this. Your point is ironic - if it was intentional then I congratulate you for your wit.

3: Either way we answer, we lose. If we say "no", we "admit" that our godless worldview is no more valid than somebody else's theistic worldview.
There is a novel idea for you to consider. Humility does not taste so bad afterall.

To paraphrase:

If there was a cure for the illogical belief in supernatural beings/events - despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, in fact with strong circumstantial evidence against the existance of such things, would I want it cured.

Um. Yes.

Though I voted yes, I would rather see a cure for stupidity. Sadly that probably wouldn't help as so few people are willing to think for themselves anyway.

But really: religion is almost the definition of delusion. And mental health practitioners have come a long way in understanding and treating diseases of the mind. Maybe someday soon......

doctor:"I've found that you have christianity, take this and have one teaspoon each morning and evening, that should cure it in a week" ;)

Haha! That one really got me laughing, just so you know.

Although I would be tempted, I don't think I'd use it. It would be convenient if others felt the same way I did, and would end all those pointless debates between Christians and non-christians where neither side has changed their oppinion at all in the end, but I wouldn't want someone to use it on me to make me christian, so I guess I can't do it to others.

I would actually rather have a cure for Fascism and National-Socialism then Christianity. Better get rid of the politcal believes before attacking religion.

A cure for christianity? nah
A cure for stupidity? Get me a tranq gun.

I would have to go with a yes on this one...

I mean, if all the hardcore Christians stopped believing, imagine all the free time they would have to do something constructive. We would also probably see a rise in the scientific population.

I love the hypocrisy displayed by certain posters on here: "Christians are terribly intolerant… I don't tolerate their beliefs so let's obliterate them."

(obliterate the beliefs, that is, not the people.) :)

The question is asking me if I would "cure" Christianity. Why would I rid the world of a belief system that answers questions science cannot, something that often times gives people a reason to live, gives people a reason to help one-another, gives people hope, etc. Of course, Christianity has its morons. If you convert them the atheists, you now have more stupid atheists. What belief system doesn't have its morons. Christians may not have proven themselves right, but atheists have not proven Christians wrong. Plus, without Christianity, would we have ever had Pope John Paul II? Sure, there were bad popes, but the recently deceased one is, by far, one of the most loved and respected people since Jesus jumpstarted what would become the largest religion ever.

I would not*

*Except in the unlikely event that I would have the opportunity to slip it in the Pope's food. Then I would, simply for the sheer amount of Chaos it would cause.

Well, at this point about 33% - or one out of three people - who have replied to this thread oppose free thought.

Meanwhile, the christians show considerably more tolerance;
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432321 where just over 10% - or one out of ten - people would infringe on free thought.

Proof is in the puddin - intolerance and bigotry flourish among atheists here at a rate three times higher than among christians here.

Meanwhile, the christians show considerably more tolerance;
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432321 where just over 10% - or one out of ten - people would infringe on free thought.

I checked that thread. Numerous people who weren't Christians voted.

I checked that thread. Numerous people who weren't Christians voted.

Maybe you should recalibrate your christianometer.

Proof is in the puddin - intolerance and bigotry flourish among atheists here at a rate three times higher than among christians here.

So wanting to cure a mental illness is being intollerant?

How is religion (ie dogmatic framework through which percieved supernatural events are interpreted) free thought?

In my opinion...

This question boils down to wether it would be better to leave people to thier illusions, although many of them are better off with them...

Or...remove the blindfold from thier eyes and deliver the message of truth.

Tough choice.

I believe that christianity, in particular is the worst religion ever created, and ultimately, the farthest from the truth.
So I can easily say that the world would be better off without it.

But..for some..it gives them purpose to be better people.
Sadly, this number dwindles every day, in favor of the Christian Extremist" who wants to rid the world of things like Abortion, and any other religions..and who believe that God wants a particular asshole politician to be President.ETC..

So a decent number of Christians are decent people.
What harm, is thier delision causing them?
None..except that the same delusion, is making others pull some truly awful crap.
Crap wich is hurting the entire planet.

So, if I could "make them take the red pill" , so to speak..would I?

Yes.

But I would feel pretty bad about it.
The only comfort I would have, is that "The truth has set them free".

Yeah, that sums it up nicely.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?

If you want your kids to be atheists don't give them any religious teachings.
Tell them God doesn't exist. Why would you give them a pill? Gene therapy has nothing to do with religious beleif unless you wanted to genetically alter them to give them Jesus powers!
I'm sure you didn't mean the post to sound the way it does, but it ya kinda remind me of an over zealous christian fanatic who thinks that being gay can be 'prevented' by prayer...

Only on street preachers, and only for the shear hilarity of macing them with 'God-B-Gone' if they get in my face. :p

Kidding, but seriously...

No, I have no right to chemically or otherwise impose my beliefs on others.

Let's say, in the future, they find a certain method of altering the brain, or gene therapy, or a certain chemical that turns people atheist. Would you use it on people? If so, who? Just your children, or would you try to use it on everyone?
What would be the point? If people aren't ready to face their internal issues on their own, then forcing them to give up one of their personal myths isn't going to solve their underlying problems. Ripping one security blanket away isn't going to stop them from clutching at another.

It's like how we have medical "cures" for heroine addiction, in that we can cleanse a person's body of the physical addiction and dependence on heroine. But if we don't also address the reasons why the person became an addict in the first place, they'll go right back to the addictive behavior. Even if heroine is never made accessable to them ever again, they'll just seek out a new drug and abuse it as mightily as they did the heroine.

There's no magic bullet for supernatural addiction, there's only a long road of recovery that some people may one day be strong enough to take. Trying to force them down it won't accomplish one damn thing...and, anyhow, it's not our place to do that.