Gurdur

Nope, you're not the only one.

No.

In the preperation for that massive formal debate with Metacrock (to which I still have to add), after sifting through all the evidence, my conclusion is that the "religious experience" is multi-local in origin, and that no single one brain area - or neurochemical - is responsible, nor any easily identifiable and easily containable complex.

In some people with unblanced neurochemistry or actual pathological brain lesions etc., psychomeds may either inhibit or enhance the motivation towards religious or mystical experiences (two different things).

But not in healthy people.
And don't kid yourselves; most theists world-wide are individually psychologically as healthy as the norm, no matter what you might think of their belief systems or their effect on society.

elwoodblues

"Edit: Had trouble placing apostrophe in elwoodblue's/elwoodblues'/elwoodblueseses/elwoodbluesi. Uh, yea."

lmao. Err, public statement here. Don't worry about that. I'm the last one to care about that; I couldn't tell you the right way to do it to save my life.

As to the problems inherent in this idea...

First, the obvious problem that we are NOT in the majority, and as RRH points out, that will push the direction of the research. We'd find this used against us.

And how scary does that sound? I mean, think about it for a second. You're unwilling, probably, so you're arrested 'for your own good'. The drug is administered forcibly. It does funky, fundamental, wild things with your mind, things that you don't want happening.

It's frightening that people here would consider this seriously. It's ridiculously cruel and unusual.

What's the best way to get the truth out? It's not by silencing the opposition. That's not the ethical or moral way to do it, and ultimately, it's not the most sure-fire way, either. Open up the largest, broadest debate possible. Let everyone take part.

Oh, wait. We're already doing that. Right now.

Just the idea of drugging someone into changing their beliefs... Against their will... It sickens me. Maybe in some ultra-extreme cases, where they might be of danger to other people (Susan Smith?), but even that makes me shake my head in disgust.

Gurdur

Precisely.

Kenny

Yep, just round us all up for having the wrong sorts of thoughts in our brain. Give us a drug that messes with the contents of our beliefs until we believe the right thing. Then, finally, at last, freethought will rule. Don't bother burning us at the stake. Now there's drugs!

God Bless,
Kenny

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Samhain

Kenny,

It's a tad bit late in the thread for sanctimonious preaching. Besides, what about the millions of deaths your religion has caused to others who had "wrong thoughts" in their heads. Not to mention religious superstitions leading to burning at the stake. It's not as if theists don't use mind control to their own advantage. "Hook 'em while their young!"

HallaK9

I can't believe that anyone even considers this.

And?

So do you really advocate some sort of pre-emptive Borg-technique? Yeah, let's create the ultimate Orwellian nightmare and everyone will be happy for ever and evermore. With sophisticated enough drugs, you wouldn't even need the thought police.

Edited to clarify: Crimes committed by someone do not justify criminal acts against that someone, especially if that "someone" is a rather large and diverse group of people.

Antti

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: HallaK9 ]</p>

Kenny

I'll preach till I'm blue in the face against the advocacy of religious oppression and mind control, whether it be directed towards you or me or anyone else.

My religion teaches me to love even my enemies and to treat them with kindness. The fact that others have committed such acts as you mention in the name of my religion is tragic, and I would oppose them just as well.

So turn about is fair play?

I don't consider passing down one's beliefs and values to one's children a form of "mind control," but this is really another discussion. I am a strong advocate of religious freedom and am strongly opposed to any form of religious coherecian. If someone were to advocate developing a drug that would make you believe in God, I would protest just as much. In fact, I do protest many efforts of the religious right for some of these very reasons. Religion and political power have never been good bedfellows.

But, all that aside, I find it shocking that so many so-called advocates of "freethought" would actually defend such an idea. I think this exposes how, many in the so-called "freethought" movement (definately not all, but many) are more into religious hatred and religious intolerance than they are into "critical thinking" and the advocacy of a free exchange of ideas.

God Bless,
Kenny

Gurdur

Kenny, your preaching will be counter-productive if you ignore certain facts. Samhain actually has a valid point here; I count 6 atheists who have condemned this idea in this thread - the great majority so far.

Know your enemy, know yourself.
If you insist on not taking facts into consideration, and lumping all atheists into one (mistaken) basket, then you're only creating problems for yourself unnecessarily.

* coercion *
Bah, Kenny, you're getting as bad <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000389&p=" target="_blank">as the person who thought that I'm a cult member</a> and also thinks <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000257" target="_blank">that I have a vendetta against him</a> in your ignoring of the facts.

I repeat:
Samhain has a valid point.
Counting, I see 6 atheists against this completely in this thread, 3 in strong terms; One undecided, two for.

Kenny, you wouldn't have a vested interest in denouncing atheists as nasty people, would you ?

Samhain's point is valid; you've flat-out ignored the voices against here.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Kenny

I’m not sure exactly what point Samhain was trying to make. I recognize the number of atheists who have condemned this idea on this thread, and I applaud it.

When did I do so? I specifically qualified my statement concerning atheists with *many* (note I did not say all or even most). My observations have been that there are a sizable number of atheists who are religious bigots, and I think this should be pointed out forcefully when it manifests itself. My comments are directed towards those atheists who would actually advocate such a thing, not those like yourself who oppose it. But, speaking of generalizations, it was Samhain who insisted on lumping all religious people in the same basket when he decided to lump me in with those who burned people at the stake, even though I have always been a strong advocate of religious freedom.

No and I have not. I never once denounced atheists in general as “nasty people” on this thread. I recognize those atheists who have protested the idea. What concerns me are those who would consider it. I felt it was important for a theist to make clear just how offensive such an idea is. Imagine if someone suggested administering to you a drug that would “cure” you of the “mental disease” of atheism. Might you get a little defensive, and perhaps a little emotional? Why should it be any different for me?

Once again, thank you for protesting the idea. It is my hope that more atheists will do so, in no uncertain terms, and strongly.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

P.S.

Gurder, I can see how some of my statements may have sounded like I was making generalizations concerning all atheists. That was not my intention, and I apologize. I am not sorry for my stong protest of the idea behind this thread, nor for the point about religious bigotry I was trying to make. I am sorry that I did not word things more clearly so as to acknowledge those atheists who were in protest of the idea. I should be more intentional about not posting when I am feeling angry, so that I can state my concerns more calmly.