Skepticwithachainsaw

Hmm, just parroting what has already been said about the limits of our knowledge on exactly how the brain works, its an incredibly complex system and we have a long way to go before we can totally understand it (and control) it.

And anyway I would be opposed to such a drug for
1) Ethics, it's ultimately a person's choice what they believe and we have no right to enforce our beliefs on others, in whatever form. It's part and parcel of being a "Freethinker" (actually it's in the very name).
2) A drug for eliminating Religious Desire sounds very similar to a drug that eliminates rational thought, indeed it is possible that such a drug would eliminate both. Existence without any form of Logical thought is not much different from death in my view. (no matter how blissful it may be)
3) It would kill of one of my favourite pastimes

Bane

I'm an atheist, and I would be against it.

Gurdur

I know I'm kinda quiet, but believe me, I'm qualified.
No offence meant, but I've taught students more qualified than you.
However, IMHO what you had to say here was spot-on, and I have no quibbles at all. I will add though, that such a drug -let's assume a multi-drug régime - as suggested in the OP that could radically affect belief complexes would in fact rob us of all that is human.
We would be nothing more than genuine automatons.
Nothing more.

SkepticWACS also tentively and subtlely touched on a good point; any such drug-complex would almost definitely adversely affect the parts of the brain responsible for sex and bonding behaviour (2 different things). Nasty, very. Ugly, even.

Well, there's a professor of biology who frequents these boards; Copernicus, while not into neuro, is extremely good on philosophy of (verbal) mind; Scigirl is relatively cluey; Michael Turton is extremely good on evolutionary psychology; and there is of course Thomas McPhee, a psychiatrist.

I may be the only one here (apart from Tom McPhee and possibly the bio prof, whose name I forget) with qualifications directly in a neuroscience area (and let's face it, neuroscience is a big and wide-ranging area), but I would see the people I've named as being more cluey every now and then than me. Mind you, I might argue anyway.

ROFL. In our little troubled relationship, ElwoodBlues, you have to admit this is a first. ROFL.

Nope, not here, , not at all.

sullster

I returned to look at the thread I started was pleased that it had so much response. Let me state that I unequivocably would repudiate the mandated use of such a drug if it was possible to make. I forgot to use a smiley face at the end to indicate my true feelings about wanting to contribute to the making of such a drug. No and double no.

My purpose was two-fold. I am interested in finding out about the human brain's influence on the existence of religion. Secondly, I wanted to explore an admittedly extreme end which possibly could come about through vastly more knowledge of the brain's functions. I would also include any genetic manipulations which could result in a similar end.

Someone quoted Nietzsche and I will use him too. My purpose is an "excersize in thinking". Also, it is wise to look into the abyss with your mind before you actually get to the abyss in reality and stumble into it. Nietzsche wanted us to know all knowledge no matter how terrible. That is the way of the free-spirit.

Kenny

Gurder,

Honestly, I do not see anything inappropriate about the tone of my first post. I think it was entirely called for. I already explained how my second post was aimed at those who took the OP idea seriously, not those who opposed it, and that the wording was unfortunate because that was not made clearer. As far as the point of it is concerned, however, I stick to it.

With respect to the idea that I came in “late in the day,” I will simply point out that I was the first theist to comment. I felt it was important for a theist to do so. Imagine if the post had originally talked about a drug that would make black people white, and a bunch of white folks sat around talking about its merits, a few even hinting that it might not be such a bad idea. Even if a number of white folks had protested it in strong terms, don’t you think it would be entirely appropriate for a black person to weigh in on it?

Agreed; it's too bad that more atheist do not recognize that the same is true within Christianity. Part of the explanation of the tone of my second post is Samhain’s assertions that my religion has caused the death of millions of people, blah, blah, when those actions represent a tiny minority of people at very specific times in history who unfortunately just so happened to have political power and were able to twist a religion that commands love for one‘s enemies into justification for homicide.

Actually, I was hoping more atheists would step up to the plate and agree with my condemnation of the OP. Instead I was immediately blasted for it.

To repeat, my posts were aimed at the OP and its supporters, not the other atheists on the thread or on this board.

As was I.

God Bless,
Kenny

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

Kenny

I disagree; see my post to Gurder.

Percentage wise, the number of advocates to the number of dissenters was a fairly high ratio even if the advocates were in the minority. And, even among the dissenters, there were a few who seemed to be suggesting that it was a bad idea due to potential side effects, not because the goal in itself is bad. Now, I realize that such silence doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t see the OP as a bad idea on moral grounds regardless of the side effects, but the fact that such was not made clear, and the OP not condemned in no uncertain terms, is still disturbing. And, as I said to Gurder, I acknowledge the wording in my second post was unfortunate for the reasons I have already discussed.

Actually, the first post was directed at the OP entirely. I don’t see anything there that can be read as a “generalization.” And, I do not apologize for its strong language. Honestly, I expected to receive support for the first post from some of the atheists who had condemned the OP. Instead I got slammed by one. I also did qualify my second post, but, admittedly, not strongly enough. The second post was, I acknowledge, largely a gut reaction on my part.

If you think that all Christianity has been to the West and to individuals over the past two thousand years is a form of mind control and oppression bringing nothing but harm, you have a sadly distorted view of history.

Actually, part of my bad reaction to your post stemmed from the fact that I felt it was you who was guilty of generalizations. I still think you are. How many modern Christians do you think would advocate burning someone at the stake? And yet, you characterize the actions of an entire movement based on the actions of a small minority in history.

And, if you really want to get into talking about numbers of murders in the name of a belief system, atheism beats Christianity hands down:

<a href="http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/comparisons/realmurd.htm" target="_blank">http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/comparisons/realmurd.htm</a>

Now, before I’m blasted for posting such a link, I acknowledge that secular humanists like a large number of atheists on this board would never advocate the atrocities which have been committed by others in the name of atheistic philosophies. However, the same thing applies to most Christians. That’s the point.

As far as “pot calling kettle black” is concerned, I was hoping to drive home the irony and inconsistency of what those who would advocate the OP were saying. Apparently that did not come across like I hoped.

Actually, I was personally “calling out on” the absurd statements of the OP when I first posted.

God Bless,
Kenny

Samhain

Kenny:

Sarcastic comments made against free-thinkers here will be met with opposition. If you want to state your opinion against such a drug, then do so, I doubt anyone would disagree with you. The fact that you chose to address the OP with some kind of tone of self-righteous superiority over atheists speaks very poorly of you. As I said, very bad form. Most of us provided well-thought out opposition to such a drug being forced upon the masses. Your post didn't seem to express anything other than the fact that you view yourself as somehow superior to us and your religion as superior to atheism. There was no logical response to the OP within your post, just sarcastic comments. If you want to be treated with respect and you don't want to get blasted right away, then treat us with the same respect, ESPECIALLY since the vast majority of us hold the same view as you do on the matter.

Kenny

I am willing to accept such an explanation though I am still not sure you realize how offensive even joking like that in the OP sounds to someone outside an atheistic viewpoint. Replace "drug that stops people from being religious" with "drug that stops people from being black" and perhaps you might have something of an idea.

With respect to the question about of whether such a drug is possible, I agree that the question is interesting and woth discussing.

God Bless,
Kenny

Gurdur

Sigh, it's been a long day, and I'm extremely angry with myself for two unconnected reasons, one an error of commission and one an error of ommission, and I feel very blue.

Plus I have a nasty feeling whatever I write here will be misunderstood or ignored in any case, but hey, I'll give it a try.

Look, Kenny, first off my initial suspicion was that you were simply illegally making hay while the sun shone, á la Metacrock, who almost saved the thread for the darkside.

The problem is, as you see it, the routine lambasting here of Christianity and Christians en masse for everything from genocide to spitting on the sidewalk.
Now there's an element of truth in that, but as someone much scarred by treatment on "Christian" bulletin boards - and you should know me for someone who is not idly provocative - believe me, we could swap horror stories from each side of the front line all night.

I was annoyed with you for not acknowledging Elwood's post (and one other of my points was you really should get to know us as real and quarrelsome individuals, or as <a href="http://www.dilbert.com" target="_blank">"Real InDUHviduals"</a> if you like, rather than talking of freethinkers en masse.

Being someone who actually doesn't routinely lambast Christians for mopery and dopery, I for one felt quite annoyed at your tone (2nd post), plus I have <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000184&p=2" target="_blank">no idea why you ignored a previous post of mine on this thread,</a> and consequently I am tending to snarl easily at you.

Perhaps you should really take time to follow us in our developments here; for example, the fact that ElwoodBlues and I are in full agreement on this thread could be described as being almost miraculous.

I suggest you keep the ironies for the threads and the people who deserve them.
BTW, did you chase up the two links I cited in this thread previously ? Very entertaining.

Now back to you: the basic line is that any absolutist religion - or, as in your example, any absolutist ideology of any kind at all - will be inclined more to the perpetuation of atrocities; and I suppose I could go into my own big spiel about how modern Christians are more generally nice folks today because of the secular response in centuries gone past (I can bore your ear off for ages on the Thirty Years' War and its consequences), but hey, I really don't feel like taking the time right at the moment.

All I suggest at the moment is that you adopt a certain more amount of finesse, and also stop seeing things in "theist/atheist" lines - I suggest seeing things in "humanist/anti-humanist" lines (*).

BTW, I disagree with Sullster very much in his theory that all ideas must be gravely considered; irony of ironies, Metacrock more or less already touched on the answer to that (without knowing he did so, and I'm damned glad he hasn't buggered up the thread more); there's a section in 1984 where the chief baddie asks the two goodies whether they would be prepared to infect a child with venereal disease to topple the authoritarian régime, and when the two goodies say "Yes", suddenly when the baddie reveals himself, the two goodies are left without a single ethical foot to stand on.
1984 is of course a classic worthy of much study.
_________

(*) In my more bigoted and aggro moments, I tend to see things in "American/Australian" lines.

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

Samhain

Kenny:

Your tone and your message had no logically redeeming value that I could see. We all gave reasons of why we opposed such a drug. You failed anything beyond sarcastic, biting comments blatantly pointed at atheists.

I think Corwin was ultimately the only one who actually agreed with this post. No one else seemed to. So, lets see, we had 8 either undecided or opposed, and one for this. Yea, a fairly "high" ratio. If we count sullster as one also, although he was being sarcastic we have 2 to 7. Hmm...

Saying that it shouldn't be done because they wouldn't want it done to themselves expresses a more relativistic morality under the golden rule (something which some free thinkers here hold to), it does not mean they would "agree" if it had no side effects.

I suggest you read your OP again. While it does not blatantly say that "free-thinkers are hypocrites because they all think this is true" your tone and language strongly suggests this. Obviously it can be seen as a generalization or else we would not be having this conversation.

Try making a rational argument against it, or agreeing with ours if you want full-fledged support. I will not allow anyone to hide behind sarcastic comments unless they can, in turn, produce a rational reason why they think that way.

I see that it has caused a whole hell of a lot more harm than good. The ideologies that most theists hold breed the kind of hate which produce atrocities, and the ignorant theist allows this because they have "faith" that something done in the name of their god cannot be wrong.

No, I'm not guilty of any generalizations. I was only expressing the blatant hypocrisy of your statements in spite of what many free thinkers hold true vs. what many theists hold as true. I expressed my statement through historical facts, what facts back up the idea that free-thinking promotes mind control?

Truly, not that many, but for some, it truly depends on who you're burning. How many free-thinkers would burn theists at the stake because of their beliefs? I seriously doubt you'd find any, and none to date have been found to have done this in history.

I don't want to have to refute all your so called "evidence" as I have refuted the evidence of others once again. Ideology is what causes such harm, namely religious ideology. LACK OF BELIEF IN SOMETHING DOES NOT CAUSE SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING! Any argument that it does is wholly absurd. How many people have killed because of their lack of faith? How ridiculous. Any ideology which holds that it is the only correct ideology is going to meet with opposition, and hence will also meet opposition against others who hold that their ideology is the correct one. No one wants to be wrong, especially in a case concerning gods and an afterlife. Since an atheist lacks belief in said things it is not possible for them to specifically commit atrocities because they want everyone not to believe in god or an afterlife. It's largely absurd to hold this view. Oh, and an argument against communism will not work here. Murder done in communist societies were done in the name of the state, not in the name of atheism. I suggest you read some recent threads concerning this topic:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000284" target="_blank">Who has the predisposition historically to commit the most evil, theists, or atheists?</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000122" target="_blank">Is god the biggest mass murder of all time?</a>

You cannot create parallels between things which were done by atheists and things which were done in the name of their god(s). These two things aren't comparable. People don't do anything in the name of atheism but theists commit atrocities in the name of their god(s), and therefore since commiting such an act can be seen by many of the same theistic belief can be seen as good by those other theists, it creates serious problems. While you may not condone the Inquisitions or the Crusades, they were done in the name of God. Can you honestly create parallels to atheism with that considered?