Religious belief/disbelief pill

[watchamadoodle]

What if a pill existed that could cause a person to believe a particular religion or even believe atheism (gnostic)?

What do you think of engineering a religion that would increase happiness, productivity, morality, and other beneficial traits, and then force these religious pills down everybody's throats (sort of like giving pills to a cat )?

Or if the social engineers decided that atheism would be best, what about forcing atheism pills down everybody's throats?

Childhood indoctrination is very much like this IMO.

[Norman Humann]

What do you think of engineering a religion that would increase happiness, productivity, morality, and other beneficial traits, and then force these religious pills down everybody's throats (sort of like giving pills to a cat )?

Wrong. And still a lie.

Or if the social engineers decided that atheism would be best, what about forcing atheism pills down everybody's throats?

Wrong.

Childhood indoctrination is very much like this IMO.

Exactly.

[watchamadoodle]

O.k. what do you think about merely trying to persuade a person to believe the way you want them to believe?

How is debating any different than forcing a pill down their throats?

I think about this with my family and friends who are Christians.
Should I try to lead them to the promised land of truth as I see it (i.e. atheism)?
Should I let them believe nonsense if it seems to benefit them and benefit society?

Under some circumstances society will subdue and medicate psychotic people to make them function in society again. Why not force a belief pill down their throat if it benefits everybody?

People can look at the same facts and believe different things - especially with respect to religion. Some people are always going to believe things that are harmful to themselves and society. Why not "cure" them with a belief pill?

[robvalue]

The difference is someone can refuse to debate you, and they may also be unconvinced by your arguments.

I think getting people to think about their beliefs is a good thing. It may not lead to atheism, but it may shake up some of the grip and dislodge some of the bad ideas of their religion.

But if someone doesn't want to discuss it, I don't think its right to badger them, unless you think their beliefs are actively causing them to harm themselves or others.

[Norman Humann]

O.k. what do you think about merely trying to persuade a person to believe the way you want them to believe?

Nothing wrong with trying to persuade someone.

How is debating any different than forcing a pill down their throats?

It's presenting arguments, not forcefully making someone take the same stance as you.

Should I try to lead them to the promised land of truth as I see it (i.e. atheism)?

If they are willing to discuss their religious beliefs with you, there's nothing wrong I see in presenting your views and trying to convince them you're right. Ultimately it's their personal choice to believe whatever they fancy. If you don't agree with them, you can show them the issues you have with their beliefs. If you think their beliefs are causing them harm or distress, it would be the right thing to do. But if not, it's not exactly any of your problem what they pray to.

Should I let them believe nonsense if it seems to benefit them and benefit society?

The wording is unfortunate. Particularly the word "let". It's not exactly your choice to decide what they will believe.

Organised religion does visible harm to society, that's why I think it should be moderated at least. I do wish it would disappear completely, but that's wishful thinking. Personal beliefs don't do much harm if they are kept to the believer and not forced on anyone else.

[vorlon13]

Wow, just trying to imagine all the FDA clinical trials it would take to come up with 40,000 different pills, just for Christianity.

Jesus fucking christ, what a job !!!!

[Mr Greene]

O.k. what do you think about merely trying to persuade a person to believe the way you want them to believe?

How is debating any different than forcing a pill down their throats?

I think about this with my family and friends who are Christians.
Should I try to lead them to the promised land of truth as I see it (i.e. atheism)?
Should I let them believe nonsense if it seems to benefit them and benefit society?

Under some circumstances society will subdue and medicate psychotic people to make them function in society again. Why not force a belief pill down their throat if it benefits everybody?

People can look at the same facts and believe different things - especially with respect to religion. Some people are always going to believe things that are harmful to themselves and society. Why not "cure" them with a belief pill?

Are you able to discuss these topics with your family openly?
Do you think you would be able to persuade them of your position in the first place?
Is it possible the attempt would have the opposite reaction?

[watchamadoodle]

Are you able to discuss these topics with your family openly?
Do you think you would be able to persuade them of your position in the first place?
Is it possible the attempt would have the opposite reaction?

I could discuss these topics, but I have never tried.
I could probably weaken their faith.
My mother would be distressed to learn that I'm not a Christian, so I pretend to have a little belief.

I don't debate anybody or let anybody IRL know that I'm an atheist, because I don't want it to get back to my mother and worry her. I feel bad about misleading people.

---

The difference is someone can refuse to debate you, and they may also be unconvinced by your arguments.

I think getting people to think about their beliefs is a good thing. It may not lead to atheism, but it may shake up some of the grip and dislodge some of the bad ideas of their religion.

But if someone doesn't want to discuss it, I don't think its right to badger them, unless you think their beliefs are actively causing them to harm themselves or others.

How about if the pills are chewable cherry-flavored? Or what if I was to hide them in a Twinkie?

[vorlon13]

Ew,

another problem:

How could the Baneemyite Pill be developed and tested ? There haven't been any for over 100 years.


Also, how could the Mormon pill work ???

There have been so many revisions and changes to the Revelations, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants over time, and still on going to this day, how could the pill 'hit' such a rapidly moving target ???

It would be weird to try that pill on them and then they turn out to have developed belief in Joe Smith's original versions of all his revelations, but then to be conflicted with, let's say, a 1920s version of Doctrines and Covenants where all the revelations are different, and on top of that, to believe in a current revision of the Book of Mormon which is now a total mish mash of almost 5000 changes since Joe received it perfectly from God on the first try back in (choose one) 1820, 1821, 1824, 1825, 1826, etc.



It would be too much for a human brain to absorb!! I would expect a disturbing mess like we saw in that movie Scanners; a total cranium detonation.

[robvalue]

I think my body would reject the religious pill or die trying :p