Changing Times?

Started by Shanghai Alice October 23rd, 2010 2:11 PM
  • 1277 views
  • 26 replies
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
I'm a fan of older dystopian novels (1984, The Giver and Brave New World, in particular), and one thing that I like about them is the "scary" world they portray.

The world where ostracizing others for differences is a cardinal sin.
The world where being different is considered a cardinal sin.
The world where a totalitarian(/nanny) state rules everything.
The world where religion is considered foolish and superstitious.
The world where the people are controlled by simple propaganda.

The world where human embryos are butchered for the sake of progress.
The world where life is seen simply as a tool of the state, and there is no value to it.
The world where scientific progress trumps everything.

What a scary world. Thank God Ford we don't live in anything so horrible.


Discuss.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99
Seen January 4th, 2013
Posted October 21st, 2011
1,804 posts
13.8 Years
thought-provoking stuff. reminds me of how easy it is for freedom and happiness to be perverted by leaders, and how easily warped the minds of the population are. im quite thankful for our world, too xD though there are obviously some major issues, but there is no such thing as a problem-less society- we should try our best as a collective of people to show our strength in comparison to those in power to avoid being taken advantage of.

Mario The World Champion

Tepig!

Age 41
Male
Western Massachusetts
Seen April 17th, 2017
Posted March 15th, 2017
3,299 posts
18.4 Years
Basically this is what America will be if we don't get absolutely new blood into power or Obama gets re-elected. If that happens, I might as well move to England and learn to drink tea.
3DS Friend Code: 0232-8258-5085
Friend Safari: - Meditite, Pancham, Riolu

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
If Obama gets re-elected; suddenly, Canada would start looking rather appealing.

Most of those predictions are based on all the political correctness BS that's being pushed around. I mean, I'm all for inclusion and equality, but come on. A little person now has to be referred to as "vertically challenged".

Jolene

Your huckleberry friend

Age 27
Female
Seen September 25th, 2012
Posted September 25th, 2012
1,287 posts
13.8 Years
The world where ostracizing others for differences is a cardinal sin.
The world where being different is considered a cardinal sin.
The world where a totalitarian(/nanny) state rules everything.
The world where religion is considered foolish and superstitious.
The world where the people are controlled by simple propaganda.

The world where human embryos are butchered for the sake of progress.
The world where life is seen simply as a tool of the state, and there is no value to it.
The world where scientific progress trumps everything.
Hmm I think it was quite naughty to list all of those things together like that because you are kind of suggesting that a society which considers religion foolish is just as bad as a society run by a totalitarian regime. Really a society of atheists would not be a bad thing at all. Also it was bad to use the word "butchered" when you are talking about stem cell research because stem cell research could save many lives!

What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Joliet is the sun!
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
Hmm I think it was quite naughty to list all of those things together like that because you are kind of suggesting that a society which considers religion foolish is just as bad as a society run by a totalitarian regime. Really a society of atheists would not be a bad thing at all. Also it was bad to use the word "butchered" when you are talking about stem cell research because stem cell research could save many lives!
Brave New World. Read it.

You know what? There are a lot of things that could save a lot of lives. A totalitarian nanny state could save a lot of lives.

At what cost?



If you haven't read the book, or are so inclined to see everything in a "Freedom for everyone!" manner, then...

Idealism. Realism. Two similar words, but they are (usually) opposite.


EDIT: Let me explain further.

I'm not saying all Atheists are baby eaters. I'm not saying that religion is the only thing.

However, I hate the knee-jerk reaction that most people have. The "Catholics like X, and Catholics are stupid, so I like -|X|!"

You know, some things that Catholics believe may be right. Simply throwing out everything and saying "SCIENCE MARCHES ON!" is bad policy.

Because if you do that... If science really trumps everything...

This world isn't worth living in.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
If Obama gets re-elected; suddenly, Canada would start looking rather appealing.

Most of those predictions are based on all the political correctness BS that's being pushed around. I mean, I'm all for inclusion and equality, but come on. A little person now has to be referred to as "vertically challenged".
No one is making you stay. ^__^

And I think if you or another person you know experienced what living as a little person is like, your perspective would change. Attempt to understand what it would be like. Same principle applies across the board.

Timbjerr

T-o-X-i-C

Age 36
Female
Texas
Seen May 30th, 2022
Posted January 28th, 2016
7,415 posts
19.7 Years
Hmm I think it was quite naughty to list all of those things together like that because you are kind of suggesting that a society which considers religion foolish is just as bad as a society run by a totalitarian regime. Really a society of atheists would not be a bad thing at all. Also it was bad to use the word "butchered" when you are talking about stem cell research because stem cell research could save many lives!
lol, a society of atheists may dodge all the historical pitfalls associated with theocracies, but implying that such a society would be inherently better than a society run by equally objective theists is just plain bigotry. XD

I believe that the ideal world is one where our differences in philosophy and worldviews are celebrated peacefully instead of having philosophical warfare that will lead to the dominant party to create a dystopian society where opposing opinions will be squashed and freedom is eliminated for the sake of the pride of the people in charge. :/

A radical atheist is just as dangerous as a radical Christian if given absolute power. XD

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
lol, a society of atheists may dodge all the historical pitfalls associated with theocracies, but implying that such a society would be inherently better than a society run by equally objective theists is just plain bigotry. XD

I believe that the ideal world is one where our differences in philosophy and worldviews are celebrated peacefully instead of having philosophical warfare that will lead to the dominant party to create a dystopian society where opposing opinions will be squashed and freedom is eliminated for the sake of the pride of the people in charge. :/

A radical atheist is just as dangerous as a radical Christian if given absolute power. XD
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, Regardless of who is in charge. Too much of anything is bad for you. xD
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years


Absolute power corrupts absolutely, Regardless of who is in charge. Too much of anything is bad for you. xD
That's not true...

Azure! Silence this fool!
:P


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
That's not true...

Azure! Silence this fool!
:P
What about that Taco Bell?

Pretty sure the theme of "power corrupting" is a staple of dystopian novels. I'd personally add Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm and A Clockwork Orange to that list while we're at it.
Age 20
Male
Seen May 2nd, 2011
Posted May 2nd, 2011
128 posts
13 Years
I'm a fan of older dystopian novels (1984, The Giver and Brave New World, in particular), and one thing that I like about them is the "scary" world they portray.

The world where ostracizing others for differences is a cardinal sin.
The world where being different is considered a cardinal sin.
The world where a totalitarian(/nanny) state rules everything.
The world where religion is considered foolish and superstitious.
The world where the people are controlled by simple propaganda.

The world where human embryos are butchered for the sake of progress.
The world where life is seen simply as a tool of the state, and there is no value to it.
The world where scientific progress trumps everything.

What a scary world. Thank God Ford we don't live in anything so horrible.


Discuss.
Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451, a future about firemen must burn books and people only want easy things and entertainment because they don't wanna think hard. I'm currently reading Brave New World, I've only read up to page 40 though. These kind of books have become to be a new favorite of mine.


Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years


What about that Taco Bell?

Pretty sure the theme of "power corrupting" is a staple of dystopian novels. I'd personally add Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm and A Clockwork Orange to that list while we're at it.
I was talking about society as a whole, though. Animal Farm is a deliberate parallel of Stalinist Russia, and Clockwork Orange is on a minor scale.

So I've heard. Never read it.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
The world where ostracizing others for differences is a cardinal sin.
I agree with this being a bad thing. Of course, racism is terrible, as is sexism, but if you go too far with being equal you eventually go past common sense. Just an example, not a dystopian society or anything, but if women and men played in the same divisions for certain sports when in general men are usually stronger than women - in this case you'd have men winning more events than women and even though it's treating both sexes as equals it's counter-productive.

I like how in Nineteen Eighty-Four there was no discrimination on who made it into the Inner Party based on race (eg. there were Indians, blacks, whites, there was no discrimination). Certain things in our world would do well with a little more tolerance, however take it too far or make something too politically correct and it gets bad.

The world where being different is considered a cardinal sin.
The world where a totalitarian(/nanny) state rules everything.
Obviously not a fan of these one. The world would be boring without individuality or without freedom.

The world where religion is considered foolish and superstitious.
I'm not sure if this is related to Nineteen Eighty-Four or one of the other novels you mentioned, but for the proles religion was allowed by the Party, it was the choice of the individual people to find religion obsolete. However I do think it'd be a weird world without some people believing in a religion. Science hasn't disproved it yet so atheism has the same amount of evidence behind it as religion.

However I hope you realise that statement could be turned around so it looks like "the world where everyone is Christian and we all believe in God" is a terrible thing. I agree with your statement (it wouldn't be a nice place if religious people weren't allowed to practice their religion), but I think it would make more sense if it read, "the world where beliefs are considered foolish" as atheism and the idea that religion is foolish is still a belief.

The world where the people are controlled by simple propaganda.
I agree. Just seeing Winston struggle in Nineteen Eighty-Four, I honestly read that book and wished he suddenly just decided to save himself and jump off a cliff. No individuality makes for a boring world.

The world where human embryos are butchered for the sake of progress.
I think that's a bit biased. I'm not going to try and bring up the abortion debate in this thread as well, but that could easily be turned around to say "the world where raped teenagers are forced to give birth to children they don't want and thousands of people suffer because a bunch of cells can't be used for science". I don't think it'd be right to include my version in this list either, mainly because so many people are divided on the topic.

Although I guess the topic was to discuss, and it's your list so you can put in what you want :)

The world where life is seen simply as a tool of the state, and there is no value to it.
Agreed. I've never agreed with conscription to the army for example (where many soldiers would lose lives), it should be the choice of the man or woman.

The world where scientific progress trumps everything.
If scientific progress trumps over freedom of speech and freedom of choice it'd be a sad world.
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
I agree with this being a bad thing. Of course, racism is terrible, as is sexism, but if you go too far with being equal you eventually go past common sense. Just an example, not a dystopian society or anything, but if women and men played in the same divisions for certain sports when in general men are usually stronger than women - in this case you'd have men winning more events than women and even though it's treating both sexes as equals it's counter-productive.
I'm not really talking about racism. In Brave New World, even the slightest difference in behavior or personality (Well, for personality it's "From the norm") in people of your own caste is seen as a huge blemish.

That, or you have alcohol mixed in with your genetics.

I like how in Nineteen Eighty-Four there was no discrimination on who made it into the Inner Party based on race (eg. there were Indians, blacks, whites, there was no discrimination). Certain things in our world would do well with a little more tolerance, however take it too far or make something too politically correct and it gets bad.
I like tolerance.

I hate reverse-racism.


Obviously not a fan of these one. The world would be boring without individuality or without freedom.
Such is a dystopia~

I'm not sure if this is related to Nineteen Eighty-Four or one of the other novels you mentioned, but for the proles religion was allowed by the Party, it was the choice of the individual people to find religion obsolete. However I do think it'd be a weird world without some people believing in a religion. Science hasn't disproved it yet so atheism has the same amount of evidence behind it as religion.

However I hope you realise that statement could be turned around so it looks like "the world where everyone is Christian and we all believe in God" is a terrible thing. I agree with your statement (it wouldn't be a nice place if religious people weren't allowed to practice their religion), but I think it would make more sense if it read, "the world where beliefs are considered foolish" as atheism and the idea that religion is foolish is still a belief.
Eh, true. Fanatical theocracy (Yes. Fanatical theocracy. Because if everyone was of one religion, and happy about it, you wouldn't have any problems. Think about it.) is a really bad thing, as shown in history.

However, how many mainstream novels do you see that have fanatical theocracies, and don't make it a major point of the book?

I agree. Just seeing Winston struggle in Nineteen Eighty-Four, I honestly read that book and wished he suddenly just decided to save himself and jump off a cliff. No individuality makes for a boring world.
Read Brave New World. It's more like The Giver, because everyone is too brainwashed and genetically altered to care, but... It's worse than 1984, in a way.

I think that's a bit biased. I'm not going to try and bring up the abortion debate in this thread as well, but that could easily be turned around to say "the world where raped teenagers are forced to give birth to children they don't want and thousands of people suffer because a bunch of cells can't be used for science". I don't think it'd be right to include my version in this list either, mainly because so many people are divided on the topic.
Huxley goes into great detail about the Bokanovsky process, as well as the way human embryos are treated as simple items in his future. It's... horrifying. I don't care if you're pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-genocide. If you read the opening chapters and aren't disgusted...

Something is wrong with you.

Yeah. They're that bad.

Agreed. I've never agreed with conscription to the army for example (where many soldiers would lose lives), it should be the choice of the man or woman.
I would agree with those who say that national emergency does warrant conscription, because it is one's patriotic duty to bail your country out if they really, really need it.

In America? Wouldn't work. We would get the chaff with the wheat. Too many people would protest and argue. Voluntary enlistment ensures that it's 98% people who want to be there.


If scientific progress trumps over freedom of speech and freedom of choice it'd be a sad world.
If the freedom of speech and choice of one group/race is quashed out, then it'll also be a sad world.

But... yeah. Brave New World.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
I enjoy a good dystopian story and have read many (1984, Animal Farm, etc.), but in the end they all generally have the same message: government (or even society) is bad and antethetical to man's nature. I don't think that's particularly true and really, these stories are fantasies anyway, speculative fiction. I don't think they should be taken as anything more than that or at the very most as broad social commentary.
Age 35
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen August 14th, 2012
Posted March 29th, 2012
954 posts
16.4 Years
I'm a fan of older dystopian novels (1984, The Giver and Brave New World, in particular), and one thing that I like about them is the "scary" world they portray.

The world where ostracizing others for differences is a cardinal sin.
The world where being different is considered a cardinal sin.
The world where a totalitarian(/nanny) state rules everything.
The world where religion is considered foolish and superstitious.
The world where the people are controlled by simple propaganda.

The world where human embryos are butchered for the sake of progress.
The world where life is seen simply as a tool of the state, and there is no value to it.
The world where scientific progress trumps everything.

What a scary world. Thank God Ford we don't live in anything so horrible.


Discuss.
I love how subtle you are.

"Butchered"? So, you're saying that what a scientist may do to an embryo (a microscopic little piece of goo, might I add) is the same thing that Ted Bundy did to women? That's a pretty bold statement right there. I won't get into the whole "is an embryo a life" thing, but I will say that I'd like a reason as to why you consider it "butchering".

And also, I think you're clumping everything together. You're making science sound evil, an idea that was done away with shortly after Frankenstein was written. A theocracy is proven dangerous (know how I know? Because those actually existed!). Scientific progress is important, and I think its arguably the most important. Have you ever been really sick, and taken medication? Is your mom still alive after she gave birth to you? Do you take vitamins? Do you enjoy soda pop? All of that, you have scientific progress to thank. By and large, science has made this world a far, far better place than its given credit for. Everyone focuses on the nuclear bomb and ignores the refrigerator. C'mon, people; it's all science!

I think you have your priorities back assward.

And also, why would you be against equality? Do you want people to be ostracized for difference? As for propaganda... who's to say that the whole Hell story isn't just propaganda to make people follow religious rules? Don't forget that not once is Hell, as we know it, mentioned in the Bible.

Brave New World and 1984 are merely warnings on the extremes. brave New World, the one you're singling out with the whole "science is evil" thing, is not about science gone wrong, but the interpretation and following of science gone wrong. Science does trump all, in my opinion, and my ideal society would be based off science in whole. However, doubt and questioning is what science is all about, not ignorant following. As a chemist, I know this for a fact. When science is suddenly followed blindly, it's no longer science... it's religion. Many people can't quite wrap their brains around that, I find.
Exterminate All Rational Thought

Richard
0215 9525 7958

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
Hmm I think it was quite naughty to list all of those things together like that because you are kind of suggesting that a society which considers religion foolish is just as bad as a society run by a totalitarian regime. Really a society of atheists would not be a bad thing at all. Also it was bad to use the word "butchered" when you are talking about stem cell research because stem cell research could save many lives!
I think you're unintentionally making an example out of yourself.

Also, do you realize what you just said in bold? You should be ashamed. Let me rephrase that, by putting it into perspective.

"A society where the religious are wiped out and kept wiped out would not be a bad thing at all."

That, is what you just implied. You should watch your words. You can say some very horrible horrible things by failing to.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends
Age 29
Female
Outta the kitchen.
Seen December 28th, 2010
Posted December 23rd, 2010
2,216 posts
12.9 Years


I think you're unintentionally making an example out of yourself.

Also, do you realize what you just said in bold? You should be ashamed. Let me rephrase that, by putting it into perspective.

"A society where the religious are wiped out and kept wiped out would not be a bad thing at all."

That, is what you just implied. You should watch your words. You can say some very horrible horrible things by failing to.
Not that I like that jolene one bit, but why do you think atheists are murderous scumbags? At least that quote fix made me think that.
I'm atheists, and I don't go on bashing religious people unless they bash me first. Certainly not wiping anyone out, either.

What a scary world. Thank God Ford we don't live in anything so horrible.
Horrible taste. Lamborghini and Ferrari ftw.

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years

Not that I like that jolene one bit, but why do you think atheists are murderous scumbags? At least that quote fix made me think that.
I'm atheists, and I don't go on bashing religious people unless they bash me first. Certainly not wiping anyone out, either.


Horrible taste. Lamborghini and Ferrari ftw.
I don't, and there was absolutely nothing in my post to suggest such. I was pointing out that what she said basically implied the wiping out of all religion and keeping it wiped out, which is a horrible thing to imply.

And also, I think you're clumping everything together.
I think the point is more to provoke thought. In today's world, where abortions are easily obtained regardless of the fact it cannot yet be nor was it ever proved (and I personally doubt it will ever be possible to prove) that an embryo, or fetus is not life. In today's world, where anti-religious hate is competeing with religious hate for the spot of top hate machine in the world.

Did "we" make an incorrect choice? Will the next controversial issue be that people start rejecting democracy in favor of a totalitarian government? I don't know, and I don't think that's what it's suggesting.

Considering the OP didn't write his original quote, and the book itself seems to predate the issues it makes you think about, I seriously doubt it could possibly be trying to smudge current issues. Rather, I think the book was simply trying to describe a terrible future from the author's eyes.

And also, why would you be against equality? Do you want people to be ostracized for difference? As for propaganda... who's to say that the whole Hell story isn't just propaganda to make people follow religious rules? Don't forget that not once is Hell, as we know it, mentioned in the Bible.
Inequality does not necessarily equal ostracizing.
You can definitely discriminate between people without ostracizing them. I dare say that our ability to discriminate is an important part of life.

Brave New World and 1984 are merely warnings on the extremes. brave New World, the one you're singling out with the whole "science is evil" thing, is not about science gone wrong, but the interpretation and following of science gone wrong. Science does trump all, in my opinion, and my ideal society would be based off science in whole. However, doubt and questioning is what science is all about, not ignorant following. As a chemist, I know this for a fact. When science is suddenly followed blindly, it's no longer science... it's religion. Many people can't quite wrap their brains around that, I find.
But do you realize that science fairly often does not get the proper doubting and questioning eye it deserves? Not to attack the wounded horse, but when abortion became legalized, there was absolutely no way to scientifically support that an embryo, or a fetus was not life. There still isn't. Right or wrong, it took an extreme amount of ignorance for us as a country to assume that answer at the risk of being wrong.

That to me is a greater crime than the theoretical killing itself. Simply because we did not take the time to find a solid answer.

In the future, when we get solid, scientific answers, do you think we, or whatever other civilization exists, will look back at us and say we handled the situation correctly? Or do you think they will frown at our passion. Call it the biggest scientific mistake we as a civilization ever made in history. Will it still be a controversy. To what degree would it still be a controversy?

You may think I'm assuming that we're wrong, but think about it. Even if we're right, people will probably still see what we did as risky, and irresponsible. Stupid even. We will never be able to hold the same pride and glory we could have if we'd acted like responsible scientists and actually gotten conclusive evidence before making our conclusion.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends
Age 35
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen August 14th, 2012
Posted March 29th, 2012
954 posts
16.4 Years
I don't, and there was absolutely nothing in my post to suggest such. I was pointing out that what she said basically implied the wiping out of all religion and keeping it wiped out, which is a horrible thing to imply.
Actually, that's exactly what I found your post implied. Being ashamed at believing a society of atheists would be a bad thing? How about a society of Christians? Would that all of a sudden be okay?

I think the point is more to provoke thought. In today's world, where abortions are easily obtained regardless of the fact it cannot yet be nor was it ever proved (and I personally doubt it will ever be possible to prove) that an embryo, or fetus is not life. In today's world, where anti-religious hate is competeing with religious hate for the spot of top hate machine in the world.
Really? I mean... really? There is no way any form of hate can compete with what religion springs among itself. In the science world, I think the biggest argument was against Einstein's relativity. But the difference is that we fight with mathematics, not swords.

Did "we" make an incorrect choice? Will the next controversial issue be that people start rejecting democracy in favor of a totalitarian government? I don't know, and I don't think that's what it's suggesting.
Ah, but you contradict yourself here. You're in favor of abortion being made illegal (I'm assuming), but you support democracy? Where is it that "its illegal to have an abortion" coincides with freedom? I'd think giving people the choice for abortion is more inkeeping with freedom. So, to answer your question, the totalitarian aspects of society tend to be supported by the people preaching freedom. That, my friend, is total lunacy, and I don't understand it.

Inequality does not necessarily equal ostracizing.
You can definitely discriminate between people without ostracizing them. I dare say that our ability to discriminate is an important part of life.
There's a difference between discriminating and differentiating. Differentiating is important; discrimination is dangerous. Scientifically, we're all equal; we're made up of the same molecules, we do the same things to live, need the same things to survive, and our brains generally work the same way. Our DNA shares many things. People never see that, though... they never see someone and say, "Hey, he's human!". They look at someone with a turban and say, "Hey, he's a terrorist!" or they look at an atheist and say, "Hey, he's immoral!". Everything but science proves to separate us as humans. Aand it's when we're separated, with the belief that we're not all equal, that events like the Holocaust happens.

But do you realize that science fairly often does not get the proper doubting and questioning eye it deserves? Not to attack the wounded horse, but when abortion became legalized, there was absolutely no way to scientifically support that an embryo, or a fetus was not life. There still isn't. Right or wrong, it took an extreme amount of ignorance for us as a country to assume that answer at the risk of being wrong.

That to me is a greater crime than the theoretical killing itself. Simply because we did not take the time to find a solid answer.

In the future, when we get solid, scientific answers, do you think we, or whatever other civilization exists, will look back at us and say we handled the situation correctly? Or do you think they will frown at our passion. Call it the biggest scientific mistake we as a civilization ever made in history. Will it still be a controversy. To what degree would it still be a controversy?

You may think I'm assuming that we're wrong, but think about it. Even if we're right, people will probably still see what we did as risky, and irresponsible. Stupid even. We will never be able to hold the same pride and glory we could have if we'd acted like responsible scientists and actually gotten conclusive evidence before making our conclusion.
This isn't science... this is politics. Sometimes there's mercury in fish, but do you believe it should be illegal to eat fish? Notice the difference. Truthfully, the science behind stem cells is separate from the politics. I, personally, define a life by consciousness. And I defy you to show me how a piece of goo has consciousness. But that's a different story altogether. Also, I notice how you say "there was no way to scientifically prove the embryo or fetus is not a life", and you don't even brush upon the subject of "what if it isn't a life?"

Historically, you Christians have killed out of supposed reasons (that these days are, more or less, obsolete), and believed things that are scientifically proven wrong, but has that tainted your view of your belief? Do you look back and think it was the worst decision in the history of humanity to follow the Bible like that, that it was ignorant, irresponsible to do some of those things before reaching a logical conclusion, acted like responsible humans? How is it you can hold the same "pride and glory" with all the blood and wrong beliefs on the hands of your distant predecessors?
Exterminate All Rational Thought

Richard
0215 9525 7958
Age 29
Male
Seen June 1st, 2013
Posted April 27th, 2013
2,276 posts
14.4 Years
That's not true...

Azure! Silence this fool!
:P
Okay then. -click-
...
-clickclickclick-

Thought-provoking discussion appears to overrule my internetmiko mute button. T_T

Actually, that's exactly what I found your post implied. Being ashamed at believing a society of atheists would be a bad thing? How about a society of Christians? Would that all of a sudden be okay?
"What's not okay about that?" was the first thought in my mind. The second thought was "Jolene is such a troll." and then I thought "I better stop writing about what I'm thinking and start writing an actual response."

There was a poor choice of words at the beginning of this little issue, and it's been swinging from hatred of religion to hatred of atheism and back again. It's really ridiculous, in my opinion, that it's still going that way between such people. You posted before that you try to swing things away from religious discussion, and yet you provoke it by opposing it.

And I provoke it further by responding. But that's not my point here.

Really? I mean... really? There is no way any form of hate can compete with what religion springs among itself. In the science world, I think the biggest argument was against Einstein's relativity. But the difference is that we fight with mathematics, not swords.
I see no difference between an hour of anti-religious sentiment from atheists and an hour of anti-religious sentiment from proponents of another religion. Assault on the body may have been the way to go during the Crusades, perhaps, but assault on a person's position or credibility or occupation is what we see today. Where once were Knights Templar, there are now evangelical atheists. Don't call it absurd or I'll quote someone.

Ah, but you contradict yourself here. You're in favor of abortion being made illegal (I'm assuming), but you support democracy? Where is it that "its illegal to have an abortion" coincides with freedom? I'd think giving people the choice for abortion is more inkeeping with freedom. So, to answer your question, the totalitarian aspects of society tend to be supported by the people preaching freedom. That, my friend, is total lunacy, and I don't understand it.
Anarchy is one thing, and democracy is another. Supporting the ability to influence laws and supporting the illegality of abortion are completely coincident- I wish to have the freedom to determine the laws of my nation, and I wish that this law be enacted, so that such and such an environment is maintained. I want to be able to change the law alongside others, and I want to express my opinion on such and such a matter.
If you want to spout freedom, support anarchy. No laws, entirely dependent upon the actions of the individual.
And besides, at this point it's a personal choice as to whether you want an abortion or not. It's lawfulness (in terms of what the USA calls law) is unquestioned.

There's a difference between discriminating and differentiating. Differentiating is important; discrimination is dangerous. Scientifically, we're all equal; we're made up of the same molecules, we do the same things to live, need the same things to survive, and our brains generally work the same way. Our DNA shares many things. People never see that, though... they never see someone and say, "Hey, he's human!". They look at someone with a turban and say, "Hey, he's a terrorist!" or they look at an atheist and say, "Hey, he's immoral!". Everything but science proves to separate us as humans. Aand it's when we're separated, with the belief that we're not all equal, that events like the Holocaust happens.
I've seen it said that part of Hitler's motivation for the holocaust was partially an overblown view of natural selection. Eugenics? I'm no expert on that front, so I won't expand on that part of it. But I'll tell you now, Hitler was no Christian. Not even a deluded one. This page expands on that some.
You said you were ex-Catholic? I don't know what you saw, and I can't speak for other religious views, but Biblical Christianity serves to unify others. Women, children, Christians, atheists, cosmic humanists, Hindus, and Raëlians. There's a difference between discriminating and differentiating. Christianity doesn't discriminate. Really, my only point here is that you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Science is not the only uniter of humanity, and the majority of us religious folk don't think atheists are hopelessly immoral. ;)

This isn't science... this is politics. Sometimes there's mercury in fish, but do you believe it should be illegal to eat fish? Notice the difference. Truthfully, the science behind stem cells is separate from the politics. I, personally, define a life by consciousness. And I defy you to show me how a piece of goo has consciousness. But that's a different story altogether. Also, I notice how you say "there was no way to scientifically prove the embryo or fetus is not a life", and you don't even brush upon the subject of "what if it isn't a life?"
The fact that there is such doubt about the liveliness of a fetus should raise questions about the legality of abortion. In the end people got what they wanted, didn't they? And correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time many people get abortions the fetus is more structured than a piece of goo.

According to democracy, shouldn't a person have the political right to cast their vote towards banning the "fish" if they think it ought not be eaten?

Historically, you Christians have killed out of supposed reasons (that these days are, more or less, obsolete), and believed things that are scientifically proven wrong, but has that tainted your view of your belief? Do you look back and think it was the worst decision in the history of humanity to follow the Bible like that, that it was ignorant, irresponsible to do some of those things before reaching a logical conclusion, acted like responsible humans? How is it you can hold the same "pride and glory" with all the blood and wrong beliefs on the hands of your distant predecessors?
How? How could we possibly hold pride in a faith which was misused by others, long dead, who skewed the fact and spirit of what we know for their own purposes? I don't know. you tell me. How could a person like you hold to science after people used it to invented the nuclear bomb? After it made way for guns and Greek fire and poison and the continual invention of life-ruining drugs?
And as I've said many times before, I've yet to see one irreconcilable difference between science and my faith. Only between scientists and believers. Neither does Christianity quash science, but that's an essay for another day.

Do you look back and think it was the worst decision in the history of humanity to follow the Bible like that, that it was ignorant, irresponsible to do some of those things before reaching a logical conclusion, acted like responsible humans?
This section in particular feels like it tells many things about you. I may be wrong once more, but man, does it ever feel that way.
Back from the Hidden Land~
My Pokemon tabletop RPG project. Looking for feedback and ideas!
Age 35
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen August 14th, 2012
Posted March 29th, 2012
954 posts
16.4 Years
Okay then. -click-
...
-clickclickclick-

Thought-provoking discussion appears to overrule my internetmiko mute button. T_T


"What's not okay about that?" was the first thought in my mind. The second thought was "Jolene is such a troll." and then I thought "I better stop writing about what I'm thinking and start writing an actual response."
Point taken.

There was a poor choice of words at the beginning of this little issue, and it's been swinging from hatred of religion to hatred of atheism and back again. It's really ridiculous, in my opinion, that it's still going that way between such people. You posted before that you try to swing things away from religious discussion, and yet you provoke it by opposing it.

And I provoke it further by responding. But that's not my point here.

I see no difference between an hour of anti-religious sentiment from atheists and an hour of anti-religious sentiment from proponents of another religion. Assault on the body may have been the way to go during the Crusades, perhaps, but assault on a person's position or credibility or occupation is what we see today. Where once were Knights Templar, there are now evangelical atheists. Don't call it absurd or I'll quote someone.
I try to steer clear of hard religious debate unless it's part of the argument. Which in this case, it is. There will always be arguments against people who believe in different things. The only thing that would stop it is if we all believed in the same set of values. The beef comes in with the what ifs... what if we were all atheists? How would that compare to a society of Christians? This isn't rhetorical, I'm curious how you think the world would look in both cases.


Anarchy is one thing, and democracy is another. Supporting the ability to influence laws and supporting the illegality of abortion are completely coincident- I wish to have the freedom to determine the laws of my nation, and I wish that this law be enacted, so that such and such an environment is maintained. I want to be able to change the law alongside others, and I want to express my opinion on such and such a matter.
If you want to spout freedom, support anarchy. No laws, entirely dependent upon the actions of the individual.
And besides, at this point it's a personal choice as to whether you want an abortion or not. It's lawfulness (in terms of what the USA calls law) is unquestioned.
This coincides with the whole "which society would be better" idea. I know you know my stance with that. On the surface, I'm about all about choice. I have no right to tell you what you should believe or what you can and can not do with your body, and I would expect the same courtesy. In essence, I'm happy we've won on this debate - on the other, I wish more people agreed.

I've seen it said that part of Hitler's motivation for the holocaust was partially an overblown view of natural selection. Eugenics? I'm no expert on that front, so I won't expand on that part of it. But I'll tell you now, Hitler was no Christian. Not even a deluded one. This page expands on that some.
You said you were ex-Catholic? I don't know what you saw, and I can't speak for other religious views, but Biblical Christianity serves to unify others. Women, children, Christians, atheists, cosmic humanists, Hindus, and Raëlians. There's a difference between discriminating and differentiating. Christianity doesn't discriminate. Really, my only point here is that you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Science is not the only uniter of humanity, and the majority of us religious folk don't think atheists are hopelessly immoral. ;)
I never said Hitler was a Christian. I was just showing what can happen if "difference" is taken to the extreme. Eugenics is a prime example; it involves the idea that some species are more deserving of life, or that within a species the gene pool should not be "contaminated" by those with mental or physical disabilities.

And Christianity was always out to unify others... by forcing them to conform to Christianity. The priorities are out of whack. Maybe it's changed, but I think only among recreational Christians. If you go to the hard fundamentalists, I'd be willing to bet many of them think we atheists should be put to death. Slightly ironic, if you ask me.

I have many Christian friends, and am rarely overt about my atheism. I ask questions, about the talking snake and Jonah in the whale or... etc, etc. I'm never satisfied by the reasoning, though.


The fact that there is such doubt about the liveliness of a fetus should raise questions about the legality of abortion. In the end people got what they wanted, didn't they? And correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time many people get abortions the fetus is more structured than a piece of goo.
I don't think so. I support physician assisted suicide, too. I support abortion on the basis of the woman's choice, not that I don't believe a fetus to be a life. While I frown upon partial birth abortion (because I don't think laziness should be advocated), I would go so far as to say that until the baby comes out, abortion should be legal.

According to democracy, shouldn't a person have the political right to cast their vote towards banning the "fish" if they think it ought not be eaten?
Sure, they should have the right to say no to the fish. But should they have the right to tell another they must say no to the fish?


How? How could we possibly hold pride in a faith which was misused by others, long dead, who skewed the fact and spirit of what we know for their own purposes? (I agree... but it stops there) I don't know. you tell me. How could a person like you hold to science after people used it to invented the nuclear bomb? After it made way for guns and Greek fire and poison and the continual invention of life-ruining drugs?
And as I've said many times before, I've yet to see one irreconcilable difference between science and my faith. Only between scientists and believers. Neither does Christianity quash science, but that's an essay for another day.
I think you missed my point through a lot of what I wrote here. I was merely responding to Yellow in pointing out the hypocrisy in her statements and questions. Yes, science has been responsible for a lot of death, but so has religion. And religion has (a lot) more than 2000 years on science, so I don't think the two can be compared.

Imagine your life without science. You've lost... what? Ability for longevity of you and your family, you've lost a lot of fun, television and communication, travel, internet and knowledge. Now imagine your life without religion. What have you lost? A thought process. That's not so bad, is it?


This section in particular feels like it tells many things about you. I may be wrong once more, but man, does it ever feel that way.
What does it tell about me? We've been going at this general topic for a few months, if not longer. We've always been relatively civil, haven't we? I try to be, at least. I'm sure I hold back some of the same words and replies that you do. ;)
Exterminate All Rational Thought

Richard
0215 9525 7958
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
But... yeah. Brave New World.
*goes to read Brave New World* :D

Yes. Fanatical theocracy. Because if everyone was of one religion, and happy about it, you wouldn't have any problems. Think about it.
If people could exist following a number of different religions and all be happy about it you wouldn't have any problems either. I agree that if everybody was happily following one religion (unlikely, but still for the sake of argument) the world would be great, but people aren't always happy and unfortunately that's human nature. That goes for atheism as well. Everyone being atheist wouldn't be perfect either, at least until science can put what exists and what doesn't exist in concrete definitions, whether that's proving a god(s) or not, instead of humans deciding religious doctrines.

Like I said before, atheism is a belief so for the record I classify it as a religion as well (I know technically it's not) - in my opinion science doesn't side with there being gods or not, it's human speculation and discussion of what little we know that creates all the arguments. Science isn't the problem. For all we know science could prove Christianity right, or Islam right, or some weird tribal religion in the jungles of South America right. I think the reason religion has been going up against science is that so far science has been challenging some religious views (for example evolution as opposed to creationism). But by all means science is nowhere near developed enough to prove beliefs yet.

*sits back and waits for both sides of the atheist vs. religion argument to tear apart my post*

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
*goes to read Brave New World* :D


If people could exist following a number of different religions and all be happy about it you wouldn't have any problems either. I agree that if everybody was happily following one religion (unlikely, but still for the sake of argument) the world would be great, but people aren't always happy and unfortunately that's human nature. That goes for atheism as well. Everyone being atheist wouldn't be perfect either, at least until science can put what exists and what doesn't exist in concrete definitions, whether that's proving a god(s) or not, instead of humans deciding religious doctrines.

Like I said before, atheism is a belief so for the record I classify it as a religion as well (I know technically it's not) - in my opinion science doesn't side with there being gods or not, it's human speculation and discussion of what little we know that creates all the arguments. Science isn't the problem. For all we know science could prove Christianity right, or Islam right, or some weird tribal religion in the jungles of South America right. I think the reason religion has been going up against science is that so far science has been challenging some religious views (for example evolution as opposed to creationism). But by all means science is nowhere near developed enough to prove beliefs yet.

*sits back and waits for both sides of the atheist vs. religion argument to tear apart my post*
Exactly. One universal faith is implausible because it reeks of totalitarianism, and you can't please everybody, like you said. No one should be forced to adhere to a single faith or viewpoint. Our diverse religious beliefs are a strength, not a curse.

And I agree on the second part as well. Science is at odds with religion because science has proven some church dogma wrong, like the age of the earth for example. We know the world isn't 6,000 years old. But as for proving which religion is wrong/right, etc, science probably won't ever do, granted unless we get some great enlightening breakthrough. The way I see it, science, like religion, is another tool us humans have used to try to understand the world around us.

EDIT: While we're mentioning dystopian novels, don't forget V for Vendetta. :DDD