lowly_caterpillar

I didn't mean to say that it would STOP their feeling but they just wouldnt see the use in expressing those feelings in art they would simply express them as formulae and graphs. This I agree with, but don't you think that by abolishing religion to simplify the worlds belief system it would lead to other simplifications until they realize that theyve gone too far and have indeed become vulcan-like? But then ( to completely contradict myself) if this society was able to set aside their differences and agree on science instead of religion then I guess they would be smart enough not to push this abolishment thing too far.

Thanks Tawasakm, sorry i'm a n00b to all of this.

By SOMA I mean the drug used in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", they took "SOMA holidays" to escape from the logic of their world.(Read the book it's awesome.) It's not only art inspired by religion,but all art that expresses metaphysical things or emotion (which in this society would be explained as chemicals intermingling in one's brain), I just don't see how such a society would have time for this if they had all agreed to explain things with science as opposed to religion. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, by abolishing religion it might lead to abolishment of other flowery explanations for the metaphysical such as shakespeare. I have read "Brave New World" and am currently reading "1984" and both of these books explore elements of this topic. Neither hypothetical world has religion, one of them is (in my view) a satire of Stalin's Russia whereas the other (BNW) shows a world where huhmans have evolved so much and exploited science so much that they are conditioning their babies and letting their universe center around science. (To tie in another post, the mathematics involved in music are used as formulas for mind pleasing music and are created entirely synthetically in Brave New World) I'm not a book snob, I just happen to be studying these in school right now and surprise!surprise! their extremely relevant!

Unless your saying that the morning after pill is the equivalent of an abortion, if thats the case please continue, if you have a point that is.

Yeah we get it Big blue youve already covered that one!

I agree that such a society would have more need for art, but I don't think that they would realize this, because as I see it practicality would become the only thing acceptable and art wouldn't fit into this mold, Shakespeare whos plays I thoroughly enjoy and take delight in would be of no importance compared to a physics or biology textbook. This society would be rigid and unemotional not because of lack of religion but because of lack of interest in the metaphysical or I guess you could say too much interest in the metaphysical(The Learned Astronomer) so that they would smother it in scientific proof and obliterate any whimsy and reverie that makes us humans so interesting. Also, as becomes more specific and less mystifying no one would spend (to this society it would be waste) the time making art they would reserve their time for their addiction to science. This hypothetical world would soon realize its fault in overexcertion and In my opinion start to compensate for their misery with something along the lines of SOMA.(yeah I went there) sorry for the run on sentences heres a link to When I heard The Learned Astronomer by Walt Whitman http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/barnes/a...10/whitman.html

My last post on the censorship board included a scruffy character named.......Michael Moore. I'm just wondering what your views are on the verity of Mr.Moores Shockumentaries.

Let's cut off the abortion topic, I just want to know if anyone doesn't agree with the morning after pill. I think it's a great invention as long as it doesn't lead to incredibly irresponsible sex.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111...nion/wiker.html this is the website where I read up on social Darwinism, and was exposed to Darwin's racism which (i'm not condoning it by saying this)was acceptable and the norm in his day. Yes Tawasakm that's exactly what I meant. So in this society education would center more around scientific education than non-scientific metaphysical explanations like mythology and shakespeare?

gaaah...topic slowly dying.....wheeze...nooooo please, show mercy feed me with commentary!

I have thought about the earlier question and unfortunately haven't drawn any useful conclusions I did, however, find an interesting view on Darwinism (I don't completely agree with it but I don't condemn it either). Would Darwin's idea be the premise for this new society? I don't think that "religion" is the only answer to metaphysical questions, but I think that as long as it's the easier way to find answers people will be tempted to abide by it. By "easy" I mean that in comparison to science religion bases itself on stories that claim to have been witnessed and rely on faith for propagation of these stories, whereas science requires a huge series of hypothises and proofs for us to believe in its virtue so, if this society had agreed to follow proof and not the simpler roots of fables then I think it would prosper. I'm not sure if that made any sense so please respond with some feedback.

Involving a supposed god in this is detracting from the focus of the debate, you can generalise and assume that all people are/or believe to be under the control of a supreme power, there are other forums for that exact debate. I completely agree with you on this Thelonius, you can't compare consentual sex with forced sex, and think about instances of incestuous rape, not only would it be illegal to have had such relations but imagine the torment that this child would suffer in life. If we were to pretend that rape is now illegal, think of all of the children who would have been aborted for health reasons and concern for their quality of life (I don't believe that this should be the sole motivation, but it's better than "oops the condom broke sooo....")they would most likely be put up for adoption, it'd be lovely to think that everyone adopting children would be indifferent to their health problem but unfortunately this is not always the case. Any other views on this I cant really go much further without contradicting myself on this one.

Oh yeah nice use of cliche Doodler, I agree the sanctity of marriage is pretty scarce in that there Nevada!

nvm rb i found some other very useful threads, pretty extreme right though for the most part.

That is a total load. If you were on your death bed I highly doubt that you would feel pressured to succumb unnecessarily to imposed death and to assume that everyone is morally weaker than you is a tad arrogant. I do not agree with euthenasia at all but I think you are using some unreasonable examples to support your view. I would assume that a much more complex thought process takes place in the minds of potential mothers than the one that you describe. "Gee well daycare's a tad pricey these days so I think i'd rather put myself through internal conflict and public shunning, than pay for that" Granted there are probably some potential mothers who are immature and dont think so much when faced with the daunting idea of an actual human being to take care of, but for the majority much more thought goes into the decision of abortion. Hugo I am curious about your views on the morning after pill.

Hey Rb i am aware that this topic is not a new one so could you post a link to older threads, because I am still curious to see if any newer arguments have surfaced.

wow willy your post and mine seem to have hit at identical times, so I do see where your coming from

WOWIE thankyou Doodler for that reFRESHing insight, it was mighty cliche to drag supposedly oversexed teens into the picture.

Thankyou for that reply and it's honesty, I agree with a womans right to choose also but for some reason (and I realise how appaling this is) I have never thought about the fathers side, thankyou for that perspective. If the father in question is still "in the picture" there should be some sort of concensus on the matter.

holy crap is anyone gonna post a damn thing?!

All in all i think that if we were to somehow ( I still cant fathom any method that might possibly work) abolish "religion" it would simply resurface under a new label, because as long as there is the metaphysical and as long as we're human we will always be seeking solace in answers however deranged they may be. I do however think that attempting abolition of religion would positively reform peoples beliefs. All of the religious people that i've talked to (granted we're living in a privileged country) agree that the constant clasing of religions is a terrible thing and that it doesn't reflect the core beliefs of any religion. When people lose the social aspect of the church and lose the freedom of religion maybe then they will truly appreciate and understand the gap that it fills in many peoples (and possibly their lives). I know many people who call themselves christians but who do not practice every rule in the book and who dont religiously attend church, yet I still consider them christian or at least people of faith, because when it boils down they still believe in a higher power, wether or not they "feel" this power is (to me anyway) irrelevant.

Alright I have decide that this tangent on christianity and "world views" has gotten too personal and willy and I have started attacking each other instead of providing insight to the topic so once again I apologize.v*peace*v

Thankyou for defending my right to participate in this discussion, I am still in high school and don't have any flashy degrees under my belt. Im not quite sure what you meant when you said that I didn't have a "world view", I have several close friends who are VERY christian so I am not completely new to the idea of christianity and religion (I dont know them all but i'm not completely misguided). The fact that you seem to be puting yourself (willy) on a pedestal with your university education (nice spelling in your posts by the way) and your world view, is a little bit offputting, but then again I suppose that my citing of south park was equally offputting to you so I apologize for using such an immature example. How would you prohibit religious belief by the way, wouldn't we need thought police for that?

After some strenuous discussion at school I have decided to transport this topic to the "boards". The main argument that I heard was "how can you take a childs life away and call this child too young to have known, or to say that because of his/her immaturity this baby is not technically living yet" An argument that I contributed was that everytime a woman *ahem* "cycles" we are also "technically" cutting off a potential life. I support abortion as long as the baby is not yet able to move autonomously. If abortion can be avoided safely and with the childs best interests in focus then it definitely should be.

Wow, im trying to supress my frustration at your extremely apparent bias (i'm talking to you hugo). Instead of simply stating that single parent families you should look at whats behind single parent families, you're generalizing too much booze and drugs are not the cut and dry reasons for the splitting of families, it is an unfortunate thing, I have been through it. Lack of proper education is what it boils down to. Even the mass media question, if we can somehow teach people how to judge media for themselves (and not get dragged along in puddles of corporately funded crap) we might be able to "cite" some improvements in society. well as I write this i am realizing as the genius that I am that this post has 7 pages and not the assumed 2, so my appologies for this posts irrelevance, but i kinda wanted a poke a hugo (not to attack you or anything, but i felt attacked when you basically insinuated that i was to grow up a deranged criminal)