Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Sorry, I know I've been posting a lot lately, but I really want to know how people feel about this.

This poll is for NON-BELIEVERS ONLY. Christians, Jews, Muslims, or members of eastern religions are kindly asked not to participate, so as not to tamper with the results. Atheists, or atheistic agnostics only, please.


You have a choice. You can create one of the two following "cures." Whichever one you choose will be widespread, well-marketed, but you will not gain any prestige, fame, money, power or recognition of any kind for it. You can only choose one.

CURE CANCER AND AIDS: You approve the existence of a vaccine that, upon administration, completely eliminates cancer and AIDS in the patient with no side effects. It is cheap to produce. It has no other medical uses or potential.

CURE RELIGION: You approve the existence of a philosophical argument that has yet been undiscovered by human beings. The argument has shown to satisfactorily disprove the existence of God and the need for religion to 99.99% of the people that hear it or read it. It proves capable of debunking all three Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism)

What's it gonna be?

again, ATHEISTS ONLY, PLEASE! (I'm especially interested in Mr. Sklansky's answer [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Easy! Cure cancer and AIDS. I may suffer from one or the other one day. I am already vaccinated for western religion.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Yes, but you'll still have to live in a world full of Christians [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Easy! Cure cancer and AIDS. I may suffer from one or the other one day. I am already vaccinated for western religion.

[/ QUOTE ]Is understanding memes less important than finding a cure for cancer or AIDS?

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Curing cancer and AIDS would delay the deaths of some individuals.

Curing religion would delay the death of the human species.

Easy choice.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.

To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Curing cancer and AIDS would delay the deaths of some individuals.

Curing religion would delay the death of the human species.

Easy choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your choice.

There is nothing funny about cancer or AIDS, while the religious provide me endless supply of humor.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Curing cancer and AIDS would delay the deaths of some individuals.

Curing religion would delay the death of the human species.

Easy choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your choice.

There is nothing funny about cancer or AIDS, while the religious provide me endless supply of humor.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are entitled to our own values. No problem.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing funny about cancer or AIDS, while the religious provide me endless supply of humor.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and unnecessary "moral" values and laws, a stupid population, terrorism, war, and horrendous political decisions. (Bush NEVER would have gotten in if he declared himself an atheist, but had all the same policies)

And secondly, AIDS is finally funny! It's been >22.4 years (south park did an episode about it) I know a lot of AIDS jokes, and this is 2+2 so I'll make a poker joke:

My friend and I call pocket Jacks "AIDS"...they're fun to get, but they'll end up killin' ya ^_^

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.

To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Well said.

I should say to kidluckee that my argument is just meant to be a joke, not taken seriously.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

If nothing else happens I am expecting to die form cancer in a few decades. So a cure for that would be great.

I cannot imagine myself ever catching religion; I don’t believe it is necessarily fatal either.

So I am a selfish [censored].

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.

To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

'Believers' (certain ones, anyway) have a monopoly on wanting to kill everyone that disagrees with them. They also have a monopoly on the desire to get nukes in order to kill people that disagree with them. Acts of murder will happen in either case. I argue that acts of killing/murder will decrease by a large margin if there is no religion.

And no, believers don't have a monopoly on acts of terror (as defined by the US), but they're pretty goddamn close to it.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.

To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

'Believers' (certain ones, anyway) have a monopoly on wanting to kill everyone that disagrees with them. They also have a monopoly on the desire to get nukes in order to kill people that disagree with them. Acts of murder will happen in either case. I argue that acts of killing/murder will decrease by a large margin if there is no religion.

And no, believers don't have a monopoly on acts of terror (as defined by the US), but they're pretty goddamn close to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

I think you're right, to a certain extent. I basically lump religion, jingoism, etc. into the same category of 'brainwashed.' If people were able to unshackle themselves from religion them maybe they could do the same for other things. I said it would be a major leap towards world peace, and that is specifically because many problems (and most of the major ones) are religion-based, dating back many years. I'll never know if religion would be replaced by something equally as brainwashing, but I'd rather it be gone nonetheless and take my chances.

I also think that religion is a more powerful drive than pretty much anything else. Someone that's just really nationalistic and not religious may realize that this is the only life we have and not be willing to risk their life smashing a plane into a building or willing to nuke a populated city.

My opinion anyways. I can see why someone would disagree.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion. On the other hand eliminationg religion would increase the chances of curing cancer and AIDs. But not by much because the vast majority of people who are intellectually capable of finding such a cure are already not deeply religious.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion. On the other hand eliminationg religion would increase the chances of curing cancer and AIDs. But not by much because the vast majority of people who are intellectually capable of finding such a cure are already not deeply religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking along the same lines. I think enough brilliant minds who have been infected by religion exist for the the answer to be to cure people of religion.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Religious people don't want to cure Aids or Cancer?

I will assume you are talking about embryonic stem-cell research because nothing else would support such a claim.

There are other reasons that some people don't support embryonic stem cell research.

Adult stem cells have shown traits of plasticity which allows them to change into the three main cell types that are the reason embryonic stem cells have value.

Nature magazine also has two studies done by scientists that use embryonic stem cells without the ethical dilemmas in the latest issue.

Will that be a bad thing? Is it so important to use embryos even if it is unneccesary just to prove a point?

I see that there exists an immense hostility towards Religious people as well as contempt regarding their intellectual capacity.

I certainly don't mind. Just calling them like I see them.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion? *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by evil_twin

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

As opposed to what?

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

You were too quick for me. Sorry, I misunderstood slightly and deleted my post.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

LOL! No problem.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Some of you make a good case for curing cancer and AIDS first. I can certainly see value in the reduction of suffering. I think I equated "curing religion" with eliminating fanaticism, and it is fanaticism, not religion per se, that has the potential to bring about our extinction.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

I voted for curing religion. If this cure was only going to last for the next 10 to 20 years, then I'd cure cancer. In the long run though, curing religion will save many more lives and free people to pursue happiness in moral ways that many religions currently severely hinder and are likely to continue hindering in the future. Also, cancer will probably be cured eventually while curing religion seems much more difficult.

The biggest reason why I voted to get rid of religion is that cancer will probably never wipe humanity off the planet. Religion very well may, especially in the future when WMDs will be very readily available to large numbers of people.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally kid, you and I agree on something. Your last sentence, especially, has done a great service to the atheist postion in my view.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.

To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

'Believers' (certain ones, anyway) have a monopoly on wanting to kill everyone that disagrees with them. They also have a monopoly on the desire to get nukes in order to kill people that disagree with them. Acts of murder will happen in either case. I argue that acts of killing/murder will decrease by a large margin if there is no religion.

And no, believers don't have a monopoly on acts of terror (as defined by the US), but they're pretty goddamn close to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part I agree with you, kid. The main thing that is different about pitching religion is that the afterlife is a big draw. Many of the drones that are sucked in by the propaganda of religion would most likely get sucked into other causes as well, but I think the unique characteristics of religion do make it an easier sell.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest reason why I voted to get rid of religion is that cancer will probably never wipe humanity off the planet. Religion very well may, especially in the future when WMDs will be very readily available to large numbers of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are to include this line of thinking, then we must assume this is how most Atheists think and we really need to add a cure to “Atheism” to the OP.

cf kidluckee's post above.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

This makes no sense to me. Let’s take Christianity who’s 2 main Commandments are love God and love your neighbor. That’s it. Everything else is superfluous. Now how does one get from this anything that one needs to fear? Anything that one fears is a complete manipulation of the Religion and should not be equated with the Religion. To paraphrase chez, to say one is a Christian is not believing - it does not make one a Xn. Period.

As far as Muslims - I don’t know much about the Koran. Either show that the terrorist are following the Koran or lets get off this kick that since they say they are Muslims then that is what Islam. I really can’t believe some can’t make this distinction.

Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Get it? Does that mean Atheism is bad? Come on now. This isn’t rocket science.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Hitler and Stalin were atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

not Hitler

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense to me. Let’s take Christianity who’s 2 main Commandments are love God and love your neighbor. That’s it. Everything else is superfluous. Now how does one get from this anything that one needs to fear? Anything that one fears is a complete manipulation of the Religion and should not be equated with the Religion. To paraphrase chez, to say one is a Christian is not believing - it does not make one a Xn. Period.

As far as Muslims - I don’t know much about the Koran. Either show that the terrorist are following the Koran or lets get off this kick that since they say they are Muslims then that is what Islam. I really can’t believe some can’t make this distinction.

Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Get it? Does that mean Atheism is bad? Come on now. This isn’t rocket science.

[/ QUOTE ]

My main point was that intelligent people would stop wasting time arguing about or practicing religion, with the net effect being that many of those people would devote more time to science.

I also think that a secular society would put a much greater emphasis on scientific achievment than a religious one, especially in regard to things like medicine.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My main point was that intelligent people would stop wasting time arguing about or practicing religion, with the net effect being that many of those people would devote more time to science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess our disagreement comes in words like “intelligent people”. To me even if it were Einstein who flew one of the planes into the WTC, I wouldn’t refer to him as intelligent. A genius by definition probably. Intelligent I think is more of a subjective word.

I don’t want to assume things of you and a few others who have these ideas, but you seem to really have a problem with the stereotypical TV evangelist type of folk and perhaps even the current Administration - so do I. I simply don’t equate them with always getting their Religion right. To fault the Religion is an error, I think. Basically, it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that a secular society would put a much greater emphasis on scientific achievement than a religious one, especially in regard to things like medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, that is all great. Especially if that is what you deem “important”. I simply don’t find the goal in and of itself to be so important. I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race? (And of course even if there is more to it than that, why so important to live longer?)

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

While I don't believe in religion, being able to prove religion is wrong would give little satisfaction. I don't know why I would want to cure religion, as it certainly gives people something to think and talk about. Since I don't know what the net effect of religion is, I really can't pick it.

Curing Cancer + AIDS means I don't get it, and it means huge amounts of brownie points. It also means more sex, and SS will really have to be cut, by a lot, too. Definite upside here, I think.

Cure Cancer and AIDS, and this is an easy one.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Tough decision. I voted for 'cure cancer/aids' because religion is just a symptom of deeper problems. Curing religion would just kill a symptom and allow something else to take its place. It's like racism. Racism is a symptom of deeper-rooted problems with humanity. You rid the planet of racism, you end up with people hating gays.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
...because religion is just a symptom of deeper problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, and what problem are those kbfc?

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

"I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?"

Not the human race. Individual humans. Don't you want your dog to live longer and not suffer?

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?"

Not the human race. Individual humans. Don't you want your dog to live longer and not suffer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was trying to make two points. Ozone and ecology and stuff like that, that “scientist” spend so much time on - I assume to benefit the longevity of the human race. If we are merely animals why all the “guilt trips” you guys lay on us? And you guys think Religion fs us up? Human become extinct like the dinosaurs -big deal - what am I missing?

Of course, I value science and medicine. My mom’s breast cancer was completely removed this year, thanks to good science and medicine. “God bless” science. But, the suggestion that it is the be all and end all and that Religion is a distraction to the real goods is what puzzles me. Sure if Religion is bogus then it is a waste of time…

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race? (And of course even if there is more to it than that, why so important to live longer?)

[/ QUOTE ]

In the absense of supernaturally dictated values, I choose life (mine, and by extension human life in general) as my highest value.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If religion were proven conclusively false, I think most people would be able to cope. In my experience the most stressed atheists are the unsure ones.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Cure religion. The cure for cancer/AIDS is probably coming in the next 50-150 years anyway; a cure for religion will probably not arise for another 1000-10,000, if ever. Thus, the cure for religion would be an astonishingly monumental achievement, far beyond curing cancer/AIDS, which would also be monumental.

Even if both would be cured in the same time frame, I would go with curing religion. It would save almost as many lives, and the lives that would be saved would be richer, because they will be more likely to be focused on endeavors devoted to worthy causes (since I consider religion unworthy, and a waste of valuable human energy).

I don't believe that all human conflict is caused by religious differences; not even close. But some are, and eliminating those is a step in the right direction. The unique thing about religious conflicts is that they CANNOT be resolved without the elimination of one of the religions (often accomplished or attempted through war). This, because their arguments are based on "faith," that is, things for which there is no evidence. So one side can never convince the other of its truth, and thus unavoidable conflicts arise. Thus, religion (ie "faith") leads to inevitable conflict.