venomai

It's not at all pathetic to be addicted to mary jane. A few friends of mine have been there, and they suffered greatly from it. A marijuana addiction is no more pathetic than a heroin addiction. Yes, assuming the legalization is enacted in a thoughtful manner. Hell, I've had that feeling and I don't even consider myself dependent on the drug. Somebody who is dependent can have tht feeling a lot, and without the drug they may have a difficult time functioning "normally" (i.e. no apetite, can't sleep). The United States drinking age and zero-tolerance restrictions are absolutely ridiculous. We can only hope that, if legalization was ever to occur in the United States, it would not entail such idiotic and counterproductive restrictions. Both caffeine and marijuana are relatively low in physical addiction potential, but I'd argue that marijuana poses a higher risk for psychological dependence due to its effects and the manner in which its consumed. All parts.

The links I promised... Source with citations: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#3 Further details on Dr. Tashkin's findings: http://www.drugscience.org/Petition/C2B.html

This is incorrect. I suggest you read up on your history... I haven't seen the research on it, but smoking weed is worse for you than cigarettes. However you can also counter that weed is generally smoked less often and sometimes in smaller quantities than tobacco. That's true.. but if it is worse for you than cigarettes and the medical people or whatever are always trying to stop smoking cigarettes.. seems like a step backwards to be giving out marijuana prescriptions. But I do see your point.. I smoke cigarettes as well as weed, and weed is way less often like maybe once or twice a week.. not every day. Marijuana has not shown to be more harmful or more addicting than tobacco. The above thought is mostly false media hype. I'll post studies in a bit.

It's all part of God's plan. OR Satan had his writings removed. :lol: Realistically... he probably just didn't write much. Lots of famous (and literate) characters through history chose not to write extensively.

If enough of the public is educated about the problem, and if enough of the public lobbies for reform, I suspect we will see change over time. Hell, we're already seeing change in some places. It won't be long before a new generation of politicians (those more knowledgeable about these issues) steps in. [hide=2002 Review of Literature]HIERARCHY OF THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS To do justice to the scientific evidence with regard to different indications, a hierarchy of therapeutic effects can be devised. In this overview no distinction will be made between isolated THC (dronabinol) and natural cannabis products. Indications for THC will be regarded as indications for cannabis and vice versa. 1. Established effect: Nausea and vomiting, anorexia, and weight loss. 2. Relatively well-confirmed effect: spasticity, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, movement disorders, asthma, glaucoma. 3. Less confirmed effect: allergies, inflammation, infection, epilepsy, depression, bipolar disorders, anxiety disorder, dependency and withdrawal. 4. Basic research stage: autoimmune disease, cancer, neuroprotection, fever, disorders of blood pressure.[/hide] Source: http://www.medboardwatch.com/wb/pages/t ... ffects.php More recent literature: Cannabis and Alzheimer's Disease Cannabis and Multiple Sclerosis Cannabis and Tourette's Syndrome Cannabis and Brain Tumours Further reading: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7002 http://www.canorml.org/prop/MMJIndications.htm

laura0077, I hope you don't mind if I answer to your points from the other thread. What risks are these, specifically? I'm aware of many risks that marijuana poses (possible link with gum disease, risk of psychological dependence, panic attacks, etc) but none that outweigh the benefits of removing its prohibition. Marijuana for recreational use is already 'legal' in certain jurisdictions (e.g. the Netherlands). This is more of a decriminalization, though, which is what we should be aiming for. The last thing most of us want is a tobacco-like and commercialized industry, which seems inevitable in "full-blown legalization." They've already tried that -- see the American prohibition of alcohol. During the prohibition, use and abuse skyrocketed, the substance was pushed further underground, organized crime flourished, significant tax revenue was lost and a slew of other issues surfaced. It wasn't long before the prohibition was abolished. Simple answer: marijuana is not tobacco. Only a fool would think otherwise. As I've stated, I am not in favour of full-blown legalization of marijuana. One problem among those against the reform is that they often equate decriminalization to mean full legalization. There are many well-confirmed medical benefits of marijuana, but it certainly is not a "cure-all" drug.

Bah... don't use it for smudging. Waste of money. Draw whatever you would like to. People, cars, animals, everyday objects, landscapes, fantasy, cartoons. It's like a pencil and paper -- you can use it to draw whatever you want (but, obviously, with much more flexibility). If you really want to progress, join in on a daily sketch group. http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=39 http://forums.cgsociety.org/forumdisplay.php?f=130 http://www.dailysg.com/dsg/threads/index/

I'm curious to see how Obama's years in office will affect the movement for marijuana law reform.

Cool place to trip. :o Looks expensive.

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner.

Think of a philosophical debate as a sport game, and logical fallacies as the set of rules in the game. If one side makes a foul, the other side can call them out on it and point to the rules (i.e. the logical fallacies). Pointing to these rules over and over again does not ruin the originality of the game, as it's the actual "plays" (i.e. the arguments) that make the game count. As I've said numerous times, logical fallacies are used to demonstrate flaws in the logic of a given argument. They are generally not used as arguments themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy I'm pretty open to the idea of a sort of spiritual intelligence(s), like Flew seems to believe in. But I would not use "God" or even theism to describe my belief. Using such terms leads people to assume that the entity must be of some great importance in our lives (i.e. prayer, worship, karma and sin, baptism, church, religious texts, afterlife etc).

Russell's teapot is an analogy used to illustrate the burden of proof fallacy. It encourages skepticism and questioning of the teapot's existence, but it does not say anything about discourse itself being silly. "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." I'm wondering what this has to do with logical fallacies being silly in a debate, though. What exactly is "hardcore" proof? The support I gave in my last post was pretty "hardcore," if you ask me. :) Even if this one man's interpretation of science suggests that an intelligent divine being exists, it does not suggest that the Judeo-Christian God exists. And without seeing this man's reasoning and hypothesis, it doesn't provide much support for a "minimal god" existing, either. Flew said he was best labeled a deist, like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in peoples lives. "Im thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam . . . " he said. Interesting that you bring up the burden of proof fallacy, as even Flew puts the "burden of proof on those arguing that God existed."

I don't agree. Why is it silly?

Understanding logical fallacies is crucial in any debate. I'm not calling myself a hypocrite... :roll: Nope. We were talking about strong atheism, or those who 'flat out' say that God doesn't exist. Ginger said: "Saru, [Atheists who are flat out saying God doesn't exist] are hypocrites. The whole point Atheism is that giving a conclusion (that God exists) without facts, or giving a conclusion and then making implicit references to the world around us is a cack-handed way of justifying something, and runs counter to the scientific method." I'm starting to wonder the same about you... :wall:

I've got proof suggesting that God didn't create the Earth over several days. But does disproving a single claim attributed to god or the tooth fairy disprove that entity altogether?

What do we mean by proof? If by proof we simply mean support, then I would expect theists to ask me the same if I were to make an assertion that no gods exist. I'll explain my own support in detail, for the sake of argument: There is no empirical evidence to suggest that a divine being interacts with our universe. Many things that were once attributed to gods and spirits (solar eclipses, floods, earthquakes, sleep paralysis) are now understood as naturally occurring phenomena -- there is no reason to suspect that the same shift in understanding won't continue with other yet-understood phenomena. So-called religious experiences seem to be little more than visions and feelings generated by a change in brain chemistry (e.g. triggered by drugs or meditation). If, on the other hand, we mean empirical evidence, then you're asking for something that is logically impossible. Of course we can't acquire empirical evidence of an entity that does not exist. I'll say it again... I'm not using the burden of proof as an argument in support of strong atheism (and, correct me if I'm mistaken, but nobody else is either). It's a logical fallacy that comes up when one party makes an argument flawed in its logic. For example, the burden of proof fallacy would come up here: No proof against Him, either. RayOxide is the "doubter" or "skeptic" to the assertion that god exists, pointing out the lack of evidence to support god's existence. He is not making a positive assertion of god's (non-)existence. It is indisputably clear that the burden of proof does not lie on RayOxide. To then switch the burden of proof, as Lenticular_J has done, is what we call a logical fallacy. Furthermore, Lenticular_J's point, that there is "no proof against Him, either," is moot. Imagine I was to point out that "There is literally no proof of the Invisible Tooth Fairy," and Lenticular_J was to retort with "there is no proof against her, either." Does this strengthen the argument of the Invisible Tooth Fairy's existence? Absolutely not. Most adults recognize that the Invisible Tooth Fairy does not exist not because we have proof of her non-existence, but because we have no proof of her existence (and, as we've established, absence of evidence is often evidence of absence). Note, though, that the burden of proof is not being used to support strong atheism; rather, it is being used to point out the flaw in Lenticular_J's rebuttal. I find it no more insulting than pointing out to a "alien abductee" that their experience was more likely a construct of their imagination with no basis in reality. I'm certainly not about to withdraw my argument in order to "save the dignity" of those who devote their lives to such a 'delusion'.

What does this have to do with anything? I'm really getting tired of this... Can you show in any credible manner that I am indeed hypocritical or even unreasonable because I assert that god does not exist?

You're interpreting the words to mean "proven," which they do not. And where the burden of proof lies is irrelevant to the question of hypocrisy. As I've said, it's not an argument for strong atheism.

Huh? I never said that. To assert, affirm, or declare -- these all mean roughly the same thing: a positive statement that is held to be true. Saying "I believe in god" implicitly equates to the assertion "god does exist." This, however, does not mean the statement must be 100% certain, nor does it need to be backed by 100% reliable/credible evidence.

Belief in god's existence or non-existence does not need to be backed by 100% certainty. The burden of proof is a logical fallacy. It is not an argument in support of atheism, and it is especially not an argument in support of strong atheism. 'Belief in god' is an implicit assertion that a god does exist. You write as if they are fundamentally different positions. And I believe (i.e. assert) that god* does not exist, in the same way that many adults believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. It doesn't matter if these beleifs are not backed by 100% certainty, much less 100% reliable and conclusive evidence. * In this case, I am referring to the same divine being described by various popular religions, often including features such as the afterlife, prayer, creation of the universe/Earth/life, interaction with humans, etc. How about both? i.e. Acknowledges a lack of conclusive proof of his non-existence yet still has an unwavering belief in god's non-existence. :)

Because you know as much as I do that God is just as impossible to prove as he is to disprove. And... uh... how does this answer my question?

That's not what I said. :lol: Apologies if it came off as such.

Holding to one's conviction is far different from refusing to consider any possible alternatives save for what you were told by religion/science/parents/etc. The latter implies that the individual did not (and, more importantly, will not) put much thought of their own into answering such questions. Depends on location. I'm not sure this argument holds much weight. Take the extreme example of the Jonestown Massacre. Many chose to drink the juice even with the knowledge that it would kill them. Is this choice, influenced so heavily by brainwashing, a truly legitimate one? Is it a choice of any merit?

Two fine examples of people who refuse to think for themselves. A society with such restricting religious ideals is not one which will progress very far. Religion is the opium of the masses Marx

I'm well aware of this. This is your own interpretation of strong atheism. In reality, my position does not imply that there is no chance of the opposite being true, nor does it imply that there is any amount of proof supporting my claim. I believe that Santa Claus does not exist. I believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. I believe that Russell's teapot does not exist. Absence of evidence is often evidence of absence. Is it unreasonable for me to believe in the non-existence of the above entities? What proofs are you waiting for? Surely not empirical proof? We've already established that it's impossible to observe something that does not exist. If "X exists" is a positive assertion, and "X does not exist" is also a positive assertion, then "[proof of god] does not exist" must also be a positive assertion. Your logic, not mine. You have yet to show how I am a hypocrite for believing that god does not exist. You also have not shown why it is any more unreasonable to believe in the non-existence of god than the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy. Even if the burden of proof does lie on me to disprove something which is by definition not falsifiable, how does this suggest that I am a hypocrite?