venomai

And how, exactly, am I a hypocrite for believing flat out that god does not exist? (i.e. "strong atheism")

The schizophrenic perceives reality differently as well. I do not wish to liken theism to a mental illness -- the term has such a negative undertone (hell, homosexuality was once labelled a mental illness) -- but belief in god (more specifically, god's role in our lives) certainly is a delusion. At the very least, it is as much of a delusion as the belief in ghosts, goblins and the Tooth Fairy. Delusion has little to do with intelligence. e.g. Terrence McKenna was an extremely intelligent man, but in his later years he fell victim to a set of very clear delusions (most likely associated with his frequent high-dose psychedelic use, see here). (As an aside: Apologies for the repeated drug references.)

I'll be honest: I do judge forum posters based on grammar, spelling and sentence structure. One's use of their native language is, in my experience, often a very good indicator of intelligence. With that said, it certainly doesn't need to be perfect. I'm guilty of many comma splices, I overuse words and phrases all the time, I misuse colons and dashes, I can't form lists for crap, etc.

The more people who have the same type of experiences, independent of one another, the less likely those experiences are to be products of mass hysteria/mass hallucination. Come on, now. You should know this. Not really. Take, for example, a higher rate of world LSD use and a subsequent increase in culture-independent experiences of "the walls are breathing." This does not decrease the likelihood of such an experience being a product of mass hallucination. If anything, such a scenario would strengthen the argument that "walls breathing" is a hallucination caused by the chemical and its effects on the brain. Maybe the walls are breathing, though, and LSD just opens your mind to the reality?

I totally swear we (Well, maybe it wasn't you. It was someone, though) had this argument before. Speaking only of Christianity here, you don't get to redefine the Bible because you don't agree with it. The assumptions above make things unnecessarily complex, especially considering the fact the last two statements are only debated by the non-religious. In answering my question, then, all we have is: "My religion told me so." :lol: And I don't recall having this argument with you. Hallucination and subsequent delusion is commonplace in human history. Take a look at early explanations of sleep paralysis, for example, which almost exclusively attributes the experience to demons and evil spirits visiting during the night. Although science now understands it to be a naturally occurring phenomenon, there are countless individuals who still report the event as paranormal. Subjective experiences can be deceiving, especially when one is in an altered state of mind (e.g. from hypnagogia, LSD, meditation... all of which may elicit feelings of "hearing God" or the divine).

How does this invalidate the need for its creation? How can we with any certainty assert that non-corporeal entities need no creation if we cannot even grasp what they are, or whether they exist?

Life, liberty, freedom, security, voting -- these are all concepts invented and defined by society, yet they continue to be seen as natural or legal rights in (most) free societies. Rights evolve over time, adapting to major changes in society. 20th and 19th century changes in racial and gender roles in the West is an example of this. (1) All laws discriminate against criminals, sure. But that doesn't mean we cannot point out, say, racial and gender discrimination in the law/society. (2) Society changes. The erradication of racial and gender discrimination is an example of this change in society. (3) The right to murder and violate traffic regulations are neither recognized by society nor the legal system. Maybe these are recognized as rights in la-la land, but they are certainly not rights in any industrialized society.

MirageOfDeath - Many gay couples would like the same legal and social benefits that can be attained through heterosexual marriage. Oftentimes there is little care for the actual religious aspects of the union.

And other Supreme Court rulings (e.g. California, May 2008) have declared that denying marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. We can play this game all night. :lol: Although you claim that "marriage is not a right", a number of cases have recognized it as a clear right to the person (Loving v. Virginia, Hernandez v. Robles, Zablocki v. Redhail, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Perez v. Sharp, even Baker v. Nelson). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also agrees that we "have the right to marry and to found a family" and that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."[1] Quite simply, marriage -- traditionally defined in the West as the union between consenting opposite-sex, same-race adults who are not too closely related -- is a fundamental right in any free society. Racism throughout the 19th and 20th centuries strongly influenced Western society. The same-race condition was eventually extinguished from the "tradition" of marriage due to it being too discriminatory (in the United States, the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws reflected this change). A similar change is occurring now, as society continues to move forward, and as the definition of marriage continues to broaden. Perhaps it's a stretch, but by no means do religious undertones need to be explicitly defined for them to exist. An act that is not prohibited by law is, by default, legal. Prohibition of something is the first to require a rationale, not legalization. Nope, that obviously isn't slippery slope. Of course, trying to then suggest that we must also make exceptions for all other discriminated groups would be a slippery slope.

For me, the first thing that comes to my mind is a comprehensive and honest drug education program, one that emphasizes responsible use over zero-tolerance (similar to comprehensive sex education). I'd also like to see more emphasis in artistic and creative thought, more flexibility in course selection, less emphasis on specific details and facts as a required part of the curriculum (e.g. historical dates, parabolic functions, etc), and more focus on understanding broader concepts (such as correlation vs. causation, scientific proofs and theories, understanding analogies and fallacies, etc). I might put more thought into this later. Great thread.

Marriage is a socially and legally binding contract between individuals. Denial of this "basic civil right"[1] creates a clear discrimination and removes the right to equal protection. Legalizing gay marriage will help to curb discrimination and homophobia in a similar way that legalizing interracial marriage will help to curb racism. Legalization of gay marriage also helps to separate church from state, removing the religious undertones of the "Man and Woman" morality. [1] This quote is drawn from Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on interracial marriage was unconstitutional (and the restrictions were subsequently overturned). Here is the full quote, taken from Wikipedia: I'm curious to understand your reasons for not wanting to legalize gay marriage. More specifically, what is the basis on which it should be prohibited (or remain unsanctioned)? Other than, of course, the destruction of beloved "tradition." :) This is irrelevant to the question of gay rights. It's also strikingly similar to the beginnings of a slippery slope argument.

Sly: Why bring up traditional marriage in the first place? More importantly, why are you repeatedly stressing it as a worthwhile point in this debate? There are many traditions throughout history that need not be repeated in this day and age for the simple reason that society has since changed. Advocates of traditional marriage mainly argue that "non-traditional marriage is different." This reasoning is not adequate enough to deny rights to those interested in same-sex unions.

Waste of time. Do a half minute worth of research after viewing the "theory" and you'll see that it's complete bunk.

People I'd like to meet in general... The Buddha, Tim Leary, Socrates, Banksy, Leonardo Da Vinci, an Egyptian Pharaoh or two, a tribal shaman, a prominent historian in the distant future, some intelligent life forms from other galaxies, and of course God himself. Same here. I'm more curious to see how Earth has developed after another one million years, two million years, nine million years, etc.

Many of these drugs have medical potential, as we have already established. Outright prohibition hinders possible medical research and use. Thus such a prohibition may not be "for the good of the masses," if they are losing out on effective treatments. The drugs mentioned here (cannabis, salvia, LSD, even MDMA) have also not shown to be significantly harmful/addicting when used in moderation. Lastly, a free society should also encourage freedom of thought. If I had to guess, it would be under 12 years old.

Sly, what reasons do you have to doubt the idea that one can be agnostic and also follow theism? (Aptly named "agnostic theism")

My dad taught me not to eat glass...

It seems likely that many ghost/alien/spirit encounters can be attributed to chemical changes in the brain and altered states of consciousness. Two common scenarios come to mind. The first is hypnagogic hallucinations of demons, evil spirits and aliens (sometimes related to sleep paralysis). The second is out-of-body and near-death experiences (and related phenomena), in which seemingly realistic sightings and even communications with other beings (deceased relatives, spirit guides, etc) has been reported.

You're assuming that these two somethings must lie on the same spectrum. Theist and atheist are contradictory in that they lie on opposite ends of the same spectrum (that of belief). Theist and agnostic, on the other hand, are terms which lie on separate "spectrums" or "realms," neither of which contradicts the other. I'm also not a fan of the strong/weak prefixes. When I can, I prefer to define atheism as the specific belief that gods do not exist. In my opinion, those that hold no belief (such as a newborn baby) should not require a label of theism/atheism.

Sure. You said: You can't seem to form a coherent argument... :| I don't see this going very far. Do you mind me asking how old you are? [Not meaning to reduce to ad hominem -- I'm simply curious.]

Most drugs discussed in this thread have a low physical addiction potential. As with any activity -- casual sex, video games, etc -- it's possible to become psychologically dependent. But we aren't about go banning casual sex and video games just because a small minority becomes dependent! :lol: Here is a short list of sources that support the low physical addiction potential in both LSD and cannabis: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_basics.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD http://www.talktofrank.com/drugs.aspx?id=192 http://www.drugabusehelp.com/drugs/lsd/ http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/addiction.htm http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/c ... sics.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_iss ... f_cannabis My 'tangent' was a direct response to your claim that these drugs are not useful to society. MDMA, which is not one of the drugs I was talking about, has shown to have therapeutic potential in treating PTSD and anxiety in the terminally ill. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/re ... ma_1.shtml http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/x_10.htm However, I am more interested in the medical and recreational benefits of LSD, psilocybin, DMT and cannabis.

Let me state again. The two most well-accepted English definitions of atheism are as follows: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God 2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism You are free to redefine atheism to mean "a monkey's buttocks" if you wish, but such nonsensical redefinition of the English language gets us nowhere when we are attempting to have a debate on these terms. Strong atheism (i.e. the narrow definition) certainly does require a belief, although not necessarily one that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Atheism, used broadly, refers to both strong and weak atheism. It is not necesarily restricted to a mere lack of belief. Atheism and theism answer questions of belief: Do you believe in god? Agnosticism and gnosticism answer questions of knowledge: Do you have knowledge of god? This is what I mean by the "realms" of belief/knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic. It would be rather contradictory to claim knowledge of something and not believe in it (e.g. "It's raining outside but I don't believe that it is"). Agnostics are agnostics... well, yea. Atheists are atheists, AlexDT is AlexDT, etc. This describes gnosticism, not theism. A theist may or may not "know." According to your earlier statements, you don't just lack belief in gods; you believe that they do not exist (= strong atheist). Surely you can see the blatant contradiction in such a statement? The confusion seems to arise from your lack of understanding of the terms atheist and agnostic, and your attempts to redefine these terms to your liking. I see no confusion in the "any reasonable doubt" phrase. To use an analogy: although layman understanding of the term "scientific theory" may not be accurate, it would be ludicrous to suggest that all debates surrounding the subject must degrade into the same inaccurate representations solely because of widespread colloquial use.

The money is held in "negotiable bonds." The actual money the winner would receive may be much less than the expected amount. I'm sure most of the participants are full of BS, but that's aside the point. :lol: As of April 2007, the challenge only accepts those with an existing media profile. This instantly creates a bias. Those who advertise their 'ability' are more likely to have a media profile and are often more motivated by profit (which is suggestive of a hoax).

I've gone through phases of spiritual atheism. Ghosts and spirits of the dead are essentially one in the same, but 'ghost' has more of a popular fiction interpretation. The James Randi Challenge is a bunch of BS, and more or less a total scam. :lol:

Salvia is not equal to LSD. The prohibition of LSD (and soft drugs in general) is causing more problems than it's attempting to resolve. Most soft drugs have a low risk of physical addiction (especially a drug like LSD). Your argument is moot. If you agree that legalization would ultimately reduce the rates of use and abuse, why do you favour prohibition? These are drugs that have tremendous medical and therapeutic benefit, not to mention recreational benefit, to the public at large. Prohibition restricts these benefits and creates a destructive and unnecessary social stigma toward drug use in general. Immoral in your opinion. In some societies, prostitution can be seen as a respectable career and lifestyle. In the Netherlands, men and women who choose to be prostitutes are protected by the state rather than prosecuted by it. Terrible example: all chocolate has more or less the same effect on the body and brain. Different drugs can be widely different in their physical and psychological effects. Simply because somebody tries caffeine doesn't mean they will want to try datura, as they are recognized as two distinctly different drugs. The problem with salvia is that it is portrayed by the mass media (and YouTube idiots) as a "legal high comparable to marijuana." This is really ignorant thinking.