venomai

Partied as Mario, a friend of mine was Luigi.

And what about hypnagogia and deep meditation? Are these activities "bad for you" because they "mess with your neuro chemical balance enough to cause hallucinations"? Arguably, eating junk food is "bad for you," but in moderation it doesn't pose significant health risks. Similarly, drugs like alcohol, cannabis and salvia have not shown to be significantly harmful to us when taken in moderation. Could you provide sources for cannabis/salvia/etc. causing proteins to malform over time? Sorry to hear. Car accidents can also be caused by simple fatigue, legal drugs, text messenging, etc. This is of course no reason to prohibit or even discourage texting/fatigue/legal drugs in a safe environment, though. Prostitution is illegal in Thailand, but the laws are seldom enforced and the industry is rarely regulated. The decision to legalize indoor prostitution in the Netherlands, on the other hand, was made to protect the women who choose to practice it.

How have I misquoted? Given the full context, you said: "To be honest, I'd rather work on a percentage system. 100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on." The rest of your post doesn't seem to suggest that your above definition is being used "merely as a tool." This is more accurately described as strong atheism, and it need not necessarily be a conviction "beyond any reasonable doubt." Part of the problem is that there are two common definitions of atheism. The broad definition is "a lack of belief in gods," and the narrow definition is "the belief that gods do not exist." The former is ambiguous, hence the need for strong/weak prefixes. You again show your misunderstanding when you place agnosticism "in the middle," as if to say that it cannot co-exist with theism. Agnosticism lies in the realm of knowledge, and atheism lies in the realm of belief. They are two separate questions. Then you are also agnostic, by most definitions (unless you claim to "have knowledge of god," in which case you would be gnostic). It's not silly at all. If we conclude that the existence of unicorns is not known, then 'agnostic' (a claim to ignorance) would be the most rational position to take. And that is exactly what many agnostics are doing (hence 'agnostic theists' and the like). I disagree. It's extremely important that we're all clear on definitions before we get into a debate with these terms.

By definition, you are 100% atheist and 100% agnostic. What about non-scientific enlightenment? :) This is incorrect by most definitions of agnosticism. Here is a more accurate explanation of agnosticism: From: About.com - What is Agnosticism? You are either agnostic or gnostic. There are no percentages... it's a simple one or the other! Remember, gnosticism does not necessarily dictate one's belief in god -- some theists are gnostic, and others are agnostic. For example, a strong believer in god may come to accept their ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge), thus becoming an agnostic theist.

I like them both. Pretty original! :thumbsup:

I've never heard of 'bonfire night'...

Lenticular_J - Thanks for sharing your beliefs with us. Glad to hear some original thought is going into them. "Seeing into" a "universe of love" struck me as similar to certain descriptions of spiritual experiences. A true spiritual experience is characterized by varying features, and can be induced by certain drugs and/or deep meditative states (they have also been reported spontaneously). Neurotheology is somewhat of a recent field that investigates the link between neurology and spiritual experiences. Here's a quote from a 2001 article on neurotheology: Just speculating here, but it seems plausible that the inspiration of certain spiritual leaders (such as Jesus) may be due to differences in their brain structure that allow them to tap into this spiritual state more readily. The article writes that, in 1999, "Australian researchers found that people who report mystical and spiritual experiences tend to have unusually easy access to subliminal consciousness." Whether or not you believe these experiences to be a genuine depiction of the divine is another question altogether. :lol:

By definition, a strong atheist is agnostic. It would be illogical to claim knowledge of something which you assert does not exist. Agnosticism is a position that does not exclude one's belief in gods. What exactly is knowledge? Often it is defined as a gained understanding and/or perception of something. With that in mind, say somebody has a spontaneous 'spiritual experience' and suddenly 'understands and perceives god'. Science might be able to pinpoint the change in brain chemistry that triggers such an experience, but showing that the experience was "not genuine" is much more difficult. If the individual chooses to accept that gained knowledge, they can rationally take the position of gnosticism, as they "have knowledge of the divine." Simplify the above and we have a layman Christian who "just knows" that god exists (even without having a true 'spiritual experience'). Can they too not also rationally take the position of gnosticism? To you and me agnosticism may seem like the most rational position, but that's because neither of us "have knowledge" of god. If we did have knowledge of god (even if it is a delusion), gnosticism may seem like the much more rational position to take.

You're misunderstanding the terms agnostic and atheist... An atheist is simply somebody who lacks belief in gods. Atheism, or more specifically "strong atheism," also refers to those who disbelieve in gods -- i.e. they believe that gods do not exist. Anyone who lacks belief in god's existence is '100%' atheist. And, of course, we are not all agnostic...

The banning of books is a weak attempt at censorship to "protect the children." It is often counter-productive: the book's popularity (and subsequent sales) tend to increase.

Proven correct by whom? You haven't given us any names or institutions, let alone a link to the original text. What you described is most certainly a myth. http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

Ah, sorry. I somehow misinterpreted the word "unbiased" to mean "biased." :lol:

Then you'll agree with my earlier post: physical proof (e.g. "God's creations and all that surrounds us") does not support the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, or any other deity for that matter. That is the point I'm making in my rebuttal to Saruman's claims. And what exactly is unbiased? Surely not the physical evidence? :lol:

Hard drugs? Singapore prohibits any illicit drug use at all, often to the fullest extent of the law. Per capita, Singapore has the highest rate of executions, many of which are drug-related. A heavy heroin addict, for example, would be put to death if caught with 2 or more grams of heroin (this is roughly a week's worth of daily doses). Yet another contributor to Singapore's clean streets is their strict laws surrounding arms offences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... _Singapore Singapore certainly is interesting, though. I'll look into this.

...And, as I'm sure you well realize, the opposite means nothing as well. So what, exactly, is the point? What is "the opposite"? Do you mean non-existence? I'm arguing directly against Saruman's claim that there is physical proof to support the existence of the Judeo-Christian God (of which, I presume, "the world around us" is his physical proof). I'll admit, it's become a cliché.

:lol: Empirical evidence backing scientific theories (e.g. the Big Bang, evolution, etc) is abundant and has shown to exist. The empirical evidence backing Creationism and God has not shown to exist. The "world around us" is no more physical proof of the Judeo-Christian God than it is proof of any other deity, or, for lack of a better example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's pretty hard to operate machines at all while tripping on salvia. e.g. Driving on salvia Perhaps there are a few idiots who will manage to drive while tripping on salvia (an incredible feat in itself), but there's no reason to prohibit the drug entirely because of this small minority. Lots of people drive while texting on their cell phones, but it would be ludicrous to entirely ban text messenging because of those few idiots! :lol: A fatal overdose of salvia is extremely unlikely when it is smoked or chewed. One study in which rats and mice are exposed to high and chronic doses of salvinorin A concludes that "the toxicity of salvinorin A is relatively low, even at doses many times that of what humans are exposed to."[1] In all its documented use, there has not been any reports of death as a direct result of humans smoking or chewing salvia. The current evidence suggests that, in respect to toxicity, you are more likely to die from excessive aspirin use than excessive salvia use. How is alcohol/tobacco abuse just as harmful as salvia abuse? No doubt smoking salvia regularly may affect lung function, but it has not shown to be nearly as harmful as the damage (and addiction) caused by heavy/chronic alcohol and tobacco abuse. Many people enjoy the introspective, reality-shattering and/or spiritual experiences that are common in salvia trips. This isn't to say that they all "have fun" on salvia (although some will). Of course, not all drugs are done with the sole intention of feeling a temporary bliss.

Similar to the ways in which we educate the public on the risks of smoking cigarettes, which are also very addicting. What makes you think the law is a good deterrent? Compare the relative rates of marijuana and heroin use -- both Schedule I substances, and both equally as illegal in many states. The public generally favours certain drugs over others not based on their legal status, but on the perceived health risks (to themselves and others). Prohibition does not remove drug use. Rather, it removes potential tax revenue, forces the drug further underground, and often causes an increase in rates of use and abuse. Limits certainly should be set in a society to ensure its stability, but prohibition seems to be a very ineffective and inefficient way to regulate this. In my opinion, full legalization is unrealistic given our current situation in the West. Decriminalization would be more realistic.

Sorry bout the misquote... I wasn't fully "with it" when I wrote that post.

Let's say you take a drug that impairs your judgement - we could really just use alcohol for this example. Let's say you overdose, or wander into traffic, or does something exceptionally stupid hurting yourself or others, or destroy something that shouldn't have been destroyed. No matter how you slice it, this is likely to cost someone money, or possibly hurt, or if you were really, really stupid, their life. I don't think anyone really gives a [cabbage] about what you do with your own life or money, the problem lies in the various drugs that'll cost other people money. "Take what you want, and pay for it". Find a way to guarantee you're the one paying for it, and knock yourself out. Many drugs can cause problems when they are abused, but the way to solve this isn't through prohibition and zero-tolerance. If anything, such a reaction would likely increase the rates of use and abuse.

Neither is LSD. The hallucinogenic properties are innate to the drug -- they are not "mixed" in. In the case of LSD-25 synthesized from ergot, the chemical itself is hallucinogenic. In the case of salvia, the chemical salvinorin A (found in salvia) is hallucinogenic.

Did you read the Wiki article at all? The drug hasn't been shown to be significantly harmful to your health, and it certainly wont kill you on your "first dose." This assumption is based on only a single suicide case. It's highly unlikely that any considerable link exists at all. Why is this? The prohibition of salvia is a proposal that will result in far more problems than it's attempting to resolve.

I think we should add religion to that list, as that gets abused a lot around here. Attacking other ideas and beliefs (i.e. religion, non-religion, etc) should be fully encouraged in any healthy debate. Shielding specific views from potential criticism is not a good idea.

An atheist "does not believe in god(s)." Lacking belief in gods is different from believing that they do not exist. Sometimes prefixes are used to narrow the meaning of atheism, where a "weak" atheist lacks belief in god and a "strong" atheist believes that god does not exist. Agnostic is very different, as it deals with knowledge. For example, many theists are also agnostic (= agnostic theist). It is not a simple "one or the other" position. I, personally, am a "strong atheist" for the same reasons that I believe that Russell's Teapot and Flying Pink Unicorns do not exist. My belief on the non-existence of such entities is not based purely on faith, but rather on reason and empirical values (rather, a clear lack of evidence). I reject their existence because I see no evidence to suggest they exist.

Sleepwalking occurs during slow-wave sleep. During this stage of sleep, you can experience "dream-thoughts," but you will not experience the same full-blown dreams that you would in REM stage. REM sleep behaviour disorder (loss of muscle atonia, i.e. not a full paralysis) can result in twitches and movements during sleep (rarely full sleepwalking), but this disorder is usually seen in older persons (around 60 years old). A lot of people experience sleep paralysis, and it can even be induced with enough will and determination. During atonia, your respiratory muscles are spared from paralysis. Even if your breathing feels shortened, your body will ensure that you have enough oxygen. It's important to relax as best you can -- sleep paralysis may be an unpleasant feeling, but it poses no immediate risks to your health, and panicking will only make things feel worse. Get that checked out immediately. An increase in dream recall and sleep paralysis isn't necessarily a bad sign, but things like pain and swelling are not normal. PS: Sleeping in the hallway between classes? Do you often get daytime sleepiness? If so, you may want to also ask your doctor about narcolepsy. It's pretty common for narcoleptics to experience sleep paralysis.