user1991

LOL. You being serious with that avatar..? Again, it is about drugs in general, such as heroin and meth, the ones that can kill you. But being high off of anything from meth all the way down to sharpies(yes I have seen it :shock: ) isn't good for you, and I usually advise people against intentionally impairing their judgement and harming themselves, but more so that they can harm others while impaired. In that case, I suggest you change your avatar to something like "METH - JUST SAY NO" or "ALCOHOL - JUST SAY NO", considering they're both much more dangerous than weed. And 420 is only associated with weed. When you say 420 yet you mean meth and crack, it's sorta misleading. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone sayin the whole 420 thing yet actually referring to meth.

I've known quite a few guys who have gotten marijuana laced with cocaine, LSD, PCP, you name it. All because no one regulates. Another reason to legalize. Once I got weed laced with PCP.... but the thing is, it was actually amazing. I guess I'm really lucky I didn't end up thinking I was a chicken or a goat or something.

LOL. You being serious with that avatar..?

*My edits in bold* And on the pothead post, Kill_thomas got it right. Talking about psychedelics making you "think" and how that is "dangerous." That be pothead/drug user rhetoric. I know those tests seem legitimate, but the marijuana from the 70's they used was low grade marijuana that had been in a footlocker for over 20 years, and had depreciated in potency. The pot from the 80's is much more reliable, but the potency had still dimished over the decades it was there. Still, pot is about 3x stronger than it was 30 years ago. But potency doesn't really matter all that much. Back in those days, people made a joint, and smoked the entire thing throughout the day. These days, people take 5-8 hits (5 breaths of smoke if anybody doesn't know what a hit is) and they're good for the day (or at least 4 hours). Exactly, potency is actually a better argument for legalisation. 1. When you buy weed on the street you don't know how strong it is. 2. If weed was legal and you could buy in a store, you would know how strong it was. 3. Therefore, you could adjust your dose accordingly. It's like beer and whiskey. You don't drink the same amount of each just because they're "alcohol". You adjust how much you take because you know one is much stronger. When buying weed off the street, you don't know. If its legal, and you get it from a store, then you DO know.

Okay, well the risks for marijuana use are much less than the risks for alcohol and tobacco. Maybe even caffeine.

No offense taken. I don't know why you would feel the need to point that out though. If by pothead you mean "someone who occasionally smokes pot and actually thinks it can be good" then I'd agree, yes I'm a pothead. But in the interest of being fair, you have to call everyone that drinks a "drinkhead" too. I'm confused, are you talking to me or an above poster? Your post is semi-long and a few posts could have been made while you were typing. The other guy.. I quoted him... Anyway, on your previous post; You can't include marijuana being illegal as one of the risks of marijuana when in a debate on whether it should be legal or not. That's kinda circular.

No offense taken. I don't know why you would feel the need to point that out though. If by pothead you mean "someone who occasionally smokes pot and actually thinks it can be good" then I'd agree, yes I'm a pothead. But in the interest of being fair, you have to call everyone that drinks a "drinkhead" too. Whilst my rhetoric may be pothead-esque, I challenge you to disprove any of that which I stated. I think you'll find it hard.

I didn't answer your points because they don't even warrant answers. But okay, let's go. 1. Bad things can happen on alcohol, and weed, and any drug. BUT THE SAME GOES FOR ANYTHING. Going on an aeroplane, skydiving, going scuba-diving, surfing, skateboarding, list is endless really. The question is, do the pros outweigh the cons. And for marijuana, they do. 2. Marijuana isn't physically addictive. 3. Generally, if you're at a marijuana party, you won't mind inhaling other peoples' smoke. Such is the nature of a marijuana party. In Amsterdam you can't smoke marijuana in public etc, but you can smoke it in coffee shops because everyone is there to get high in the first place. Unless, I've been misinformed, and all those people smoking marijuana actually don't want to. [/sarcasm] 4. His "meatrod" (if your thing looks anything like meat, or a rod for that matter, you might want to get that checked out somewhere.) is not in my mouth. However, the governments metaphorical "meatrod" of control, is very much penetrating you from behind. Yes, the anal imagery was necessary.

The guy makes a topic on drugs that isn't negative, and actually discusses how we can improve our system of education, yet you imply that he's insane and needs locking up.. You're the one that's insane ffs. You have the consensus, the politicians, and the soccer moms on your side, but not reason. Reason will never side with you because you're IRRATIONAL by nature. You, the manipulated idiots, continue to enslave yourselves, but it doesn't matter, because you don't know it and you think you're so "free". Others however, want to change the way they think, and want to enjoy themselves without having to damage their bodies by taking alcohol. So they choose to take safer drugs. Yet people like you, can't just let them do it, because you must protest anything that doesn't fit into your neat little idea of what life should and shouldn't be. You make me sick. Bad things can happen on alcohol, and they happen on weed too. Bad things can happen on anything. Aeroplanes are a good example. Just stfu and let people live their lives the way they want to. IF they harm others, punish them. If they don't, what's the problem?

*whistles for the fascist government machine to just take over now because people like you will support them no matter what, as long as you get to live your pretty little ignorant lives and continue to enjoy throwing people into the gutter and offering them no way out.

Anti drug commercials don't protest anti beer, they protest anti marijuana which is heavily addicting I suggest you read any scientific studies done on marijuana, because I think you'll find you've been misinformed. It isn't addicting, alcohol is.

Lmao. When you go to a bar and you see people drinking and relaxing with friends, do you think "man, these guys are beyond help." What's the difference between a group of people who drink and a group of people who do weed? If anything, people who blaze are safer. Alcohol is much more dangerous and if you don't believe me you can check pretty much any survey which looks into it. There are two reasons why marijuana is illegal. 1. The government dislikes anyone who questions their motives and marijuana is a drug that makes you more likely to question their motives. So, they introduce a system of scare tactics and indoctrinate the childrens' minds with it. 2. Those children grow up, carry the ignorance, and infect their children with it. Quit spreadin the stigma man.

They don't work because they use scare tactics instead of giving actual information. Look at it this way. Marijuana is both bad and good. If you're just chilling with a few friends, thinking about life, existence, etc, etc, then it's good. If you're getting high and you end up falling over and breaking your arm, then its bad. BUT, they only tell you about the second scenario. Do you think its a coincidence that alcohol and tobacco, the two drugs that do pretty much nothing to your way of thinking, are the legal ones, yet ones such as marijuana, shrooms, LSD, DMT etc, (which have also been proven to be less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco) and which change your way of thinking and make you realise why you think the thoughts you do, and just why and how you're being manipulated everyday to do and say certain things, are the illegal ones....? To me, it seems pretty goddamn obvious.

Good old George Carlin :) Why don't they just make it illegal after the baby has the capacity to suffer/become conscious..? I mean, the conservative arguments on souls and the "potential for life" are both fallacious. 1. is just obviously idiotic, and if you look at 2., then you realise that you can apply the logic to a rape situation - that if you stop it, you have potentially stopped the birth of a new age Einstein or Beethoven.. The only actual good argument against it is whether the babies suffer or not.. Now I don't know if they do, haven't done any research, but I think that "life" actually begins when someone is conscious, not when their body develops.. So if they outlaw it after they become conscious, which I presume is late into pregnancy, then there is no problem really...

I like Asian chicks with a passion. I think drugs are not just not bad, but are actually good. Except alcohol, what a stupid drug. I got fired in a record 12 seconds of my first job for calling my boss a "conservative neo-nazi ****er" :)

I know exactly what you mean when you say faith. It isn't that I don't understand what it is, I don't understand why or HOW you can believe it. It is so frustrating debating with people who openly admit that they subscribe to a concept that ignores evidence and bases "reality" on simply what you want to be. Its the ultimate cop out. "It doesn't matter if you prove all of our arguments wrong, because we have faith. Nothing you can say will change that." Okay, you have faith, and nothing I say can change it. But on the off chance that in future years you see how ridiculous this concept is, I'll say one thing and leave it at that. If one of your closest friends told you that your parents had died in a car crash, but later you find out that they're still alive, and you confront the friend and he says "It doesn't matter if they're alive, I have faith that they're dead, so they're dead!!!, and he went on to arrange funeral proceedings and send out RIP notices to family members" - what would you think? Of course, I'm being overly dramatic to place emphasis on the irrationality of such concepts - and I know that by the very essence of your faith you don't even listen to reason, but whatever.

Let me just tell you something, A belief in a unicorn on the moon - A lack of belief in a unicorn on the moon. These are not EQUAL, simply because they're opposite. It doesn't work that way. One is based upon evidence. Have we ever observed a unicorn? No. Is there any evidence to suggest that they have ever existed? No. Is there any evidence to suggest that there is one on the moon? No. But we cannot prove there isn't one. But I must stress, this does not make the two ideas equal. One is based upon evidence, and one isn't. The same goes for the God thing. You can't believe in the Christian God unless you fully accept that you have to believe in him, even if you were faced with overwhelming evidence that he didn't exist. For you to claim that this is anything other than irrational, well, would be stupid.

Common misconception. Atheism is different to theism because it's a lack of a belief. It's like calling someone who isn't an astrologer a non-astrologer and them claiming that that is a profession. And that fact that we cannot disprove/prove anything is irrelevant. Sure, in this sense you're right, but the whole point of the scientific method is that you look upon the evidence and use it to make assumptions that are logical and based off of that evidence. There isn't any evidence for a God. If there is, give it to me. Stop [cabbage]ting, just give me the evidence. I can't prove there isn't a teapot in outer space, but we don't assume there is. We assume something to not be the case until evidence suggests that it is. And there is no evidence for the existence of God. This doesn't matter of course, because the whole concept of faith deals with evidence by removing it from the equation. Its just baffling that people still buy into that stuff. The same people who can operate computers and create pieces of innovative technology also believe that they are right (right doesn't exist, but for the sake of using popular terms....) to hold a belief, that even if proven wrong (when I say wrong, I mean beyond reasonable doubt), they would still hold. This, is not a good thing. I'm going to start telling Christians that their parents have died, and then if they get angry at me because they found out they're alive, I'm going to tell them that I have faith in them being dead so it doesn't matter what they say because I'll always believe it. Hopefully then they'll realise how stupid they're being.

Genius. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA Bill Hicks, a true legend.

I understand faith. I just discard it because its ridiculous. I know that evidence doesn't mean anything because you have faith, I'm just trying to illustrate how ludicrous that concept is. I don't honestly understand how you can believe such bs. But then again, you have religious faith, so I guess its normal for you to cherry pick, "interpret", ignore, and finally disregard evidence as you see fit in order to suit your purpose. But to everyone that isn't shrouded by the cloak of religious comfort or need, your philosophy seems both infantile and ridiculous.

I can't disprove that there is a Unicorn named Jimmy who rules the world living under Los Angeles in a secret, interdimensionary lair. But without evidence for such a claim, I cannot claim that it is true. You have no evidence of God. It is as simple as this - give me some evidence and I will convert. Stop the bs, just give me the evidence. You don't start at a conclusion and then work back to prove it. You don't assume there are fairies, or pink unicorns, or elves, or hobgoblins, yet you can't disprove that they exist.

This is where you're wrong. You supply me with evidence of a God, and I convert. IMMEDIATELY. That's the difference between you and I. You have faith in something, and by your own admission, if we disproved the entire Bible and even the concept of God (which isn't possible), but say we do, you still wouldn't change your mind. I think this, is the most important issue. You're absorbed so much into your God thing that you refuse to acknowledge anything else. Yet you live in a world of reason and evidence. If someone told you that your hair was on fire and that even if you proved that it wasn't on fire, they would still believe it was because they had faith in that concept, you'd think they were ridiculous. Why, oh why, do you have to be part of the consensus... In every other area of discourse, you use reason. Except the God one. I wonder if its a coincidence that it makes you feel good. Hint, hint.

This is the question I would like answered as well. However, I've simply been told I don't understand faith and been passed by. Stay on topic, theists. I'd like to see a well-reasoned debate out of you. How about some evidence? Their concept of faith means that they need not give evidence for any claims they make. Thus, when we ask for evidence, that is why they think we don't understand faith. Of course, to any rationally thinking person, the concept of faith is at best, laughable.

Of course, the point of this thread is to impress and convince you personally that there is a God. Every person has morals, which are standards of right behavior. Yet, where do these morals come from? How do we know what right behavior is? Its common sense that killing a person (not in self-defense) is wrong. But where does that common sense come from? It must come from a higher being, a diety, a god. No, it doesn't have to, ill explain further. An atheist could argue that this is not possible, since a god doesn't exist. Part of out morals come from our parents. Parents teach us the basics of morality when we are young. Now, if one's parents were atheists, where did their parents get their morals? If you trace it back far enough, you are bound to run into a generation in which your relatives did believe in a god, in this case, the true God (my opinion). Thus, their morals came from that God, and their parents. Absolutely ridiculous logic. Morality comes from, in Dawkin's words, the changing zeitgeist. Our morals haven't been so concrete in the past, despite what you may claim. Not even that long ago, cannibalism was commonplace, as well as human sacrifice, child sacrifice, animal sacrifice, etc etc. Morality definitely doesn't come from the Christian God. When you read the Bible, do you adhere to every single word, or do you "interpret" (the Christian word for "cherry pick") which sections you believe? I assume you belong to the second category. So if morality came from the Christian God.. wouldn't you consider it "right" to kill homosexuals, adulterers? You don't, so obviously your morality hasn't come from the Bible. And if you go back to early civilisation, pretty much anything went. We only abolished slavery relatively recently (when you look at human civilisation as a whole). Now if a God supplied morality, you would think it would be pretty much solid, or objective, unless of course, omniscient and omnipotent Gods (I wouldn't be doing my duties as an atheist if I didn't point out that these two traits contradict)[*] make mistakes. So why, please tell me, if you trace back the history have human civilisation, have our morals been so ever-changing? The answer - zeitgeist (not the movie) However, lets say there is a tribe of completely isolated people who have never heard of a god. Where do they get their standards of right and wrong? Its called natural law. Natural law happens to be influenced by God, seeing as he created nature. Thus, they still get their morals from God. What evidence do you have to support the idea that God created nature? The Bible? Nature itself? Oh wait, we're going in circles. How familiar. So tell me, where do you get your morals? A god maybe? A combination of the process of natural selection and the changing zeitgeist. Unlike yours, these claims are actually based upon evidence. [*] Can an omniscient and omnipotent God change that which he already knows? @ I get angry when arguing with theists, simply because the concept of faith demands that you believe something without evidence. Whenever I've talked to Christians irl, they always resort to saying well "I believe in God, and it doesn't matter if you disprove my arguments, because I have faith." There is no evidence of a God. Its as simple as this. SUPPLY ME WITH SOME, AND I WILL CONVERT. No joke, just give me the evidence. As long as it is real, credible, testable evidence, then I will have no problem converting. Let me guess.. you can't? But you believe it anyway, because the concept of faith demands that you do. This, is a hindrance to both the progression of science, and the progression of our understanding of life, consciousness, time, and existence. I apologize if I come across as an arrogant atheist, but this is because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. I get angry because it annoys me that still, with the level of technology we have, and the things we can create, we still have people that believe something no matter what the evidence suggests, and that this concept is actually COMMENDED in theistic circles. The arguments you supply just seem so childish, and even if I disproved every single one of them, you would still have "faith." Do you not realise now ridiculous such a notion is?

[garden tool]-[garden tool]-hold on. You're criticizing (nearly) the exact same rationalization that has been used numerous times in this thread to "prove" God doesn't exist? And atheist committing a complete hypocrisy? Madness! You have no debating value in your post whatsoever. You don't know [cabbage] about Christianity; you're categorizing over two dozen very varied sects into one base that did not even comprise early Christianity. Since I can't try to insult atheism, as you'll counter it with "You're a stupid hypocrite!", I'll just leave it at this. No debating value..? Right, there's the concept of faith gone right there. Every single other area of discourse in your ENTIRE life, you use reason and evidence.We don't start at a conclusion, and then work back to prove it. We look at the evidence, and then theorise as to what that evidence suggests. Gaps in our knowledge do NOT suggest a God. They are as much evidence for God as they are for an evil species of Ape-Alien hybrids that exist in a different dimension and are using alpha-beta-photon waves to stop us from understanding existence. There are gaps in our understanding of the Universe, existence, and time. I'm not going to deny that. Everybody wants answers - but why must you pretend you already know them? 5,000 years ago people explained the setting of the Sun by saying that God took it into the sea in a giant canoe. To us, that seems ridiculous. But please, look a few thousand years into the future, or maybe a few million - it is extremely likely that they will look back upon us with pity at the relatively small amount of knowledge we have, and that their understanding will be well beyond ours, and they will have answers to questions that we haven't even asked. Why must we explain everything we don't know with the idea of "God"? There isn't any reliable evidence for the existence of a God. I must emphasise that gaps in our knowledge, are not evidence for anything other than the fact that we don't know the answers to certain questions. Atleast people who say that "scripture is evidence" are actually looking for evidence. As said previously, scripture isn't a reliable source for anything, when you consider how many times it has been edited/mistranslated, and even then, someone could have just pulled it out of their [wagon] in the first place. But, people who say that are actually using what they perceive to be evidence to back up their claims. Same goes for the people who use miracles to show you that God exists. Of course, the "evidence" is ridiculous when you take a closer look at it, but at least they're trying. They subscribe to the idea of using evidence to create a hypothesis, the fact that they're doing it incorrectly and with substantial bias is irrelevent. So called religious moderates don't even attempt to use evidence. They just say something like "I believe in God because it makes me feel good. I believe in God because there are no other explanations for certain answers." - such reasoning should be ridiculed by every rationally thinking person over the age of 5. You can believe what you like, and that should be your right to do so. BUT, that doesn't mean I cannot criticise you for it. If you believed that all non-white people should be executed, I would ridicule you for that too. Im not relating that belief to Christianity, I am just arguing that claims based on "faith" or anything other than evidence should simply be discarded immediately. I don't get how you can live your life in a world where reason is essential yet not apply the same thinking you do to EVERYTHING else to the topic of God. At times, I get angry arguing with theists, and thats because they just aren't looking at it rationally. There may be a God, but at the moment, there is no evidence to suggest that there is. Supply me with evidence of a God and I will convert IMMEDIATELY.