Hey,
Sorry if I missed a question you might've asked. I haven't been in this thread for quite a while.

Yeah, I smoke weed. I stopped smoking it after I got fucked up on whatever drug started my whole ordeal I described (I'm assuming it was LSD, but it might've been something else). I didn't do any drugs for around 7 years after all that shit. Then I started drinking beer and wine and coffee, and that was it for about 7 more years. Then I started smoking weed about 2 or so years ago.

So I had gone almost 15 years without weed. Now I probably smoke 2-3 times a week. I don't like to do any drug every day, whether it is cannabis, alcohol, or even coffee. I don't like to build up a tolerance. I like to really feel whatever drug I'm putting in me. I've got some really strong strains, so when I smoke it normally isn't very much. ... a bowl or two usually gets me plenty ripped.

As far as how it affects me... I like it. I personally love to listen to or play music high. It seems to bring out interesting aspects of music. Sometimes I'll toke it up and pray, meditate, that kind of thing. Weed seems to open the mind up a bit to some more creative angles to look at problems from. I enjoy that.

I don't notice any negative effects. If I get "too high" by smoking too much it isn't very fun... because I just become a useless pile of flesh that can't think or move. Also, if I smoke a lot, my lungs will hurt a bit and I'll have a cough, so I often vaporize to save my lungs. That pretty much eliminates any lung problems. I'll still smoke once in a while, and my lungs are fine as long as it isn't too often.

Hmmmm....I think I agree with that last part you said.

__________________
how do you know my language?

Okay, we can disqualify the old testament, that does throw out a good deal of the real wacky shit.

Do you own a bible? Which one?

Never accused you of believing any of that. I was just pointing out some rather unsavory acts carried out in the name of religion, and funded by it's followers. Knowingly and unknowingly.

I've also yet to judge you in any way. All the "crazy" is (I hope) blatantly rhetoric. In fact, I kind of like ya.

Lutheran party line? Curious about this one. I only pointed out that I was raised lutheran because you insinuated that some of my views on christianity sounded baptist. Also, I wanted to point out that I have studied the bible in my life. I see no vantage your argument might gain by including this.

It's good to thin the blood every once in a while.

My body is my temple. It's the only one I got, and I take damn good care of it. Sure, I throw some abuse at it on occasion, though I assure you, my liver is not "shot", and I am a model of health.

The new testament warns against hedonism specifically and as a whole. I do not care to be meek, or pious. Therein lays my main objection with it's teachings.

You've shown such admirable reserve, and you concede your high ground for a gay jibe?

I am disappointed in you.

Again, from what source do you draw the infrastructure of your faith?

I don't hate all religious folk. They just don't know any better. I do hate the institution of religion.

It is impossible for me or anyone to quote the man jesus personally. He left no recorded documents. What we have is conjecture by other men, and even that has been twisted by time.

I own a bunch of different bibles.

I didn't mean the reference to anal sex as any sort of "jibe" against gays. I simply meant it for what it says. I don't even have anal sex with my wife. I'm not attracted to the thought of anal sex. I have nothing against people who have it, gay or straight. I have nothing against gays in general, personally, but I'm just in no way attracted to the type of sexual intercourse (male on male) that the New Testament seems to forbid.

If someone is attracted to male/male sexual intercourse, then I feel sorry for them... not because I think they are disgusting, but because I would be extremely conflicted if I were in their shoes. That is, if I were attracted to men for sex, and I also believed God forbade it. That would suck, no pun intended. I've got plenty of gay friends, to be honest. I'm pro-gay marriage (the government is not to be a church, and if the State is going to recognize marriage at all, it shouldn't discriminate based on religion or sex). Also, I'm pro-gay adoption, and pretty much everything else except for the fact I can't deny that the New Testament seems to call gay sex sin.

There are some people that enjoy the smell of shit. Just a fact... not a jibe. Not all people who have anal sex do, but they at least don't mind it enough to not have anal sex. I, on the other hand, do. I'm also not even attracted to guys on an emotional level, so the temptation to put my willy in another man is just not even there. Just a fact. Given notable modern "Christian's" disdain for gay people (Falwell, etc.), I probably should be more careful not to make comments that can be taken as a jibe. Sorry if I offended anyone.

For my faith I draw on the New Testament, the Christian Scriptures put into writing after Christ lived. When asking you to cite the NT instead of just saying what "Christianity" teaches something (i.e. the "Lutheran/Baptist/Whatever-Christian-Denomination party line), I simply meant that it can be said "Christianity" teaches anything anyone who called himself Christian has ever muttered. There are modern Christians who say Christ was an alien. There has to be some standard as to what "Christianity" actually teaches, and I'm simply suggesting one. Why not make that standard what the first Christians testified as to Christ himself teaching and saying?

We certainly can't quote Christ word for word with 100% accuracy, given that manuscript differences exist and various accounts can be slightly different, even in the New Testament. But the evidence shows the manuscripts we do have of his words are to a *huge* extent very much in accord with each other. All the evidence I've seen indicates we have a substantially accurate portrayal of the man. So by asking you to cite either Jesus or the New Testament when saying that "Christianity" teaches something, I simply mean to cite a New Testament quote of his or a NT teaching from those who walked with him.

Are you guys really having this debate? You can't expect much from delusional people that believe there's a man in the sky.

They prey and they hope "He" listens. The mere concept of faith is to believe without proof. Just "believing" doesn't make something real, but it also means that they are stubborn and would rather believe than learn.

You can argue about it all day, but the fact will always remain that no one can prove the existence of God and without proof it should not be accepted as truth.

I don't really know why I chimed in here, I'm just a strong atheist as I think that religion is the single greatest hurdle we must still climb to evolve to the next level as a species and as a people.

But, I understand that religious people are delusional and you can't try to ration with a delusional person. You can only hope to educate the young ones and try to buck the trend of this psychological disorder.

Oh and for those that don't understand when I say religious people are delusional I give the dictionary.com definition of delusional:

.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

__________________
"It picked up some dandy-lion pollen or something from your yard and popped out a bastard seed. " --Anonymous
Current Grow(s):Fucking IncredibleHydro(AN) vs Soil(FF)

lol.. I'll believe there is a god over:

"i stopped messing with acid... i worked at a big club, watched a guy sell acid all night out of a eye dropper, followed him into the bathroom where he was making his sales, found the guy laying on the floor almost dead. foaming at the mouth holding his wet sock were he had his vile that spilled all over his foot. he died.
STICK WITH THE GREEN"

Alright man, this is starting to gross me out. Not that there is anything with anything you mentioned.

I've had pretty much this same argument (sans the shit) with a friend who "found christ" and credits it for helping him through a traumatic life experience, though in his case it was just barely beating a rare and aggressive form of cancer. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to express my argument in ways that I cannot express with him, as believe it or not, I'm not a dick in real life.

Anyways, you're alright in my book, errrr, point of view.


Oh yea, is that you in the avatar?

Thanks bro. You're probably less of a dick then I am in real life. And there's a lot of dumb-asses out there that give Christ a bad name. Hell, I've been one of them myself too often. So I understand a certain disdain toward Christians generally. No doubt about that.

Yeah, that's me in the avatar. That's in Avon, on the outer banks of NC. Perfect winter swell. Was bitter cold that day though.

Are you Atheist (meaning you are absolutely, totally, 100% certain that there is no God) or did you mean to say you are Agnostic (meaning you don't know if there is a God or not).

Because if you're a true Atheist, then man, talk about a pot calling the kettle black. Understand that true Atheism is as much of a "faith" position as Christianity, because just like there is no way to prove God exists, there is no way to absolutely prove He does not exist either.

Here's what I mean. You say, "No one can prove the existence of God and without proof it should not be accepted as truth." But no one can prove with 100% certainty that God does *not* exist either... so are you willing to say atheism should not be accepted as truth too? Or do different logical standards get applied to your beliefs, because you aren't "delusional"? LOL.

It takes a certain amount of arrogance to call someone else delusional. If you're going to to apply different logical standards to yourself then you do to others, you add to arrogance hypocrisy.

I don't claim to know with 100% accuracy that you're wrong and I'm right. And if you claim to be 100% certain that there is no God, you're obviously full of shit... either lying to us or lying to yourself... and probably a bit of both.

I wouldn't call you delusional, honestly. I'd call you an unbeliever, and myself a believer. But whatever... peace.

hi laserbrn, I'm adressing your comments because I think they are a good example of one side of this debate.

Firstly, I understand being unnerved by other's belief in Jesus and God as personal and helpful entities. If they could recognize complete personal responsibility, you'd think they'd have a higher appreciation and confidence in their self.

Secondly, your points are sound about religion as an institution and historically...depending on what point in history, and what you consider a religion. I talked about this in an earlier post that was ignored, probably for good reason.

However, when you say all religious people are delusional, I have to respond. This statement is a delusion as well, which seems to prove you correct if science is a religion. Reductionism does not hold the answer. This ideal of truth only as the result of the scientific method is a false belief. Believing anything is an act of faith, because there is never proof. I see this as freeing my belief, breaking the shackles of rationalization and analysis. Feelings of truth are to be savored and nourished, not smited due to apparent incongruence with experiment.

I used to believe exactly as you seem to, but I was wrong (maybe you aren't). I wasn't fully aware of the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theroem, chaos theory / non-linear dynamic systems, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The 'fact' is we don't have direct access to fact through measurement, as Descartes proclaimed some half a millennium ago. Still it is an interesting ride, and I think an important misstep for humanity.

I find it more helpful to define religion as 'spiritual culture' than 'delusional'.

Nietzsche said God is dead, but most misunderstood.
Schrodinger explained, he is both alive and dead.

Sorry for rambling.

__________________
Sup
My first grow