Is cannabis use a sin?

NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
I recommend Peepshow, if you ever get the chance to watch it. It's on youtube and Hulu, Hulu is better because it has all the episodes in order. It's one of my favorite shows of all time.
This is part of the skit show that I linked to before, it really cracks me up. I think we all needed a break from the serious talk.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Science is a method, not a person. Scientists are free to believe in god, but they do not use the scientific method to get there. Science, being a process, can not hold a belief one way or the other, it can only suggest conclusions and make predictions based on evidence and reason, of which there is none for god.

I like that this article, which you have used as a source, includes this paragraph:

"One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."
Click to expand...
...thanks for pointing out that science is a method. Art, Science, Religion, and Philosophy. We can't change the fact that those are the 4 pillars of knowing. Not one of them could be excluded to the benefit of the other 3.

...there is a science to knowing, imo. The 'mother' of all laws is that of preservation. Energy cannot be destroyed. What happens to a person's energy after passing on? Thanks to science, we know that energy cannot be created, or destroyed. By that we 'know' something happens to it after this life. It is transformed, but to what?
 
NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
After death, any heat energy is dissipated. Any caloric energy is consumed by the bacteria and other decomposers.
It would be helpful if you defined energy and stuck with that one definition because this equivocation stuff just isn't deserving of a thoughtful response. Did you mean "conservation" instead of "preservation"?

How is "art" considered knowledge? Religion was only considered knowledge before science was perfected.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
NietzscheKeen said:
After death, any heat energy is dissipated. Any caloric energy is consumed by the bacteria and other decomposers.
It would be helpful if you defined energy and stuck with that one definition because this equivocation stuff just isn't deserving of a thoughtful response. Did you mean "conservation" instead of "preservation"?

How is "art" considered knowledge? Religion was only considered knowledge before science was perfected.
Click to expand...
...consider both terms - asymmetry happened after creation. For anything to happen there must be a broken symmetry. Equivocation? I've yet to make any assumptions about you. Want to read back on your posts with an eye for assumptions?

...wasting the precious energy in this closed system by responding to your last question would be a poor decision on my part. Sanity is valuable to me :)
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
...consider both terms - asymmetry happened after creation. For anything to happen there must be a broken symmetry. Equivocation? I've yet to make any assumptions about you. Want to read back on your posts with an eye for assumptions?

...wasting the precious energy in this closed system by responding to your last question would be a poor decision on my part. Sanity is valuable to me :)
Click to expand...
I believe the equivocation is when you conflate scientifically defined energy with the more colloquial term 'life energy', as science has never established that we are a special energy in and of ourselves. So when science says energy can not be created or destroyed, they are not referring to an imagined life energy. We may or may not have a life energy which may or may not play by the same rules as material energy, but quoting the rule of conservation does not do anything to establish such energy, and instead plays on ambiguity.

I would have to think more about art being an aspect of knowledge. I can't disagree that we needed to crawl with religion before we could walk with science or journey with technology, but we do not normally preserve training wheels once we've outgrown them. In any case that would seem to be a utilitarian argument. We could make up a new religion right now that is infinitely better than any we have, yet no one would follow it because we would know it isn't true. We do not need to subscribe to things which require the surrender of our logic and sensibility to be able to take advantage of careful thought and study. So I disagree that we could not remove religion from our future to the benefit of science and philosophy, though I do acknowledge that art would suffer.
 
NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
Oh, here come the theistic jabs. Is it safe to assume that you go that route because you don't know the answer? It wasn't a trick question btw...

Where did this "asymmetry" stuff come from? I don't know what you're talking about. Could you please explain a bit?
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I believe the equivocation is when you conflate scientifically defined energy with the more colloquial term 'life energy', as science has never established that we are a special energy in and of ourselves. So when science says energy can not be created or destroyed, they are not referring to an imagined life energy. We may or may not have a life energy which may or may not play by the same rules as material energy, but quoting the rule of conservation does not do anything to establish such energy, and instead plays on ambiguity.

I would have to think more about art being an aspect of knowledge. I can't disagree that we needed to crawl with religion before we could walk with science or journey with technology, but we do not normally preserve training wheels once we've outgrown them. In any case that would seem to be a utilitarian argument. We could make up a new religion right now that is infinitely better than any we have, yet no one would follow it because we would know it isn't true. We do not need to subscribe to things which require the surrender of our logic and sensibility to be able to take advantage of careful thought and study. So I disagree that we could not remove religion from our future to the benefit of science and philosophy, though I do acknowledge that art would suffer.
Click to expand...
...thanks, Heis. I gained a lot from the first paragraph, though I was being light-hearted with the assumption bit :razz:

...I think that like everything else, religions have levels of understanding. I think that even if the most complex stuff were plain to see, most wouldn't see it. That includes those with the training wheels. I think once a person has a proper grasp of cause and effect, which is self-evident, scientifically evident, then it makes sense to pay heed to multiple levels of meaning. Art provides those by combinations of attributes which create a new view. Art is the spark that happens when the right and the left come in contact. The greatest of all hide many truths. There are things about paintings, etc, that people do not know. Information is hidden in art, coded into art. Consciousness plays here, you have to study the year paintings were made in order to understand the culture of the time. Like this, you can 'see' what you wouldn't normally see. When something doesn't make sense, and you know it, do you think that the person creating a masterpiece would leave it? Someone with the focus that you have for your 'art' wouldn't leave it.

I spoke with an Iranian man today. We talked about this kind of stuff. He said that the most brilliant scientists he 'knows' use religious iconography to help solve problems. I can't argue with that. Especially in light of the fact that cern has some incredible art outside the entrance, and inside the entrance.
 
NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
Oh please don't open the can of worms that is "cause and effect".

I don't even know how to respond to your post...

There may be people through history that have hidden diagrams of human organs, etc. withing paintings, but knowledge is not inherent to paintings or any other form of art.

I'm going to say this and end it... cause and effect is not self evident. I was going to elaborate more, but I'm getting another one of my migraines.

Sure, feel free to read back through my posts for any unwarranted assumptions I may have made. If I'm wrong or assumed unfairly, I will admit it and make corrections.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
NietzscheKeen said:
Oh, here come the theistic jabs. Is it safe to assume that you go that route because you don't know the answer? It wasn't a trick question btw...

Where did this "asymmetry" stuff come from? I don't know what you're talking about. Could you please explain a bit?
Click to expand...
...PreachyKeen? Don't think so.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Guitar Man said:
No offense, but what you're saying here is part bullshit. When I was growing up, SCIENCE class was teaching that man came from apes, using pictures to prove the point. All of this "New" interpretation about Evolution has developed in recent years because they found what I was being taught in school was, FUCKING BULLSHIT! I still feel and believe that the Evolution of Man is bullshit.
Click to expand...
Maybe people's responses to you wouldn't seem so condescending if you weren't spouting lies. If YOUR science class taught you that, then they were wrong. More likely, you have limited recollection of what you were taught and the years have clouded the subject even more, especially considering your current beliefs. Of course we descended from an ancestor that could legitimately be called an ape, but it was not a extant species of ape as you are implying. This is hardly a 'new' interpretation as it even predates Darwin with the creationist Carl Linnaeus classifying the great apes as our closest relatives. Darwin didn't touch much on human evolution in Origin, but the 1863 book by Thomas Henry Huxley Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, does outline evidence for the common ancestry of humans and apes.
This inaccurate characterization of the claims of evolutionary theory doesn't come from the scientists but the religionists that have opposed the idea of human-ape common ancestry from the beginning. The Scopes "monkey trial" is an excellent example of this use of disinformation. Yet, even then, we see that the scientists never once claim that we are descended from modern apes. This is and always has been a straw man perpetuated by the ignorant and those unwilling to understand what evolutionary theory actually says.
Sorry, but I have to laugh when people say, "50 million years ago!" LOLOLOLOL! Shit, we can't even figure out what happened 100 years ago, and the fucking Government that wants me to believe in Evolution can't even pay their damn bills!
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt 'the government' gives a shit what you believe.
Just like I said in my other post, you are trying to take me on a wild goose chase that will never end, full of maybes, what if's, and might have beens.
Click to expand...
Your acceptance of evolution will not impact me or any other poster here one iota. However, you seem content to remain ignorant and believe incorrect characterizations of the theory and the reality of evolution. I only interceded in order to help clear up some of your confusion, but if you are unwilling to have a dialogue and prefer to spout the ID/creationist party-line drivel, then so be it. I will continue to correct your mischaracterizations and lies and you are free to continue to plug your fingers in your ears and avoid actually learning some science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top