Why I do not do LSD

jsn9333 · Feb 10, 2009

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. :bigjoint:

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.

Philly_Buddah said:
To the thread starter: Ive made several posts on this thread months ago.

I have a couple questions for u.

How many different voices did u have and what did they say to u?

Also, u said u smoke weed right? about how much weed do u smoke and how often, and also how does it effect u? is there any negative effects when u smoke weed?

thx if u can answer those questions. Im not trying to judge u Im just curious.

JoeBananas · Feb 10, 2009

Kingb420 said:
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. BTW I am an incredible idiot that makes shit up and you shouldn't believe any of the shit that just dribbled out my ass-mouth.

I have an extra chromosome!!!

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

Smiley D · Feb 10, 2009

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

jsn9333 said:
Every story you described me as believing is in the Bible? Please show me where it says the earth is just thousands of years old. That'll be a new one for me to see!

As far as Noah, Job, etc... so big deal? What do you expect a Christian to say, Christ rose from the dead... but damn, there's no way in hell Noah built an ark? But I'm not even saying he did. Could he have? Sure. I mean hell, if Christ rose from the dead anything is possible. But I'm not even claiming squat about the Old Testament, against evolution, or anything bro. Anyone who claims to know that stuff for sure is full of shit. The old Testament is fucking nuts, and the whole point of Christ is to get out of that system, to fulfill it and be done with it.

Lutheran, Baptist... its all the same on the B.S. meter. Who the started that denomination, Christ, or some person? Christ wasn't a Lutheran, bro. Luther came along 1500 years *after* Christ. Hell, the "Lutherans" don't even believe a lot of what Luther himself taught!

Do you own a bible? Which one?

jsn9333 said:
You're accusing me of believing that millions of Africans are going to hell unless they use condoms or some bullshit. How about asking me if I believe that junk first? I've already told you I don't believe the same shit most denominational Christians believe. You are assuming a bunch of (often untrue) shit about my beliefs, and then judging me for that stuff! That "quick to judge" behavior is probably one of the very things you hate about "Christians" (or what you have apparently been raised to think a Christian is), so it is ironic that you have become what you apparently hate.

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.

jsn9333 said:
And what pleasures does "Christianity" teach you must abstain from in order to make it to heaven? Murder? Adultery? Stealing? Lying? And remember, don't give me your Lutheran party-line answer. Give me at least a reference from the New Testament before saying "Christianity" teaches a particular thing. Seriously. Jerry Falwell or whoever you're getting all this shit from is not "Christianity". So don't give me any of this "you must not have sex until you're married" or "you must wear a condom" crap unless you can show me a reference to that from the New Testament.

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.

jsn9333 said:
There are two "anti-pleasure" commands I don't understand (that are in the New Testament). One is to not get drunk. I would think people would be free to do that, because who are they hurting? However, part of the problem is that people take that word to simply mean "tipsy" or whatever. No. The word basically means stone cold fucking drunk... like "I can't walk 2 steps without falling on my face and knocking my God-damn teeth out" drunk. Given that, the "command" is really just good advice.

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

jsn9333 said:
I mean, if you really love to get that fucking drunk, then, yeah, I guess the New Testament really shits on your parade. At least you won't have to live long with that shit all over your parade though, since your liver is probably shot anyway.

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.

jsn9333 said:
The one other New Testament command that I don't get is the fairly clear statement that homosexuality is sin. I'll be honest about that. It'd seem that if two guys want to fuck each other in the ass, they should be able to. I don't really see who they are hurting. But it seems pretty clear we are to abstain from that. I personally am not affected, since I'm straight and don't particularly like the smell of shit anyway. And if that is your issue, then I guess I understand how that seems fucked up. I don't really know what to say to that. There are people who don't think the verses are clear, and if you can convince yourself of that, honestly, with a clear conscience before God... I say go at that. If God hasn't been clear enough for you, and it turns out you were wrong... He's a pretty God-damn forgiving dude.

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

I am disappointed in you.

jsn9333 said:
But as for me, that's just one of those things I don't understand but I accept anyway. I still believe in living and letting live... the Bible nowhere says anything about using the law to stop other people from sinning. So, its not like I'm trying to change anyone else's behavior.

I used to tell myself I couldn't lie to myself to convince myself Christ was true and all that stuff... basically the same thing you're saying. And by all means, don't lie to yourself. What good would that do you? I'm not telling you to lie to yourself. I'm just telling *my* story. If that bothers you, then that's fine by me. Just remember, you don't necessarily have to knock me or even "Christianity" in general just because you hated growing up Lutheran. By all means knock Lutherans, or Baptists, or whatever B.S. you hate. But Jesus Christ wasn't a fucking Lutheran. If you're going to knock Christ, at least quote him personally before knocking Him.

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.

jsn9333 · Feb 11, 2009

Smiley D said:
Do you own a bible? Which one?
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?

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.

laserbrn · Feb 11, 2009

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.

shepj · Feb 11, 2009

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"

Smiley D · Feb 11, 2009

jsn9333 said:
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.

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?

jsn9333 · Feb 11, 2009

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.

Smiley D said:
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?

jsn9333 · Feb 11, 2009

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. bongsmilie

laserbrn said:
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.

aliasofmike · Feb 11, 2009

laserbrn said:
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.

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. :eyesmoke:

Smiley D · Feb 11, 2009

jsn9333 said:
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.

Nice.

Surfing is the closest I have ever felt to a higher power. That being the mother ocean embracing, testing, punishing, nearly killing, saving, accepting, and talking to me. By far the most transcendent moments of my life have been on a board, sober. This coming from someone who has smoked his share of dmt. Though I have to say, there is no sensory experience that can equal, or come close to, the sheer epic journey that is a double overhead swell on a head full of acid. Lsd25 being one of the most sacred gifts us humans have been given, IMO.

Though, all of my experience has been in tropical conditions. I'm sure she seems a harsher mistress in wetsuit conditions.

Your avatar was what made me interested in conversing with you in the first place.

laserbrn · Feb 11, 2009

jsn9333 said:
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.

I am 100% an atheist. People writing a book with no validity and no proof of truth does not NEED to be disqualified. I can make claims that I flew over the Grand Canyon and no one would have to disprove this fact to know that the truth is that it didn't happen.

I attempted to be a "Christian" for many years and after evaluation the concept and logic is too flawed for me to "believe" it. None of it makes any sense and has no real bearing on real life.

You can believe whatever you would like to believe, but to believe something that has no actual evidence is faith, not belief. Faith is a concept that doesn't make any sense to me and as an intelligent human being with the ability to reason, evaluate and apply logic, I can't very well go against evidence and have faith in something that many have had faith in that failed them.

Smiley D · Feb 11, 2009

laserbrn said:
I am 100% an atheist. People writing a book with no validity and no proof of truth does not NEED to be disqualified. I can make claims that I flew over the Grand Canyon and no one would have to disprove this fact to know that the truth is that it didn't happen.

I attempted to be a "Christian" for many years and after evaluation the concept and logic is too flawed for me to "believe" it. None of it makes any sense and has no real bearing on real life.

You can believe whatever you would like to believe, but to believe something that has no actual evidence is faith, not belief. Faith is a concept that doesn't make any sense to me and as an intelligent human being with the ability to reason, evaluate and apply logic, I can't very well go against evidence and have faith in something that many have had faith in that failed them.

Me and dude been over this.

But fact is, neither can you disprove the existence of a god. We have no evidence.

"All I know is that I know nothing." -hella smart guy, So Crates

By proclaiming yourself atheist you put yourself in the exact same position as guy here.

That being, you also place a burden of proof upon yourself. One that you cannot fulfill.

laserbrn · Feb 12, 2009

Smiley D said:
Me and dude been over this.

But fact is, neither can you disprove the existence of a god. We have no evidence.

"All I know is that I know nothing." -hella smart guy, So Crates

By proclaiming yourself atheist you put yourself in the exact same position as guy here.

That being, you also place a burden of proof upon yourself. One that you cannot fulfill.

I don't feel the need to 100% disprove religion (particularly Christianity) when the source of the infromation is so wildly uncredible. I can't believe that an intelligent human being can even read the Bible (particularly the old testament) and feel the need to DISPROVE that Jonah lived in a whale for 3 days. That Noah built an Ark for 2 of every animal, that Moses parted the red sea and they simply walked across it. Why would an educated person with any ability to ration FEEL the need to have these WILD claims disproven? It's fairly easy to see how with claims such as these it's clear that the burden of proof is on the story teller.

The Old Testament being the basis for the religion that was expanded upon to create Christianity, I just don't see where any credability is leant and therefor must dismiss the whole thing as fallicy.

It's also the fact that around the world the story's are different, but the concept the same. It's obvious to me why religion was formed, why it was so well adopted and how the delusions work.

When you didn't know how to grow pot, anyone could have told you anything and you would have believed it to be true. This is the same phenomenon on a larger scale. People wrote answers to questions people pondered and they were accepted as truth although the story is wildly difficult to accept.

Fortunately Atheism is spreading and people are starting the next stage of evolution which hopefully leads to the extinction of the concept of religion.

The Bible has too much left out, too little evidence, too little proof, and too wild a statement to require it to be disproven.

No Dinosaurs?

The Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Do other animals go to heaven? Why not? Why do they then exist? Just to feed us? Then why are we so small in comparison to the animal kingdom?

Why does evolution exist and why is there evidence of evolution, but we can't apply this logic to humans?

If there is a God, shouldn't we really be trying to kill Him? He sends people that don't "believe" in him to be tortured for eternity in a lake of fire, although he is not ready to give any evidence that he exists.

Blueberryyum · Feb 12, 2009

What if God created the earth and universe with the apperance of age???Just a thought. Don't go dawkins on me lol. :bigjoint:

laserbrn · Feb 12, 2009

Blueberryyum said:
What if God created the earth and universe with the apperance of age???Just a thought. Don't go dawkins on me lol.

You can "what if" just about anything. No evidence that's true or even a mention in the bible.

We have fossil records dating back more far more than 6,000 years. He created an earth that also APPEARED to have been inhabited before it was created?

This is sound logic?

Did he do this to "throw you off"? Believe in me even though my story doesn't make sense, because I made it that way, or else I will torture you for eternity in a Lake of Fire? If that shit's true, definitely need to kill that guy.

Blueberryyum · Feb 12, 2009

Keep in mind my point was that we could never prove it either way. We think we are so intellgent and that we know everthing. When in reality einstien proved there are not just 3 but 11 dimensions. Understanding the 4th is extreemly hard to understand. Imagine what 5-11 is like. Not that that has anything to do with God it's just that we only know about 0.000001% of what really goes on in our universe and beyond do to our limited perspective. Im not advocating any side just saying we'll never know the truth.

Blueberryyum · Feb 12, 2009

But also you have to ask how did we get here. Even if the big bang was a product of a 11th deminsional membranal collision that caused our 3d world to expand at an accelerating rate; it begs the question where did the 11d worlds come from. Physicist are predicting it could be possible to create a universe that would expand in a lab but not expand into ours scince its on another 3d plane. Maybe WE'RE just and experiment in some multi-deminsional beings lab.

Blueberryyum · Feb 12, 2009

Plus mathmatically the Laws of Thermodynamics colide with evolution. (Please excuss all my spelling- im not an English major)

jsn9333 · Feb 12, 2009

1st of all, the Bible doesn't say half the things you are claiming it does, and therefore neither does Christianity.

Show me in the Bible where it says hell is eternal. You can't. The word "hell" in the New Testament literally means "the trash dump." That's all. And at the end it is says that hell itself is eventually destroyed.

To say "Christianity" teaches there is an eternal hell is like if I said "Atheism" teaches that we should kill all Jews because there exists (and has existed) Atheists who claim we should kill all Jews. Just because Baptists or anyone else claiming to be Christian says hell is eternal doesn't mean the Bible teaches it. The standard you should look to for what "Christianity" teaches should be what Christ and those who knew Him taught... not whatever some hypocritical ass-clown Baptist says Christianity teaches.

Show me in the Bible where it says you are required to take the Old Testament stories literally. In fact, the word for "day" in Genesis can just as easily be translated "1 million year period". Look it up for yourself. Don't take Jerry Falwell's word for it! There are plenty of times where the word "world" is used to mean to a local area known to inhabitants... like "their own world". No one can know for sure if the Noah story is literal, and if it is, they certainly can't claim for sure it referred to all the earth as we now know it. It could've been a much smaller area.

We take Christ's life literally because there is historical record of it. The man lived. We know that. Very few historians actually doubt that. There is very good historical record of the Apostles, and therefore you have to listen to their claims about Him and judge their trustworthiness (as I did a few posts back). I'm not saying you have to believe their claims, but there is very real evidence to consider the literal-ness of the Christ story.

On top of that, if someone claims to have been personally affected by what they believe to be God, who the fuck are you to tell them to prove it? I'm not even claiming to have proved anything. I've simply relayed what happened to me. I don't care if you believe me or not. Why argue about it?

Whether or not you "believe that an intelligent human" can believe in Christ doesn't matter. A ton of very intelligent people *do*.... so believe it or not.

laserbrn said:
I don't feel the need to 100% disprove religion (particularly Christianity) when the source of the infromation is so wildly uncredible. I can't believe that an intelligent human being can even read the Bible (particularly the old testament) and feel the need to DISPROVE that Jonah lived in a whale for 3 days. That Noah built an Ark for 2 of every animal, that Moses parted the red sea and they simply walked across it. Why would an educated person with any ability to ration FEEL the need to have these WILD claims disproven? It's fairly easy to see how with claims such as these it's clear that the burden of proof is on the story teller.

The Old Testament being the basis for the religion that was expanded upon to create Christianity, I just don't see where any credability is leant and therefor must dismiss the whole thing as fallicy.

It's also the fact that around the world the story's are different, but the concept the same. It's obvious to me why religion was formed, why it was so well adopted and how the delusions work.

When you didn't know how to grow pot, anyone could have told you anything and you would have believed it to be true. This is the same phenomenon on a larger scale. People wrote answers to questions people pondered and they were accepted as truth although the story is wildly difficult to accept.

Fortunately Atheism is spreading and people are starting the next stage of evolution which hopefully leads to the extinction of the concept of religion.

The Bible has too much left out, too little evidence, too little proof, and too wild a statement to require it to be disproven.

No Dinosaurs?

The Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Do other animals go to heaven? Why not? Why do they then exist? Just to feed us? Then why are we so small in comparison to the animal kingdom?

Why does evolution exist and why is there evidence of evolution, but we can't apply this logic to humans?

If there is a God, shouldn't we really be trying to kill Him? He sends people that don't "believe" in him to be tortured for eternity in a lake of fire, although he is not ready to give any evidence that he exists.

Why I do not do LSD

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oracle of Hallucinogens

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member