Is cannabis use a sin?

[Zaehet Strife]

I agree with Heis. Man we aren't talking down to you, even though it may seem like it. If an idea clashes with a belief system the automatic response is to ignore and deny it. If an there is an idea you don't understand though... and you wish to learn more about this idea, i think it wise to look into it as best as you can, to go into detail about the process of evolution and its foundation in all biology.

Sometimes it's hard to learn about an idea that we may not like, or agree with, but if we want to better our understanding of the world... instead of insisting that our inner world is the correct one... we must break out of our shell and properly study and research ideas they may not coincide with our preordained ideas ya know?

 

[mindphuk]

You tell me how these "Functions" could emerge. You will wind up on an endless trail of maybes, and you will end up asking me to have FAITH in your idea that has no real PROOF. Well, I don't put my Faith in things that remove me from accountability, which is the main reason for Atheism.

I don't need to show you the exact steps that evolution took in order to demonstrate something could have evolved. Yet, here you are like so many anti-science religionists claiming that such-n-such COULD NOT have evolved naturally. My one example of how it could evolve completely obliterates your claim, even if my example isn't the exact way it occurred. No faith required. You are correct that my example doesn't prove something evolved, and I never claimed it did. We have many other reasons to believe that the diversity of life, including humans, evolved naturally from a common ancestor.

I'm not talking down to you, that seems to be your perception, possibly because you were caught in a dishonest statement. When I mention to look at the evidence yourself, I'm referring to not immediately accepting some claim by an IDer, but to check to see if that claim is true, maybe Pubmed, maybe Google, I don't fucking care, but stop whining about being talked down to when you make claims that are so terribly wrong and easily disprovable.

 

[Guitar Man]

I don't need to show you the exact steps that evolution took in order to demonstrate something could have evolved. Yet, here you are like so many anti-science religionists claiming that such-n-such COULD NOT have evolved naturally. My one example of how it could evolve completely obliterates your claim, even if my example isn't the exact way it occurred. No faith required. You are correct that my example doesn't prove something evolved, and I never claimed it did. We have many other reasons to believe that the diversity of life, including humans, evolved naturally from a common ancestor.

I'm not talking down to you, that seems to be your perception, possibly because you were caught in a dishonest statement. When I mention to look at the evidence yourself, I'm referring to not immediately accepting some claim by an IDer, but to check to see if that claim is true, maybe Pubmed, maybe Google, I don't fucking care, but stop whining about being talked down to when you make claims that are so terribly wrong and easily disprovable.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

 

[Zaehet Strife]

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

 

[Heisenberg]

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

More like this...

[...]Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.[...]

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion2.html

 

[Zaehet Strife]

More like this...

[...]Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.[...]

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion2.html

THANK YOU! I couldn't freaking find that!

 

[Guitar Man]

It takes about 15 minutes of studying evolution before you realize that the theory does not say humans came from monkeys, nor does it predict a half man half monkey fossil. Rather than arguing against evolution, you are arguing against some misunderstood concept in your head which you call evolution.

Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.

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.

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!

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.

Since geese are on the subject, how does a bird fly thousands of miles to Alaska, a State almost 3 times the size of Texas, where they locate a pond no bigger than my house in the land of a "Million Lakes", finding a mate to procreate in the same place where they were born? No GPS. No Radar. No Map. No previous knowledge of that pond, accept when they were born. Where the fuck did that "Guidance System" come from? Explain to me how that “Evolved”.

I'm a fairly simple man, and I like to keep it that way. If someone tells me, "Hey, I just found names written on the beach with a sand castle to boot, and guess what??? No one was responsible!" Sorry, no comprenday'''! Evolution wants me to believe, that just happened without a valid explanation that can be proven. I say, SOMEONE was responsible for the sand castle and the written words.

Heisenberg, who fired the first trigger? Who started this whole thing called the Universe? You want me to believe that EVERYTHING came out of NOTHING.

 

[Guitar Man]

More like this...

[...]Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.[...]

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion2.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

 

[Guitar Man]

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

I've already made it clear, that Scripture or the Bible is full of flaws and metaphors. That doesn't mean the Book is invalid. There isn't 1 perfect Book on Earth, and I see a reason for that; Humanity could never handle ANYTHING that is perfect, as we were born imperfect and we will die imperfect. Going a bit deeper, I feel that something perfect (without flaw) would destroy the entire Human Race.

 

[Heisenberg]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

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."

 

[Guitar Man]

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."

I completely disagree with you, and your first statement(s) are your opinion. Since you're wanting to point out certain opinions/paragraphs in the National Geographic article, here is another quote:

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."

 

[Zaehet Strife]

Just because you cannot comprehend nor understand biology... does not mean it isn't true.

In my opinion, if you are sincerely interested in learning more about how the universe works, i would enroll in a college biology class. (If you are even out of high school yet, which i doubt)

But it seems as if you have already made up your mind, you believe whatever you want to believe... but if you are really curious and have a fascination about life itself, take a biology class, and ask lots of questions.

 

[Guitar Man]

Just because you cannot comprehend nor understand biology... does not mean it isn't true.

In my opinion, if you are sincerely interested in learning more about how the universe works, i would enroll in a college biology class. (If you are even out of high school yet, which i doubt)

But it seems as if you have already made up your mind, you believe whatever you want to believe... but if you are really curious and have a fascination about life itself, take a biology class, and ask lots of questions.

See, there goes the fucking condescending comments. Fuck you!!!! Where did I say, "My mind is made up and I believe whatever I want to believe, and when did I tell you when I graduated from High School?"

I can tell you this; what I've done and where I've been in this life, is beyond your imagination.

 

[NietzscheKeen]

Sometimes it's hard to learn about an idea that we may not like, or agree with, but if we want to better our understanding of the world... instead of insisting that our inner world is the correct one... we must break out of our shell and properly study and research ideas they may not coincide with our preordained ideas ya know?

This is the main reason I LOVED teaching that philosophy class at the university. About half of the people would close up and get defensive when you presented an argument they didn't agree with; half of those people would stop attending class about a week or two into the semester. Of the remaining half, one quarter of them held the belief prior to attending the class, so it's presentation does not phase them. The other quarter on the other hand would keep an open mind and would sometimes begine to question their beliefs (about whatever). I loved this, there was such dispair and confusion in their faces for a couple of weeks; a few even lost sleep over it. But eventually, these are the ones that have an epiphany and their world becomes so much bigger and more beautiful than it ever was. That's what made it all worth it.

Again, I love the poor unsuspecting students taking their first philosophy class expecting to have pointless metaphysical discussions about reality. Why is this my favorite thing? Two reasons: 1. It's interesting/entertaining to watch someone have their reality, their core beliefs, their values, their selves called into question and actively argued against for the first time. Many times, when asked to defend/justify their beliefs, they get offended and upset (which is fine and to be expected) and do not return the next day. 2. If they stick around and keep an open mind, you get the priviledge of seeing that look on their faces; the one you had at one time. That look of realizing the world is full of possibility, that there is so much more to life, that look of total freedom, awe, relief, and glee. I love that look, because it means there is one more person in the world that will yearn for the truth no matter what it may be; even if it is terrifying because truth is always better than untruth (at least in my opinion).

 

[Heisenberg]

I completely disagree with you, and your first statement(s) are your opinion. Since you're wanting to point out certain opinions/paragraphs in the National Geographic article, here is another quote:

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."

So you are ignoring the idea that evolution is accepted science, despite earlier claiming that it is based on myths? Why should we pay attention to some parts of your article and not others?

I read the entire article, and do not disagree that scientists are able to have faith. Scientists are also able to believe 2+2=5, but they wouldn't be able to support it with math, just as they can not prove faith with science. You can disagree that science is a method, but by doing so you show how uninformed you are on the subject. I am not sure what you are trying to prove, other than that scientists are human and susceptible to the same mistakes of logic, perception and memory as other humans. That is a point well taken and in fact the entire reason the scientific method was designed in the first place; to overcome human bias and limitation.

You are essentially making an argument from authority, as if we would all follow along if Einstein said the moon was made of cheese. You are impressed by the name Einstein and so jump at the chance to use it when you perceive he is on your side. But any study of Einstein reveals that his idea of 'god' was not a being that could be prayed to or one that oversees the daily lives of his creations. Einstein is best classified as a classical pantheist.

 

[NietzscheKeen]

Calm down GuitarMan...
There was absolutely NOTHING condescending about what Zaehet said.
Do you want to understand evolution or whatever it was that you guys were talking about?
I thought I understood it until I actually understood it.
I highly recommend The God Delusion. Feel free to skip all the stuff about religion and focus only on the stuff about evolution. It answered questions for me that I hadn't even begun to ask.
If you don't feel like reading the book, may I suggest a video series that you can find for free on Youtube? I wish so hard that someone had shown this video series to me when I was a child. It is probably one of the most influential and important videos on Youtube.

I'm linking to the second video in the series of seven because I feel it is a better place to start considering the conversations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ExaBtX7_QU
They aren't that long, I hope you will take the time to watch them. They are dated, but the information is still accurate as best as I can tell.

 

[NietzscheKeen]

Maybe this will convince all you know it all atheists!

 

[Heisenberg]

Maybe this will convince all you know it all atheists!

I like this version.

 

[NietzscheKeen]

Here is THIS!

 

[Zaehet Strife]

I like this version.

Dude that really made me laugh!