Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
Silas Brown on
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
That's also a side effect of drinking and hanging around Jesuits.
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
E an be LSD based
In the sense that your big mac could have whopper meat in it. But no, it effectively never happens.
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
E an be LSD based
o_O
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
How is calling the belief in god a delusion so crazy offensive?
It's like calling atheism sinful
Tact.
Why is tact important? It's not important in any other kind of debate. I'm not interested in candy coating things to obfuscate the truth of my words so someone isn't offended.
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
E an be LSD based
If that was the case, then I unwittingly did a lot of LSD.
Silas Brown on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
E an be LSD based
In the sense that your big mac could have whopper meat in it. But no, it effectively never happens.
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
E an be LSD based
In the sense that your big mac could have whopper meat in it. But no, it effectively never happens.
And ProfM I didn't know you did drugs, goodness.
Not as much as I used to. When I go down to Oregon, I make a point of going to a rave and indulging, but it's been nearly two years since.
I like differentiating between atheists who are skeptics from people who merely hold the belief "God does not exist", but a) technically speaking, both are atheists -- atheist does not mean "Smartest dude in the room", and b) adeist would be a stupid term, both because it makes no sense what distinguishes an atheist from an adeist, and also because an alpha primitive is greek, so it would be stupid to use it on a latinate term.
It's pretty obvious that when Dawkins/Harris/et. al. are referred to as atheists, the word 'atheism' is being used as shorthand for a specific brand of physicalist humanist skepticism. You can be an "atheist" without being a physicalist, or a humanist, or a skeptic.
Which ties in to my problem with atheism as an ideological movement - it conflates what is being argued for with what is being argued against. If you argue for skepticism, or physicalism, then atheism will naturally logically follow. If you argue for humanism, atheism does not necessarily logically follow, but it makes atheism a lot easier to swallow. If you start out arguing against God, you're going to alienate your potential arguments. This is not a moral argument, it is a practical one. I'm not sitting here going "augh, atheists are so offensive!" I'm sitting here going, "augh, atheists are so bad at propaganda!"
I'm fairly convinced that The God Delusion convinced very, very few people who weren't already atheists. It didn't create converts. But a book called "Humanism is Great!" probably wouldn't have made it to the NYT bestseller list. So while Loren Michael says that the title probably wasn't beneficial for Dawkins personally, I have to disagree. It sold some books, and guarantees that Dawkins is going to be remembered as an ideological crusader and not just a brilliant scientist.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
Tact.
thats cheating
score three baskets in a row like the rest of us if you're so cold
What lesson did you learn?
Your mom is like, wrong!
Everyone just needs to chill.
Atleast they're not Jews! Right, fellas?!
your mom is justified ass
That is a rather useful lesson. Keeping one's head quite often can be the difference behaving rationally and running around like a silly goose.
Oh, Abdy, I just can't stay mad at you.
Jews are pests, not a religion
I abide by Thomamelas.
When you started this sentence it was like you had something worth saying, but then it just turned into SC again.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
your mom is a hattery discussion
E an be LSD based
I know somebody that's getting the leather bound edition of Mein Kampf for their birthday!
That rug really tied the room together.
Like anything worth saying is worth saying in [chat]. :P
Did you play the first game?
That's also a side effect of drinking and hanging around Jesuits.
In the sense that your big mac could have whopper meat in it. But no, it effectively never happens.
And ProfM I didn't know you did drugs, goodness.
o_O
Why is tact important? It's not important in any other kind of debate. I'm not interested in candy coating things to obfuscate the truth of my words so someone isn't offended.
If that was the case, then I unwittingly did a lot of LSD.
Oh I see.
your hattery is a justified discussion
what should i do [chat]!?
Not as much as I used to. When I go down to Oregon, I make a point of going to a rave and indulging, but it's been nearly two years since.
This one is but flesh and faith and is the more deluded
Compromise. Just pull them halfway down for some fresh air.
It's pretty obvious that when Dawkins/Harris/et. al. are referred to as atheists, the word 'atheism' is being used as shorthand for a specific brand of physicalist humanist skepticism. You can be an "atheist" without being a physicalist, or a humanist, or a skeptic.
Which ties in to my problem with atheism as an ideological movement - it conflates what is being argued for with what is being argued against. If you argue for skepticism, or physicalism, then atheism will naturally logically follow. If you argue for humanism, atheism does not necessarily logically follow, but it makes atheism a lot easier to swallow. If you start out arguing against God, you're going to alienate your potential arguments. This is not a moral argument, it is a practical one. I'm not sitting here going "augh, atheists are so offensive!" I'm sitting here going, "augh, atheists are so bad at propaganda!"
I'm fairly convinced that The God Delusion convinced very, very few people who weren't already atheists. It didn't create converts. But a book called "Humanism is Great!" probably wouldn't have made it to the NYT bestseller list. So while Loren Michael says that the title probably wasn't beneficial for Dawkins personally, I have to disagree. It sold some books, and guarantees that Dawkins is going to be remembered as an ideological crusader and not just a brilliant scientist.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.