- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
Team science just think that taking power psychoactive drugs to try and find God is possibly not a brilliant idea.
Actually, I don't much care about your liability; I just thought you would (and it seems I was right). What I care about personally is the impact of bad advice on vulnerable people. That was a part that from your commentary, you and Bigb may have missed.Gotta love this debate, team science thinks team god needs a lawyer.
you keep them locked in a cupboard, and any time they bust out you have to stop what you're doing and put them back.
I assume that's a serious question, AMC. Here's a serious, if personal answer.How do you do that?
I think that personal stories are valuable, Bigb. I've previously respected Diana's and would certainly respect yours.Maybe an evidence of god thread will start where personal experince will considered valueble.
Team mislabelling. 'Team science' may be a fair label, but I don't believe that the other team is 'team god' or that they're a single team, or that the real 'team god' (i.e. all its members) are entirely incompatible with science, or that most consider taking psychotropics to be anything but dangerous (you'd think that if there were a god who endorsed psychotropics, more of the faithful would take them.)Why are God and Science on different teams, again? God is an entity, and Science is a method of untangling experiences into measurable data.
or that most consider taking psychotropics to be anything but dangerous (you'd think that if there were a god who endorsed psychotropics, more of the faithful would take them.)
It's an implication of Diana's suggestion that if atheists took drugs, they'd discover God. My thinking is that if that were true, or even if most religious people thought it were true, they'd be licking a lot more toads and blotting paper than they presently are.I must be really late to this barbaque, looked through several pages and haven't found this statement even implied.
(You can see that the meaning has slipped in common usage from 'supporting proof' to 'grounds for belief', which are quite different things. I think the word has lost value somewhat because of that.)evidence (n.) c.1300, "appearance from which inferences may be drawn," from Fr. évidence, from L.L. evidentia "proof," originally "distinction," from L. evidentem (see evident). Meaning "ground for belief" is from late 14c., that of "obviousness" is 1660s. Legal senses are from c.1500, when it began to oust witness. As a verb, from c.1600. Related: Evidenced; evidencing.
In fairness, the Buddha drew on a lot of quite advanced Hindu and Jainist thinking that preceded him. I also think that in the end, he did what Plato did -- decided where he wanted to go, and then found a preferred road to get there. I think he does a fairly elegant job of connecting reason to compassion, but I don't think he got in the first word on the topic of evidence, or gets the last.I don't mean any disrespect, but the Buddha figure out objective and subjective thinking 2500 years ago.
I can't argue with that at all.Buddha on drugs said:I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.
It's an implication of Diana's suggestion that if atheists took drugs, they'd discover God. My thinking is that if that were true, or even if most religious people thought it were true, they'd be licking a lot more toads and blotting paper than they presently are.
I'm not sure about discovering god with drugs, there would be many religious junkies running around if that were true.
I will say, and the majority of people who have experimented with LSD would agree, that it's a permanent perception altering experience. Is that good or bad? Well were back to the definition of good and bad, and, neither exist in concrete. Things are, how we perceive them.
What's the experience thats so altering(which I would have ask out of curiosity if only for entertainment) You experience Creation. How, i have no clue, and that's what science is working on right now, because there is no other substance known to man that is capable of such an experience. Scientist believe there to be several possible uses for the drug, in it's psychotropic form and non psychotropic form.
In fairness, the Buddha drew on a lot of quite advanced Hindu and Jainist thinking that preceded him. I also think that in the end, he did what Plato did -- decided where he wanted to go, and then found a preferred road to get there. I think he does a fairly elegant job of connecting reason to compassion, but I don't think he got in the first word on the topic of evidence, or gets the last.
Unless I was always to dumb to understand everybody else I read, Plato included, Buddha put it in terms that the average person could understand and apply to everyday life. He found the connection between meditation and present time awareness, was he the first or last, no, but he did want that info available for all who were interested.
He did however have a sensible suggestion about drugs. From the fifth precept of the Pancasilani:
I can't argue with that at all.
I've never said that, but I have said that if it's not evidence it's unreliable, and that if it's not shareable and viewed skeptically then it's not evidence.It is the vanity of science to claim that no one can know anything unless science stamps its seal of approval. I reject this argument.
So if they're pulling in disparate directions, how are they a team?team God, is a disparate group [..] So?
In my humble opinion, this thread was more useful w/out teams.
AMC
Endorsed again... (Or at least, we're all in the same boat...)We're all on Team Humanity.
My readings support that LSD can have long-term effects on perception. What I don't agree with is what that perception means (because it's wildly diverse), or that 'good' is arbitrary. We can tell ourselves stories about 'good', but we can also assess independently whether a person is functional, and whether that function is enhanced or diminished. There is plenty of evidence to show people suffering dysfunction on psychotropics including LSD, including long-term dysfunction, including dysfunction that the sufferer regrets.I will say, and the majority of people who have experimented with LSD would agree, that it's a permanent perception altering experience. Is that good or bad? Well were back to the definition of good and bad, and, neither exist in concrete.
Drugs can break the barriers to a larger awareness of the nature of reality. I do not recommend such a course of action to anyone, and certainly not minors or imbeciles. You decide if you fit those category.