Moontanman

I am sorry sysD, i am not one of those people who think Cannabis sativa is a panacea, I suggest you give me a link to those studies and we can discuss them seriously...

I suggest you go back and read the first three answers you got in this thread.. In your first paragraph you made some positive assertions that need to be backed up.... These assertions are not universal and the majority of this forum have yet to chime in and assuming they agree with you is simply unacceptable....

Thankfully you do not get to decide if i can participate in this discussion, if you think i am being unfair or disrespectful then i suggest you press the report button... Please tell me why i should accept the idea of god with no evidence to support that idea... So far all you are doing is assuming we need it, why do we need it?

Yes there is a default position, you have made a positive assertion which so far you have failed to back up. show me anything that would not work in our world with out god or the concept of god... other than religion... If is a huge word, if cannot be used to assert something as real, if the earth is really flat... if the earth is really just a flat disc under a crystal dome? I can postulate anything with if, if become nonsensical when used to assert reality with no evidence to back up the if... I have no concept of god to prove, the FSM was just an attempt to show you how unsupportable your position is. you make lots of grandiose claims that i cannot see any connection with the concept of god at all. then you expect me to disprove them? you need to support them, i do not have to disprove them... Until you come up with some empirical evidence to support the notion of god all your assertions about why we need god are simply opinions with no support. Show me something that we currently have that has to have a god for us to have it...

He made the positive assertion, not me, it's up to him to defend it not my job to disprove anything...

Good point, but are the pills going to contain all the active ingredients of MJ? Or just THC? sorting it out will not be an easy task, it's quite possible that all the ingredients are necessary or something other than THC is the real active agent...

Let's not start out with an appeal to authority and a quote mine, if we are going to discuss this then try to defend your position with evidence... No my first thought would be technology not god... No, I do not see any evidence of anything supernatural... this would include a demon... Quite the contrary, what i want to see would not and should not figure into to it... Fell free to elaborate on this, I do not see any connection between my free will and knowing a god exists in principle.. That is one assumption but not a preordained conclusion except for certain gods or pantheons of gods. I am indeed skeptical but I remain open to evidence... i think i just did...

It has been suggested that I have mocked you, if this is your perception then i suggest you explain what any of this has to do with the reality of god... or the need to have a god. Again, I see no connection with this and the concept of god... or the need for the concept of god... It would also sound quite nonsensical... No, he made the assertion that we need a god or the concept of a god, he then went on to defend this with assertions and ideas that have no connection with the need for a god or the concept of a god...

I am not mocking anyone, if you can defend his position feel free to do so, but I think he should be the one to defend his position...

I am well aware this is a serious discussion.. are you? No we do not have to prove god does not exist, when faced with something that has no supporting evidence the default position is that "something" does not exist... No, opinions do not matter, only evidence matters and there is no evidence of a "god" Do you feel the need to consider the existence of the flying spaghetti monster because I am of the opinion it exists?

How about I underline what does make sense?

What about there is no evidence for the existence of a god so there is no god?

the idea that XYY would result in a developmentally retarded individual is evidently not true, i apologize for that, my source was less than accurate in that regard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

OIC, thanks for the tip...

having a high IQ would not make you a new species, nor will a high IQ make you reproductively isolated, being Homo sapiens has nothing to do with who you are attracted to sexually. Since the genus Homo includes neanderthals and quite a few other species I'm not sure what you mean by making you another genus" well gorillas and orangutans are of another genus...

I see no connection with any of this and the idea of God, it would also sound quite nonsensical...

No we do not have to consider a god that rules the universe, trying to slip in the concept of god as some sort of ruling principle is dishonest... I count my self as an atheist because i see no evidence of god, the other things you mention rule out specific gods or pantheons of gods...

Pills and smoking are not the only way, brownies and beer are also well established methods of administration...

Why? This is incomprehensible...

Immortal, I have to admit that if told under threat of death that I had to choose a religion... your version would probably be my default choice but so far you have failed to back up your version of religion any more than any other version of religion and to be honest I see no reason what so ever to give you the prize just because your version seems harmless... I require something besides opinions and appeals to authority, empirical rationalist, it's what i am... I require actual testable evidence... not a vision or any other reveled "truth" that cannot be repeated and tested by anyone else... if you can't show it then it's not evidence... no matter how many times you assert it is evidence...

Ewmon, way to cherry pick, ignore the parts you can't agree with then pick out the parts that agree with modern moral codes. I suggest you take off your biblical glasses and read the bible as it is instead of what other say it is or what you want it to be. Ewmon, I honestly thought you knew more about your religion than this... Do you honestly think the nice candy coated, wrapped in pretty paper, with a nice shiny bow package currently displayed by your religion is what your religion really is? No ewmon, what you see today as Christianity is the gelded version, religion unchained, especially the Abrahamic monotheistic religions do indeed lay claim to enslaving those who do not believe, in many cases it is convert or die, slaves are not taken because it is wrong but because grown men are difficult to enslave but females, and especially female children are often spared to be used as slaves, if they are lucky, in some cases everyone who doesn't believe is simply killed man woman and child, sometimes even the animals of these people the passages allowing this are often interpreted as sexual slavery, it certain seems to allow if not actually demanding it. Read your bible ewmon, not in tiny sound bites given to you by your leaders but read it as the horror story it truly is, the story of an insane, jealous, amoral, psychopathic supreme being who demands his followers kill and or enslave unbelievers, yeah it's in there and I for one am quite tired of pointing it out to god botherers... God is nothing but a excuse for humans use to dehumanize anyone who opposes them, it's sickening and I for one will have no part of it... William Lane Craig, Christianities leading "thinker" tells it well but possibly this video tells it better, the relevant information starts at around 03:00, how you you kill a small child for god?

Dinosaurs, other than birds, all died far too long ago for carbon dating to be used. Fossils can be and often are, completely devoid of carbon (I should have said carbon from the original animal) being made primarily of calcium or some other mineral that replaced the bone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm I read the entire article. lots of BS spattered into relatively accurate science. One of the biggest gaffs is the assumption that marine organisms can be accurately radio carbon tested, marine organisms get their carbon from a completely different sink than terrestrial animals and plants. The idea that ancient bones can be radio carbon dated is also flawed, bones tend to be a sink for naturally occurring uranium and (i think) thorium as well. These materials generate Carbon 14 isotopes through neutron emission and absorption. http://books.google.com/books?id=uyYd4G540lIC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=uranium+in+ancient+bones&source=bl&ots=YGm3Z8z3AF&sig=RenBcBvqvxPLk5xHIHp1gXEZ3FY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wfsSUaKeFcOx0AXxloHgAw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=uranium%20in%20ancient%20bones&f=false

I should have said bio mechanically... And yet not human... but still a good point, my mind cannot wrap it's self around such a huge flying creature, the flightless hypothesis is equally silly, but designing a human that could fly in Earths gravity field and still effectively be a human would be...

In one of his fictional books John Varley described a flying human on an artificial world with 1/4 earths gravity and twice the atmospheric pressure... Still difficult to justify even in fiction...