Moontanman

Not even a theory, until the experience of god can be shown to be more than a hallucination it will remain just something someone claimed to be true, not the definition of a theory...

new you tube contest by thunderf00t!

Then we cannot agree because I did not in anyway suggest this to be what I meant... You immediately dive into meaningless speculation, please define exactly what you mean by. Before we go any further please define what you mean when you say god...

The most honest thing i can say about god's (you have yet to define what a god is) is that gods apparently have no discernible effect on reality...

Ok, exactly what are you positing? Ok, I know what that word means but how does it contribute to the discussion? The most serious problem here is a lack of a definition for god, before we posit anything about god we have to at least agree to disagree about what a definition of the word god would be. If it matters what i am positing here is the concept of god contributes nothing meaningful to reality...

Yes but you have yet to establish these things, you want us to posit them as factual before we start... btw what does ethicity mean? Being open minded does not mean i have to seriously consider anything and everything, that would be silly...

Could it be more accurate to say we are looking back at a world beginning to gain it's sanity? The further you go back the more the actions you talk about were acceptable... Even worse things were not just accepted but actually thought to be admirable...

Immortal, insults do not improve your position...

Why is there no need to investigate the existence of invisible unicorns? you want us to consider investigating something there is no evidence for, it's meaningless... Even speculation needs evidence for the speculation to be meaningful... I did not say god could not possibly exist, that would be a positive assertion requiring evidence but you are correct such speculation is pointless... btw how does god have anything to do with morality? i think your curiosity is admirable but in this case meaningless with out some evidence... If I were to ask you to posit the existence of aliens from zeta reticuli so I could ask what could/should their influence be on our social economic system if they did exist would that be a meaningful question since we know nothing of them what so ever? You could posit anything you wanted, no limits what so ever, it would be meaningless... Even in speculations evidence of your speculation is required...

I knew there was a reason all that hard thinking i was doing wasn't making my .. .. any larger... I confess, I am really Brad Pit...

Arete, obviously the next phase...

Hmmm... sounds a bit like reveled truth...

I don't think IQ can be used to suggest a new species... Why would IQ cause reproductive isolation? I would have to see some evidence that speciation in humans is running faster than ever, in fact I would think it is actually slower since we are mixing our genes up far faster now than we did thousands of years ago so in fact we have less reproductive isolation not more. Do you really think IQ is a prerequisite for mating? Only smart people mate with other smart people? What on earth do you mean by this?

I'm not sure what you mean here, I do know they have gravity detectors or meters that can sense the gravitational pull of a human walking by (I saw it on myth busters) If you talking about gravity then yes if you are climbing up or down a rock fact the gravity of that rock face is detectable by very sensitive equipment but beyond that I am not sure what you are asking... When I read this thread for some reason none of the other replies showed up, sorry if my reply was obtuse...

Not at all, I wasn't taking you as seriously as i should have. I apologize for that. Cannabis sativa is a relaxant, good for pain, and nausea. I honestly do not see smoking it as a reasonable way to test it for sure...

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?