Woo.

Walkinghairball · Post by **Walkinghairball** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:40 pm

Payola works too DA. Everyone loves that stuff.

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:19 pm

Okay boys and girls. Sit down and listen up. I'ma share about Peyote.

from
Plants of the Gods -
Their Sacred, Healing and Hallucinogenic Powers
by Richard Evans Schultes and Albert Hoffman
Healing Arts Press (Vermont) 1992

We might logically call this woolly Mexican cactus the prototype of the New World hallucinogens. It was one of the first to be discovered by Europeans and was unquestionably the most spectacular vision-inducing plant encountered by the Spanish conquerors. They found Peyote firmly established in native religions, and their efforts to stamp out this practice drove it into hiding in the hills, where its sacramental use has persisted to the present time.

anthem · Post by **anthem** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:44 am

Soup4Rush wrote:maybe, or maybe he likes Rush..

it's true, i like rush. as to my sex, there's only one way to know for sure. this is the internet after all.

i wanted to respond to that line about intelligent design being a thinly disguised method of teaching religion in schools. i don't buy that argument for a couple of reasons. my first thought was that it's not a disguise at all. the majority of the planet believes that this world was created by some sort of higher being. the name and nature of that being vary so greatly that for schools the idea was to simply wrap it all into one group of thought and leave it at that. it's certainly not the business of american public schools to get into which religion might be the correct one.

but i also remember reading a news story about an old guy last year (i wish i could remember his name) who has been a pillar, both in the scientific community and in the atheist community for many years. he had just stunned all his atheirst friends by announcing in an interview that after so much study into dna he could no longer accept the logic of something so complex having simply evolved by chance. but he wanted to make it clear that, although he now belieived in an intelligent designer, it didn't mean that he believed any of the world's religions were true, because he didn't.

both sides of the argument can simply be regarded as schools of thought.

logic would dictate that if you're going to teach any hotly debated topic, both sides of the debate need to be presented. otherwise, an informed decision cannot be taken. how can it be an informed decision without information?

for example, when it comes to governmental/economic idealogy, although i favor capitalism, i see no reason to exclusively teach capitalism in schools. quite the contrary. a full explanation of capitalsm, imperlialism, communism/socialism, facism, etc. should should be taught along with full historical examples of each.

again, without presenting all sides it's just indoctrination, rather than education. that's oppresion, and it's nothing to celebrate.

oh yeah; peyote

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:41 am

anthem wrote:i wanted to respond to that line about intelligent design being a thinly disguised method of teaching religion in schools. i don't buy that argument for a couple of reasons. my first thought was that it's not a disguise at all.

It is. Its proponents claim (in public, at least) that it's not a religion. They are careful not to state who the "intelligent designer" is.

the majority of the planet believes that this world was created by some sort of higher being.

Indeed, and the great majority of them also believe that that higher being used evolution, without any need to tinker with his creation once it was under way. To asert that he had to make changes, intervening with the process, is to belittle his creation and deny his omnipotence.

the name and nature of that being vary so greatly that for schools the idea was to simply wrap it all into one group of thought and leave it at that.

No, that's not the case. The textbook that the Dover school boar dpromoted had originally been written to promote "scientific creationism" - the attempt to shoehorn Judeao-Christian YEC-ism into science.

Every reference to "god" had been changed to "intelligent designer" and "creation" to "design." Those wer evirtually the only changes form the early drafts to the published volume. And those changes were made because YEC had been banned from state school classes on account of the constitutional prohibition of any state-sponsored religion.

it's certainly not the business of american public schools to get into which religion might be the correct one.

Right. And that's why ID is not allowed. If state schools were allowed to teach religion(s), ID might have a place in religion classes, but it still isn't a science so it has no place there.

but i also remember reading a news story about an old guy last year (i wish i could remember his name) who has been a pillar, both in the scientific community and in the atheist community for many years. he had just stunned all his atheirst friends by announcing in an interview that after so much study into dna he could no longer accept the logic of something so complex having simply evolved by chance.

Anthony Flew. He's a philosopher, and not a scientist by any means.

Somehow, he got suckered by a simplistic argument from incredulity, on the issue of abiogenesis.

logic would dictate that if you're going to teach any hotly debated topic, both sides of the debate need to be presented. otherwise, an informed decision cannot be taken. how can it be an informed decision without information?

Well, quite, but there is no scientific debate on whether evolution is true. ID is all about PR, there's no science going on in the Discovery Institute.

They're more interested in public opinion than scientific opinion because they know who's easier to persuade.

again, without presenting all sides it's just indoctrination, rather than education. that's oppresion, and it's nothing to celebrate.

I don't see how the teaching of science constitutes oppression. Even if non-science is deliberately excluded from science classes, how does that constitute oppression?

anthem · Post by **anthem** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:29 am

Somehow, he got suckered by a simplistic argument from incredulity, on the issue of abiogenesis.

did you just call everyone who believes in a higher being a sucker?

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:17 am

Fahrenheit 451 · Post by **Fahrenheit 451** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:20 pm

The old position of the church has now been taken over by the scientific community:

If you do not think like us, believe like us, or teach like us, then we will label you negatively and not allow your message to be taught.

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:42 pm

You have evidence for that assertion.....?

anthem · Post by **anthem** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:07 pm

Devil's Advocate wrote:You have evidence for that assertion.....?

lol!

of course he doesn't!

there's also no evidence that people really like food.

rushlight · Post by **rushlight** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:34 am

STOPPIT! JUST SHUT UP ALL OF YOU!

Fahrenheit 451 · Post by **Fahrenheit 451** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:35 pm

I didn't mean to upset you, Rushlight. I just was stating something I believe to be true.

Xanadu · Post by **Xanadu** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:25 pm

Peyote buttons also make you

before the trip and unlike LSD-25, mescaline (the active ingredient in peyote) is not in the tryptamine family (like DMT, 5-MEO-AMT, LSA, psilocybin, LSD-25 etc.) but some other something or another chemical group.

rushlight · Post by **rushlight** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:52 pm

Fahrenheit 451 wrote:I didn't mean to upset you, Rushlight. I just was stating something I believe to be true.

You sound like a very nice person. You and anthem just caught me at one of the worst times because of my mom.