The Recreational Drug Thread (quote, youtube, Ching)

[garbanzo]

you've got some nice ideas there, but i'm afraid your perspective is a bit lopsided. first of all, let me say that i'm non-religious as well. i don't like to call myself atheist, i think it's silly to define my beliefs in terms of what i don't believe, but in the end, i'm quite certain there is no god in heaven up above.

but what you need to remember is that christianity is very, very new. in fact, the whole idea of dogmatic religion is a recent invention. for the vast majority of human history, religion was a very healthy force. in many 'native' societies, it still is today.

moreover, on the topic of drugs, it should be remembered that altered states of consciousness, induced both by narcotic substances and by non-chemical means, traditionally played a very significant role in world religions. most people think things like the peyote cult in the american southwest are exceptions, but in fact it is christianity that is the deviant here.

i know that shamanism and other native spiritual systems are not of much use to most people today, and that for most westerners religion is synonymous with christianity, but i think you should be clear on whether you're bashing institutionalized, dogmatic religions, or all religio-spiritual systems.

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Sorry to keep beating on, religion is a subject I can go on forever about. Religion does discourage critical thinking and logic (see above for proof of this.) It isn't a system of thinking that promotes individuality or anything. There's no room for intellectualism in a Church - as all the morals and ideas are already spelled out for you.

I have always seen it as an easy way out when someone is having a hard time. Hence why people who are struggling and need help are usually the ones to be very impressionable when it comes to religious propaganda. It is a set of beliefs and ideals that do not require the individual to figure out for themselves. It is a fact that people in general tend to like people that are similar to them. The problem is that these traits are very specific, being religion, area, and race. This develops a false partnership between the people. For example you would not say something mean and negative towards a person at your church, It is held in and not accepted. This anger or even hatred is let out of "scapegoats" or other races that are different or supposedly not the chosen ones.

What the world needs is a much more general set of common qualities in which we relate to other people in other parts of the world. Religion and race just does not work. Our technology as advanced so much over history, but our philosophy and people skills have most certainly not.

Well that is at least what I got from what you replied. With the main point being develop your own morals when it comes to drugs, pregnancy, and other hazy subjects.

Originally Posted by garbanzo

but what you need to remember is that christianity is very, very new. in fact, the whole idea of dogmatic religion is a recent invention. for the vast majority of human history, religion was a very healthy force. in many 'native' societies, it still is today.

It does not matter how old or new. It is still a set of ideals that have nothing to do with a godly figure. These ideals are basically marketed to the public in hope that they will tag along for the ride. Also religion has never been a very healthy force. There is not one society that was not plagued in some way by there religious standards. Maybe it did not cause crusades in which millions died, but certainly caused pain for quite a few.

-----

Im sure the next "i lIke to git hiiiii" post will come soon.

[garbanzo]

Originally Posted by RezZ

Also religion has never been a very healthy force. There is not one society that was not plagued in some way by there religious standards. Maybe it did not cause crusades in which millions died, but certainly caused pain for quite a few.

forgive me for being blunt, but you are wrong, plain and simple. you're making the mistake of thinking that large-scale, institutionalized religion is the only kind of religion. moreover, you seem to be forgetting that humans have been around for more than a few thousand years.

go read up on shamanism among the tukano indians of the colombian amazon, or among the san of southern africa. read about yanomamo shamanism, or peruvian curanderos, or australian clever men.

read about a shaman's role as a mediator, both within his society and between humans and the natural world.

read mircea eliade, joseph campbell, mihaly hoppal, gerardo reichel-dolmatoff. read something.

why shamanism? humans were hunter-gatherers for most of (pre)history. almost all known hunter-gatherer societies practice shamansim. the archaeological record suggests shamanism has been around for 200,000 years or longer. this means that for 99% of human history, it was the dominant form of religion on the planet.

if you want to bash christianity, be my guest. i'll tag along. but don't insist that all religion is bad.

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by garbanzo

forgive me for being blunt, but you are wrong, plain and simple. you're making the mistake of thinking that large-scale, institutionalized religion is the only kind of religion. moreover, you seem to be forgetting that humans have been around for more than a few thousand years.

go read up on shamanism among the tukano indians of the colombian amazon, or among the san of southern africa. read about yanomamo shamanism, or peruvian curanderos, or australian clever men.

read about a shaman's role as a mediator, both within his society and between humans and the natural world.

read mircea eliade, joseph campbell, mihaly hoppal, gerardo reichel-dolmatoff. read something.


why shamanism? humans were hunter-gatherers for most of (pre)history. almost all known hunter-gatherer societies practice shamansim. the archaeological record suggests shamanism has been around for 200,000 years or longer. this means that for 99% of human history, it was the dominant form of religion on the planet.

if you want to bash christianity, be my guest. i'll tag along. but don't insist that all religion is bad.

We are talking about 2 different things. I am only refering to religions that have had large amounts of followers that have helped shape the way people think today. You are correct in bringing up "shamanism among the tukano indians of the colombian amazon, or among the san of southern africa", but these are small time chump change when compared to the major worldwide religions.

# Christianity: 2.1 billion
# Islam: 1.5 billion
# Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
# Hinduism: 900 million
# Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
# Buddhism: 376 million
# primal-indigenous: 300 million
# African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
# Sikhism: 23 million
# Juche: 19 million
# Spiritism: 15 million
# Judaism: 14 million
# Baha'i: 7 million
# Jainism: 4.2 million
# Shinto: 4 million
# Cao Dai: 4 million
# Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
# Tenrikyo: 2 million
# Neo-Paganism: 1 million
# Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
# Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
# Scientology: 500 thousand

[garbanzo]

the religions you list are all very young. most have been around for less than 10,000 years. shamanism occupies the remaining 190,000 years of human history. while it does not dominate today, it is nonetheless the largest, oldest, and most significant religious system that ever existed. how can you justify brushing it off as if it were nothing?

if you qualify your statement by saying: "while most new religious systems are ultimately unhealthy social constructs, the spiritual systems that existed for most of human history were ultimate beneficial to society", then i'll shut up and go away. but as long as you insist that all religion is bad, i'll keep on arguing

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by garbanzo

"while most new religious systems are ultimately unhealthy social constructs"

That is exactly what im saying. To be honest I do not know very much at all about the older religions being why I will not talk about them. I do know that that played a large role in creating the newer religions, but many of the ideas were scewed and left us with what we have today.

Also another reason I like to shed more light on the newer religions such as Christianity is because they have billions of members. 190,ooo years there was a small fraction of that, making it a much smaller scale.

-------

And lets end this hear, we have kind of ventured far form this threads topic

[garbanzo]

those numbers mean nothing. for 95% of human history, religion was a postitive force. without it, we simply would not have survived.

i wrote my PhD dissertation ancient religious systems, so i know a little bit about it. you can continue to argue if you like, but it would be like a first year biology student who just admitted he doesn't understand genetics trying to argue with a tenured professor about the role of DNA in embryonic development

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by garbanzo

those numbers mean nothing. for 95% of human history, religion was a postitive force. without it, we simply would not have survived.

i wrote my PhD dissertation ancient religious systems, so i know a little bit about it. you can continue to argue if you like, but it would be like a first year biology student who just admitted he doesn't understand genetics trying to argue with a tenured professor about the role of DNA in embryonic development

Again, I am not saying that is not true. Just simply talking about more recent relgion that affects us greatly today. And yes, even with the dissertation you would probably know more than me on religion. For the most part I despise it, and stay as far from it as I can.

[joyboyo53]

you people are all grossly underestimating religion. garbanzo is actually correct (even if he does liken himself to a tenured professor... although i know plenty of dumbass tenured professors) in saying religion is a positive force. until very recently religion and science went hand in hand. it was through religion that we began to question and study anything at all. this is off-topic and we should move this discussion to another forum to talk about that.

now, where were we? o yes, the war on drugs.

let me start with a little message from someone who is smarter than the our resident MB professor garbanzo, dr. ron paul. here is a man who really understands human nature, among just about everything else. he is a true american and a great politician... they dont just exist in your history books, they live among us today (even if nobody listens).



now the important thing to understand here isnt that he is against the war on drugs... but WHY he is against the war on drugs. he doesnt think people should go around doing drugs, he was a medical doctor and advocates against it. the message he is trying to convey is that it simply isnt the governments place to tell you what you should or shouldnt do. it should be a personal liberty that is garnered by self responsibilty... unfortunately too many people go around thinking the government should wipe their ass and in doing so the government can justify having a war on drugs, to "protect" us from ourselves.

take note all of you who are for a national health care system (you noble beings you). the second the government is footing the bill, dont expect to wake up with health care coverage and life continue unaffected. when you begin to sit back and rely on the government to take care of you, then they get to tell you how to live your life. whats the most cost effective way to save the government money? preventative health care. what does that mean? it means the government will tell you whether your allowed to have cigarettes, ding dongs, and sodie pops.

remember, self responsibility = personal freedoms

[Guybrush]

Originally Posted by jgd85

until very recently religion and science went hand in hand. it was through religion that we began to question and study anything at all. this is off-topic and we should move this discussion to another forum to talk about that.

I'm pretty sure old timers like Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin wouldn't fully agree with you on this statement and I find it puzzling to say the least .. but yeah, maybe that's off-topic here.