There is a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

Can I see It?

Um...no b/c he is invisible.

Well....can't i feel the heat from the fire?

Um....no b/c it is magical cold fire.

I know I will take a bag of flour and throw it on the dragon and then I can see its outline.

That is a very clever idea but unfortunately, he is also intangible and the flour goes right through him..




This is every argument that anyone can ever have with a christain about god. I challenge anyone to disprove my garage dragon's existence.

Your garage dragon does not exist in reality because you are just using him as part of an example to show how a certain argument works.

My garage dragon is real.

I realized several days after he showed up that nobody would believe me. It is a matter of coincidence that my garage dragon's existence makes a point.

Well following the laws of Quantum Physics and the example of Schrodinger's Cat then you have and you also have not got a dragon in your garage , occupying or not occupying the same space /time continuum.

And you also have or don't have a dragon who is extremely pissed at being locked in such a small space!

This is every argument that anyone can ever have with a christain about god. I challenge anyone to disprove my garage dragon's existence.

The difference is that Christianity is backed up by numerous secular historians, a book that has been around for thousands of years which has made numerous accurate prophecies, and just plain common sense.

There is a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

You have a garage? Do I know you exist?

"The difference is that Christianity is backed up by numerous secular historians,"

Just because a work of fiction mentions real places or people doesn't make it true. By your logic, Star Trek would be real because it mentions our planet and various historical cities. That said, the Bible gets more things wrong than it does right; the whole lack of a global flood being one among many such "oversights."

"a book that has been around for thousands of years"

The story of Jason and the Argonauts has been around longer, does it's age make it real?

"which has made numerous accurate prophecies,"

When you bullshit your way through a text, you can make it say anything you want. Nostradamus made prophecies as well, and they only "came true" after his nutjob fans rearranged shit to mean things that he originally never thought of.

"and just plain common sense."

Really? So the bits where your god endorses slavery and commits genocide are common sense, then? What about the parts about avoiding shellfish, or Jesus giving you shit if you love your family more than him?

Yeah, that's common sense if you're a fanatical douchenozzle.

I'm stupid because I make claims that I never back up.

ORLY?

Well following the laws of Quantum Physics and the example of Schrodinger's Cat then you have and you also have not got a dragon in your garage , occupying or not occupying the same space /time continuum.

And you also have or don't have a dragon who is extremely pissed at being locked in such a small space!

You're silly. I surely hope you don't think that is a true understanding of quantum physics (and yes, I know what you're referring to).

ORLY?



You're silly. I surely hope you don't think that is a true understanding of quantum physics (and yes, I know what you're referring to).

It was a joke, I wouldn't know quantum physics from Pringles®.

There is a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

Can I see It?

Um...no b/c he is invisible.

Well....can't i feel the heat from the fire?

Um....no b/c it is magical cold fire.

I know I will take a bag of flour and throw it on the dragon and then I can see its outline.

That is a very clever idea but unfortunately, he is also intangible and the flour goes right through him..




This is every argument that anyone can ever have with a christain about god. I challenge anyone to disprove my garage dragon's existence.

Mostly when you use this against Christians, you won't be using it against Christians who follow their faith enough to really embrace god. There are things on this world which occur every day that you, or anybody for that matter, could not explain and can only be felt by trying to follow the one many Christians call their God.

There are things on this world which occur every day that you, or anybody for that matter, could not explain

Such as?

There are things on this world which occur every day that you, or anybody for that matter, could not explain and can only be felt by trying to follow the one many Christians call their God.

Just because you can't explain how the banana got on the floor, doesn't mean "god did it" - equally absurd is the notion that yahweh put the banana on the floor rather than the thousands of other man-made gods.

The difference is that Christianity is backed up by numerous secular historians, a book that has been around for thousands of years which has made numerous accurate prophecies, and just plain common sense.

backed up how? The fact that the book talks about historic events. Theres no historical facts that prove that jesus was a man who could perform miracles and ascended into heaven. An age of a book doesnt make it true. And what are these prophecies you speak of?

Such as?

Lol. If your lazy Finnish ass would do some research yourself, you could easily google millions of testimonies (some may have a "secular" factor behind it but most won't) instead of making me type, but just to humor you:

This is just some of the stuff that happens just within my church of about maybe... 350-400 members.

Healing: Terminal cancer/diseases (outside and inside the church) just seem to unknowingly turn for the better with many people becoming fully purged of their illnesses. This also includes mental illnesses which, if you decide to immerse yourself deep enough into the world of "God and the Devil and everything in between" you'll find that maybe 15% of mental illness can be attributed to "demonic forces/spirit presences", but that's another story. The funny thing is though with putting faith into God, people doomed for death are almost always saved from it, well an early one that is, but you have to do it right, you can't just pray hoping for a healing and expect to ignore God after that.

Things falling together/odd incidences: When faced with a set of events which just seem like they'll ruin a big event/plan you had, somehow when you pray it all comes together. And I'm not talking about once in a while, I've seen shit come together which almost seemed impossible previously by people just sitting around and praying about 3 times in the past month (like worship services/Sunday picnics/youth events). As long as it has to do with worship or bettering your life/falling into "His" plan (which is something you might have to have explained to you, since it's complicated for even novice Christians to understand) it'll all come together in the end.

Guidance/Faith: The two sort of fall hand in hand. If you trust God and really listen to him (which a lot of people have trouble with, who are Christians, because of that free will factor) he will guide your life to ultimate happiness/good standard of living. I don't live within the richest family and there have been many times where we don't have enough money to pay the bills (maybe like 4/12 months, it's gotten better this year though with only 1/12) for our house/services and some how a check would come in from the most random source you could think of (like once was a sweepstakes no one within my family recalls signing up for) and this never happened before my family (well my mother, and sort of I, no my father though really- yet) turned to "real" Christians. This has also happened a lot with my "Christian/Church friends" and with the Church itself to stay open.

I could go on, but no, you look for yourself. I've wasted too much of my time typing that.

Lol. If your lazy Finnish ass would do some research yourself, you could easily google millions of testimonies (some may have a "secular" factor behind it but most won't) instead of making me type, but just to humor you:

This is just some of the stuff that happens just within my church of about maybe... 350-400 members.

Healing: Terminal cancer/diseases (outside and inside the church) just seem to unknowingly turn for the better with many people becoming fully purged of their illnesses. This also includes mental illnesses which, if you decide to immerse yourself deep enough into the world of "God and the Devil and everything in between" you'll find that maybe 15% of mental illness can be attributed to "demonic forces/spirit presences", but that's another story. The funny thing is though with putting faith into God, people doomed for death are almost always saved from it, well an early one that is, but you have to do it right, you can't just pray hoping for a healing and expect to ignore God after that.

Things falling together/odd incidences: When faced with a set of events which just seem like they'll ruin a big event/plan you had, somehow when you pray it all comes together. And I'm not talking about once in a while, I've seen shit come together which almost seemed impossible previously by people just sitting around and praying about 3 times in the past month (like worship services/Sunday picnics/youth events). As long as it has to do with worship or bettering your life/falling into "His" plan (which is something you might have to have explained to you, since it's complicated for even novice Christians to understand) it'll all come together in the end.

Guidance/Faith: The two sort of fall hand in hand. If you trust God and really listen to him (which a lot of people have trouble with, who are Christians, because of that free will factor) he will guide your life to ultimate happiness/good standard of living. I don't live within the richest family and there have been many times where we don't have enough money to pay the bills (maybe like 4/12 months, it's gotten better this year though with only 1/12) for our house/services and some how a check would come in from the most random source you could think of (like once was a sweepstakes no one within my family recalls signing up for) and this never happened before my family (well my mother, and sort of I, no my father though really- yet) turned to "real" Christians. This has also happened a lot with my "Christian/Church friends" and with the Church itself to stay open.

I could go on, but no, you look for yourself. I've wasted too much of my time typing that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Cite some of your fucking sources for these "cancer" incidents and how they prove yahweh is the real god.

You've said a whole lot of nothing in your post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Cite some of your fucking sources for these "cancer" incidents and how they prove yahweh is the real god.

You've said a whole lot of nothing in your post.

I've said a lot, I'm sorry that you can't do your own research, and when you do you just dismiss it as BS. I've witnessed all that I told, I didn't hear about them. My mom survived nasal cancer which stemmed into brain cancer and later in her life she had Toxic Shock Syndrome. She received treatment for neither because (during the cancer she didn't want to lose me, [pregnant] and there is no treatment for TSS). My grandmother (72) about 9 months ago was diagnosed with 3 mental disorders (I can't remember them, their names are ucky medical language) and refused to take medication. She knew it was attack on her spirit and like my mom, turned to God and asked for strength in faith to help her overcome her disease. And you know what? It worked.

If you just took the time and stopped being such hardassed skeptic and maybe just considered it just for a second, you'd find that there are unseen forces among this world which guide/help people through life. And just ask yourself: "why do temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events happen more often and to benefit people of strong faith a hell of a lot more than people of little or none". Especially living in Louisiana, I'd think you'd see more of it occurring around you. And just the curing of cancer alone does not prove God exists, but it sure is a fucking factor that does, insignificant or not, especially under the circumstances.

I've said a lot, I'm sorry that you can't do your own research, and when you do you just dismiss it as BS. I've witnessed all that I told, I didn't hear about them. My mom survived nasal cancer which stemmed into brain cancer and later in her life she had Toxic Shock Syndrome. She received treatment for neither because (during the cancer she didn't want to lose me, [pregnant] and there is no treatment for TSS). My grandmother (72) about 9 months ago was diagnosed with 3 mental disorders (I can't remember them, their names are ucky medical language) and refused to take medication. She knew it was attack on her spirit and like my mom, turned to God and asked for strength in faith to help her overcome her disease. And you know what? It worked.

If you just took the time and stopped being such hardassed skeptic and maybe just considered it just for a second, you'd find that there are unseen forces among this world which guide/help people through life. And just ask yourself: "why do temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events happen more often and to benefit people of strong faith a hell of a lot more than people of little or none". Especially living in Louisiana, I'd think you'd see more of it occurring around you. And just the curing of cancer alone does not prove God exists, but it sure is a fucking factor that does, insignificant or not, especially under the circumstances.

so what about the billions of people praying everyday for god to assist them in healing, only to fucking die a slow and painfull death?

God was too busy raping virgins named mary or what?

so what about the billions of people praying everyday for god to assist them in healing, only to fucking die a slow and painfull death?

God was too busy raping virgins named mary or what?

Like I said, praying to god just to heal... it doesn't work that way. You need to pray to help you find him during your time in need, and once you have your faith restored, then the healing can begin. I mean if you listen to stories of people who have been allegedly healed (I say allegedly not to offend any non-believers) through God, almost always do they follow him to the end. Don't get my wrong, luck does play a role sometimes, I mean under certain conditions anything can happen, but there are cases which point more to "divine intervention" than probability alone.

There is a darker side to it though (well darker to non-believers but which makes perfect sense to the opposite side) which is that some people are just tools, the mechanics of someone else's path (this is so hard explaining something which the other person needs to be educated on the whole about) meaning they've outlived their purpose in life and are meant to die (a small price to pay considering the eternity ahead, being that you believe in it, to others it may seem cruel and unusual). Another dark side, is the dark side (to Christians anyways) and that is the force and will of the devil, diablo, satan, what ever you want to call him. He has as much as an influence on this world as God does, but with the power almost to only destroy rather than create (which God does/did).

I'm starting to see why people don't like/understand Christianity. It's a hard religion to understand with a lot of misinformation being spread and a lot of information about it not. Christianity is not something you can just glance at, point out a problem (that you see in it), and claim it is unreal. Like any idea/belief you need to understand its core and structure and be educated in its entity before you make any judgment, just like any other real world situation. And like any real world situation, the center of what ever you're trying to learn about may go deeper into what it's resting on than you think.

Like I said, praying to god just to heal... it doesn't work that way. You need to pray to help you find him during your time in need, and once you have your faith restored, then the healing can begin. I mean if you listen to stories of people who have been allegedly healed (I say allegedly not to offend any non-believers) through God, almost always do they follow him to the end. Don't get my wrong, luck does play a role sometimes, I mean under certain conditions anything can happen, but there are cases which point more to "divine intervention" than probability alone.

There is a darker side to it though (well darker to non-believers but which makes perfect sense to the opposite side) which is that some people are just tools, the mechanics of someone else's path (this is so hard explaining something which the other person needs to be educated on the whole about) meaning they've outlived their purpose in life and are meant to die (a small price to pay considering the eternity ahead, being that you believe in it, to others it may seem cruel and unusual). Another dark side, is the dark side (to Christians anyways) and that is the force and will of the devil, diablo, satan, what ever you want to call him. He has as much as an influence on this world as God does, but with the power almost to only destroy rather than create (which God does/did).

I'm starting to see why people don't like/understand Christianity. It's a hard religion to understand with a lot of misinformation being spread and a lot of information about it not. Christianity is not something you can just glance at, point out a problem (that you see in it), and claim it is unreal. Like any idea/belief you need to understand its core and structure and be educated in its entity before you make any judgment, just like any other real world situation. And like any real world situation, the center of what ever you're trying to learn about may go deeper into what it's resting on than you think.

There are other things you forgot as well, that people who are religious normally construe to be God's work, when although it may not be the christian point of view (technically it is), but we are all God's, and there are things that through belief have happened. Don't forget as well things like psychokinesis, telepathy, Extra sensory perception, Astral projection, etc. To refute the evidence (fuck you i'm done citing, I've done it too many times), is ignorance. Besides, another thing people, especially dumbfuck athiests (sorry most are, and there are alot of dumbfuck religious people too), is that God does EXIST, regardless of how he exists, he does exist. If he is a thought in my head-he fucking exists and there's nothing you or any dumbfuck athiest can do to stop it. They never tend to think of that though and never state that he doesn't exist physically. Unfortunatly their idiots their too. If God is the alpha and the omega, then he exists as everything, all physical manifestations (including us-which like I said, were Gods), as well as the billions of other races that exist in the universe. (130+ BILLION galaxies that we can see, don't you fucking dare tell me it's impossible that other life doesn't exist-that's very egotistical.)

I don't like (dumbfuck) religious people very much, and I don't like (dumbfuck pointless) athiests very much either, I'm spiritual.

Don't forget as well things like psychokinesis, telepathy, Extra sensory perception, Astral projection, etc. To refute the evidence (fuck you i'm done citing, I've done it too many times), is ignorance

Convinient seeing there is zero evidence for such phenomena. Lots of crackpots like to claim all sorts of things, ranging from seeing ghosts to being able to sense water with a pair of twigs. It's all bullshit and the "evidence" is laughable

If he is a thought in my head-he fucking exists and there's nothing you or any dumbfuck athiest can do to stop it

Flawless logic. You really shouldn't call others dumbfucks with the stuff you spew. Did you know that Russel's Teapot really exists? I just got a thought in my head, it's a teapot, yay. Anyone who claims my thoughts really have no basis on reality is a fool!!111!two

ANYTHING can exist with that logic. Calling it logic is an insult to the word

I've said a lot, I'm sorry that you can't do your own research, and when you do you just dismiss it as BS. I've witnessed all that I told, I didn't hear about them. My mom survived nasal cancer which stemmed into brain cancer and later in her life she had Toxic Shock Syndrome. She received treatment for neither because (during the cancer she didn't want to lose me, [pregnant] and there is no treatment for TSS)

She fully recovered without any kind of treatment? Do her medical records verify that? Interesting

My grandmother (72) about 9 months ago was diagnosed with 3 mental disorders (I can't remember them, their names are ucky medical language) and refused to take medication. She knew it was attack on her spirit and like my mom, turned to God and asked for strength in faith to help her overcome her disease. And you know what? It worked.

It's no surprise her mind could fix itself if she believed in it so strongly

Psychology is a pseudoscience at best with little to no actual success in curing people. I'm going to have to question whether she was sick to begin with, at least in the way the doctors thought she was. There is no definite way to determine what's wrong seeing it's all based on what you say or do. Think medical science except you'd have to diagnose a kidney condition based on what the patient says or does. Sure she might be a little pale but there's a million conditions that match the same criteria. It's ludicrous

"why do temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events happen more often and to benefit people of strong faith a hell of a lot more than people of little or none"

There isn't actual data to support such a claim other than people remembering good occurences more vividly when they believe God helped them. Narrowly dodging falling pottery is a lot more memorable if you think God saved your life beause he thinks you're deserving. Hell, even toast landing the butter side up can be seen as God's act if so inclined. It really proves nothing but differences in perception if we can even assume the claim that religious people seem to get luckier more often is true to begin with. Baseless claims all around

She fully recovered without any kind of treatment? Do her medical records verify that? Interesting



It's no surprise her mind could fix itself if she believed in it so strongly

Psychology is a pseudoscience at best with little to no actual success in curing people. I'm going to have to question whether she was sick to begin with, at least in the way the doctors thought she was. There is no definite way to determine what's wrong seeing it's all based on what you say or do. Think medical science except you'd have to diagnose a kidney condition based on what the patient says or does. Sure she might be a little pale but there's a million conditions that match the same criteria. It's ludicrous



There isn't actual data to support such a claim other than people remembering good occurences more vividly when they believe God helped them. Narrowly dodging falling pottery is a lot more memorable if you think God saved your life beause he thinks you're deserving. Hell, even toast landing the butter side up can be seen as God's act if so inclined. It really proves nothing but differences in perception if we can even assume the claim that religious people seem to get luckier more often is true to begin with. Baseless claims all around

This guy pretty much summed it up, although I'm not too sure about his claim that psychology is a pseudoscience.

As for the mother being healed, argument from personal experience doesn't affect me directly and shouldn't be used as a form of argument, for a couple of reasons - the main being that I don't know the other factors that were there in her healing. Your point of view is almost certainly skewing any actual cause of her healing where there could be an alternate explanation.

She fully recovered without any kind of treatment? Do her medical records verify that? Interesting

It's no surprise her mind could fix itself if she believed in it so strongly

Psychology is a pseudoscience at best with little to no actual success in curing people. I'm going to have to question whether she was sick to begin with, at least in the way the doctors thought she was. There is no definite way to determine what's wrong seeing it's all based on what you say or do. Think medical science except you'd have to diagnose a kidney condition based on what the patient says or does. Sure she might be a little pale but there's a million conditions that match the same criteria. It's ludicrous

There isn't actual data to support such a claim other than people remembering good occurences more vividly when they believe God helped them. Narrowly dodging falling pottery is a lot more memorable if you think God saved your life beause he thinks you're deserving. Hell, even toast landing the butter side up can be seen as God's act if so inclined. It really proves nothing but differences in perception if we can even assume the claim that religious people seem to get luckier more often is true to begin with. Baseless claims all around

I guess there are really somethings you have to experience first hand, and until then, there's nothing anybody can tell you or force upon you to believe otherwise.

I like that fact that you're not a condescending asshole like others in this thread though. Lol sorry for the lazy Finnish ass comment.

whats not believable about a garage dragon?

i have 2...earl and cessie we have lunch on tuesdays
brunch on Wednesdays and breakfast on tuesday

i met them both through the looking glass in the city of the red king on my way to the 8th square were i would feast with the wonderous red queen.

I'm not too sure about his claim that psychology is a pseudoscience.

You trust people that claim one's depression is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain, even if they don't even know what the balance IS nor do they even draw blood from you to verify such a claim? Even the supposed conditions are bullshit, they're nearly completely identical

Psychology is the bloodletting of 21st century. Everyone thinks it works even if it's blatant bullshit. Ask how many patients the shrinks have cured. Drugging the shit out of them to the point they see fairies in the sky hardly counts as a cure for a psychological condition

I guess there are really somethings you have to experience first hand, and until then, there's nothing anybody can tell you or force upon you to believe otherwise.

Meh, I accredit mudane things to God myself at times but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I'm right. Quite the opposite, I think it's fucking stupid. In the end it doesn't really matter either way so why even care

Does anyone else ever wonder why God spends so much time "miraculously" curing cancer, leprosy, and enabling the lame to walk but never grows back the limbs of amputees?

Does anyone else ever wonder why God spends so much time "miraculously" curing cancer, leprosy, and enabling the lame to walk but never grows back the limbs of amputees?

Because he made laws for this world, and that would be breaking them. The laws of science/anatomy.

Because he made laws for this world, and that would be breaking them. The laws of science/anatomy.

Curing cancer, leprosy, and enabling the lame to walk again are breaking the laws of this world, else they wouldn't be miracles..

Curing cancer, leprosy, and enabling the lame to walk again are breaking the laws of this world, else they wouldn't be miracles..

No, that's using the laws in one's benefit. Thinking logically. Would forming matter out of nowhere be following the rules? He can slowly make the conditions right for cancer and such to heal, but making cells all of a sudden rejuvenated it bs. That's part of life too, aging.

On healing. (http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/)

No, that's using the laws in one's benefit. Thinking logically. Would forming matter out of nowhere be following the rules? He can slowly make the conditions right for cancer and such to heal, but making cells all of a sudden rejuvenated it bs. That's part of life too, aging.
And what, resurrecting Jesus wasn't breaking any laws? The various smitings and apparitions and rains of blood, those were all natural? Where in the Bible does it say he has to follow physical laws? How would stimulating new cell growth be more unnatural than stopping the growth of cancer?

On healing. (http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/)


And what, resurrecting Jesus wasn't breaking any laws? The various smitings and apparitions and rains of blood, those were all natural? Where in the Bible does it say he has to follow physical laws? How would stimulating new cell growth be more unnatural than stopping the growth of cancer?

Having extremities is a luxury, not necessary to have as humans because we can think around it/rely on each other. This may seem cruel too to non-believers but it is not a necessity to live/worship/understand God unlike cancer which is life threatening. This life is just a test for the next, and that's a hard/impossible concept for non-believers to grasp. Our ideas and views of reality are very different and hard to mix together as clue to the "meaning of life". And of course some Godly healings can cure some smaller discomforts but loosing an extremity... The lord works in mysterious ways.

And forget what I said about physical law, I was just being silly.

Having extremities is a luxury, not necessary to have as humans because we can think around it/rely on each other. This may seem cruel too to non-believers but it is not a necessity to live/worship/understand God unlike cancer which is life threatening. This life is just a test for the next, and that's a hard/impossible concept for non-believers to grasp. Our ideas and views of reality are very different and hard to mix together as clue to the "meaning of life". And of course some Godly healings can cure some smaller discomforts but loosing an extremity... The lord works in mysterious ways.

This is dumb. In a world with a cure for cancer, being cancer-free wouldn’t be any big deal at all; we could “think around it.” Likewise, in a past world where humans would live as hunters and gatherers, an extremity would not be a luxury, but rather a necessity. How is curing me of my cold (small discomfort) more important than giving little armless Johnny his arm back after he inadvertently sawed it off in a sawmill accident (big discomfort)? You continue to say a hell of a lot of nothing in your posts, try to make some sort of valid logical points next time.

Another thing, why do we need to be tested in this life for the next life? Won't living in heaven (paradise) be a lot easier than living on the earth? It's kind of like taking a college level calculus course to prepare for kingergarten math, is it not?

Protip: “The lord works in mysterious ways” is not logical and, in fact, is utter bullshit and will get you nowhere in an argument unless you are using it as a propaganda device to convince other, similarly foolish and deluded Christians that Yahweh does indeed exist. Actually, that is probably how you became acquainted with the phrase; brainwashed at an early (mental) age.

And forget what I said about physical law, I was just being silly.

Yes. Yes, you were.

This is dumb. In a world with a cure for cancer, being cancer-free wouldn’t be any big deal at all; we could “think around it.” Likewise, in a past world where humans would live as hunters and gatherers, an extremity would not be a luxury, but rather a necessity. How is curing me of my cold (small discomfort) more important than giving little armless Johnny his arm back after he inadvertently sawed it off in a sawmill accident (big discomfort)? You continue to say a hell of a lot of nothing in your posts, try to make some sort of valid logical points next time.

Another thing, why do we need to be tested in this life for the next life? Won't living in heaven (paradise) be a lot easier than living on the earth? It's kind of like taking a college level calculus course to prepare for kingergarten math, is it not?

Protip: “The lord works in mysterious ways” is not logical and, in fact, is utter bullshit and will get you nowhere in an argument unless you are using it as a propaganda device to convince other, similarly foolish and deluded Christians that Yahweh does indeed exist. Actually, that is probably how you became acquainted with the phrase; brainwashed at an early (mental) age.



Yes. Yes, you were.

Our ideas and views of reality are very different and hard to mix together as clue to the "meaning of life". And of course some Godly healings can cure some smaller discomforts but loosing an extremity... The lord works in mysterious ways.

I'm starting to see why people don't like/understand Christianity. It's a hard religion to understand with a lot of misinformation being spread and a lot of information about it not. Christianity is not something you can just glance at, point out a problem (that you see in it), and claim it is unreal. Like any idea/belief you need to understand its core and structure and be educated in its entity before you make any judgment, just like any other real world situation. And like any real world situation, the center of what ever you're trying to learn about may go deeper into what it's resting on than you think.

And about why we need to be tested, is to deem whether you are worthy or not. And that is a lot like the real world. Fucking high school-college is a lot more difficult than just holding a job (unless your a Metaphysicist or something). Not every single aspect of life can be explain through the bible/teachings of Christianity. Sometimes you just have to except life for what's thrown at you, and a lot of secular people don't like that, they have to know why, why, why, it's just the way of the world.

What i dont understand is if eating the apple off the tree was the original sin, why would god create it if that was its only purpose? If there were other purposes for it to be on earth, than what? I understand that christianity is deff something that you commit too but its hard for people to commit to something that obviously doesnt follow logic. However i believe there is a god is some way, and although you may percieve things happening as "miracles" how do you know that its the christain god? or the islamic god? Just because you pray to and believe in something, doesnt mean its the reason for "miracles" or anything for that matter happening for, or against you.

What i dont understand is if eating the apple off the tree was the original sin, why would god create it if that was its only purpose? If there were other purposes for it to be on earth, than what? I understand that christianity is deff something that you commit too but its hard for people to commit to something that obviously doesnt follow logic. However i believe there is a god is some way, and although you may percieve things happening as "miracles" how do you know that its the christain god? or the islamic god? Just because you pray to and believe in something, doesnt mean its the reason for "miracles" or anything for that matter happening for, or against you.

There's just a certain relationship you build over time. A lot of people who call themselves Christians that never achieve this relationship but the people who do, you just know as if it's a 6th sense. Like I said before, it's all about personal experience.

4 BILLION years ago little cells started to form in the world's oceans.
Then over the years these little cells became large organisms.

Eventually, they became monkeys and then humans.

----

Well, can I see cells form on their own?

That only happens billions of years ago, it doesn't happen anymore.

Well, can I see monkeys give birth to human-like children?

No, it happens very slowly. Except sometimes when it all happens at once (Punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium)).

Well, are there any fossils of intermediate half-man/half-monkey creatures?

Yes, but we made them by sticking monkey skeletons and human skeletons together. (see Piltdown Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man), Nebraska man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man), Calaveras Skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calaveras_Skull), Japanese Paleolithic Hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_Hoax), etc...)

No, that's using the laws in one's benefit. Thinking logically. Would forming matter out of nowhere be following the rules? He can slowly make the conditions right for cancer and such to heal, but making cells all of a sudden rejuvenated it bs. That's part of life too, aging.

Do you even know what cancer is?

You can see 'evolution' in bacteria and other microorganisms. Actually, I should say you can see minor genetic variations (such as new 'strains' of illnesses developing) over time within them which, over large periods of time, precipates evolution.

Just because SOME fossil evidence was a hoax doesn't mean it all is.

Do you even know what cancer is?

Probably not.

Pro Tip: Cancer doesn't heal or go away.

This guy pretty much summed it up, although I'm not too sure about his claim that psychology is a pseudoscience.

Aye, pseudoscience is too strong.

It can be rather hit and miss and mostly consists of either talking to someone for a few years and figuring out just alone the line where you got fucked up or medicating people and hoping it works like it should.

Now zee claim zhat zertain prominent psychologists where projecting or talking out zee azz I can accept.

You can see 'evolution' in bacteria and other microorganisms. Actually, I should say you can see minor genetic variations (such as new 'strains' of illnesses developing) over time within them which, over large periods of time, precipates evolution.

I would have to agree with you on this point; however, its still quite a big step from minor genetic variants in bacteria to interspecies evolution from bacteria to humans.

Furthermore, there are problems with evolution explaining things like sexual reproduction and symbiosis.

Just because SOME fossil evidence was a hoax doesn't mean it all is.

Just because SOME Christians have acted improperly (and against God's word) doesn't mean we're all bad. :p :)

I would have to agree with you on this point; however, its still quite a big step from minor genetic variants in bacteria to interspecies evolution from bacteria to humans.

Furthermore, there are problems with evolution explaining things like sexual reproduction and symbiosis.



Just because SOME Christians have acted improperly (and against God's word) doesn't mean we're all bad. :p :)

I don't speak for the entirety of evolutionary science, but I think the key factor here is a matter of time. While we can witness changes in microorganisms (because they 'reproduce' at great speeds and great numbers, thus introducing a faster rate of change) tracking the development of ancient microorganisms to the development of humanity is on an incredibly larger scale. It's still maintains the aforementioned principle however. It takes a few years to find a new flu strain, it takes millions for entirely 'new' organisms to emerge (although you can see interspecies of sorts through fossil evidence, such as birdlike -dinosaurs e.g. http://tinyurl.com/ntpeh ). If someone who's studied this topic a lot more closely would like to comment then go ahead. According to Wikipedia sexual reproductive species had evolved as early as 1.2 to 1 billion years ago. Just because there are vague spots as far as human knowledge goes doesn't mean the already proved and known material is unfeasible. What I mean to say is, just because there's a lot of debate over the evolution of sexual reproduction doesn't mean evolution is moot.

I didn't say anything about Christians being bad, but I do find the Abrahamic religions objectionable.

As for psychology, well, like many sciences, early theories have been explored and disproven. No one, as far as I know, practices the entirety of Freud's work to the letter.

Now, Jung on the other hand...

And now that I think about it, I'mAfraidofJapan's examples of God's work are rediculous, as they're just as easily coincidence as evidence of an outside force. Circumstantial, even. I can scream "God doesn't exist" and there's roughly the same chance the actions of others will randomly coelesce into a coincidence such as 'everything going well'. Hell, my life's going fine and I've been athiest for years.

No one, as far as I know, practices the entirety of Freud's work to the letter.

Probably because most people, when told they want to fuck their mothers, find a different psychiatrist. Except those that actually want to fuck their mothers.

Plus, Freud's work actually is pseudoscience, it lacks falsifiability (You don't want to fuck you mother? Denial!).

If evolution doesnt exist, how come you have to get a new flu shot every year? Is the virus adapting to its enviroment? I heard this from a Brown University Professor, and I`m going to put my money on him.

Do you even know what cancer is?

Cancer is when the reproduction process of a cell gets disrupted and the cell/s start dividing at an enormous rate destroying tissues around it. I paid attention in anatomy/biology you cocksucker.

And certain types of cancer can deteriorate over time if the abnormal cell reproduction slows down to a normal or below average rate. But when faced with terminal cancer, and an unorthodox procedure works against it, under some conditions one can only wonder.

He can slowly make the conditions right for cancer and such to heal

That would ALSO breaking the fucking rules tard. If it doesn't occur without his interference, then it breaks the rules

I seriously cannot understand your way of thinking. Darwin stated his evolution theory and backed up with lots of experimental demonstration (not actually experimental, observational I should say) following the "scientific method". Then there is the creation belief that apparently is opposed to this theory (I say apparently because one can simply think that God created the evolution and that's it) So to support the creation belief you seek for holes or contradictions on evolution "demonstrations" instead of showing demonstrations of creation. I will never understand this creatoin-evolution discussion.

BTW if you understand spanish you will enjoy this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnmBaWy4DJo

While we're on the subject of what is scientifically impossible, how about asking a geneticist if its possible for two people to propagate an entire species through several generations of incest.

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man

4 BILLION years ago little cells started to form in the world's oceans.
Then over the years these little cells became large organisms.

Eventually, they became monkeys and then humans.

Actually a common ancestor split into what you call "monkeys" and our species.


Well, can I see cells form on their own?

That only happens billions of years ago, it doesn't happen anymore.

I find it funny that Christians never include why these cells never form anymore. They don't form because they would be completely unable to compete with the modern inhabitants of our planet. Bacteria have been around for billions of years. They have colonized every inch of the earth using a variety of flagellum, toxins, sensory proteins, and other stratagems. A new "prototypic" cell would find itself defenceless and a quick meal for something with a bit more history.

Oh, and don't forget that we don't have the required building blocks just sitting around anymore. Bacteria eat those, too.

Well, can I see monkeys give birth to human-like children?

No, it happens very slowly. Except sometimes when it all happens at once ().

"Punctuated equilibrium is [often] mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next."

Taken straight from the Wiki article you linked, moron.

Well, are there any fossils of intermediate half-man/half-monkey creatures?


Yes, but we made them by sticking monkey skeletons and human skeletons together. (see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man]Piltdown Man (]Punctuated equilibrium[/url), Nebraska man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man), Calaveras Skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calaveras_Skull), Japanese Paleolithic Hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Paleolithic_Hoax), etc...)

Taung Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taung_Child)
Mrs. Ples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Ples)
Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29)

You will, of course, claim that everything I've said is a lie from Satan and that I just won't believe in God because then I might be "accountable" to not being your invisible sky daddy's guilt bitch. However, the thought that your brand of stupid might infect others makes my skin crawl just a bit.

Apparently logic and reasoning is the work of Satan.


BTW if you understand spanish you will enjoy this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnmBaWy4DJo

LOL

This shit has to be a joke. Stop trolling OP.

This shit has to be a joke. Stop trolling OP.

all Jesus-freaks are trolls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man

From the article you linked, "Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, but consisted of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species".

Is this another fraud like Piltdown Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man)? or is it just an archaeological error like Nebraska Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man)?

Only time will tell. :)

From the article you linked, "Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, but consisted of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species".

Is this another fraud like Piltdown Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man)? or is it just an archaeological error like Nebraska Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man)?

Only time will tell. :)

This isn't 1912 or 1925, science has improved since then. Sadly, Genesis has not.

Rolloffle, can you recite the gay-ass "raptor jesus" prayer? You've done this before....

last time i checked, evolutionary theory never said we were monkies. Less evolved primates then we are now, but it never said anything about monkies. Sorry, I know I'm not contributing, but it pisses me off when people say that.

That would ALSO breaking the fucking rules tard. If it doesn't occur without his interference, then it breaks the rules

Fuck the rules I already said that, yes, I contradicted myself, I was not thinking straight at the time and I didn't put a lot, if any thought into my answer. LEARN TO FUCKING READ FINLAND.

last time i checked, evolutionary theory never said we were monkies. Less evolved primates then we are now, but it never said anything about monkies. Sorry, I know I'm not contributing, but it pisses me off when people say that.

word

*violently rapes 5char*

Our ideas and views of reality are very different and hard to mix together as clue to the "meaning of life". And of course some Godly healings can cure some smaller discomforts but loosing an extremity... The lord works in mysterious ways.

I'm starting to see why people don't like/understand Christianity. It's a hard religion to understand with a lot of misinformation being spread and a lot of information about it not. Christianity is not something you can just glance at, point out a problem (that you see in it), and claim it is unreal. Like any idea/belief you need to understand its core and structure and be educated in its entity before you make any judgment, just like any other real world situation. And like any real world situation, the center of what ever you're trying to learn about may go deeper into what it's resting on than you think.

And about why we need to be tested, is to deem whether you are worthy or not. And that is a lot like the real world. Fucking high school-college is a lot more difficult than just holding a job (unless your a Metaphysicist or something). Not every single aspect of life can be explain through the bible/teachings of Christianity. Sometimes you just have to except life for what's thrown at you, and a lot of secular people don't like that, they have to know why, why, why, it's just the way of the world.


You continue to say a hell of a lot of nothing in your posts, try to make some sort of valid logical points next time.


By the way, I studied to be a minister for good amount of time and went to a parochial school for pretty much my entire education, don’t tell me that I need to educate myself in Christianity.

Why do we need to be deemed worthy in the first place? Why can’t God accept everyone into his kingdom? And wouldn’t God know in advance whether we would live our life to be worthy or not before we were ever born, since he is all-knowing? Why did God create anything in the first place, and why doesn’t the Bible even try to answer any of these questions?

In your last sentence you are essentially saying that secularists should stop asking why and trying to understand the world, and just accept some ancient myth as fact without any scientific evidence. I’m not even secularist and I disagree. It’s that kind of passive living that has ruined civilization. Just accept shit, don’t question why, right? It’s not our place to care, we just need to do whatever the minister/school teacher/president/Bible tells us to and we will be alright. It’s just the way of the world? What bullshit.

op is a total idiot,


genetic variation + natural selection + seperation = different species.


no one is saying humans were evolved from "MONKEYS" humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor, how else would you explain the humanish qualities of monkeys?

i s'pose the OP would say the devil made monkeys a bit like humans to confuse us.

There are over 17 different species of snail on an island near fiji, all evolved from one snail species which originates on fiji, due to the unique topographical features of this island (a large volcanoe with lots of radial valleys with dry ridges and wet forests in the valleys) the original 1 species of snail has evolved into 17 species each with it's own niche.


in the congo rainforest there are 2 seperate populations of chimp seperated by a river, on one side, the chimps are smaller, use no tools and are afraid of humans, on the other side, the chimps are much larger, have complex social lives, use lots of tools and have no fear of humans.

Very interesting.

What is it disproving?

Do you have a source for any of this? :rolleyes:

Do you have a source for any of this? :rolleyes:

Why should that matter?

Would you truly consider his source any more reliable then he probably considers the bible?

Science and religion can work in harmony :/ I grew up knowing science first and Christianity second, you can fuse the two in an orderly way.

Why should that matter?

I can see you are a man of science and truth. :p

By the way, I studied to be a minister for good amount of time and went to a parochial school for pretty much my entire education, don’t tell me that I need to educate myself in Christianity.

Why do we need to be deemed worthy in the first place? Why can’t God accept everyone into his kingdom? And wouldn’t God know in advance whether we would live our life to be worthy or not before we were ever born, since he is all-knowing? Why did God create anything in the first place, and why doesn’t the Bible even try to answer any of these questions?

In your last sentence you are essentially saying that secularists should stop asking why and trying to understand the world, and just accept some ancient myth as fact without any scientific evidence. I’m not even secularist and I disagree. It’s that kind of passive living that has ruined civilization. Just accept shit, don’t question why, right? It’s not our place to care, we just need to do whatever the minister/school teacher/president/Bible tells us to and we will be alright. It’s just the way of the world? What bullshit.

Well there are some things we could never understand just because it's not of our world. There's four worlds, God's world, the Devil's world, our world and the spiritual realm. Just realize what's of this and not of others. The bible doesn't explain every little detail about this life, all it is is one big guide of how to live it properly, you know that, there are some things we'll probably never figure out because it involves of cracking into the mind of our creator which I don't think anyone has been able to do yet. Christianity doesn't have all the answers even to things within its own design that man has been able to cipher through. I mean some of people's answers on this forum have just been a complex way of saying "I don't know", because no-one actually does know why this happens or doesn't. We just don't fucking know, we're only human amongst bigger works.

The bible's an instruction manual, not a fucking encyclopedia.

I can see you are a man of science and truth. :p

I am a man of many masks, but at least I realize they are only masks, and not the truth.

Everything is true, and nothing is.

Everything is true, and nothing is.

You are a very confused man.

I'll be praying for you though. :)

I'll be praying for you though. :)

Good. I'll leave you to your delusions.

Good. I'll leave you to your delusions.

NO DA DE COMER EL DUENDE!!!!!!

Very interesting.

What is it disproving?

creationism.

evolution has been proven beyond doubt, the proof is all around us, the fact that i'm sat here with fingers typing is proof.

Why is it that all of you think that evolution and creationism are inherently opposed to one another? Who says God could not have created all things and allowed them to undergo a natural process of development... maybe, like evolution?

Everything is true, and nothing is.

That doesn't even mean anything.

Come on now.

Plus, Freud's work actually is pseudoscience, it lacks falsifiability (You don't want to fuck you mother? Denial!).

Psychology is all a bunch of bullshit pseudoscience. I don't have a problem with psychology, but I can't stand when people try to pass it off as a science. IT'S NOT SCIENCE DAMMIT!

Why is it that all of you think that evolution and creationism are inherently opposed to one another? Who says God could not have created all things and allowed them to undergo a natural process of development... maybe, like evolution?

Yes intelligent design theory. Problem with both creationism and intelligent design is it lacks ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

The problem is that if you allow things that are not scientific AT ALL to seep into science you fuck it all up. Science is what can be proven and tested repeatedly.

Science unlike religion welcomes anyone to disprove theories.

Psychology is a science. It meets the criteria to be a science. It has earned it's place. Now some sub-classifications of psychology ARE pseudoscience.

That doesn't even mean anything.

Everything means nothing, and nothing means everything.

Psychology is not a science because it is too soft. In things such as chemistry and physics, there are facts which the science is based upon, and there is less margin for error because nothing is subjective. A lot of psychological techniques (e.g. psychoanalysis) are subjective by nature, and most of the research methods used rely on things such as surveys as opposed to experimental results which can be reproduced in a controlled environment.

I will agree with you that there are certain aspects of psychology that use scientific study, but psychology as a whole is not a science. Neuroscience is a science. You study a brain, you learn things about it, and you write them down with sufficient instructions for someone else to reproduce your results. The same cannot be said for psychology.

Also, I'm not saying that religious concepts should seep into science. On the contrary, I do not believe that science should concern itself at all with such matters, since the existence of a God cannot be verified by direct observation. It is impossible to do anything scientific involving creationism, whether to credit or discredit the belief.

Yes intelligent design theory. Problem with both creationism and intelligent design is it lacks ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

The problem is that if you allow things that are not scientific AT ALL to seep into science you fuck it all up. Science is what can be proven and tested repeatedly.

Science unlike religion welcomes anyone to disprove theories.

So are you saying believe in nothing outside of what science can prove? How would science ever progress than. Most of the questions science answer come from religion. Although im not a religious person at all, is it a requirement to be religious if you believe in a god?

Most of the questions science answer come from religion.

Haha, oh wow.

Pro Tip: "Why the fuck does that happen?" is not a religious question.

Haha, oh wow.

Pro Tip: "Why the fuck does that happen?" is not a religious question.

No its not, but think back to when everything was answered by religion, even before christianity. Alot of what we know of science has been found by taken aspects of what religions say and really look at them from a logical point of view. Im not saying any question is a religious question, just that those aspects are looked at aswell while analyzing certain things.

So are you saying believe in nothing outside of what science can prove? How would science ever progress than. Most of the questions science answer come from religion. Although im not a religious person at all, is it a requirement to be religious if you believe in a god?

Not at all. I like to think about life on other planets...how to find them and shit like that. I like to think about the other dimensions of space we cannot perceive and how we can try to perceive them.

What I am NOT going to do is say that I am right based on these thoughts. Life on other planets might not be there. It really might not. I cannot say that I am RIGHT at all. I cannot say that there ARE other dimensions and we CAN use them for something. I cannot say that.

For me to be right I NEED some kind of testable proof. Some kind of experiment that can be tested by ANYONE else who would like to prove me wrong. Until something DOES that it is just opinion.

That is why science can be trusted to be as true as it possibly can be. Does it know everything? Will it ever know all? NO, to both, but it has PROVEN itself.

For me to be right I NEED some kind of testable proof. Some kind of experiment that can be tested by ANYONE else who would like to prove me wrong. Until something DOES that it is just opinion.

Psychology is a science.

Contradictions are only good for inductive proofs.

Pro Tip: "Why the fuck does that happen?" is not a religious question.

IIRC, there used to be stories about this guy Zeus who would throw lightning around... which was supposedly why we had thunderstorms.

Also, I think there were basically parallels to this story in, oh, EVERY RELIGION EVER.

"Why the fuck does that happen" is basically why we have religion.

Contradictions are only good for inductive proofs.

I'm sure someone in this thread will have already pointed it out IMO but i'll state that in order for evidence to be recognised, one must believe that it is evidence.

It is entirely possible that the OP ;- BrokeProphet, already has the truth in his possession, however he is too near-sighted to see it.

Because after all, it's about the finding out the truth, not hiding it.

I'm sure someone in this thread will have already pointed it out IMO but i'll state that in order for evidence to be recognised, one must believe that it is evidence.

It is entirely possible that the OP ;- BrokeProphet, already has the truth in his possession, however he is too near-sighted to see it.

Because after all, it's about the finding out the truth, not hiding it.


What must one do in order to find the truth regarding any religion? What evidence can you take and scrutinize in order to find the truth in a manner that would satisfy scientific criteria?

Psychology is a science. It meets the criteria to be a science. It has earned it's place. Now some sub-classifications of psychology ARE pseudoscience.

It's as much science as measuring temperature with my hand. Subjective, inaccurate, mostly useless information

It's as much science as measuring temperature with my hand. Subjective, inaccurate, mostly useless information

Psychology has it's place in science. It is recognized as a science by the scientific community itself. It is not a mature science like chemistry and physics allbeit but it is recognized and applied as a science.

Psychology has it's place in science. It is recognized as a science by the scientific community itself.

None of the psychologists I know consider it to be science. All of the scientists I know scoff at psychology. Hell, my grandfather was a prison psychologist back in the day, and he always told me that psychology is bullshit, and he PRACTICED the damn thing. It is an academic discipline at best. For the most part, it is ineffective and dangerously inaccurate.

Now let's get back to the topic at hand. I have said a lot of things to you that you seem to have been avoiding; when are you going to get around to answering my posts?

Also, stop saying shit without having things to back it up. Anyone can claim that psychology is "recognized as a science by the scientific community". Here, look through the list of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine) and tell me how many psychologists you see.

Did you read my post about contradiction? About how you have contradicted yourself time and again in this thread by demanding empirical evidence for things and then calling psychology a science?

What must one do in order to find the truth regarding any religion? What evidence can you take and scrutinize in order to find the truth in a manner that would satisfy scientific criteria?

Wrong angle.

What evidence can YOU NOT take?

Jesus titty fucking christ......I can better prove psychology is a science than you can god is real.

Psychology is a social science.

First let me educate you in the definition of science.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Psychology MOST DEFINITELY fits into this definition. It is a social science. It is not the formal science of mathmatics or the natural science of biology and chemistry.

So as far as the definition of what is a science........psychology is a science. You can have your OPINION on psychology however you want of course.

Your grandfather was probably just a social worker seeing as how he worked in a prison. He would be one step above the prison maintainence worker. Since he landed in a prison (not very desirable job) I would assume he wasnt exactly top of his class. His OPINION however is just as full of shit as yours seems to be.

Back on the subject of me dodging your bullshit on contradiction let me state this one more time GOD CANNOT BE STUDIED OR PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CANNOT BE APPLIED TO GOD.........A T A L L!!!!!!!!

That out of the way how am I contradicting myself. Regardless of HOW scientific psychology is it CAN and IS put to the scientific method. GOD CANNOT BE.

Remember before you post anything that if we are both referring to the definition of science....psychology falls easily into that definition.

None of the psychologists I know consider it to be science. All of the scientists I know scoff at psychology. Hell, my grandfather was a prison psychologist back in the day, and he always told me that psychology is bullshit, and he PRACTICED the damn thing. It is an academic discipline at best. For the most part, it is ineffective and dangerously inaccurate.

If the "psychologists" you know don't consider it a science, then those "psychologists" are pretty fucking stupid.

"Psychology The scientific study of the behavior of individuals and their mental processes."

-- American Psychological Association. (http://www.psychologymatters.org/glossary.html#p)

It's a Science. It may not restrict itself only to the scientific method - it may use some other methodologies to carry out specific studies - but it's a Science.

Jesus titty fucking christ......I can better prove psychology is a science than you can god is real.

Wait, what the fuck? When did I say anything about proving that God is real? Oh, that's right, I didn't; nice try.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

The difference is, the research methods used in psychology are considered "soft science" - surveys, "psychoanalysis" and other such subjective techniques with results that cannot be reproduced by someone else in an experimental environment.

Psychology MOST DEFINITELY fits into this definition. It is a social science. It is not the formal science of mathmatics or the natural science of biology and chemistry.

So you're saying to me that in order for anything to be true, for you, you need to have experiments done and results that you could reproduce yourself... except in the case of psychology?

GOD CANNOT BE STUDIED OR PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CANNOT BE APPLIED TO GOD.........A T A L L!!!!!!!!

Well no shit. When the hell did I ever say anything about studying any god scientifically? Never, that's when, because I know just as well as you do that god is not a fucking science.

That out of the way how am I contradicting myself. Regardless of HOW scientific psychology is it CAN and IS put to the scientific method.

Here is your contradiction:
For me to be right I NEED some kind of testable proof. Some kind of experiment that can be tested by ANYONE else who would like to prove me wrong. Until something DOES that it is just opinion.

Psychology is a science.

Psychology does not have any testable proof. There are no experimental results that someone else can reproduce. That's why crackpots like Kinsey and Freud got as far as they did.

Remember before you post anything that if we are both referring to the definition of science....psychology falls easily into that definition.

No it doesn't. Psychology is soft. The research is fuzzy, it is not based on facts, most of the techniques are subjective and there is a FUCKING HUGE margin for error. It is not a goddamn science.

If I am doing a titration, I know when it's done for sure. I know that for sure. I don't have to speculate on what the universal indicator might be trying to express by turning pink, or whether some molecules of NaOH might be deviating from the norm and demonstrating antisocial behavior, or even whether my buret is in love with its mother. I know that the titration is done because they are fucking chemicals, and they always behave the same way, and if Joe Nobody wanted to prove that it takes 2 moles of x to completely react with 1 mole of y, he could do it. That's a science.

It's a Science. It may not restrict itself only to the scientific method - it may use some other methodologies to carry out specific studies - but it's a Science.

So because the American Psychological Association says it's a science, it's a science?

I guess marijuana must be a violent narcotic... after all, the Drug Enforcement Agency says it is...

So because the American Psychological Association says it's a science, it's a science?

I guess marijuana must be a violent narcotic... after all, the Drug Enforcement Agency says it is...

Well, the DEA managed to dodge out of the fact that it's only a violent narcotic if the person taking it is predominatly violent in the first place.

...

Wtf am i saying? The APA made dozens of fuck-ups in the last few decades - the one thing that can be used to support psychology as a science is the 'ology' bit at the end, but even then a 'study of' can be disputed as to whether or not it's a science.

The arguement is at a point now where the word science has lost it's meaning - either everything is a science or everything is a religion.

The APA's biggest fuck-up was that stupid citation format of theirs which complicates every god damn research paper you will ever have to write... EVER...

Well, the DEA managed to dodge out of the fact that it's only a violent narcotic if the person taking it is predominatly violent in the first place.

Yet its still illegal...:(

Yet its still illegal...:(

Possibly the only reason that it continues to be illegal is because of racketeering groups - criminals, in otherwords.

Such people are very likely to be predominatly violent, so anyone who buys from them will probably be exposed to such mentality and may propogate it themselves.

Still, it's a shitty reason.

So because the American Psychological Association says it's a science, it's a science?

I guess marijuana must be a violent narcotic... after all, the Drug Enforcement Agency says it is...

So because you're grandfather says it's bullshit, it's bullshit?

:rolleyes:

Don't give me this load of crap when you're doing exactly the same thing with the "psychologists" you suppoedly know and your grandfather.

If we're going to take someones word for it, I sure as fuck would rather take the word of the American Psychological Association which represents thousands of renowned psychologists, than the word of some mysterious "psychologists" you know.

But hey, don't like the APA? Fine...

1. the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.

2. the science of human and animal behavior.


-- Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

1 : the science of mind and behavior
2 a : the mental or behavioral characteristics typical of an individual or group or a particular form of behavior <mob psychology> <the psychology of arson> b : the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity <color psychology> <the psychology of learning>
3 : a treatise on or a school, system, or branch of psychology

-- Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


It's a Science.



Psychology does not have any testable proof. There are no experimental results that someone else can reproduce. That's why crackpots like Kinsey and Freud got as far as they did

You're wrong. There are "experimental results that someone else can reproduce" in Psychology; you being ignorant of them is another story.

Want an example? Sure thing. Dog training. K-9 trainers work with the same principles Pavlov and Skinner worked with in their experiments (Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning respectively) decades ago. By training a dog to sit, roll over, stay, lay down, etc. the trainer is essentially reproducing what they did.

Not to mention that a vast part of Psychology is observation, not experiment. You know... a fundamental part of the scientific method...

Psychologists observe humans and animals in order to understand, describe, and hopefully predict certain behaviors and/or or mental processes.

HEY FUCKHEAD>>>>>>>

BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF SCIENCE>>>>>>>>PSYCHOLOGY IS A SCIENCE.

FACT

You cannot refute that.

Thank you for playing.

As far as my so called contradiction I addressed that by saying that their is NO evidence for god Whatsoever....period. Which you replied "I never said there was".

While you may not agree.......There is MORE evidence for psychology than for god.

THAT IS MY ANSWER TO YOUR ACCUSATION.

TRY TO KEEP UP.

So because the American Psychological Association says it's a science, it's a science?
No. Because the definition the APA gave is a correct one makes it a science. It is the scientific study of the behavior of individuals and their mental processes whether or not your grandfather thinks it's bullshit. To call psychology as a whole bullshit says a lot about the ignorance your grandfather holds. It's one thing to say psychoanalysis or some other theory or method is bullshit, but psychology as a whole? That's not a very bright remark.

BTW, this doesn't mean that calling something a science means it's infallible. Medical science has come to incorrect conclusions and will continue to make incorrect conclusions. That does not mean that medical science is not a science or that it's 'bullshit'.

I guess marijuana must be a violent narcotic... after all, the Drug Enforcement Agency says it is...
Cite?

Such people are very likely to be predominatly violent, so anyone who buys from them will probably be exposed to such mentality and may propogate it themselves

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

While you may not agree.......There is MORE evidence for psychology than for god.

So what? How the hell does that address the point that I made to you?

My point was that your standards for "evidence" of God are more strict than your standards of "evidence" for psychology - that is, if you subject psychology to the same examination as you do God, you would find that psychology is not scientific.

It's one thing to say psychoanalysis or some other theory or method is bullshit, but psychology as a whole? That's not a very bright remark.

Then allow me to rephrase myself so that I can redeem how bright I am in the eyes of random people I sometimes discuss things with on the Internet:

MOST of psychology uses research methods that are either soft (polls and surveys) or subjective and unreliable (psychoanalysis and introspection). Subjective methods obviously cannot be trusted because they are inherently subjective. Surveys and the like have a very large margin for error and can never substitute lab work.

OK, there are valid scientific discoveries that have come from psychology. Hypnosis is one of them. How do we know that works, though? Because we take a magnetic snapshot of someone's neural activity while they're being hypnotized. Huh, magnetic resonance imaging? Sounds like science! Of course, once you start doing things like that, the line between psychology and neurology gets reaaalllly blurry. Generally speaking, studies of the central nervous system are considered neurology and not psychology, just so y'all know.

BTW, this doesn't mean that calling something a science means it's infallible. Medical science has come to incorrect conclusions and will continue to make incorrect conclusions. That does not mean that medical science is not a science or that it's 'bullshit'.

The thing is, medical science can be tested and observed more reliably than psychology. There is no definitive test to see if someone has "antisocial personality disorder" - or, indeed, for many things outlined in DSM-IV. You are correct, we can say things like, "in the past, people with these symptoms have had a higher chance of developing these symptoms", but if you have a strep infection, medical science can say with all certainty that the culture results are back and YOU HAVE a strep infection and this antibiotic WILL KILL IT.

I will meet you halfway. Psychology is a soft science. It is subjective and has a much larger margin for error than any other science.

Also, my point about Nobel Prize laureates still stands; it seems that psychology is not really recognized as a branch of physiology or medicine. Hmmm.

Cite?

My bad - it wasn't the DEA; it was the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics:
http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm

Read.

BTW, this is a DISCUSSION, not a flame war (talking to all you guys out there who are talking smack; you know who you are). There's no reason to be a dick. We're all adults here and I think we should conduct ourselves accordingly.

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

Hey, i didn't say it was a certainty - and it certainly ain't mah fuckin rule.

Leave your recessive arguements out of it.

Hey, i didn't say it was a certainty - and it certainly ain't mah fuckin rule.

Leave your recessive arguements out of it.

Why??

My bad - it wasn't the DEA; it was the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics:
http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm
You're claiming that the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics (do they even exist anymore?) says something based on what someone said in 1937? Alrighty then.

You're claiming that the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics (do they even exist anymore?) says something based on what someone said in 1937? Alrighty then.

Well the christans believe 2000 year old stories, why shouldnt we believe what someone said in 1937? lol

Why??

Cause you refused to acknowledge that it was a valid point, which leads me to believe that all you're interested in is making a scene of things.

So, Why?

You're claiming that the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics (do they even exist anymore?) says something based on what someone said in 1937? Alrighty then.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html

"[R]esearch shows that use of [marijuana] can lead to dependence. Some heavy users of marijuana develop withdrawal symptoms when they have not used the drug for a period of time. Marijuana use, in fact, is often associated with behavior that meets the criteria for substance dependence established by the American Psychiatric Association."

Among other claims about marijuana causing schizophrenia, lung cancer, crime and juvenile delinquency, etc. etc.

I think this will be acceptable to you.

Cause you refused to acknowledge that it was a valid point, which leads me to believe that all you're interested in is making a scene of things.

Of course I am. Scenes are where its at this season.

It was certainly not a valid point, but this isn't even the place to be discussing why marijuana is still illegal, theres BLTC and threads in Humanities for that.

...

Allll bull-honky.

It was certainly not a valid point.

Oh good, we're actually having a discussion now.

Why do you think that?

Oh good, we're actually having a discussion now.

Why do you think that?

Go ask BLTC.

Or go look up some of my responses in the humanities drug threads. This is not the place for a drug-law causation discussion.

However...think cannabis is kept illegal because the people who sell it are criminals and predominantly violent, and that the people who buy cannabis from these people may also pick up that mentality and spread it around?

First off, not all people who sell pot are predominantly violent, or plain old normal violent, or even criminals at all(except for the crime of selling weed).

Secondly, why would the people who buy marijuana from these 'dangerous criminals' spread around that violence...I mean they're smoking pot for, Christs sake.

Thirdly, if cannabis was legal, there would not be violent criminals selling it and spreading their mentality about, if that indeed happens.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html

"[R]esearch shows that use of [marijuana] can lead to dependence. Some heavy users of marijuana develop withdrawal symptoms when they have not used the drug for a period of time. Marijuana use, in fact, is often associated with behavior that meets the criteria for substance dependence established by the American Psychiatric Association."

Among other claims about marijuana causing schizophrenia, lung cancer, crime and juvenile delinquency, etc. etc.

I think this will be acceptable to you.
Acceptable as what? Evidence that the DEA classifies marijuana as a 'violent drug'? No, it's not.

I'm replying to this because you haven't yet replied to what I said...



MOST of psychology uses research methods that are either soft (polls and surveys) or subjective and unreliable (psychoanalysis and introspection). Subjective methods obviously cannot be trusted because they are inherently subjective. Surveys and the like have a very large margin for error and can never substitute lab work.

1. "Psychoanalysis" isn't a research method. It's a clinical technique. Just like an M.D. could give his patient some Tylenol to stop his patient's headache, so can a Psychologist use psychoanalysis to get to the root of a problem and work it out through therapy.

2. To say that "surveys and the like have a very large margin of error" is utterly ridiculous... if you don't even know how the fucking survey or poll was constructed in the first place!

Statistics allows us to construct polls and surveys that have negligible margins of error. Not to mention that there are a huge list of other research techniques used by the Psychologist.


The thing is, medical science can be tested and observed more reliably than psychology. There is no definitive test to see if someone has "antisocial personality disorder" - or, indeed, for many things outlined in DSM-IV. You are correct, we can say things like, "in the past, people with these symptoms have had a higher chance of developing these symptoms", but if you have a strep infection, medical science can say with all certainty that the culture results are back and YOU HAVE a strep infection and this antibiotic WILL KILL IT.

If you think that is the case with everything in Medicine, then you're sorely mistaken. Take migraines for example. There as absolutely no definitive test to see if someone has a migraine; they are subjective by definition (i.e. the severity of pain the subject feels). Does the study or treatment of migraines suddenly cease to be "scientific"? Of course not. What does the Doctor do? He takes a list of the symptoms commonly associated with migraines and checks to see how many the patient has. Some of these symptoms he may be able to see, others he cannot, and must rely on subjective accounts of the patient as well as any other observations and clues that he can use. This in no way, shape or form means this is unscientific.

Allll bull-honky.

Well thanks for being specific.

WOW...nobody can disprove my fire breathing dragon?

Phase 2 will be to kill all other believers in other dragons for a thousand years.

1. "Psychoanalysis" isn't a research method. It's a clinical technique. Just like an M.D. could give his patient some Tylenol to stop his patient's headache, so can a Psychologist use psychoanalysis to get to the root of a problem and work it out through therapy.

Acetaminophen is known to be an anti-inflammatory, analgesic and anti-pyretic. Psychoanalysis is not based on anything nearly as definitive, instead relying on vague, baseless theories about the root of neuroses (almost always coming back to an Oedipus complex), the structure of the psyche (also Freud, the old ego-id-superego that we are all too familiar with), blah blah blah. Psychoanalytic theory was torn to shreds by Fisher and Greenberg in 1977.

2. To say that "surveys and the like have a very large margin of error" is utterly ridiculous... if [I]you don't even know how the fucking survey or poll was constructed[U] in the first place!

OK. Instead I will say this:
Science is based on quantitative, experimental research. Psychology is not. Psychology is based on theories about the subconscious mind that are not falsifiable. They cannot be experimentally tested. BrokeProphet is saying left and right that God is not scientific because it is not a falsifiable theory, but all of a sudden this structural theory bullshit is science? Give me a break.

Certain techniques like cognitive or behavior therapy may give a little more regard to having some actual empirical evidence, but psychology as a whole is based on principles which cannot be verified by observation.

Acceptable as what? Evidence that the DEA classifies marijuana as a 'violent drug'? No, it's not.

Then the DEA doesn't classify marijuana as a violent drug. My point is only to show you that the DEA classifies marijuana as something that it is not. I think I have succeeded in doing so.

The primary objective of the American Psychological Association is to promote psychology as a science. OF COURSE they would say that it is one. In the same vein, the primary objective of the DEA is to enforce drug schedules, so OF COURSE they would say that marijuana is outlawed for our own good.

Go ask BLTC.

Or go look up some of my responses in the humanities drug threads. This is not the place for a drug-law causation discussion.

However...think cannabis is kept illegal because the people who sell it are criminals and predominantly violent, and that the people who buy cannabis from these people may also pick up that mentality and spread it around?

First off, not all people who sell pot are predominantly violent, or plain old normal violent, or even criminals at all(except for the crime of selling weed).

Secondly, why would the people who buy marijuana from these 'dangerous criminals' spread around that violence...I mean they're smoking pot for, Christs sake.

Thirdly, if cannabis was legal, there would not be violent criminals selling it and spreading their mentality about, if that indeed happens.

K.

You realise i was merely providing what i thought could've been a reasonable explanation for the sake of discussion?

Not everyone who brings up an arguement believes in it.

OK. Instead I will say this:
Science is based on quantitative, experimental research. Psychology is not. Psychology is based on theories about the subconscious mind that are not falsifiable. They cannot be experimentally tested. BrokeProphet is saying left and right that God is not scientific because it is not a falsifiable theory, but all of a sudden this structural theory bullshit is science? Give me a break.

Certain techniques like cognitive or behavior therapy may give a little more regard to having some actual empirical evidence, but psychology as a whole is based on principles which cannot be verified by observation.


Let me fist say....by the definition of science psychology is a science.

Next I will say.....by the definition of science RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are not.

I am not understand what is so difficult to understand here. Let me also point out the numerous organizations in this country that use psychological theory. Wait that list would be far too long.

Psychology is used in police, fire, all military branches, CIA, schools, entertainment, prisons, just about EVERYTHING. Now, if it were bullshit.....would we still use it?

And yes I have been saying this left and right:
Let me fist say....by the definition of science psychology is a science.
Next I will say.....by the definition of science RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are not.

Mainly b/c (and ya have to know this) IT IS TRUE. IT IS FACT. THAT STATEMENT IS REALLY TRUE, FACT, TRUTHISM, REAL, NOT LIE, TRUTHINESS, FACTOID.

ONE LAST TIME.....
Let me fist say....by the definition of science psychology is a science.
Next I will say.....by the definition of science RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are not.

How am I fucking wrong here??????????????????????

Then the DEA doesn't classify marijuana as a violent drug. My point is only to show you that the DEA classifies marijuana as something that it is not. I think I have succeeded in doing so.
No, you haven't. What has the DEA classified marijuana as that you say you have shown is false?

because your dragon wasn't sent by god to come sacrifice himself for your ass and he doesn't promise everlasting happiness in a heaven. and you can't make any money/ gain power with him.

so is calling jesus by his name 'yahweh' the new insult to christians?

Acetaminophen is known to be an anti-inflammatory, analgesic and anti-pyretic. Psychoanalysis is not based on anything nearly as definitive, instead relying on vague, baseless theories about the root of neuroses (almost always coming back to an Oedipus complex), the structure of the psyche (also Freud, the old ego-id-superego that we are all too familiar with), blah blah blah. Psychoanalytic theory was torn to shreds by Fisher and Greenberg in 1977.

I'm not debating in favor of psychoanalysis, whether it should or shouldn't be used, or whether it is substantiated or not, I'm correcting the mistake you made by claiming it was a "research method". It is not. Calling it that shows a very marked ignorance on the topic at hand.


OK. Instead I will say this:
Science is based on quantitative, experimental research. Psychology is not. Psychology is based on theories about the subconscious mind that are not falsifiable. They cannot be experimentally tested. BrokeProphet is saying left and right that God is not scientific because it is not a falsifiable theory, but all of a sudden this structural theory bullshit is science? Give me a break.

Certain techniques like cognitive or behavior therapy may give a little more regard to having some actual empirical evidence, but psychology as a whole is based on principles which cannot be verified by observation.You denying it again and again, in spite of numerous sources proving you wrong, is not going to change the fact that Psychology is a Science.

It does not rest on "unfalsifiable" claims, just as the study of migraines (an inherently subjective classification) does not make medicine "unfalsifiable". Psychology employs numerous methods that are verifiable, and that are found in other branches of science (Statistics, ethnography, etc.) and has provided experiments which are reproducible (I've already given you an example). Hell the very fact that you claim psychoanalysis was "torn to shred" by Seymour and Greenberg already shows how it can be falsified! You refuted yourself!

Not to mention that comparing subjective experiences to super-natural phenomenon is idiotic to begin with! Science, by definition, precludes super-natural phenomenon in its explanations; the same does not apply to subjective experiences: they can and do have place in Science, albeit not as central as objective data. There is room in Methodological Naturalism (i.e. Science and the Scientific Method) for subjectivity; that can exist in nature, and thus it can be studied (or attempted to be studied - Note that one does not have to be "successful" in order for it to be Science).

Psychology is used in police, fire, all military branches, CIA, schools, entertainment, prisons, just about EVERYTHING. Now, if it were bullshit.....would we still use it?

If a certain belief system was impossibly impossible, would people still believe in it?

Psychology can get results. I am not debating its status as a useful technique. However, it is not a science.

How am I fucking wrong here??????????????????????

I HAVE TOLD YOU HOW AT LEAST 3 TIMES.
YOU SAID that for you to be right, you must have falsifiable claims and results that can be confirmed by someone else. Things that psychology doesn't really have.

What the hell ever, obviously you are never going to understand what I'm saying to you, and it doesn't matter, since we are both in agreement that religion is not a science.

K.

You realise i was merely providing what i thought could've been a reasonable explanation for the sake of discussion?

Not everyone who brings up an arguement believes in it.

Yes, I do.

I hope you realize that I disagree with that point, and argued it for the sake of the argument that was brought upon us.

I really hope realize that my original response to that was simply 'Whatever you say' leaving it at that, then after prompted to explain further I said that I did not find it valid, and then you asked me to explain further where I finally went into detail and you got your panties in a knot.

It didn't matter whether you believed in that argument or not, I didn't fucking care. I argued the point because I disagreed. If you didn't want to argue, why bring up the argument in the first fucking place?

No, you haven't. What has the DEA classified marijuana as that you say you have shown is false?

You show me someone who got emphysema from smoking marijuana and then I'll tell you.

Well thanks for being specific.

Whats there to be specific about?

Not to mention that comparing subjective experiences to super-natural phenomenon is idiotic to begin with! Science, by definition, precludes super-natural phenomenon in its explanations; the same does not apply to subjective experiences: they can and do have place in Science, albeit not as central as objective data. There is room in Methodological Naturalism (i.e. Science and the Scientific Method) for subjectivity; that can exist in nature, and thus it can be studied (or attempted to be studied - Note that one does not have to be "successful" in order for it to be Science).

Well, then we are ultimately in agreement, that supernatural phenomena are not scientific. I can see that neither of us are going to budge on psychology, because I do not think that ANYTHING involving the subconscious is falsifiable, but I can see your point - all the data used in psychology is analyzed in a scientific manner and conclusions are reached as such.

I'm peacin' (because I have addressed the OP and need not go any further). Thank you Rust for not being an asshole, it was nice talking to you.

Whats there to be specific about?

Maybe about what you are calling bullshit on?

I know that marijuana is not an addictive substance OK. If you are calling me on that then you are wasting your time.

You show me someone who got emphysema from smoking marijuana and then I'll tell you.

Yes, Scraff, there is a ton of info out there, and a bunch of threads on totse displaying this information. I'm personally not willing to argue this here, but if you really don't believe T-zone here, and aren't just arguing to see him provide the information, then start by checking out these few sites:

NORML: Health Reports (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3471)

Erowid: Cannabis Vault (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml)

The Emperor Wears No Clothes (http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html)

I know its not an argument, but frankly, I'm tired of bringing up the same points again and again. If you truly don't believe T-zone on that issue, then check out those sites. If you just want him to provide facts to satisfy some anal defect in your personality, then I'll let him worry about it.

Maybe about what you are calling bullshit on?

I know that marijuana is not an addictive substance OK. If you are calling me on that then you are wasting your time.

I'm not 'calling you' on anything, I was agreeing that the DEA classifies marijuana as something that it is not.

Jesus-fucking-Christ.

It didn't matter whether you believed in that argument or not, I didn't fucking care. I argued the point because I disagreed. If you didn't want to argue, why bring up the argument in the first fucking place?

For discussion, you arrogant fuck.

You show me someone who got emphysema from smoking marijuana and then I'll tell you.
This is what the DEA page you linked to said about marijuana and emphysema:

The British Medical Association (BMA) voiced extreme concern that down-grading the criminal status of marijuana would "mislead" the public into believing that the drug is safe. The BMA maintains that marijuana "has been linked to greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema."7 The 2004 Deputy Chairman of the BMA’s Board of Science said that "[t]he public must be made aware of the harmful effects we know result from smoking this drug."8
How is the DEA mentioning what the BMA says about marijuana and emphysema an incorrect classification of marijuana?

Even if the BMA ends up being wrong, that has zero to do with the classification of marijuana by the DEA.

Where have you shown that inhaling marijuana smoke does not cause emphysema? While I'm sure it's not as prevalent as those who smoke cigarettes due to the usage, regular marijuana smoking has been shown to cause emphysema.


If you truly don't believe T-zone on that issue, then check out those sites.
What are you babbling about now? If I don't believe T-zone about what? He claimed that he has shown how the DEA has classified marijuana incorrectly, yet no where has he done so. STFU. Shouldn't you go back to hijacking every fucking thread on this forum to talk about finding truth?

For discussion, you arrogant fuck.

And discussed it I did, you oblivious idiot.

What are you babbling about now? If I don't believe T-zone about what?

That the DEA falsely classifies cannabis, and that the false 'facts' used to classify it mislead the public.

He claimed that he has shown how the DEA has classified marijuana incorrectly, yet no where has he done so. STFU.

STFU? LOL, U STFU!

Where did I claim that he did? I didn't.

I merely stated that, regardless of whether he provides you any specific information, he is correct on that issue.

Fools believe the DEA portrays cannabis honestly, and fools believe in the propaganda. And I find it very hard to believe someone who's been posting on totse for quite sometime has never come across the information which supports that so well.

Shouldn't you go back to hijacking every fucking thread on this forum to talk about finding truth?

Are you blind?

If a certain belief system was impossibly impossible, would people still believe in it?

Psychology can get results. I am not debating its status as a useful technique. However, it is not a science.



I HAVE TOLD YOU HOW AT LEAST 3 TIMES.
YOU SAID that for you to be right, you must have falsifiable claims and results that can be confirmed by someone else. Things that psychology doesn't really have.

What the hell ever, obviously you are never going to understand what I'm saying to you, and it doesn't matter, since we are both in agreement that religion is not a science.

YES for something to be true you have to have falsifiable claims and results that can be confirmed by someone else. For something to be the truth it must be able to do this. For something to be the truth.

Science is the pursuit of the truth. Science is a tool. Science itself is not the truth. All empirical science (to which psychology does belong...look it the fuck up) have made claims that are found to be false or full of shit. The results they come up with are the truth.

And finally the last time I am going to educate you in how to use a dictionary and put an end to your fucking statement:

Psy-fucking-chology is a science. LOOK UP SCIENCE. By DEF_I_FUCKING_NITION it is a MOTHER FUCKING SCIENCE. I cannot educate you any further in that F A C T!!!
I repeat:

F A C T !!!!!!!!

Is it the best science? Is it as formal a mathmatics or chemistry? NO. Still does not change the F A C T

F A C T !!!!!!!!

that it is by definition of what a science is, a science. I am DONE arguing that with you because HANDS DOWN I AM RIGHT AND YOU KNOW IT. Seriously I am done telling YOU the definition of a simple word.

I am talking about a FACT if you have not guessed. Unless you can refute the factual statement I just made......You have no real argument. Seriously.

That the DEA falsely classifies cannabis, and that the false 'facts' used to classify it mislead the public.
Falsely classifies as what? Can you be any more fucking vague?




Where did I claim that he did? I didn't.

I merely stated that, regardless of whether he provides you any specific information, he is correct on that issue.
Are you half or all retarded? The issue is that he claimed that he has DEA classifies marijuana as something that it is not.


I merely stated that, regardless of whether he provides you any specific information, he is correct on that issue.
You are now claiming that he is correct that the DEA classifies marijuana as something it isn't, yet haven't said what that classification is. Great argument.





Are you blind?
No. I have witnessed with my own eyes your consistent hijacking to talk as vaguely as possible about finding truth and posting the most worthless gibberish on this forum.

brainwashed at an early (mental) age.

This sums up a lot.

I can see that neither of us are going to budge on psychology, because I do not think that ANYTHING involving the subconscious is falsifiable...

You already proved it was falsifiable when you said psychoanalysis had been torn to shred!

This has nothing to to do with "neither of us budging", this has all to do with you being provided evidence of every single thing you've asked for (evidence for reproducible experiments, evidence that it is falsifiable, evidence that working with subjective experiences does not preclude science...), and still not admitting it's a Science.

Falsely classifies as what? Can you be any more fucking vague?

"[R]esearch shows that use of [marijuana] can lead to dependence. Some heavy users of marijuana develop withdrawal symptoms when they have not used the drug for a period of time. Marijuana use, in fact, is often associated with behavior that meets the criteria for substance dependence established by the American Psychiatric Association."

Among other claims about marijuana causing schizophrenia, lung cancer, crime and juvenile delinquency, etc. etc.

The general perception that its one of the worst things you can choose to put in your body.

Are you half or all retarded? The issue is that he claimed that he has DEA classifies marijuana as something that it is not.

Yes.

And yes, that is your issue. He can find the evidence if he really wants to.

Because he is right, they falsely depict marijuana. Regardless of whether he ever provides you evidence, he's correct there.

You are now claiming that he is correct that the DEA classifies marijuana as something it isn't, yet haven't said what that classification is. Great argument.

How can I when they change what they say according to how they want the public to perceive the plant? Bottom line is I'm not going to bother arguing this here. If you want to join me in Humanities, be my guest.

No. I have witnessed with my own eyes your consistent hijacking to talk as vaguely as possible about finding truth and posting the most worthless gibberish on this forum.

Then why the do you need to ask? Are ya just being...a little dick?

Whats worthless gibberish is a matter of perspective.

The general perception that its one of the worst things you can choose to put in your body.
No, you just made that up. Where are they saying it's one of the worst things to put in your body? You still haven't shown what thew DEA has said about marijuana that falsely classifies it. Good going.




And yes, that is your issue. He can find the evidence if he really wants to.
Oh fucking brother. He can prove what he said he's already proved if he really wanted too? Another great argument. I guess the two of you like to claim you're correct but aren't really all that in to proving it. You're an idiot.



Because he is right, they falsely depict marijuana. Regardless of whether he ever provides you evidence, he's correct there.
Instead of repeating that- again- show me how the fuck they are falsely depicting marijuana.



How can I when they change what they say according to how they want the public to perceive the plant?
You said that they falsely classify marijuana. Now you say that you can't demonstrate how they have done that because they have changed what they've said and they supposedly have done this because they sometimes want the public to view it differently at different times? You are the biggest cop out from an argument motherfucker on this board.


Bottom line is I'm not going to bother arguing this here. If you want to join me in Humanities, be my guest.
Bottom line is that this is the second time you've said that in this thread yet keep arguing. I'm not twisting your arm.


Then why the do you need to ask? Are ya just being...a little dick?
Ask what? Make some fucking sense at least once in a while, will you?

And discussed it I did, you oblivious idiot.

Nah, i'd say that was more like giving me plenty of opportunity to make an ass of myself trying to get some sort of collaboration from you.

Oblivious... Gee, i can only hope.

Nah, i'd say that was more like giving me plenty of opportunity to make an ass of myself trying to get some sort of collaboration from you.

Giving you opportunity to make an ass of yourself? What?

Look, the response that initiated this argument was 'Uh huh. Whatever you say'. That means I didn't give a fuck, either way. I was ready to retire that discussion.

Don't try to blame me for 'giving' you the opportunity. It always existed. If you think you acted like an ass, whatever. I still don't give a fuck either way, its not like I'm pissed with you over dumb shit like this.

its not like I'm pissed with you over dumb shit like this.
What constitutes "dumb shit" is just a matter of perspective.

^Useless comments like that are just plain annoying, aren't they?

Maybe you'll respond with something witty such as what's annoying is a matter of perspective.

No, you just made that up. Where are they saying it's one of the worst things to put in your body?

In schools across America, on TV and in newspapers.

I'm not going to try to show you anything. This is a pointless argument I've had many times.

You're an idiot.

:( awwww...sniff, sniff.

He hasn't proved anything yet. But he defiantly can prove that the DEA's depiction of marijuana is false where it states its addictive, and causes withdrawal symptoms. He can also debunk or deflate anyones claims of it causing lung cancer, schizophrenia, juvenile delinquency, and more.

Personally, I don't care if its coming from the mouth of the DEA or not, the general publics perception of cannabis is incorrect.

I understand that T-zone was trying to use his claim that the DEA's false depiction of 'marijuana' as a metaphor for his claim that the APA's false definition of psychology.

But I never cared about that, I joined the conversation when it turned to pot. I wanted to point out that T-zone is correct that the DEA falsely depicts marijuana.



Instead of repeating that- again- show me how the fuck they are falsely depicting marijuana.

I already said I'm not going to, thats a waste of fucking time. If you honestly want to know, and aren't just being a little dick about the details towards T-zone here, then look at the links I posted.

Thats as much as I'm gonna do for you here. But if you'd like to join an ongoing conversation in Humanities on the matter, or make a thread about it in BLTC, be my guest.

You are the biggest cop out from an argument motherfucker on this board.

:D

In all honesty, I just don't want to discuss all that here. The many depictions of the dreaded 'marijuana plant' over the last few decades all have their misconceptions.

Bottom line is that this is the second time you've said that in this thread yet keep arguing. I'm not twisting your arm.

I don't think I've actually argued any points, except the very general 'DEA's depiction of cannabis is false'. And I would hardly call stating the same thing many times an argument.

Ask what?

Shouldn't you go back to hijacking every fucking thread on this forum to talk about finding truth?

Careful, don't try too hard to be an asshole.

What constitutes "dumb shit" is just a matter of perspective.

Yes, it is.

^Useless comments like that are just plain annoying, aren't they?

Annoying is a matter of perspective.

Maybe you'll respond with something witty such as what's annoying is a matter of perspective.

Maybe. :D

Psychology has it's place in science

Sure, obviously humans have patterns that can be studied and used for torture, teaching and whatnot but as far as curing people of the supposed "illnesses" goes, it's quack. It's not working, people aren't being cured, at best they can repress some of the symptoms with chemicals

No doubt a good shrink could help me with basic depression. Antisocial disorder he diagnosed based on what I tell him, not so much. He'd be happy to bill me for therapy that does jack shit though, see any problem with that?

Let me also point out the numerous organizations in this country that use psychological theory. Wait that list would be far too long.

Blood letting was also very popular and you'd have been insulted for questioning the expertize of the exemplary physicians of the era

lmao Obbe, "I just joined the discussion when it turned to pot," what a reefer-head...

the DEA got one thing right - marijuana really makes me give significantly less than one rat's ass about anything being discussed here. I guess those boys in black suits really know their shtick; next thing you know I'm going to be breaking into houses to fund my marijuana addiction, although by that time I'll be almost completely insane, not to mention since one joint, apparently, has more tar than five cigarettes, I'll be hacking up both (maybe even three) of my lungs all at once...

that is, if I ever feel like doing anything aside from getting out of this goddamn chair (it's sooo soft)... thanks DEA, you've accurately predicted the rest of my life... people will walk by and say:
"TSK TSK! He used to be such a fine, upstanding member of society - always paid his taxes (but he never did itemize his deductions, the dumb shit)... and he voted in the elections... and he did great services for our community, remember the cat stuck in the tree? But now he's just all, like, WHACK, na mean, too much reefer and all he does is steal and live on a fixed income paid for by MY TAX DOLLARS!!!! AS IF EVERY TAX DOLLAR I EVER PAID is going to people on welfare, even though I've forgotten to take into account that social security and all that malarkey are only a small percentage of that depressingly long list of numbers on the bottom of every single one of my goddamn paychecks... why the hell do I pay an EMS tax if an ambulance ride is going to cost $400 anyway? Fuck you, The Man!"

That's what people are going to say, because marijuana ruined my life; it is absolutely the worst thing I ever could have done. I should have smoked marginally safer tobacco products instead; there is no risk of addiction and they never hurt anyone... now, where did I leave that paper documenting a marijuana-related death... must be in the closet with Jimmy Hoffa...

OH YEAH! I must have just stopped posting in here because marijuana smoking has addled my brain so much that I can't even have a coherent debate...

maybe I just got sick of this rabid atmosphere and stepped out for some air... I guess since you guys are all tough enough to duke it out on the Internet over who has the bigger dick, I must be a sissy, huh... here's a good guideline for using that thar world wide web: don't say anything online that, if verbalized, would warrant a real-life punch in the face.

(not to be a prick, but a lot of you guys sound like five-year-olds bickering back and forth; with the exception of Rust and xray I have not seen one of you display civil conduct towards one another... this bullshit would never fly on Tavis Smiley... let's be serious...)

There is a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

Can I see It?

Um...no b/c he is invisible.

Well....can't i feel the heat from the fire?

Um....no b/c it is magical cold fire.

I know I will take a bag of flour and throw it on the dragon and then I can see its outline.

That is a very clever idea but unfortunately, he is also intangible and the flour goes right through him..




This is every argument that anyone can ever have with a christain about god. I challenge anyone to disprove my garage dragon's existence.

LOL CARL SAGAN FTW!!!!!

No, you just made that up. Where are they saying it's one of the worst things to put in your body? You still haven't shown what thew DEA has said about marijuana that falsely classifies it. Good going.

Hey man... remember that post where I talked about the DEA? Remember that link to "The DEA's Position on Marijuana"? I got $50 in my pocket says you didn't even click it...

Oh fucking brother. He can prove what he said he's already proved if he really wanted too? Another great argument. I guess the two of you like to claim you're correct but aren't really all that in to proving it. You're an idiot.

Damn, some random guy on the Internet is intellectually superior to me... I might as well just go cut my wrists now; I can't go on knowing that I have been bested by someone who REALLY NEEDS TO SMOKE A FAT BLUNT BEFORE HE CUTS SOMEONE'S HEAD OFF WITH THAT SHARP TONGUE!

Instead of repeating that- again- show me how the fuck they are falsely depicting marijuana.

What? Do you believe that marijuana is an addictive drug which leads to harder stuff, causes lung cancer, and makes people schizophrenic? Cause if you're into all that freevibe.com shit that's cool with me... just don't get any of your straight-edge germs on me, ok?

You said that they falsely classify marijuana. Now you say that you can't demonstrate how they have done that because they have changed what they've said and they supposedly have done this because they sometimes want the public to view it differently at different times?

Dude... even my Perl interpreter can't parse your last sentence...

(now my tongue is firmly in my cheek. I can see you turning red with unprecedented e-rage from way the hell over here, so I thought I'd warn you that I'm just dicking around, trying not to cross the line into being an asshole.)

You are the biggest cop out from an argument motherfucker on this board.

Woah... you showed him. Damn, you know, I bet that even if you HAD decided to use a more sensible technique such as neutral language, he would have been just as much of an asshole... I'm sure Obbe's reasons for dicking you around are known only to him, there was absolutely nothing you could have done to make it any easier...

It's OK, Scraff, you don't need to feel bad about yourself. Marijuana users are inhuman, after all. They don't know what's real and what isn't. Those stoner freaks are living in a world all their own, and they're too hopped up to comprehend the universe on this incredibly complex plane on which omniscients like you and I comprehend the universe... take the high road, Scraff, just take the high road; he'll get his.

Ask what? Make some fucking sense at least once in a while, will you?

HEY OBBE YOU WANT SOME SILVER-BASED MEDICAL CREAM FOR THAT BURN?!?!

(buds of a feather stick together... and when they stick together so much that you can't possibly break them up without scissors, you know it's some dank...)

Where have you shown that inhaling marijuana smoke does not cause emphysema?

SLOW DOWN, COWBOY! Did you just ask me to prove a negative?! I DO BELIEVE THAT IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY!

While I'm sure it's not as prevalent as those who smoke cigarettes due to the usage, regular marijuana smoking has been shown to cause emphysema.

You seem awfully certain about that claim; wanna CITE IT?

What are you babbling about now? If I don't believe T-zone about what? He claimed that he has shown how the DEA has classified marijuana incorrectly, yet no where has he done so.

So about our little wager... you owe me...

Shouldn't you go back to hijacking every fucking thread on this forum to talk about finding truth?

Real men have sufficient arguments so that they don't have to resort to such blatant logical fallacy as attacking the person.

Hey, wasn't it you who called some lunatic on his ad hominem in another religious discussion? Wait, if I bring that up you will call me out for attacking the person... never mind... just forget I said it...

(two edged sword, huh? ;))

Well, you guys win; psychology is a science. I am conceding to you right here. Are you reading this? Basically, what I'm doing is saying, "you have demonstrated that your thought is correct and mine is not, WELL-PLAYED!" OK?

(remember when that Italian porn star offered to be Saddam's sex-kitten in exchange for world peace?)

lmao Obbe, "I just joined the discussion when it turned to pot," what a reefer-head...

LoL. Thats me.

it's ok

I know where you're coming from. :-p

In schools across America, on TV and in newspapers.
But you can't tell me what it is they've said, eh?

I'm not going to try to show you anything. This is a pointless argument I've had many times.
Another cop-out. But you find posting over and over that you don't want to prove what you said is true has a great point to it.




He hasn't proved anything yet. But he defiantly can prove that the DEA's depiction of marijuana is false where it states its addictive, and causes withdrawal symptoms. He can also debunk or deflate anyones claims of it causing lung cancer, schizophrenia, juvenile delinquency, and more.
Sure he can. He just chooses not too because that's how honest debate really works.


But I never cared about that, I joined the conversation when it turned to pot. I wanted to point out that T-zone is correct that the DEA falsely depicts marijuana.Pointing it out requires showing some evidence. But that's somehow pointless, right?





I already said I'm not going to, thats a waste of fucking time.
Uh-huh. But your postings not backing up what you're claiming aren't

;)

Go look it up.

Scraff, speaking of cop-outs...

I noticed you have not gotten around to replying to my posts.

Scraff, speaking of cop-outs...

I noticed you have not gotten around to replying to my posts.

Wanna see cop-outs relating to this stuff? Go check out the 'how to get rid of drugs in schools and america' thread in Humanities. Slave of the Beast still has 'no time' to make a reply.

Or check out my cannabis-specific thread relating to this topic in the totse archives, in conspiracy. The Cannabis Conspiracy Thread covers all this and more, I believe. The same guy deleted all of his posts when the realization that he was arguing the wrong side began to sink in.

The same guy deleted all of his posts when the realization that he was arguing the wrong side began to sink in.

I see why it was archived.