Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Right, but I'm told I have double standards for saying pot should be legal but not harder drugs. While legalizing drugs like opium, heroin, etc. may get rid of certain problems like drug cartels and such but it would open up a whole new can of worms with a bunch of addicts who can no longer function normally. Most pot users I know function just fine on a daily basis (except for me....I just go to sleep...that sucks).

I should use it far more often than the rare occasion that I do now. It makes me clean house like a mad woman and kills my appetite. LOL

Originally Posted by Unique POV

I should use it far more often than the rare occasion that I do now. It makes me clean house like a mad woman and kills my appetite. LOL

Sure wish I had that problem with it! However, after having my wisdom teeth extracted, I was given Percodan...my house sparkled!

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Remember when oxycontin first became all the rage? Many people who obtained them legitimately became addicted, especially those with chronic pain and it became a very popular street drug which produced many addicts. Without regulations, anyone with a headache would be able to obtain the drug legally and because it's highly addictive, we'd end up with a society of addicts who never meant to "do drugs" in the first place.

Whoa there. I never said it shouldn't be regulated. I just think that legislating what people can and can't do with their own bodies is wrong. If we're going to legalize drugs, it should be all of them, otherwise, make every one of them illegal which includes the pharmaceuticals.

So you're in favor of legalizing all drugs and make them available without a prescription? Pot is no worse than alcohol, imo, which is why I don't think it should be illegal.

Not available willy nilly. They can all be regulated. I just don't want the government telling anyone what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Ultimately, it's an issue of personal liberty.

Except that without gay marriage, gays are discriminated against on a federal, state and local level.

I understand the dilemma but then again, I see the issue of marriage in general as an outdated concept used by the government to obtain taxes. I know this isn't what you wanna hear or read but it is the truth in this regard and this regard alone. I'm not saying I'm against marriage, just against the government on any level being involved.

All the Catholics are trying to do is prevent being forced to go against their teachings by making contraceptives available to everyone. They aren't telling non-Catholics not to use them, just that they don't want to be the ones paying for them.

I agree on this tiny front. No one should be forced to pay for another person's indiscretion. But I don't think a tiny minority should go out of their way to make contraceptives completely illegal. That's just dumb in my opinion.

So a 12 year old girl who has had sex is no longer a minor???? Do you really think she's smart enough to understand what's she's doing?

If she knows what she is doing, she's no longer a minor. I do think that 12 year olds shouldn't be going around having sex but I don't think they're too stupid to know what they're getting into. I'm viewing this as an individual liberty issue. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and at a younger age.

It doesn't have to be "studied" but people balk at the idea of a teacher even mentioning that some people don't agree with evolution.

In all honesty, I'm miffed about this whole issue and the greater education issue altogether. On the one hand, I think it would be nice for kids to learn about creationism if for nothing else but expanding their worldview but on the other hand, I view creationism being taught in public schools as a bit... ah, can't find the right word for it. As for the greater education issue, I see no reason for the federal government to be involved in any form.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Considering how many alcoholics we have in the nation, you would think that people would understand what they're actually asking for by legalizing street drugs!

I think it should be done on a case by case basis. Their are many illegal drugs that are far less destructive then alcohol. Pot (I drink ... don't smoke) is actually a preferable choice when viewed from destructiveness. I may not care for pot personally ... yet I'd rather deal with a pothead melted into his couch watching TV ... giggling and munching out ... then deal with a blacked out raging drunk. Or deal with a pothead driving 10 under the speed limit as opposed to a drunk doing 30 over the speed limit.

The costs of jailing and policing all the illegal drug users is not cheap either ...

Originally Posted by darth omar

In my line of work I’ve known several people who had access to certain anesthesia drugs that will absolutely addict you if you try them recreationally. And it doesn’t matter who you are or how invincible you think you are. We have a saying about that goes something like this.

‘I can understand the second, third or fourth time you take it because once your on board with it your done and we can stick a fork in you. But the first time you took it, what were you thinking??’

If such drugs ever became legal for people to use for whatever reason---it would be an unmitigated societal disaster. Anyone who thinks legalizing all drugs is a good idea doesn’t know what they are talking about---or asking for.

To be blunt about it.

That is just natural selection taking it's course. If someone is so weak that they need to be dependent on drugs for no other reason than to escape reality and they die from it....that's just one less unproductive member of society we have to worry about. We have more crime now because they ARE illegal. We are ALREADY spending billions on the DEA and billions more on judicial process and billions more on court ordered rehab. The drug laws to NOTHING to prevent drug use. All they do is treat it much like modern medicine does. No cures...only treatments. It's a sham.

I have experimented with most drugs in my college years including cocaine, PCP, LSD, Magic Mushrooms, Meth, Ketamine, Ecstacy, Hash, Pot (lots of pot) and even a few prescription drugs. I am still here today. I do none of that with the exception of pot which I use mainly as a sleep aid (when I can afford it). I never hurt anyone over drugs. I never stole to buy more drugs. I never drove under the influence of drugs. I tried them; maybe had a phase or two that lasted a few weeks and then made the decision that I did not like them so I stopped.

Many more people would not survive it and it means they are weak and are supposed to die. Just a cold, hard reality of life. Some people can handle and it others can't. IN the end, it is not for the government to tell people what they can and cannot ingest but they are illegal because the Christian church will not stand for people living with such "loose" morals.

The one law I would support over drugs is a mandatory life sentence for any adult who provides a minor with drugs. These are choices for adults, not children and any adult that would give a kid drugs deserves to be deprived of their freedom.

Heck, many, if not most, people on Wall Street did cocaine back in the 70s and 80s. And that even includes the top executives. Nearly every single $100 bill in circulation had cocaine traces on it, and most desktops at work did as well. You could get a contact high walking down Wall Street at lunch time from all the NYSE specialists still wearing their badges and ID vests openly smoking pot.

Wall Street's Long and Sordid History With Cocaine

Does not freedom of religion also include freedom FROM religion?

Why should not athiests be an accepted belief system that some people can ascribe to and espouse openly about without fear of recrimination?

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

........ Nearly every single $100 bill in circulation had cocaine traces on it, .....]

The drugs were spread more by counting machines than having each individual bill used to snort drugs.

However don’t let the facts stand in the way of something that would play well on Fox News.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Heck, many, if not most, people on Wall Street did cocaine back in the 70s and 80s. And that even includes the top executives. Nearly every single $100 bill in circulation had cocaine traces on it, and most desktops at work did as well. You could get a contact high walking down Wall Street at lunch time from all the NYSE specialists still wearing their badges and ID vests openly smoking pot.

Wall Street's Long and Sordid History With Cocaine

Cocaine is very common on any bill but smaller ones tend to be worse because of how often they go through counting/sorting machines and ATMs. One bill used to snort coke can contaminate an entire cash drawer and those bills are eventually counted by the bank counter which leaves coke residue which can then contaminate others bill that come after it.

So anywho ... we have reached agreement that atheists are no better equipped to govern then theists. Now if the atheists are brave enough to come out of the closet ... we might find the government is already 50% atheist.

Originally Posted by michael h

So anywho ... we have reached agreement that atheists are no better equipped to govern then theists. Now if the atheists are brave enough to come out of the closet ... we might find the government is already 50% atheist.

At the end of the day, a truly secular government is impossible. It boils down to power and control. If this were a Christian theocracy, the new parties would be Baptist, Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic and they would fight continuously over basic religious tenets...much like.....the Sunni and Shia in Muslim countries or the tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If it were atheists in power then there would still be a fight between liberal and conservative ideologies. Law is nothing more than a means to an end; another system of control and there will always be those who will remain above and beyond it and those who are victimized by it.

Really it is just about domination and for as long as humans breath on this planet there will be those who will gladly play a dangerous game of thrones to win all the toys. Sad, but very true. All we have is our genetic predilection for aggression and like every empire before ours, it will end in blood with the exception being that we have weapons that can destroy the planet. Maybe we are just genetically predisposed to destroy ourselves. Current events point clearly to all of this tension coming to a violent end.

To quote on of my favorite movies: "He who controls the spice, controls the universe."

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

At the end of the day, a truly secular government is impossible. It boils down to power and control. If this were a Christian theocracy, the new parties would be Baptist, Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic and they would fight continuously over basic religious tenets...much like.....the Sunni and Shia in Muslim countries or the tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If it were atheists in power then there would still be a fight between liberal and conservative ideologies. Law is nothing more than a means to an end; another system of control and there will always be those who will remain above and beyond it and those who are victimized by it.

Really it is just about domination and for as long as humans breath on this planet there will be those who will gladly play a dangerous game of thrones to win all the toys. Sad, but very true. All we have is our genetic predilection for aggression and like every empire before ours, it will end in blood with the exception being that we have weapons that can destroy the planet. Maybe we are just genetically predisposed to destroy ourselves. Current events point clearly to all of this tension coming to a violent end.

To quote on of my favorite movies: "He who controls the spice, controls the universe."

Governments, Kings, Tsars, all those mofo's have always sought to use whatever belief system they could to support their agendas ... power and wealth.

Still I threw you a dart you didn't catch ... I really believe there are a "shitload" of representatives in government that are either agnostic or atheist ... however they have no desire to lose some of their voter base ... so they remain closeted non-theists. When I was an atheist ... I didn't give a shit who knew ... then again I wasn't running for public office. A "coming out" might let people see government was able to function even with .... eeeeeeeeccchhhh ... atheists in Congress (God forbid?).

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

At the end of the day, a truly secular government is impossible. It boils down to power and control. If this were a Christian theocracy, the new parties would be Baptist, Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic and they would fight continuously over basic religious tenets...much like.....the Sunni and Shia in Muslim countries or the tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If it were atheists in power then there would still be a fight between liberal and conservative ideologies. Law is nothing more than a means to an end; another system of control and there will always be those who will remain above and beyond it and those who are victimized by it.

Really it is just about domination and for as long as humans breath on this planet there will be those who will gladly play a dangerous game of thrones to win all the toys. Sad, but very true. All we have is our genetic predilection for aggression and like every empire before ours, it will end in blood with the exception being that we have weapons that can destroy the planet. Maybe we are just genetically predisposed to destroy ourselves. Current events point clearly to all of this tension coming to a violent end.

To quote on of my favorite movies: "He who controls the spice, controls the universe."

You nailed it. 'And the spice must flow'.