God and Reality

[Spectre557]

All drugs do is mess around with the inhibitors in our brains. There's nothing spiritual about it at all.

I completely agree that drugs can't actually do anything other than alter your own perception of reality, but I think they can have a greatly beneficial effect on people in a pseudo-spiritual way. For example, taking LSD can totally change the way you "see" life, and can inspire great art or music. If something can inspire creativity so well, surely it has some value?

[thedotmaster]

Try telling that to this woman:


Drugs don't produce creativity or inspire it. That's a load of crap.
In most cases, they ruin very talented artists and musicians.
Leave that stuff alone - you can't code when you're stoned, anyway.

[Spectre557]

Try telling that to this woman:
[I removed this to stop the elongation of the page ]

She's probably a smackhead. Totally different.

Drugs don't produce creativity or inspire it. That's a load of crap.

You must be joking. Some of the greatest music ever made was written, recorded or performed under the influence of psychedelic drugs. In fact, drug users are among the greatest creative geniuses ever known; like Jimi Hendrix, Salvador Dali, or the Beatles.

[thedotmaster]

At the same time, some of the greatest music ever written was done without drugs. And at the same time, thousands of people suffer from the consequences of drug abuse.
Thing is though.. there is no difference to being a smackhead and being a star - except the fame and the talent, of course.
I bet you that those people all were very talented before they got into drugs and the drugs didn't help do anything.

[Etelerix]

I
it says something about in "end times", there will be one world religion.

Are you talking about the new world order's Luciferian religion?

[Spectre557]

At the same time, some of the greatest music ever written was done without drugs.

Lots of art has been done without using paintbrushes.

And at the same time, thousands of people suffer from the consequences of drug abuse.
Thing is though.. there is no difference to being a smackhead and being a star - except the fame and the talent, of course.

I think we're slightly unclear here. I'm saying that non-addictive psychedelic drugs like LSD, marijuana, and magic mushrooms can inspire creative masterpieces that would not otherwise have existed. That doesn't necessarily mean that the person taking them is better off themself.

I do understand your point though - drug addiction affects a lot of people whether they're famous or not; however, addiction is different to inspiration.

I bet you that those people all were very talented before they got into drugs and the drugs didn't help do anything.

Of course they were. I'm not actually suggesting that they got their talent from taking drugs, and I'm also not trying to suggest that none of them were adversely affected by heavy drug use.

What I am saying is that if it weren't for the use of some perception-enhancing/altering drugs, we would be missing some of the finest examples of creative genius. Entire genres of music are based solely around the use of one or multiple drugs. Some kinds of reggae, acid jazz, and psychedelic trance, are all intended to be created and experienced in a different state of mind to stone cold sobriety.

[Possumdude0]

non-addictive psychedelic drugs like LSD, marijuana, and magic mushrooms

Marijuana is addictive. My dad smoked it my entire life.

[Spectre557]

Marijuana is addictive. My dad smoked it my entire life.

Chemically, marijuana is not an addictive substance. That is, your body cannot become physically dependent upon the use of the drug.

However, it's possible to become psychologically dependent on pretty much anything. So it's technically possible to be addicted to marijuana as a habit in the same way that you can become addicted to unhealthy food, or a computer game; it creates an enjoyable experience which makes the user want to repeat it, which eventually becomes a habit.

That doesn't make it addictive though.

[thedotmaster]

That doesn't make it addictive though.

People say that all the time.
However, recent research has begun to show that it is in fact addictive.

http://www.cannabissmoker.com/withdrawa ... addictive/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/974449.stm
http://www.cannabisaddiction.co.uk/
etc.

[Possumdude0]

Chemically, marijuana is not an addictive substance. That is, your body cannot become physically dependent upon the use of the drug.

However, it's possible to become psychologically dependent on pretty much anything. So it's technically possible to be addicted to marijuana as a habit in the same way that you can become addicted to unhealthy food, or a computer game; it creates an enjoyable experience which makes the user want to repeat it, which eventually becomes a habit.

That doesn't make it addictive though.

You may be right. I know from personal experience how addictive unhealthy food can be, even if it is not chemically addictive. And it is true that dad never had the kind of withdrawal symptoms with marijuana that he had with tobacco.