If these cultures still exist and function whats the problem, you are assuming western civilization is the goal of these societies


Im just telling you that your values dont dictate the worlds

If tribals use drugs to commune with their perception of god what does it fucking matter to you ?

You are basing your conclusions on drug experience forms
I am basing mine on friends experiences none are legitimate

I have already told you to produce sources and you have not i have told you to agree to disagree twice and you cannot. You start your post with no lol.

You need to understand that your opinion is irrelevant to the decision making of others

values? why do you keep trying to make this about personal choice and morals?

you keep derailing because you have nothing to support your initial claim of "maybe this isn't reality" and produced nothing other than philosophical questions with no support.

you called me close minded for not blindly believing that this might not be reality....sorry but what we consider "Reality" is what reality is...once you start believing it's not reality it's called psychosis.

agree to disagree is the laziest shit that has ever made it's way into a debate. you feel free to think it's some sort of high road out of a debate but in reality it's nothing more than an escape route when one side is blindly opposing the other.

i'm basing it on anthropological evidence that shows DMT use has been recorded to be thousands of years old and been part of religion and mythology for many many cultures. if it's so weak and easy to disregard then explain how it's responsible for people actually believing they have met gods, demons, monsters, spirits etc etc.

so again DMT is strong enough to cause psychosis in people to the extent they form religions around it's usage...your little group of friends using some DMT they bought in the ghetto isn't exactly hard evidence to the contrary.

Only smart thing you said.

Im agreeing to disagree because i think you are a close minded moron and not worth my time because you have decided on a stance without any evidence.



"i'm basing it on anthropological evidence that shows DMT use has been recorded to be thousands of years old and been part of religion and mythology for many many cultures. if it's so weak and easy to disregard then explain how it's responsible for people actually believing they have met gods, demons, monsters, spirits etc etc."
^

Why do you view this as a bad thing? I never said its weak and east to disregard Im just telling you that its not like you try and your brain melts out your ears.

in the old testament moses heard god speak to them through a burning bush or some shit, the religions are all jokes, Id be much more inclined towards one were individuals take a natural substance and have an experience with spiritual forces themselves.


I'm making this about personal choice and morals because you are attempting to apply yours to the decision making of others. If you dont like DMT dont do it and shut the fuck up,

and im posing philosophical questions because they are to date unanswered. There is no support because they are unsupported Because these are unanswerable questions that long predated you or i.


I'm not calling you close minded for not blindly believing that this isnt reality. I called you close minded because you falsely believe that your perspective on reality is supported and proven

Which philosophers have concretely proven time and time again is not.


Its perfectly fine to have a functional understanding of the world as we know it. But you seem to think that these believes are concrete, they are not.

I was never derailed I just dont see any point in playing devils advocate to a close minded fool.

i feel like your reading comprehension skills are terrible.

1. psychosis allows users to do harm to themselves and others without them knowing it to be harmful
2. stop pretending that naturally occurring substances means its okay to abuse them in unnatural doses and will cause no harm
3. when did i ever say it 100% of the time causes people to become brainless zombies? never..you just can't argue my point without blowing it up to absurd levels in order to look like you have a point.
4. philosophical questions are pointless is the point. using them to try to hide behind the "you are so close minded" crap is laughable. there is a difference between being open minded and giving merit to every piece of bullshit you come across.
5. it's supported and proven by all the evidence so far...what isn't proven about it? answer this single question about all others without hiding behind baseless "what if" claims.
6. i hope you see the resemblance between this argument and creationism vs evolution. you are trying to use small uncertainties to dismiss much larger evidence. just because we still don't fully understand our perception of reality doesn't mean we should start giving merit to any wild claim that fills the gaps.
7. why do you keep adding stuff to my points in order to try to have a counter argument? i never once said we fully understand our perception of reality..i said that it's absurd to throw aside the only tool we have to try to make sense of it all is. once you start fucking with your brain you are fucking with everything your brain is responsible for.

Where did i say its okay tk abuse them in unnatural doses? I never once said that you are the one inserting shit into my arguments

Irony too stronk

You said why allow them ro do something that is proven to cause psychosis as though it is a given, you have consistently implied it will cause people to have mental problems as though it will happen to anyone.

I suppose you can think philosophical questions are pointless, but thats does in fact imply close-mindedness

In answer to point 5, correlation does not imply causation.
If you use that premiss else where you will draw tons of incorrect conclusions.

Yes it is similar to the evolution argument, its now clear to me that you are that asshole that yells at bible thumpers and tell them that they are wrong, until there is a definitive answer there is room for discussion. I dont believe dmt will show me god, or that there is a god or that he made people in his own imagine.

But im wise enough to not suppose that i know the answer to questions which are far greater than can be answered by man.

Please just read plato's apology and take in you are the people that think they are wise about that which they are not.

This post was edited by Nearin on Feb 17 2015 05:27pm

"We are born with the ability to perceive dreams and we are born with dmt in us so how does that argument hold?
dmt is naturally occurring in our bodies and released every night when we sleep." you
"This assumes thats all uses of dmt are huge doses, i know perfectly functional normal people who have done dmt." you
"all doses are huge compared to whats found naturally in your body." me
"I completely disagree and i think you have a very sheltered perception." you

explain how that's not saying its okay to abuse them. you hid behind "naturally occurring" to try to defend recreational abuse.

once you made it about right and wrong and morality and it's effect on society i told you how society feels about hallucinogenic drugs in the vast majority of the modern world.

you think hallucinations aren't mental problems?

so we should disregard the only evidence we have in favor of what? just because our understanding of reality has holes doesn't mean we should fill them with the first thing that comes along.

generally they are wrong because the bible they have is heavily altered and heavily interpreted. simply put almost all christians have neither the resources nor knowledge to act like they have a clue about the bibles teachings.

who is to say you aren't the one claiming they are wise about which they are not? see the problem here?

Using =/= abusing where did i say you should abuse it


What you fail to understand is i am simply saying its possible, im not proposing we structure dmt into our understanding of reality.

Im simply saying that your rejection of it with out evidence is illegitimate.

I do not have to prove that the crackpot dmt theories are true because thats not what i am asserting

You are the one who is asserting that your perception of reality is correct.

Im not supposing im wise when i am not because im not supposing anything. See the problem there lol

need me to link the definition of the word abuse? here ya go " improper or excessive use" so any outside dosage of DMT is in fact abuse of your brains chemical receptors.

now semantics aside......

my rejection of what?

i've said a number of times that our perception of reality is all we have as proof regardless of it's faults. it's all we have to go by but those faults don't mean there should be outlandish claims filling the gaps.

"But im wise" your words...seems like you're claiming to be the wise one and im the unwise one based on absolutely nothing.

This post was edited by Subwoofer on Feb 17 2015 08:21pm

Nice out of context quoting skillz

"But im wise enough to not suppose that i know the answer to questions which are far greater than can be answered by man."

Also your definition of abuse would imply any use of alcohol or other substances is also abuse. This is a senseless definition.

Also you still think im proposing dmt fills the gaps in our reality, im not im just saying you have given 0 evidence to refute it

You are not being called unwise for nothing you are being called unwise because you behave as though you believe your thought process is infallible when you have already admitted it has holes.

out of context? you claimed to be wise and then said "you are the people that think they are wise about that which they are not."

you claimed to be wise and told me that i am not...how is that out of context?

uhh yeah it is in fact abuse by the very definition of the word. just because you think it's not a big deal doesn't change the fact it's abusing your body by using those substances.

the burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. there is no evidence of drug use being anything other than your brain being tampered with so how can i disprove a claim that has no proof to disprove?

"you behave as though you believe your thought process is infallible when you have already admitted it has holes."

i'll let you read this over a couple of times and realize you are just making wild assumptions about my behavior. you made stupid assumptions and that is on you.