Since when did deep thinkers become the crazy people?

This was an interesting thread as I feel the same way about religion and people in general. I haven't read all the post but the ones that I have so far are interesting. I have been reading the post about people posting thinking they are smart and not and low I.Q and what not, I'd have to agree to an extent. I don't see myself as smart or anything, I never post on this site but I read a lot of threads because I can relate to some. Like the guy who talked about his dreams and cup of tea, I too have had dreams that come true and or seem real and I know I'm dreaming. I too have witnessed a few UFOs in my life time and quite frankly I can't explain it. I am also dubbed as crazy to some when I talk about such things but I can care less because I know for a fact what I experienced was real. I don't believe everything that is told to me but I do listen and sometimes things are a little hard to swallow without proof. I don't have any real proof from my experiences so I feel I have no right in calling a person crazy even if they maybe crazy or just straight lying for attention. What I am trying to get at is, what if a person who is not educated somehow had an enlightening experience and was exposed to amazing information? How would this person explain themselves in a structured manor with out knowing how? Obviously this person would just typed the way they spoke, bad grammar and all this person was speaking truth and deemed crazy for having poor writing skills. That is all I wanted to say, this was a good thread.

Originally posted by The Reader
Call me crazy...

But concerning "Christian Theology". I wonder if many christians had consider this:

After God had created the "Angel Race" he created the most perfect being, the "Adamic Race" (Adam). And all the Angels was commanded by God to bow down before him (Adam). But one Angel disobeyed the divine mandate to bow down before him. His name was Lucifer (Satan, Samael). Lucifer had always been the closest Angel to God and he loved and adored God so deeply and intensely that he could not bring himself to bow before anything else, and because he refused to bow down to something inferior to him (since he was made of fire, and man from clay). It was from that moment on he and one third of the Angels fell from Heaven to Earth.
And God left Lucifer so he became separated from his love.

Lucifer felt betrayed by God and the cost of this was a "War of Angels" of such violence that it ultimately ended the Jewel of Earth's ability to sustain life. Lucifer made war against the throne of God. God commanded Michael to resist Lucifer. Michael and his Angels fought with Lucifer and his Angels. Lucifer tried to overthrow Heaven but was defeated and was forced to return back to earth. Lucifer fell like a bolt of lightening. The Angels that rebelled with Lucifer were hurled back to earth. God had commanded Lucifer to watch over this earth and Lucifer had not yet been relieved of his duty.

...so the story goes.

But Christian people say that Lucifer and his followers (Fallen Angels)
are EXTREMELY EVIL and wants to corrupt and destroy mankind. It could be so (If your a Christian).

But this dosen't have any philosophical or rational ground.

If I may, I would like to compare this (story above) to a man who own's a amusement park. An inside this park children are happy, eats candy, laughs and enjoys life etc. But suddenly the owner of the amusment park opens the front gate to let the crulest and most evil criminals of this planet to enter into this park to do evil. Then when they are all inside the owner closes the gate to the park for good. So is this owner of the park a good person?
- No, he must be an extremely evil person indeed.
Well, so must God also be evil to throw Satan and his companions down to earth, to do evil things among the inhabitants of the Earth.
- Thank you God for that!

So to all Christians, Jews and muslims, YOUR GOD IS EVIL (Just read the Five books of Moses.)

..nuff said.

You've done it!
You cracked the case! And all with just that little bit of information to work with, and no need of examining any other texts, or spending any time listening to those pesky "experts" that have been making a career out of studying religion and writing books, and teaching classes, and stuff like that.
You grabbed some apt entries, quoted writings that seem to go the way you want them to go, and BANG!
You did it.
God is evil.
Congratulations!
I would imagine that you also believe yourself to be a "Deep Thinker".

[edit on 22/1/10 by ThePublicSpirit]

Originally posted by DrGanja
All of my freinds and family think im crzy because I like to think and talk about how things work.

Are you sure that naming yourself "Dr. Ganja" has nothing to do with it?
You may want to look at that. I think it's getting infected.

Originally posted by TheIrvy
What if drugs are chemicals that accelerate and heighten our abilities, and that they're there for that very reason? We call these things drugs now, and with that name we gain power over them, for by calling them drugs we make them harmful, bad, wrong, and we render any notions or thoughts that come to us whilst using them to be untrustworthy.

I can't quickly find a source, I'll keep looking, but I remember recently hearing that alcohol affects behaviour differently depending on how society views alcohol. In other words, if you believe that drinking alcohol makes you aggressive, it will, because you will excuse yourself that behaviour because you're drunk.

Same goes, I believe, for drugs. If you take drugs to get yourself monged out in a drugged up stupor, that's what you'll do after taking them. If you believe that they can open your mind up to a whole new realm of spiritual ability, then guess what?

That's awfully convenient.
That must be why drugs and alcohol have such a great effect on people, and society as a whole.

Anti-intellectualism is all the rage in the U.S. these days.
Morons are celebrated and emulated. People that actually think for themselves are looked down on.

Interesting side note that many of them are good Christians and love them some half-wit political lightweights, lol.
(Hey I can see mindless bimbo from my house, lol)

reply to post by ThePublicSpirit



So let us see...you berated a group of individuals for generalization and narrow mindedness of sources...yet you yourself generalized young people posting in this thread, hold a narrow minded point of view on the usage of entheogens as a practical tool towards spiritual seeking, and chose to use sarcasm as a response towards an idea (regardless of how thoughtful or lack of thought he may have put into the idea, mind you) instead of say, choosing to politely counter his points he brought up, or providing other sources in which he can gain a different perspective from...

I applaud you, good sir, trying to satirize the point of this thread as a personification of the general problem our species has had for hundreds of years.

But if that isn't the case, and what you are doing isn't portraying ignorance, hypocrisy and narrow mindedness in a satirized manner...then you are just indeed ignorant, a hypocrite, and narrow minded.

I can't tell, so you make the choice. It clearly must be one of the two, which would be clear to anyone that actually read the thread in full and understood it's original purpose. But since I couldn't know the true intent behind what you said, I await to hear from you.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by SpectreDC]

[edit on 22-1-2010 by SpectreDC]

I don't think it has always been this way even within the breadth of America's short history. I'm basing this belief based on the public's reaction to the 19th century novel 'St. Elmo' by Augusta Jane Evans. I picked up a tattered copy of this book at an estate sale some years ago just because with a publication date of 1866 it would become the oldest book in my library. But I got started reading it and found it rather profound; constantly addressing many deep concepts. Reportedly this book reached a very fervent widespread degree of mainstream popularity to a degree that many streets and children were named after the books heroine Edna Earl. This was no mere cult classic like 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and yet 'St. Elmo' is at least as deep and maybe even a more difficult read. In order for such a book to reach such mainstream popularity I've concluded that a very different mindset existed at the time of its publication in terms of how people thought of deep concepts and their discussion and contemplation.

I've done mega drugs in my life.

I'm here to tell you, being much smarter in the brain than 99% of the people here, that drugs FOOL you.

You learn nothing from drugs. Your brain isn't opened up to better thinking. Most of the time you only develop a warped imagination. Every now and then, a part of the truth that is within your conscience will convict you as to your STUPID actions and you will see things that are truth. However, the truths you see are NOT THE DRUGS TALKING.

Anyone here who thinks that there is anything intellectual about doping up is REALLY trying to make themselves feel better for their pathetic habit. I know, I used to do it!

Also, if you think that drugs are opening up your mind, then you are admitting that you yourself have not the physical intelligence to determine what is around you.

Oh so many truths are learned from drugs! Oh me, oh my! Why isn't the world so enlightened yet?!

It FEELS SO GOOD TO BE ENLIGHTENED, doesn't it?

Let me tell you about narrow. I AM NARROW. I am the thinnest, hardest wall you're ever gonna hit. I can reach through when I want, but you can't get in. Because my wall is made of truth.

One thing I never did was to MAKE UP EXCUSES for my habits. It's weak and it shows.

On that note, Christ would gladly use your intelligence if you wished to use it for something good.

Enjoy y'all.

Unfortunately, my quote says it all...

reply to post by TarzanBeta


I appreciate your hostile nature as well as your complete devoid of referencing when I discussed a heavy discipline on doing entheogens. It speaks volumes on the credibility of you as a poster, as well as reflects any amount of respect you can expect from other posters.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by ThePublicSpirit

 

So let us see...you berated a group of individuals for generalization and narrow mindedness of sources...yet you yourself generalized young people posting in this thread,

I specifically pointed out, and asked others to take a look at, the numerous posts in this thread that freely offered age, viewpoint, and showed aggression, as well as close-mindedness, among just a few negative details. It is all given freely. I judged noone, and I didn't have to.

hold a narrow minded point of view on the usage of entheogens as a practical tool towards spiritual seeking, and chose to use sarcasm as a response towards an idea (regardless of how thoughtful or lack of thought he may have put into the idea, mind you) instead of say, choosing to politely counter his points he brought up, or providing other sources in which he can gain a different perspective from...

The use of Entheogens, were never just used recreationally by children or young adults without the guidance of individuals that were practiced in that use, and held long standing traditions involved with such substances.
Please, do not try to legitimize the use of drugs by comparing it to Shamanistic practices, or scientific research.
In the past, you didn't have "Medicine Men" on the corners, selling the "entheogens" to children. You didn't have children teaching children how to use them.
And, I am sorry you didn't like how I communicated my point of view. It was not meant to be hurtful. But, it was meant to drive a point home.
This is a serious subject. I am not going to "coddle" individuals that are entering dangerous territory, while they announce the fact that they are totally ignorant of the true nature of those dangers.

I applaud you, good sir, trying to satirize the point of this thread as a personification of the general problem our species has had for hundreds of years.

But if that isn't the case, and what you are doing isn't portraying ignorance, hypocrisy and narrow mindedness in a satirized manner...then you are just indeed ignorant, a hypocrite, and narrow minded.

I can't tell, so you make the choice. It clearly must be one of the two, which would be clear to anyone that actually read the thread in full and understood it's original purpose. But since I couldn't know the true intent behind what you said, I await to hear from you.
I can't tell, so you make the choice. It clearly must be one of the two, which would be clear to anyone that actually read the thread in full and understood it's original purpose. But since I couldn't know the true intent behind what you said, I await to hear from you.

I'm not sure which specific post you are referring to, but, regardless of which one has caught your eye, I would imagine there are more than those 2 choices.



[edit on 22/1/10 by ThePublicSpirit]

I find people generally use the term crazy as a projection. They feel that to accept what the person says as a truth, it would cause them continuous emotional instability. A craze.

It seems that deep thinkers have been thought of as crazy since when the truth would cause crazes in the weak minded majority. Basically since the beginning of time. Deep thinkers often go so far, that they are in fact off on many points. Nobody's perfect. If they are going several deviations off the norm, who can expect all of their predictions to be dead on?!

Screw the dim witted. They'll be first to kill each other off when SHTF.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
I've done mega drugs in my life.

I'm here to tell you, being much smarter in the brain than 99% of the people here, that drugs FOOL you.

In defense of the %99 there are some very intelligent people who post on this forum.

Not saying you are not intelligent by no means, just acknowledging many other very intelligent and well thought out people on ATS.

reply to post by CHA0S


To the actual question of "Since when did deep thinkers become the crazy people?" I'd have to say that hundred or two years after rome fell. Ah, I wish I could invent a time machine and go back to the good ol' greece and have a chat with some of the brilliant people, but, that's just a wish and "crazy talk"

And I must say it's nice to see other people realizing that we humans are actually quite dumb in the collective manner.

Originally posted by Trying Times
reply to post by atlasastro

 

So when you say Crick popped acid and discovered DNA.

Did i say that? I urge you to re-read what i actually said.
This is what you said.

May I remind you that the structure of DNA (double helix) was discovered whilst Francis Crick was high on '___'

So Crick Popped acid and discovered DNA, what part of that is untrue or a misunderstanding of what you said?
He was High on Acid when he discovered DNA. That is what you said.

You jump to assumptions in the entire argument though.
You assume the report was accurate. It was reported after his death. This affords Crick no reply. At no time in his life did he mention taking '___'.
You assume '___' was associated as being an agent of cause or significance in the discovery. Based on a newspaper article.

This we agree on.

Why did you not mention the reality of the process by which DNA was discovered. Why did you state that the '___' report was a matter of fact, and not conjecture and speculation?
Because that would not support your argument. Would it? So we really agree on my statement that you ignore the reality of the discovery whilst injecting the '___' element as being significant.

Hilarious

Thank you. As a person who has experienced sky diving, I found your quote analogy quite shallow considering the discussion is surrounding Drugs and not merely being open minded.

Yes it was reported by Alun Rees. And is was published in the Mail on Sunday after Crick died. I don't see how this makes it untrue, especially as the entire situation is backed up in Wendy Cook's Memiors; "Peter Cook: So Farewell Then". Also entities such as the BBC have discussed this in programmes and no one has been sued. Maybe because it is true?

Maybe because Crick is dead and maybe because Cook uses Rees as her source.

She reports it first hand but does use Rees as the source.

She reports first hand that her source was Rees.
Case closed?

Crick probably said he would sue either as a joke, or for fear of him being discredited as a scientist.

The Author probably made it up to make the story seem credible and to explain why the '___' story was never heard of before hand.
See how easy it is to make stuff up to support an argument based in "probably"?

It is reported not just Crick but many scientists of that era used theraputic doses of '___' to enhance their powers of thought for some deep thinking. Considering it wasn't illegal then this is highly likely.

What is highly likely?
That they took drugs?
That is supported or improved the work?
That without the drugs innovation or new knowledge would have been impossible?
Regardless of the many questions that your assumptions inspire, the early uses of '___' would be expected given the unknown nature of the effects of the drug. We now know a lot more and this indicates that scientists do not consider it as a source of improved thinking. It is a source of drugged thinking. That is established.

It is interesting to note that psychedelics are used within cultures for "spiritual and religious" reasons and ceremonies. These are abstracts, the truths or insight arrived at are totally abstract and have nothing to do with being a criteria with which we can arrive at a situation that states that this is deep thinking outside the box. It is exactly the box that the OP is complaining about. It is drugged thinking, religious in nature that then becomes dogma and doctrine. This is the same with the subculture surrounding '___'. We have advocates like Leary et al who have fueled the dogma and doctrine associated with the "insights" and "knowledge" associated with '___'.

In the 50's Psychiatric students were encouraged to use '___' so as to gain an insight and understanding of illnesses like Schizophrenia. Think about that, scientists used a drug to educate students about the nature of Schizophrenic thinking.

postmanpatel.blogspot.com...

Anyway this aside,

Yes anyway-

Did Crick resolve the puzzle of DNA when under a drug induced haze ? We will never know, it is a fanciful theory but one which can never be resolved. What is certain is that the structure of this most fascinating molecule relied upon Watson's sneak preview of Rosalind Franklin's X-ray - No 51.

This is from your link. I actually mentioned this in my reply.
But hey, it must have been '___' because you read Rees.

I can understand why you might think that with your experience as a nurse.

Not to mention personal experience.

And believe me i don't advocate drug use but there is some ample evidence that it can provide great insight.

The only evidence you have shown is an article claiming he took '___', and then having that associated with a great discovery.
All the evidence you have is unsupported speculation that you then base your assumptions on that '___' provide great insights.

I believe that used properly and respectfully they can provide many benifits. Including insight. The Ra materials talks about how '___' increases our vital energy. This is however another discussion.

The do have benefits. They were used to help drug addicts and alcoholics. They were used to help students understand what it is like to be mentally ill. Some people think they may help with dying patients. They are used in religious ceremonies so as to induce spiritual or religious insights that is then communicated as dogma and doctrine. So it inspired religious beliefs and religious followers. Leary did this as well. There was a cultural movement based on '___' use.
None of it has lasted. I wonder why?
We all know the CIA actually encouraged and used '___'. MKultra?
Just because we find uses for things, does not mean they are effective or improvements.

The most profound insights I have read concerning '___' is from American Indians that state that they used "their controlled" drug in an environment where they EXPECTED a certain result that was favorable.
In other words, they thought about what they wanted to think about. And then took drugs while doing it. The thinking was drugged. The thoughts are the favorable framework already established. The drug did not inspire the thoughts or generate them but altered them. The thinking was drugged.

I like this open mindedness more than your previously closed-minded statement.

Anyway Peace.

My statement was not close minded. Just because it is different to yours does not make it close minded. You point out my acceptance of possibilities as being open minded, sure, but you seem to ignore that I do not base my statements or perception of reality based on what is merely possible but, by what I actually experience, understand and know. Anything is possible. Everything I have experienced, understand and know surrounding '___' support my statements and helps me think deeply in regard to people like you who inject ONLY POSSIBILITIES as an argument against what is actually known, understood and experienced.

Thank you for your reply.

Hello; thanks for making this thread as it is extremely important to many people, evidenced by the many replies.

I agree that the comments mentioned in the OP serve to prove the point that the Bible makes very clearly, along with the imperfection part, that any speech without love or caring is useless and profits nothing to the speaker or the one listening.

I'm not sure how much time any of the readers may have spent in church, but if one goes looking for answers, as many of us certainly have, we can relate our own stories of disappointment, rejection, in short, none of the answers and a lot of unpleasant experiences with people there. I have observed the following causes, not only I but many in the mainstream Christian churches.

Many who seek God are actually trained not to follow the true Christian Bible, and so will automatically, in "faith" reject this possibility out of hand.

Many people on this site have spoken about this hypocrisy.
I put it before you that people are too often not so much hypocrites, since they do not believe they are perfect. To repent by definition means admitting sin, guilt, failure, fault: many say this is a major turn-off for them, so we all realize it is an inherent part of the Christian religion. After the conversion, it's a whole different ball game. Why? If we follow the trail, we will find the clues.


1. A person becomes a Christian. Since the actual experience is more personal, intimate, and life-changing than any other, we will respectfully begin at the next step. What now?

2. Seek out others or join the church where the conversion begins, if it was in a church setting. Because of social pressure, many conversions are not genuine in the first place: the converter may be 100% sincere, but rushed by people, ahead of God's timing. Perhaps this church isn't the place, and He knows it. For the moment, we will stick to the human perspective, since it is our focus. People say the salvation prayer, and for reasons entirely known only to them, seek out and join a church.

3. Based on the new Christian's understanding, and what they are told by all other people they see as Christians, often who are offering to show them the way, they submit to the teaching of a pastor, reverend, etc. They hear the words of the Bible, which they may be hearing for the very first time, and it has an effect. This effect could be a new and more vibrant experience when one comes to God sincerely and benefits from the excellence of His wisdom.
Or not.
The difference is when the words are chosen by and spoken under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the form in which He stays with us and speaks in the inaudible way, correcting, comforting, gently and kindly teaching. God knows how to teach each one, and is the best teacher of all. This is why it is so crucial that pastors are truly submitted to Him in the Holy Spirit. If true hypocrisy exists in the church's governing members, he must confront and correct it. If it is also what he has been taught, then what hope is there? The hope is in the Holy Spirit, because He will expose the troubles, and the pastor has a choice. Some obviously choose only for themselves. This is because some of them never had the Holy Spirit, and when they read the Old Testament, the part that says to keep your tithe and spend it on things that make your family happy if you can't get to the church, they know they would be out of a good-paying job. As God intends, because the New Testament goes even further and says ministers and teachers of the Word should not be paid or want pay, and if they tried to sell the truth, that they were not sincere, and therefore we know those teachings are their own, and not God's at all. Are the pastors not taught about God's provision?



4. A well-meaning convert to Christianity has very little hope of even knowing about the Holy Spirit, which is what makes things become clearer, in churches that don't know about Him themselves. So naturally, if the pastor sounds good at first, telling things this new convert has never known, then they are happy and fulfilled and church is a good thing. But if they read the Bible themselves, they quickly see the difference. Sometimes it IS hypocrisy on the part of the teachers/pastors, sometimes it's been taught as what it means to be a Christian, incompletely, without so much crucial discernment that we all need.

5. The convert now feels let down and can't discern who is responsible for what, why some other members can't see the truth, etc. and never finds out about the Holy Spirit at all, so rejects the entire church, hurt and angry at what it could be and what it turned out to be. If they are NOT a Bible reader, they reject the religion as well. If they are, then they realize that Biblical Christianity and many mainstream church's Christianity are completely different, and that most church attendees have no idea of things like:

Give strong drink to those who are perishing in pain..hmm. Never heard that in any church ever.

How about giving the brokenhearted wine so they might forget their misery? Many also seem to ignore that Christ's first public miracle was the wine at the wedding at Cana. Drinking is culturally frowned upon in many churches, and causes judgement and division. In short, confusion.

And that's just one thing. If you don't know about those scriptures, I urge you to find out. It's the Old Testament, and you can see it for yourself by using your sharp research skills!

I submit to you that there are definitely people leading the church members astray and they don't give a flip about anything or anyone except themselves and profit. It hurts. A LOT.

But God is good, and He holds all accountable for their responsibilities. Those who give, and care, and hope, and pray will be seen for exactly what they are, whatever that is, and those who are taught incorrectly to believe they are better than others are often misled to that position by cherry-picking of the Scriptures by the predicted wolves in sheep's clothing. God knows, and is fair.

If anyone is offended by the unChristian behavior of people who apparently want to be Christians, please consider how much more offensive it is of their leaders to lead them, in terms of their own faith, directly to Hell, by seeing material gain as a sign of God's favor (ancient idea), instead of finding the poor and helping.
:puz

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Copperflower]

Originally posted by angelx666
there cant be any more ignorant sheep, than 'religious fanatics',

second place goes to 'patriots', the third err maybe football fans i dunno

[edit on 21-1-2010 by angelx666]

How ironic that all three of those tend to go hand in hand...

To the OP:

This has to be one of those few threads that I really like reading on ATS.

I like your thinking.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by dalan.]

Originally posted by ThePublicSpirit

Originally posted by The Reader
Call me crazy...

But concerning "Christian Theology". I wonder if many christians had consider this:

After God had created the "Angel Race" he created the most perfect being, the "Adamic Race" (Adam). And all the Angels was commanded by God to bow down before him (Adam). But one Angel disobeyed the divine mandate to bow down before him. His name was Lucifer (Satan, Samael). Lucifer had always been the closest Angel to God and he loved and adored God so deeply and intensely that he could not bring himself to bow before anything else, and because he refused to bow down to something inferior to him (since he was made of fire, and man from clay). It was from that moment on he and one third of the Angels fell from Heaven to Earth.
And God left Lucifer so he became separated from his love.

Lucifer felt betrayed by God and the cost of this was a "War of Angels" of such violence that it ultimately ended the Jewel of Earth's ability to sustain life. Lucifer made war against the throne of God. God commanded Michael to resist Lucifer. Michael and his Angels fought with Lucifer and his Angels. Lucifer tried to overthrow Heaven but was defeated and was forced to return back to earth. Lucifer fell like a bolt of lightening. The Angels that rebelled with Lucifer were hurled back to earth. God had commanded Lucifer to watch over this earth and Lucifer had not yet been relieved of his duty.

...so the story goes.

But Christian people say that Lucifer and his followers (Fallen Angels)
are EXTREMELY EVIL and wants to corrupt and destroy mankind. It could be so (If your a Christian).

But this dosen't have any philosophical or rational ground.

If I may, I would like to compare this (story above) to a man who own's a amusement park. An inside this park children are happy, eats candy, laughs and enjoys life etc. But suddenly the owner of the amusment park opens the front gate to let the crulest and most evil criminals of this planet to enter into this park to do evil. Then when they are all inside the owner closes the gate to the park for good. So is this owner of the park a good person?
- No, he must be an extremely evil person indeed.
Well, so must God also be evil to throw Satan and his companions down to earth, to do evil things among the inhabitants of the Earth.
- Thank you God for that!

So to all Christians, Jews and muslims, YOUR GOD IS EVIL (Just read the Five books of Moses.)

..nuff said.

You've done it!
You cracked the case! And all with just that little bit of information to work with, and no need of examining any other texts, or spending any time listening to those pesky "experts" that have been making a career out of studying religion and writing books, and teaching classes, and stuff like that.
You grabbed some apt entries, quoted writings that seem to go the way you want them to go, and BANG!
You did it.
God is evil.
Congratulations!
I would imagine that you also believe yourself to be a "Deep Thinker".

[edit on 22/1/10 by ThePublicSpirit]

So I would just like to point out that every single one of your posts that I have read seem to be you just insulting people? I think that TheReader had a very good point in his argument. Basically saying that, if God were "good" why would he release such "evil" over his own creations?

By the way, your attack on TheReader is a LOGICAL FALLACY, one in the "ad hominem" category...counter the posters argument instead of slinging childish insults.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by dalan.]

I would like to point out to all of the naysayers here who are preaching that "drugs are bad m'kay?"

That there is a family of psychedelics called the tryptamine family, and it houses Dimethyltryptamine ('___'), Psilocybin (shroooms), and Lysurgic Acid Diethylamide ('___'/"acid").

Link

'___' has the longest "trip" duration lasting for about 12 hours, with psilocybin lasting from 6-8 hours, and '___' lasting only about 30 minutes.

Now, the biggest difference is that, even though '___' is the shortest-acting tryptamine, it is the most powerful.

Finally the mind-blowing part is that '___' is produced by human beings in the pineal gland:



I would also like it to be known that the pineal gland is not actually apart of the brain. When a fetus is forming in the worm, cells in the roof of the mouth collect to form this gland, where, after a time it makes its trip upward to sit nuzzled by the brain.

Now, it is the pineal gland that produces '___', but, we know that '___' is only produced at two special stages in a humans life. Once at a specific stage of fetal growth (after about six weeks of conception when the pineal gland is mature enough), and again after death.

The "trip" on '___' is actually very coherent, and there is a doctor who did a five year scientific study of the compound on human volunteers. He basically injected his volunteers and had them record their experiences to help us find out WHY A HUMAN BEING ACTUALLY PRODUCES A PSYCHEDELIC. His findings point towards our consciousness, and that we do in fact exist beyond the body.

www.rickstrassman.com...

Also, the ASSUMPTION that an hallucination is "imaginary" is simply bad logic. It is the same logic our ancestors used when they peered out to the horizon and decided that the Earth was flat because that is how it appeared from their perspective. There is no evidence to suggest that a '___' trip is not a real experience, likewise there is no evidence to suggest that it is real.

More research needs to be done.




[edit on 1/23/2010 by dalan.]

To the OP:

This has to be one of those few threads that I really like reading on ATS.

I like your thinking.

No problem...I really thought it was about time this topic got discussed...because as another poster said...often people in mental institutes aren't insane...they just have a "different" way of think about things...I know I've listened to a few supposedly crazy people...and to me...they didn't look crazy in the slightest...I understood what they were talking about and why they were talking about...it's amazing how we can say "the brain should work like this...and people should act and think like this...otherwise they are crazy"...it truly is beyond me...

[edit on 23/1/10 by CHA0S]