It is applicable in many facets of life my friend.

People who accept as fact something which has no rational basis are crazy.  The clinical definition of insanity is repetition of behavior while expecting different results.  This means that if you pray without result more than once, you are clinically insane.  While not clinically insane, the atheist is nonetheless (to my mind) equally insane to the 'person of faith.'  Seriously, who the hell are you people to say - for sure, that there is or is not a god?

Spirituality is one tool (of many) for the ignorant to explain unexplained phenomena.  While this in and of itself does not denote insanity, there are many other tools available to modern mankind with which to explain the universe around us.  Science for instance, is an extremely valuable tool because for the most part it can be verified through testing by whoever has the resources and the know-how.  Old books are a tool which allow modern people to study what people in the past thought.  Using old books as empirical evidence is pseudo-science.  To be sure, I am speaking mainly of the christian bible, the quran, the gospels, the tora, and other jewish texts.  I am not saying there is *no* truth in these texts, which is shown by various treasure hunters who have in fact unearthed artifacts from places to which they were directed by ancient writings.  However, to use these texts as some kind of evidence of the existance of one or more gods is totally ludicrous.

Why don't you people stop and think?

The only way to have a concept of god is to let go of your need for sureness.  I do not believe in god, nor do I believe in the non-existance of god.  If you educate yourselves (via lectures from intellectuals or books other than propaganda), you will come to find that the various old texts claiming a gensis myth contain exactly that: a myth.  The doppler effect shows us the approximate age of the universe.  The fossil record shows us the timeline of life on this planet.  Many people think "dinosaurs" when the word fossil is evoked, but as a biotechnology major, I am educated on the evolution of bacteria millions of years before any 'higher' forms of life existed.  There is evidence written in stone which is much older and much more empirical than any dusty book you religious types can produce.

I feel that I have not yet fully expressed my point.  I definitely do not want to leave atheists out of my tirade, for they are equally closed-minded and full of their own egos.  For you people who claim the non-existance of god as fact (all atheists), please explain what caused the initial spark.  Case closed.  I do want to say however, that at least athiests for the most part do not try and spread their drivel to the ears of others.  At least atheists do not belong to an organization responsible for *THE WORST* atrocities against mankind.

I really hate to have to break this shit down to you uneducated victims of cultural brainwashing, but as I have chosen this alliance as my home, I feel it is my responsibility.  To those who claim that the leaders of the crusades etc. were not christian, I must say that you're full of hoolabaloo.  It's as if you were neo-nazis, who still believe in the aryan race, but do not support hitler-esque ethnic cleansing, and say that hitler wasn't a real nazi.  The people who led the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the witch-hunts..  THEY WERE IN FACT CHRISTIAN, WHO FOLLOWED ALL OF THE SAME STRUCTURES OF RULES THAT YOU DO NOW.  You belong to a cult which has history of extreme racial violence.  When talking to an educated person, you cannot divorce yourself from these facts.  This is why christians are not taken seriously by the educated.

All of that being said, I believe that there may in fact have been a jesus, a mohammed, a siddhartha, etc.  They were most likely well-spoken individuals with very strong feelings.  They were able to convey messages, which others wrote down because the messages were good.  It is plain as day that many of the things these MEN said were good.  However, as soon as those with power and influence started meddling with the messages (religion, any), instantly the messages were corrupted.

Religion is a tool of the powerful to keep the masses tired and thusly ignorant and non-violent.

Think about it.  If john doe thinks there is a heaven awaiting him if he leads a good life, he will work harder - waking up earlier and working longer into the twilight.  He will 'put in his dues,' so that he will be accepted into an eternity of happiness.  This tactic is little more advanced than the carrot on a stick which makes the donkey walk further than he otherwise could/would.  As soon as word of the effectiveness of this tactic spread, religion was invited into nearly every major empire in the world.  Look it up, you can see the spread of religion is faster than any other movement.  It was changed and refined, with the more successful empires clinging to a certain doctrine as if it was part of the original culture.  History (even your bible, if looked at from a different point of view) shows us these facts with unarguable certainty.  The kings of the land embraced religion wholeheartedly, not because of any belief in the dogmas, but because the results in production and refinement of resources and the lower levels of crime were immediate and astonishing.  People developed stronger communities and had better lives.  On the surface this seems like a great thing for everyone, but it is based on falsehoods and lies, and the machinations of the powerful.  These people, now tired from working more and happy because such work would lead them to the afterlife, stopped putting so much emphasis on what was happening around them.  They simply did not have time to care about the infidels.  The higher tax influx allowed the leaders of the day more resources with which to pay for armies to wage war in foreign lands.  This increase in funds was of course spun to reflect some god's acceptance and encouragement, and so many otherwise non-judgemental young men went to war to kill many people who's skin was a different color.

All in the name of god.

I could go on and on.

Anything where a non-christian gathers is sa place for evangilism

Or maybe a college?  A scientific laboratory?  A symposium of intellectuals?

I would *love* to see you evangelize in such a setting.

spelling is not imoportant except in typed LA papers

It's also imoportant if you want to be taken seriously by adults.

Weed is a weird drug to classify, which is one of the main reasons its federally illegal (FDA).  It's actually a mild stimulant, depressant, and psychoactive hallucinagen all rolled up in one.  It doesn't cause visual hallucinations (repeatably, there is sometimes no accounting for a potheads imagination), but it can cause one to have a certain sense of well being that really shouldn't be there in todays farked up society.  Some people shouldn't smoke weed, but most people who have something against it without ever having tried it should definitely smoke a joint.

As far as people saying it is addictive, here's the skinny:  Marijuana is *not* physically addictive, at all.  Marijuana *can* be the focus of a *pre-existing* addictive personality.  To say that it is physically or psychologically addictive without qualification is not scientific.

As far as the carcinogens contained in weed:  The main carcinogen (cancer-causing chemical) in marijuana is a tar called benzopyrene.  It is the main carcinogenic tar in both tobacco and marijuana, and the concentration is about three to six times higher in marijuana than tobacco.  That being said, one must consider the total amount used in order to determine a statistically significant theory regarding the intake of the carcinogens.  One cigarette contains about 1.5 grams of tobacco.  1.5 grams of good greenbud will get 6 hardcore stoners high for 3-4 hours 3 times (if you roll 0.5g of weed in a blunt).  Thats one hardcore stoner high for 54 - 72 hours.  Thats 2-3 days.  One regular tobacco smoker smokes between 10-30 cigarettes containing 1.5 grams per day.  All of that being said, benzopyrene is probably the most dangerous compound found in marijuana, and definitely the one with the highest volume.  Meanwhile tobacco cigarettes contain literally hundreds of other horrifically more dangerous compounds than marijuana.  I am definitely not saying that the carcinogens in weed or cigarettes are good for you, but even some tobacco smokers live to be 100 years old.  Saying that weed is bad for you because it contains carcinogens and likening it to cigarettes just doesn't add up.

There has never been an actual published scientific paper that says that smoking marijuana has any long term negative side effects*edit: other than the carcinogenic effects of the smoke*.  Several papers were published in pseudo-scientific magazines in the mid 80's to the mid 90's which claim all sorts of negative effects of marijuana (seriously, from brain damage to birth defects), but these papers can usually be traced back to a series of laboratory procedures approved by the reagan and bush cabinets which were funded by the federal government under one of the war on drugs initiatives.

LSD, psilocybe mushrooms, and peyote are all relatively harmless in a physical sense, but use for some people has caused long term mental problems.  These problems are usually linked with pre-existing psychological problems, but at all times should be handled with education and extreme caution.

Pretty much all other drugs are highly toxic and cause cell death in the brain*edit: as well as serious physical and psychological dependancy*.  Stay away.

You people are totally disregarding one of the most fundamental laws of physics, which is considerably clouding the judgement of those involved in this debate.  The law to which I refer is the Law of Inverse Ninja Strength (more commonly known as the Stormtrooper Effect), which states that the strength of any one ninja is inversely proportional to the number of ally ninja able to assist the original ninja.  This means that if one hundred ninja attacked ten pirates, the pirates would totally devastate the ninja forces.  Likewise if a single ninja attacked ten pirates, the pirates would die almost immediately.  Note that in the first case, the ninja forces would only be decimated until their number reached 10, in which case it would be a fair fight.  Who would ultimately win the fight (at the "mano a mano" stage, or one pirate vs one ninja) would be determined either by random die roll or by the subgenre of the movie.

*edit* note that a lone ninja is almost invincible, and the random die roll would be considerably weighted against the pirate.

*2nd edit* note that pirate movies are notoriously unrealistic, and that if a pirate ever did kill a lone ninja in a movie it is probably ficticious.

I think this thread need more rules if you're going to have success..  "A single super power" could be interpreted to mean a variety of different combinations of supernatural abilities..  But you said 'one,' so I am led to believe that you want just one ability.  For instance, what is the actual mechanism by which you would perceive, memorize, absorp the hours of practice, and be able to replicate forever, any number of given skills?  That sounds like a lot more than one power if you think about it in a somewhat realistic fashion..  Telekinesis is an example of a single skill; it is one action to generate force to move an object..

I would choose the ability to create matter within my perception.  I would just give my opponents strokes.