Jump to content

Hijack from God and science


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

My main grievance with them is that I like to step from one patch of firm ground to another equally firm patch. That way, I can be sure I'm headed in a reasonable direction down a path made of evidence. It's pretty easy to analyze a written statement that way, making sure from the start that the science and reasoning are valid, and stopping along the way to make corrections as needed. Too many misconceptions often signal that an idea doesn't have a good foundational understanding of science, and why read beyond that when an idea isn't based in science?

Videos tend to steamroll over the viewer, taking them for a ride, making assumptions along the way with nodding heads as evidence (Mystical consciousness is real because it's called by many names). It's difficult to quote them, and I feel like I'm being duped into watching the whole thing when I would stop reading someone's written argument and request clarification as soon as I found a mistake.

He could at least post one video at a time and discuss it before moving to the next one, Gish Galloping is not fun... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You only say that because you've some pre-conceived notion of God that you've defined in your head, and I'd argue that your description of the "God" doesn't meet the criteria here, and so you say some

The science has established the implications are much greater than your myopic summation. I maintain that you've not comprehended what is entailed by this research. What you fail to grasp is that God

This is actually one of the few times there's a simple answer. Science describes god(s) as supernatural simply because they defy observation and prediction, two foundational tools of science. All of t

Posted Images

17 hours ago, Kafei said:

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world

That's a god of the gaps. We don't know what created everything. There is no reason to believe God created everything.

And what do you mean with 'God'? Does your God has defined properties or is it rather an undetermined transcendent reality?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@beecee That is simply wrong. There is absolutely no evidence for any deity, or supernatural power, no matter how obtuse you try to fabricate it. Oh, and I see you are again onto this "mystical experience" as being evidence of something magical. It's simply not. You need to live with that.

@Strange 

No one denies the subjective experiences or the role that drugs play in them.

An important point to emphasize is that these researchers concluded that psychedelics only mimic what could otherwise happen naturally.

But this says nothing about the existence of gods. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Unless you have already made up your mind and are not interested in an open-minded discussion.

I am speaking on the existence of God.

  15 hours ago, Kafei said:

Sure, but this is also a false analogy.

I don't see why. 

The argument that some hallucinations are more "real" than other because they prove what you want to believe is a prime example of the fallacy of begging the question.

No, they're not more "real than reality" because people are wishful thinkers. Rather they're more real than real because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers, even the former atheists whom after this event, no longer identified with atheism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s

So it seems to come down to: "gods must exist because people believe in them and have mystical experiences."

It would be hard to think of a less convincing argument.

Only that's not the argument. That's wasn't the conclusion of the research, this is your assumption based on a tenuous grasp of the research. There's a difference, you see.

@Moontanman What part of youtube videos has no weight here do you not understand? 

What part of these lectures are on the peer-reviewed material do you not understand? You act as though I'm posting pseudoscience just because it's in the format of YouTube, and that's not the case at all. These are actual professionals who've published actual scientific research relative to these topics.

 

@Phi for All 

My main grievance with them is that I like to step from one patch of firm ground to another equally firm patch. That way, I can be sure I'm headed in a reasonable direction down a path made of evidence. It's pretty easy to analyze a written statement that way, making sure from the start that the science and reasoning are valid, and stopping along the way to make corrections as needed. Too many misconceptions often signal that an idea doesn't have a good foundational understanding of science, and why read beyond that when an idea isn't based in science?

I am referring to legitimate science which has been accumulating for decades now all the way back to the work of William James, if anyone here is lacking a good foundational grasp of the research, it is only yourself. You seem as though you're just being introduced to this stuff, however I've been following this research for about a decade now only to realize it has a rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s.

Videos tend to steamroll over the viewer, taking them for a ride, making assumptions along the way with nodding heads as evidence (Mystical consciousness is real because it's called by many names). It's difficult to quote them, and I feel like I'm being duped into watching the whole thing when I would stop reading someone's written argument and request clarification as soon as I found a mistake.

What these researchers are calling mystical states of consciousness or mystical experience is not a misty or vague concept, it's been quit concretely defined within this research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s

naturally occurring.png

@Itoero That's a god of the gaps. We don't know what created everything. There is no reason to believe God created everything.

I was rather referring to a cyclical model of the universe as described in eastern philosophy, like Hinduism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcET3NkCTj8&t=2s

And what do you mean with 'God'? Does your God has defined properties or is it rather an undetermined transcendent reality?

I'm merely reiterating the science that's been done here. Yes, of course, it has properties. God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy within this cumulative research.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kafei said:

An important point to emphasize is that these researchers concluded that psychedelics only mimic what could otherwise happen naturally.

We know that.

(p.s. there is a Quote button that will let you quote other people’s posts properly)

44 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I am speaking on the existence of God.

Yes but you have provided no evidence for your god. 

45 minutes ago, Kafei said:

No, they're not more "real than reality" because people are wishful thinkers.

No one said that was the case. So this is a strawman fallacy. 

46 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Rather they're more real than real because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers, even the former atheists whom after this event, no longer identified with atheism.

All that tells us is what their subjective experience is. That is not evidence for gods. If you are not able to understand something as fundamentally simple as that then their is no hope. You have been blinded by your beliefs. 

49 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Only that's not the argument. That's wasn't the conclusion of the research, this is your assumption based on a tenuous grasp of the research. There's a difference, you see.

What is the difference? Because I can’t see any difference between what I said and “because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers”. 

54 minutes ago, Kafei said:

These are actual professionals who've published actual scientific research relative to these topics.

Then why not actually post actual links to those actual published papers on the actual science?

56 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I'm merely reiterating

And that is part of the problem. Just repeating the same claims and the same links doesn’t help. 

57 minutes ago, Kafei said:

God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy within this cumulative research.

Yes. You have said that repeatedly. But you haven’t said what this definition IS, nor what objective test could be performed, etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Strange Yes but you have provided no evidence for your god. 

I have, in fact, provided evidence for the existence of God. I'd wager either A.) you haven't properly understood the research and B.) you've obviously not had a mystical experience for yourself as these researchers established the fact that when an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, they will no longer identify with atheism after this event. The "complete" mystical experience was demonstrated to be a conversion experience for atheists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s

No one said that was the case. So this is a strawman fallacy.

Well, you attempted to make a straw man argument yourself, I was merely retorting to your straw man.

All that tells us is what their subjective experience is. That is not evidence for gods. If you are not able to understand something as fundamentally simple as that then their is no hope. You have been blinded by your beliefs.

All experience is subjective, so calling an experience "subjective" is in no way a criticism of this research. And atheists no longer identifying with atheism should signal something to you that this is more than simply "subjective experience," the so-called "complete" mystical experience was concluded to be a universal phenomenon in consciousness, and we've all the potential to undergo this experience. To quote Roland Griffiths, the leader of the more recent research going on at Johns Hopkins, he's said on these experiences:

"A mediating mechanism (psychological or otherwise) for a transformative perceptual shift after an introvertive mystical experience is that the individual now knows that a portal to something of inestimable and ultimate value resides within -- an access point to a sense of the transcendent, which is variously described in religious traditions as Soul, Holy Spirit, God, Brahman, or Buddha Nature. - R. R. Griffiths

What is the difference? Because I can’t see any difference between what I said and “because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers."

That's my contention, that you cannot discern the difference.

Then why not actually post actual links to those actual published papers on the actual science?

I did post links.

And that is part of the problem. Just repeating the same claims and the same links doesn’t help. 

Well, I want to represent the research as accurately as possible, so I'm not going to make any other claims outside of what's been demonstrated by the science that's been done.

Yes. You have said that repeatedly. But you haven’t said what this definition IS, nor what objective test could be performed, etc

You have Google, don't you? I can give you brief definition of the Perennial philosophy. In a nutshell, Perennial philosophy also called Perennial wisdom or Perennialism is a view on the major religions which sees all major religions deriving their source in mysticism. Mysticism involving techniques and disciplines such as meditation or asceticism for eliciting what neuroscientists today are calling a "mystical experience," and the defining core of the mystical experience is a literal impression of being one with all that exist within a phenomenon in consciousness, a sense of timelessness or having transcended space and time, what mystics classically referred to as "union with the divine." The mystic knows that in some mysterious and indescribable manner, God and his universe are one. The mystic perceives all things as one, all men as his brothers, all creatures as his fellows and all matter holy. The mystic vision is one of unity and modern physics lends support to this perception when it asserts that the world and its living forms are variations of the same elements. And this is precisely what you find at the very core of all the major religions, descriptions of the divine that are monistic, henotheistic, and panentheistic, because they derive from these unitive mystical states of consciousness. The afflatus upon which has inspired the mystic to write on the nature of God. Einstein himself admitted to having a mystical experience, and this is also how he defined God.

https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

Edited by Kafei
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kafei said:

you've obviously not had a mystical experience for yourself as these researchers established the fact that when an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, they will no longer identify with atheism after this event. The "complete" mystical experience was demonstrated to be a conversion experience for atheists.

That is evidence of human psychology/behaviour not gods. Just because they believe in something doesn’t make it real. 

But is this what this is all about? You did some drugs and now think you know “The Truth”

22 minutes ago, Kafei said:

And atheists no longer identifying with atheism should signal something to you that this is more than simply "subjective experience," the so-called "complete" mystical experience was concluded to be a universal phenomenon in consciousness, and we've all the potential to undergo this experience.

Quite possibly. But their beliefs say nothing about the reality of what they believe. Maybe it is telling us that people who have brain damage from taking drugs become religious. What we need is an experiment to distinguish these two hypotheses.

(And I assume you are ignoring the people who have these experiences and remain atheists. )

23 minutes ago, Kafei said:

That's my contention, that you cannot discern the difference.

Yes. That’s what I said. Well done. Now, can you explain it?

24 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I did post links.

So all these videos are just discussing two papers? That’s it? I find that hard to believe. 

So why not post the papers that all these videos are discussing?

25 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Well, I want to represent the research as accurately as possible, so I'm not going to make any other claims outside of what's been demonstrated by the science that's been done.

You have already done that. Neither of the papers you linked to say, “and therefore god exists”. You made that bit up. 

26 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I can give you brief definition of the Perennial philosophy. 

That is not what I asked. What is wrong with you?

Unless you are saying that “god” is defined as “having mystical/religious experiences”. Is that it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

That is evidence of human psychology/behaviour not gods. Just because they believe in something doesn’t make it real. 

I don't think you're understanding. It's not something someone believes, but rather it's a knowing, it is intuitively the case.in their own words.png

 

Quote

But is this what this is all about? You did some drugs and now think you know “The Truth”

No, again, drugs aren't necessarily to elicit a mystical experience.

Quote

Quite possibly. But their beliefs say nothing about the reality of what they believe. Maybe it is telling us that people who have brain damage from taking drugs become religious. What we need is an experiment to distinguish these two hypotheses.

(And I assume you are ignoring the people who have these experiences and remain atheists. )

I've never known any such person to have this experience and remain atheist. It's been established that a "complete" mystical experience virtually is guaranteed to convert an atheist, and it has happened to many famous atheists throughout history: Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, Terence McKenna, Richard Alpert, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Alex Grey, etc. What do all these men have in common? They were all atheists prior to their mystical experience.

Quote

Yes. That’s what I said. Well done. Now, can you explain it?
 

I believe I can. I have to inquire more as to precisely what your misconceptions are and I'm sort of absorbing that through what you've written so far.

Quote

So all these videos are just discussing two papers? That’s it? I find that hard to believe. 

No, the two papers are summations of the research, the videos are actually speaking more broadly on the collective research that has been going on throughout the decades.

Quote

So why not post the papers that all these videos are discussing?

Because it's pretty long list. Most of the more recent research has been hosted at this website here: https://csp.org/docs/psilocybin

Quote

You have already done that. Neither of the papers you linked to say, “and therefore god exists”. You made that bit up. 

No, I didn't. It's not announced so immaturely, I don't think any professional would say it so crass like that. Rather the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and this is how it's portrayed in the research. That is less ambiguous than simply announcing, "We've discovered evidence for the existence of God" which in a term like God has so many connotations and misconceptions surrounding it, so instead the science confirms the divine by aligning itself with the Perennial philosophy.

Quote

That is not what I asked. What is wrong with you?

Unless you are saying that “god” is defined as “having mystical/religious experiences”. Is that it?

No, I said God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and mystical/religious experience is how people have glimpsed the divine throughout history, God has always come as a revelation in the mind of the mystic, be it Jesus, Muhammad, Plotinus, Gautama, Mani, etc.

Edited by Kafei
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kafei said:

No, I said God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and mystical/religious experience is how people have glimpsed the divine throughout history, God has always come as a revelation in the mind of the mystic, be it Jesus, Muhammad, Plotinus, Gautama, Mani, etc.

Why do think they found god, rather than stumbling on a good idea? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Why do think they found god, rather than stumbling on a good idea? 

I don't think they've found God, the very professionals involved in this research are making that claim. I happen to agree with the science that's been done and also believe it's a good idea. The Perennial philosophy is a view that harmonizes the major religions, it's a view that unites people rather than separate them into categories which causes conflict. So, sure, it's also a good idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s

Edited by Kafei
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I don't think they've found God, the very professionals involved in this research are making that claim. I happen to agree with the science that's been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s

LOL... Magic mushrooms are great, they make me very happy, but I do find myself talking much the same as your man on the tube... Bollox, mostly, but some of it makes sense at the time... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

LOL... Magic mushrooms are great, they make me very happy, but I do find myself talking much the same as your man on the tube... Bollox, mostly, but some of it makes sense at the time... 

Well, I assure you, it's not bollocks. I'm referring to research that has been accumulating now for decades initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it was further elaborated throughout the decades by professionals such as Walter T. Stace, Ralph Hood, Walter Pahnke, etc. and it's been most refined in the more recent research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths and his team out at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine in Baltimore, MD. One important point to emphasize is that they found that the psychedelics only mimic what could happen otherwise if you took up a discipline like meditation or asceticism as the mystical experience can be facilitated in many different ways, you don't have to take psychedelics. And in fact, many people who do psychedelics often do not have this experience, because the doses required to elicit such an experience with magic mushrooms is, indeed, quite high. Terence McKenna famously referred to it as the "heroic dose." They concluded that the mystical experience is biologically normal. That is to say we're wired for such experiences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_6Wf8Xuq70&t=8m53s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGVEXR1GQs&t=2h17m31s

with naturally occurring.png

Edited by Kafei
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Well, I assure you, it's not bollocks. I'm referring to research that has been accumulating now for decades initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it was further elaborated throughout the decades by professionals such as Walter T. Stace, Ralph Hood, Walter Pahnke, etc. and it's been most refined in the more recent research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths and his team out at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine in Baltimore, MD. One important point to emphasize is that they found that the psychedelics only mimic what could happen otherwise if you took up a discipline like meditation or asceticism as the mystical experience can be facilitated in many different ways, you don't have to take psychedelics. And in fact, many people who do psychedelics often do not have this experience, because the doses required to elicit such an experience with magic mushrooms is, indeed, quite high. Terence McKenna famously referred to it as the "heroic dose." They concluded that the mystical experience is biologically normal. That is to say we're wired for such experiences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_6Wf8Xuq70&t=9m38s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s

with naturally occurring.png

Have you considered that humans, all having quite similar brains, will come up with similar hallucinations when stimulated in similar ways? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

And in fact, many people who do psychedelics often do not have this experience, because the doses required to elicit such an experience with magic mushrooms is, indeed, quite high. Terence McKenna famously referred to it as the "heroic dose."

TBH when I was in a field of them I kept eating till I came up, not sure what happened after that; I just remember close-ups of grass and pretty colours...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have just posted strong evidence that so called "religious experiences" may be drug induced hallucinations.

Another way to look at it is that the brain doesn't work properly when it's full of drugs. So it looks like religious experience is either what happens when the brain isn't working, or at least, it's something very much like it.

 

That's evidence of a brain failure, rather than the existence of God, as the cause of religious experience.

Other evidence also exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Link_with_religiosity

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Have you considered that humans, all having quite similar brains, will come up with similar hallucinations when stimulated in similar ways? 

Of course, I've considered, and so have the professionals. However, what they're calling a "mystical experience" is precisely what ancient Christian mystics are calling a "union with the divine" or what a Buddhist might call "nirvana," or what the Hindu calls samadhi which is the absorption into Brahman, or what the Taoist call the "flowing of the Tao," or what Plotinus called "The One," each of these phrases are different ways of describing one and the same thing.

You see, I'd like to make a point about "hallucination." Most people who use this term to criticize this research often have never experienced hallucination for themselves. You see, the term hallucination is actually an umbrella term which can refer to myriads of types of hallucinatory phenomena. Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive. Hallucinations can occur for myriads of reasons be it Hypnanogic hallucinations, the hallucinations of delirium tremens which are the withdrawals of severe alcoholism, or hallucinations that accompany certain neurological disorders. Now, the hallucinations of mystical experience can be distinguished from all of these things. In fact, the visual hallucinatory phenomena has been referred to as "form constants" within the scientific literature, and they are universally reported. 

Joe Rogan has made this point in his podcasts as well. That whether you're going to call it a "hallucination" or whether you're going to call it "a union with the divine," experientially, it's the exact same thing. It's the exact same experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGVEXR1GQs&t=2h17m31s

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Wasn't there some famous 18th century guy who was on his death bed and had a huge about amount of DMT injected into his veins as he was dying?

DMT wasn't known during the 18th century. Perhaps you're thinking of the 20th century thinker, Aldous Huxley? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley#Death

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You have just posted strong evidence that so called "religious experiences" may be drug induced hallucinations.\

More accurately, I've posted evidence that mystical experience/religious experience can be elicited by natural means or by psychedelics.

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Another way to look at it is that the brain doesn't work properly when it's full of drugs. So it looks like religious experience is either what happens when the brain isn't working, or at least, it's something very much like it.

None of the professionals characterize the experience as a "brain now working." While you may not be able to drive during an experience like this, it's in no way a detrimental state of the mind, and the research has demonstrated that to be the case. People benefit greatly from these experiences. The modern research has shown that the majority of the volunteers in each one of these studies is able to benefit from it from the terminally-ill cancer patients whom after this experience, no longer fear death, they're able to live out the rest of their lives in open-mindedness and comfort, the nicotine addicts are able to quite smoking without recidivism, they want to start testing this stuff on alcoholics, and God knows we need that, and it's even shown to be beneficial for the healthy volunteers. So... I mean, what more evidence do you need?

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's evidence of a brain failure, rather than the existence of God, as the cause of religious experience.

Again, no professional involved in this research characterizes this experience as a "brain failure," this is merely your unsupported projection.

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's not "other evidence," that's just pointing to the fact that mystical experiences can be elicited in a variety of fashions be it through epilepsy, stroke as in the case of Jill Bolte Taylor, through spiritual disciplines such as meditation or asceticism, by psychedelics such as psilocybin or N,N-DMT, and it's even speculated to occur in the near-death experience.

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

TBH when I was in a field of them I kept eating till I came up, not sure what happened after that; I just remember close-ups of grass and pretty colours...

Perhaps you didn't take enough. The dose these researchers are referring to is no joking matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4eMCc8VdgE

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

It did seem fun, but you are talking bollox and I''m sober now...

Well, I'm just pointing out that the "fun doses" are usually, by and large, the recreational doses. You did not have a "mystical experience," especially if you thought it was "fun." And again, what I'm referring to is established science relative to these topics, this has nothing to do with anything that is "bollox." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

Of course not, God is serious; no fun there...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I'm content with my stance and have absolutely no quarrel referring to myself as a Perennialist, an adherent of the Perennial wisdom. After all, that was the conclusion of the research.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kafei said:

I don't think you're understanding. It's not something someone believes, but rather it's a knowing, it is intuitively the case.

That doesn’t make it true. Obviously. 

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

No, again, drugs aren't necessarily to elicit a mystical experience.

Obviously. 

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

I've never known any such person to have this experience and remain atheist.

You said this is science. So I don’t care about people you know. Show us the (published and peer-reviewed) statistics that support this claim. 

Quote

It's been established that a "complete" mystical experience virtually is guaranteed to convert an atheis

1. Citation for where this has been established

2. How do you define a “complete” mystical experience? If an atheist doesn’t become a believer, does that mean it wasn’t “complete”? (This would be the No True Scotsman fallacy - you can add it to your collection)

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

What do all these men have in common? They were all atheists prior to their mystical experience.

The other thing they have in common is that they write about it. How do we make sure this isn’t selection bias? How do we find the numbers who remained atheists and didn’t bother to write about it afterwards?

2 hours ago, Kafei said:

No, I said God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and mystical/religious experience is how people have glimpsed the divine throughout history, God has always come as a revelation in the mind of the mystic, be it Jesus, Muhammad, Plotinus, Gautama, Mani, etc.

So ... again ... can you tell us what that definition of god is? Not the context but what “god” means for the purpose of this thread. 

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

I don't think they've found God, the very professionals involved in this research are making that claim.

No they aren’t. As you just admitted. The most they might say is that people have “experienced the divine”

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Well, I'm just pointing out that the "fun doses" are usually, by and large, the recreational doses. You did not have a "mystical experience," especially if you thought it was "fun." And again, what I'm referring to is established science relative to these topics, this has nothing to do with anything that is "bollox." 

You refer to "established science" in the same paragraph you refer to "mystical experiences", but that doesn't mean the two are in the same context. You deny any attempt to refute your support of these concepts by simply waving your hands ("it has nothing to do with anything that is 'bollox'). It's clear you've bought into the video woo because it confirms biases you already have towards the subject, and you've lost all objectivity. You make too many leaps from conjecture to conjecture, and I find it lax and unmeaningful. Furthermore, you constantly allow yourself to move the goalposts, claiming that if people don't believe this way, they didn't do it right, they didn't have the complete experience. That's a really lazy, cognitively biased way to address any phenomenon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kafei said:

I have, in fact, provided evidence for the existence of God. I'd wager either A.) you haven't properly understood the research and B.) you've obviously not had a mystical experience for yourself as these researchers established the fact that when an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, they will no longer identify with atheism after this event. The "complete" mystical experience was demonstrated to be a conversion experience for atheists.

Lectures are fine provided you accurately link them as representing notions you agree with and not evidence which validate your beliefs. People given drugs in a controlled environment with the goal of inducing a particular experience is not evidence that god exists. At best the John Hopkins Psilocybin Research Project is evidence that Psilocybin can produce a supernatural sensation. There are many types of psychiatric drugs capable of producing a lot of different types of experiences. 

58 minutes ago, Kafei said:

More accurately, I've posted evidence that mystical experience/religious experience can be elicited by natural means or by psychedelics.

Yes, hallucinations can be brought on by dehydration, starvation, lack of sleep, fever, physical fatigue, lack of oxygen, a wide variety of health issues, and so on. No one here is arguing against the existence of hallucinations. 

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

None of the professionals characterize the experience as a "brain now working." While you may not be able to drive during an experience like this, it's in no way a detrimental state of the mind, and the research has demonstrated that to be the case. People benefit greatly from these experiences. The modern research has shown that the majority of the volunteers in each one of these studies is able to benefit from it from the terminally-ill cancer patients whom after this experience, no longer fear death, they're able to live out the rest of their lives in open-mindedness and comfort, the nicotine addicts are able to quite smoking without recidivism, they want to start testing this stuff on alcoholics, and God knows we need that, and it's even shown to be beneficial for the healthy volunteers. So... I mean, what more evidence do you need?

History is full of drugs which came with the promise of making people smarter, stronger, happier, and etc. Cocaine was initially viewed as a fantastic focus drug that helped people get work done, steroids made people more youthful providing boost to energy and strength, opioids are an excellent pain killer. Over initial adoptions of drugs have resulted in millions of ruined lives. Kids today are using adderall and Ritalin as a study drugs to get better grades yet the link between those drugs and suicides rates isn't fully understood. We should always be cautious with mind/personality altering drugs. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.