koti Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 46 minutes ago, Kafei said: You really hate theists, don't you? Would you consider putting your strong religious views aside, sticking around and actually learning something? Afterall this is a science forum and we’re all here for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 48 minutes ago, Kafei said: You really hate theists, don't you? Not in the least, considering I've been married to the same woman for 42 years, who is and always has been a devout Christian in the true sense of the word. Nice picture...were you standing in front of a mirror? 1 hour ago, rangerx said: And bringing it up in subsequent threads is against the rules. Tick tick, tick tick... Yes, This I suspect though this is simply "spitting the dummy" and doing his best to drag someone else down with him. Going once, going twice, going, going.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, koti said: Would you consider putting your strong religious views aside, sticking around and actually learning something? Afterall this is a science forum and we’re all here for that. I'm not speaking on behalf of any "strong religious view," I'm speaking on behalf of the science that's been done. What you fail to realize is I am talking about science. 2 minutes ago, beecee said: Not in the least, considering I've been married to the same woman for 42 years, who is and always has been a devout Christian in the true sense of the word. Nice picture...were you standing in front of a mirror? Well, then would you call her a "God botherer"? No, the picture is pretty much a stereotypical representation of male atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kafei said: I'm not speaking on behalf of any "strong religious view," I'm speaking on behalf of the science that's been done. What you fail to realize is I am talking about science. No your not. Quote Well, then would you call her a "God botherer"? No, the picture is pretty much a stereotypical representation of male atheists. Of course not! Unlike you, she isn't going around preaching rhetorical rubbish, trying to convince people of her beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, beecee said: No your not. The only reason you say that is you cannot accept that there is actually science out there that undermines the atheist position. It's funny, 'cause atheists always say stuff like, "If evidence was presented, then I will cease being atheist." Untrue, and you're a primary example. Quote Of course not! Unlike you, she isn't going around preaching rhetorical rubbish, trying to convince people of her beliefs I'm not doing that either, I'm merely redirecting people's attention to established science. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei I'd like to emphasize that I want those downvotes to keep comin'. Keep 'em comin'. This is only proves the biases here on this website. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 9 hours ago, Phi for All said: I'll also throw in that any discussion suffers when any of the participants adopts a must-win-the-debate attitude that precludes them from recognizing competing points and good arguments. Kafei, your style suffers from this a lot, and while you think it makes you victorious, it just frustrates others that they continually have to keep pointing to what they said two minutes ago, which you ignored in favor of waving your hands and repeating your same refuted arguments. It's difficult to know if you choose to do this consciously or not. The results are the same, so what does it matter? You're ignoring points that don't agree with you, which amounts to soapboxing, which is just one of the rules you broke. 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: The only reason you say that is you cannot accept that there is actually science out there that undermines the atheist position. It's funny, 'cause atheists always say stuff like, "If evidence was presented, then I will cease being atheist." Untrue, and you're a primary example. I'm not doing that either, I'm merely redirecting people's attention to established science. Ahh the marvels of the electronic age... You've convicted yourself matey. This dramatically illustrates the bias in your lengthy rhetorical posts and incorrect claims. You have bias and you have lost control it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, beecee said: This dramatically illustrates the bias in your lengthy rhetorical posts and incorrect claims. You have bias and you have lost control it seems. Yeah, you make accusations, but you never back 'em up. I've emphasized this every single time. All you have, as I've demonstrated thus far, is empty criticism and false accusations. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 25 minutes ago, Kafei said: The only reason you say that is you cannot accept that there is actually science out there that undermines the atheist position. What science which undermines the atheist position are you talking about? Lets see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, koti said: What science which undermines the atheist position are you talking about? Lets see it. I've posted many links throughout a couple of threads, but the MODs close the threads, and tell me not to post links to the science that's been done. Go figure. The YouTube links here are lectures given by professionals who've contributed to this research. The lectures are there to aid your understanding and for your convenience. I don't post them for my own convenience as I've listened to all of them in their entirety, some of them even twice or thrice. If you're not interested in the lectures, then skip to the very bottom links which contain summaries of the peer-reviewed and published studies which have been accumulating for decades now since the work of William James. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdfhttps://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 13 minutes ago, Kafei said: I've posted many links throughout a couple of threads, but the MODs close the threads, and tell me not to post links to the science that's been done. Go figure. The YouTube links here are lectures given by professionals who've contributed to this research. The lectures are there to aid your understanding and for your convenience. I don't post them for my own convenience as I've listened to all of them in their entirety, some of them even twice or thrice. If you're not interested in the lectures, then skip to the very bottom links which contain summaries of the peer-reviewed and published studies which have been accumulating for decades now since the work of William James. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdfhttps://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf Linking When you link to another website, don't do the "Click Here" gimmick. It gives people no idea what you're linking to. Rather, you should make the link text descriptive of what the link actually is about. Hijacking Try not to hijack a thread and bend the topic to your will. Nobody likes a megalomaniac. Try to stay on topic and keep to what the original poster said. Converting the Heathens Don't try to convert people to your religion. Leave them alone. If you try, you'll find yourself banned. Allow Comment If you're posting an idea, be receptive to comments. If someone criticizes you, don't get mad at them. Take the comment well and, if necessary, reply to them to defend yourself (without being mean or nasty). Tick tick, tick tick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, rangerx said: Linking When you link to another website, don't do the "Click Here" gimmick. It gives people no idea what you're linking to. Rather, you should make the link text descriptive of what the link actually is about. I've done that in other threads. I'm not doing a "click here" gimmick. I plan to stick around and help people understand this research and pacify misconceptions. Don't assume this is some "click here" bait, because it's simply not. I'm going to continue to post on this thread as long as the MODs don't close it. Just now, rangerx said: Hijacking Try not to hijack a thread and bend the topic to your will. Nobody likes a megalomaniac. Try to stay on topic and keep to what the original poster said. I am the original poster, and I am speaking on the fact that the MODs here are biased and I cannot express the very science that's been done relative to these topics. Just now, rangerx said: Converting the Heathens Don't try to convert people to your religion. Leave them alone. If you try, you'll find yourself banned. What makes you think I have a religion? Just now, rangerx said: Allow CommentIf you're posting an idea, be receptive to comments. If someone criticizes you, don't get mad at them. Take the comment well and, if necessary, reply to them to defend yourself (without being mean or nasty). That's what I've been doing, if you haven't noticed. Just now, rangerx said: Tick tick, tick tick.. Oh, please. You're going off on a tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 18 minutes ago, Kafei said: I've posted many links throughout a couple of threads, but the MODs close the threads, and tell me not to post links to the science that's been done. Go figure. The YouTube links here are lectures given by professionals who've contributed to this research. The lectures are there to aid your understanding and for your convenience. I don't post them for my own convenience as I've listened to all of them in their entirety, some of them even twice or thrice. If you're not interested in the lectures, then skip to the very bottom links which contain summaries of the peer-reviewed and published studies which have been accumulating for decades now since the work of William James. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdfhttps://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf Since this is surely getting locked anyway, I might as well... I have experience with psilocybin from when I was in my 20’s. No god there, just a trip and digestion problems, sory to break it to you. You must be joking posting links to those yutube videos as evidence for „undermining the atheist position” You either have no idea what you’re talking about or you’re a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, koti said: Since this is surely getting locked anyway, I might as well... I have experience with psilocybin from when I was in my 20’s. No god there, just a trip and digestion problems, sory to break it to you. Most people who've taken psychedelics have not had what these researchers are calling a "complete" mystical experience, and so they have absolutely no idea what these researchers are talking about. You see, the doses used in the research are quite high, we're speaking of a dose range of which Terence McKenna referred to as the "heroic dose." This is necessary to elicit what these researchers are calling a "complete" mystical experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_6Wf8Xuq70&t=8m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s Quote You must be joking posting links to those yutube videos as evidence for „undermining the atheist position” You either have no idea what you’re talking about or you’re a troll. I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about as I've been following this research about a decade now. I assure you, I'm no troll. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, Kafei said: I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about as I've been following this research about a decade now. Dunning Kruger Effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Strange said: Really? See that bit: "Our rules state ..." ? I'd argue that swansont is just being introduced to this research, and by virtue of his naiveté and lack of familiarity with this research, and the fact that he was just being introduced it, he failed to recognized that it is, indeed, science. My initial post should have never been closed for false reason shown in the screenshot. 8 minutes ago, rangerx said: Dunning Kruger Effect This is a common go-to for atheists, to criticize anything they have a gut-level distaste for as the "Dunning Kurger Effect." I see it quite often, but no, this is a false summation. This is merely a narrative that atheists repeat in order to shelter their stance from being demised. It's a straw man argument that attacks the person, and not the science of which I've cited. It's pure ad hominem, through and through, even Jordan Peterson has also spoken on this phenomenon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Q4CXvqLM4 Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'd argue that swansont is just being introduced to this research, and by virtue of his naiveté and lack of familiarity with this research, and the fact that he was just being introduced it, he failed to recognized that it is, indeed, science. My initial post should have never been closed for false reason shown in the screenshot. You have ignored the bit about the rules violation. But this is not surprising given your cherry picking approach to the evidence. 56 minutes ago, Kafei said: I've posted many links throughout a couple of threads, but the MODs close the threads, and tell me not to post links to the science that's been done. Go figure. The YouTube links here are lectures given by professionals who've contributed to this research. The lectures are there to aid your understanding and for your convenience. I don't post them for my own convenience as I've listened to all of them in their entirety, some of them even twice or thrice. If you're not interested in the lectures, then skip to the very bottom links which contain summaries of the peer-reviewed and published studies which have been accumulating for decades now since the work of William James. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdfhttps://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf If you didn't keep copying and pasting exactly the the same links with no explanation of what they are, then maybe you wouldn't be considered to be in violation of the rules. You can't even be bothered to fix that second to last link so it works. This shows a certain level of disregard for your audience. 2 hours ago, Kafei said: You really hate theists, don't you? Some people here do, that is true. I certainly don't. I don't really care about what people believe. I will criticise people for misuse of logic or science to support their views. But I will criticise atheists for doing that just as much as religious people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'd argue that swansont is just being introduced to this research, and by virtue of his naiveté and lack of familiarity with this research, and the fact that he was just being introduced it, he failed to recognized that it is, indeed, science. My initial post should have never been closed for false reason shown in the screenshot. This is a common go-to for atheists, to criticize anything they have a gut-level distaste for as the "Dunning Kurger Effect." I see it quite often, but no, this is a false summation. This is merely a narrative that atheists repeat in order to shelter their stance from being demised. It's a straw man argument that attacks the person, and not the science that's I've cited. The owners and mods of this board have no obligation to host your nonsense. If you want to play the game, abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules, leave the game. You don't get to make up new rules or create bogus reasons for ignoring them. And just so you know... Dunning-Kruger is widely accepted science, even among theists, particularly because it's not exclusive to religion. For someone who is (feebly) claiming everyone else is dismissive of (debunked) science, you've added a heaping helping of hypocrisy to your blathering. Tick tick, tick tick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Strange said: You have ignored the bit about the rules violation. But this is not surprising given your cherry picking approach to the evidence. I've not cherry-picked a single thing. Notice how all you atheists/agnostics make accusations that you can never back up. Quote If you didn't keep copying and pasting exactly the the same links with no explanation of what they are, then maybe you wouldn't be considered to be in violation of the rules. Recall, I did post what these links entail in other threads that were closed. Not only that, but the lectures explain the scientific research. So, it's not as though I left no explanation. All the details are in the peer-reviewed material of which I've linked as well. So, this is yet another example of a baseless criticism that's been charged against me. Quote You can't even be bothered to fix that second to last link so it works. This shows a certain level of disregard for your audience. That's simply how it came out. You can copy and paste that link into a browser, you know. Quote Some people here do, that is true. I certainly don't. I don't really care about what people believe. I will criticise people for misuse of logic or science to support their views. But I will criticise atheists for doing that just as much as religious people. Some? Try all. Just look at all the ad hominem attacks throughout this thread. 10 minutes ago, rangerx said: The owners and mods of this board have no obligation to host your nonsense. If you want to play the game, abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules, leave the game. You don't get to make up new rules or create bogus reasons for ignoring them. And just so you know... Dunning-Kruger is widely accepted science, even among theists, particularly because it's not exclusive to religion. For someone who is (feebly) claiming everyone else is dismissive of (debunked) science, you've added a heaping helping of hypocrisy to your blathering. Tick tick, tick tick... No one's debunked this research, and the MODs shouldn't be controlling content that reveals legitimate science if this is a science forum. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: I've not cherry-picked a single thing. You picked out the part of swansont's post that was not about the rules and ignored the bit that was about the rules. Sounds like cherry-picking to me. 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: That's simply how it came out. You can copy and paste that link into a browser, you know. And this is typical of your arrogance. You are providing the link to help other people, so wouldn't it be in their and your interests for you to fix it. That way it gets fixed once so anyone can click on it, rather than making everyone else do this every time they need to use it. 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: Some? Try all. Definitely not. There are people here who regularly defend religion (even though they are not very religious themselves) and there are people here who are clearly fairly or very religious. 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: and the MODs shouldn't be controlling content They are not controlling (in the sense of limiting) your content. You have posted your ideas and your links (multiple times). They have never been deleted. You have nothing new to add so closing your threads does no harm. Edited September 12, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Strange said: You picked out the part of swansont's post that was not about the rules and ignored the bit that was about the rules. Sounds like cherry-picking to me. No, I was emphasizing the fact that you misconstrued legitimate science that's been established over decades as "There's no science here." That was just blatant ignorance on his behalf. 1 minute ago, Strange said: And this is typical of your arrogance. You are providing the link to help other people, so wouldn't it be in their and your interests for you to fix it. That way it gets fixed once so anyone can click on it, rather than making everyone else do this every time they need to use it. You act as though it takes a lot of effort to copy and paste that link into a browser. This is a very petty criticism. http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf There, are you happy? 1 minute ago, Strange said: Definitely not. There are people here who regularly defend religion (even though they are not very religious themselves) and there are people here who are clearly fairly or very religious. I was referring specifically to the commenters in this thread. You may be referring to all the participants throughout this forum. 1 minute ago, Strange said: They are not controlling (in the sense of limiting) your content. You have posted your ideas and your links (multiple times). They have never been deleted. You have nothing new to add so closing your threads does no harm. Closing threads ceases discussion, and especially when MODs leave comments such "There is no science here," when I'm referring to, in fact, decades of established scientific research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Kafei said: Most people who've taken psychedelics have not had what these researchers are calling a "complete" mystical experience, and so they have absolutely no idea what these researchers are talking about. You see, the doses used in the research are quite high, we're speaking of a dose range of which Terence McKenna referred to as the "heroic dose." This is necessary to elicit what these researchers are calling a "complete" mystical experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_6Wf8Xuq70&t=8m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s Oh right...you can look into mystical experiences after taking heroic doses of Ayahuasca and Kambo, those are a lot more trippy than psilocybin but...no god there as well, sory. Stuffing your brain with psychodelic substances has as much to do with evidence for god as praying has to do with curing cancer. You can take your BS and feed it to the people at IgotHighOnShroomsAndIthinkIsawGod.net Edited September 12, 2018 by koti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, koti said: Oh right...you can look into mystical experiences after taking heroic doses of Ayahuasca and Kambo, those are a lot more trippy than psilocybin but...no god there as well, sory. Stuffing your brain with psychodelic substances has as much to do with evidence for god as praying has to do with curing cancer. You can take your BS and feed it to the people at IgotHighOnShroomsAndIthinkIsawGod.net Your narrative of "Oh, sorry, no God there" is simply your opinion. I'd argue that the science I've referenced would entirely disagree with your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kafei said: Your narrative of "Oh, sorry, no God there" is simply your opinion. I'd argue that the science I've referenced would entirely disagree with your statement. I thought you said that would be a crass interpretation of the science? 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: No, I was emphasizing the fact that you misconstrued legitimate science that's been established over decades as "There's no science here." That was just blatant ignorance on his behalf. And this is moving the goalposts (another rhetorical fallacy; you will have the whole set soon). I quoted swansont to answer your comment that no one had told you what rule had been broken. He had. 7 minutes ago, Kafei said: You act as though it takes a lot of effort to copy and paste that link into a browser. It takes more effort for 10 people to do that than for you to fix it once. 8 minutes ago, Kafei said: There, are you happy? I bet next time you repost your list of links (and you will) it is broken again. 9 minutes ago, Kafei said: Closing threads ceases discussion, and especially when MODs leave comments such "There is no science here," when I'm referring to, in fact, decades of established scientific research. But you have nothing new to contribute to discussion. You simply repeat the same thing again and again. Sometimes just copying and pasting it. This is not a discussion, it is soapboxing (another rule violation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Strange said: I thought you said that would be a crass interpretation of the science? While God is definitely intrinsic to the Perennial philosophy, it is less frequently referenced because of its loaded connotations, but make no mistake, it is definitely the point once properly understood and relieved from the preconceived notions, the connotations, the misconceptions, and the presuppositions that many people carry relative to the terms involved in these dialogues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 1 hour ago, koti said: What science which undermines the atheist position are you talking about? Lets see it. There was none, and never was none. I personally requested a dozen times to link me to the exact piece claiming that this was evidence of god...It never happened, just the usual conspiracy, obtuseness, and claims of legitimate conclusive science. No conclusion was reached other then in the mind of the instigator of this nonsense, and driven by his incredible bias. Again my only criticism of the mods is excess leaning over backwards to give him a chance. As this thread suggests, he owns all the bias, and is attempting to now control through devious means his own content, on something that was previously locked and settled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts