Kafei

Thanks? Your statement above is a complete mischaracterization of what's been demonstrated by the science. I'd argue that you've not comprehended the research, and you possess the same biased tendencies expressed by many of the commenters here, and it's evidenced by little details such as your intentional misspelling of psychedelic. I'm not pissy at all, and what criticism? I cannot discern any. All that people have expressed here are vacuous statements in the face of the science that's been established. Pointed out what specifically? More empty criticism? Empty criticism is not criticism, you do realize this, right?

You do realize I'm not saying anything other than what's been demonstrated by the research, don't you? You still don't get it. I'm not a Christian or a Muslim or Catholic. I have no issue referring to myself as a Perennialist, because that was the conclusion of the research. Perennialism is not a religion, by the way. Perhaps instead of focusing on ad hominem attacks, maybe you should actually pay attention to the science of which I've referenced. Again, this is your misconception. Perennial philosophy is also referred to as the Perennial wisdom or Perennialism, it's not necessarily a philosophy, per se, as you keep assuming. It's rather a perspective on the major religions which is congruent with our modern science. If that's so, please point out which rule I broke? I maintain I did not break any rules. What you fail to realize is I've done this, and every single time, the thread is closed. Yeah, more baseless accusations. Where's the specificity? Where do you point out how I supposedly broke the rules? This is simply empty criticism, and you've shown nothing to back up your case.

Again, as Strange pointed out, it's not expressed so crassly. Your issue is that you think that the research title is going to read "Science proves God," but what you don't realize is God is not the only name for the divine, and so it's expressed in a more sophisticated fashion within the science that's been done of which you cannot seem to comprehend, and that is the divine is demonstrated via the Perennial philosophy. Again, I'm not saying anything other than what's been demonstrated by this research. They are controlling by the fact that they misconstrued what is essentially legitimate science as "not science." And I'm no crackpot, as I've pointed out, you atheists/agnostics have a great propensity to make accusations, but you fail to back them up. I could call you a crack pot, too, but in order to confirm it, I should have evidence for my claim, of which you do not. And that's an example, I'm not calling you a crackpot, nor do you have evidence that your accusation is true.

I'm simply reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done. That's all. If it sounds like repetition to you, it's because I have to keep clarifying the same points over and over for people who can't seem to comprehend them, like yourself.

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.

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.

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. 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? I was referring specifically to the commenters in this thread. You may be referring to all the participants throughout this forum. 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.

I've not cherry-picked a single thing. Notice how all you atheists/agnostics make accusations that you can never back up. 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. That's simply how it came out. You can copy and paste that link into a browser, you know. Some? Try all. Just look at all the ad hominem attacks throughout this thread. No one's debunked this research, and the MODs shouldn't be controlling content that reveals legitimate science if this is a science forum.

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 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

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 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.

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. 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. What makes you think I have a religion? That's what I've been doing, if you haven't noticed. Oh, please. You're going off on a tangent.

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=53m52s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

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.

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.

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. Well, then would you call her a "God botherer"? No, the picture is pretty much a stereotypical representation of male atheists.

You really hate theists, don't you?

What nail? What argument are you talking about? You've never presented any evidence for your case. No, the closures and the downvotes on my post are a testament to the fact that these threads are simply filled with biased atheists. That's all that means. I know you'd like to think it means something else, but that'd be wishful thinking.

Attacking the person? I'm merely deflecting what beecee said towards me. Why didn't you criticize her/him for attacking me? You conveniently overlooked that, and this is more evidence of the biases that are rampant here. Either way, you agreed with what they said. Doesn't matter if you quoted someone else. The claims simply aren't true. You've never presented me with any evidence that contradicts the science I've cited. You merely quote out-dated articles and think you've made a point. I'm citing very recently published science and even linked to lectures of current science that still in progress like the self-confirmed atheists who volunteered to participate in this research. That study is still going on.

Yeah, it is. beecee said, "And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance." If I was wrong I wouldn't be here, the fact that he/she (I'm not sure) projects concepts like "must win," that I'm supposedly ignoring points which invalidates the research I've cited. Well, it's precisely the opposite, I'm not here to win anything. I'm merely reiterating precisely what the science that's been done has established. The truth is beecee can't fathom the fact that he/she may be wrong, and that's why you see projections such as "must win," because that's how he/she exhibits her/hiself.

I did discuss and explain the content in the lectures, and those lectures are their to aid your understanding, they are for your benefit. I've seen all of 'em in their entirety. I follow this research quite diligently, I've read all the peer-reviewed and published material relative to this research. Maybe if you actually read that block of text, you'd realize I did answer you. What point? He said absolutely nothing in specific, he just made a whole bunch of baseless accusations.

You say a lot of nothing. What points in particular did I not address? There's absolutely no specificity at all in your post, just pure empty and baseless criticism.

Yet no MOD can specifically point out how I broke any rules.

What rule was broken? As far as I can discern, I've broken not a single rule.

A thread I participated was closed due because I essentially shared legitimate science being done in a science forum. This site is ridiculous.

I've already explained, it won't be exclaimed so crassly as "Science demonstrates the existence of God," I don't know why atheists carry that expectation. Instead, it's expressed a bit more sophisticated in that they say mystical states of consciousness are evidence for the Perennial philosophy, a view which sees an universal underlying divine source at the root of all the world's major religions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf This is not a debunking. The host of this video misrepresents not only the scientific research which actually has a rich history initiating with the work of William James, but he also misrepresents Jordan Peterson's commentary. You're going to close the thread because I'm redirecting people's attention to the peer-reviewed and established science that's been done on these topics? I knew these forums were biased.