Kafei

Well, that's what this science has precisely done, and I assure you, it's nothing to do with delusion. We're talking about decades worth of scientific research going back to the work of William James. Not the OP, the mainstream conception of the divine which atheists seem to share to is a major misconception according to Einstein. Einstein, by the way, was a Perennialist. All I'm doing is merely redirecting people's attention to the science that's been done. The spaghetti monster is a perfect parody of the misconceptions of God of which most atheists have, it's a deistic entity that is "out there" be it somewhere in the universe or somewhere outside of space and time. Einstein, again, rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion." Make no mistake, the research I've cited has demonstrated that the mystical experience is, indeed, evidence of the so-called Perennial philosophy. Most atheists' definition of God deny the relationship between humanity and the divine which is expressed in the view of the Perennial philosophy, atheists tend to necessarily define God as something by requirement is "supernatural" which to their definition is something that essentially defies the laws of physics. It's something that cannot be demonstrated by definition, but that is simply the misconception that most atheists have, even the celebrity ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-929oSyjk#t=51m12s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlmZxO79tCE#t=15m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzd6_ce0I#t=1h20m02s

I am in no way misinterpreting or misconstruing this research, and I've repeatedly pointed out that your conception of the divine as the "deity" is what Einstein rightly referred to as the "childish analogy of religion." Albert Einstein, of course, understood a more sophisticated view of the relation of humanity and divinity which is emphasized in these peer-reviewed studies as the Perennial philosophy. If anything, it takes an atheist who's so emotionally-invested in their own atheism that in the light of sheer evidence, they will not only flat-out deny it, but they will insult people to maintain their delusion.

I'm noticing a lot of atheists here have the pre-conceived notion that the divine should necessarily be defined as a "deity," and I realize many atheists have this misconception. The reason you cannot recognize this science as evidence for God is because you're defining God outside of the context of this research, and Einstein rightly referred to that notion of God as the "childish analogy of religion." He, of course, understood a more sophisticated notion of the divine which is emphasized in these peer-reviewed studies which I have linked to, by the way, throughout this thread. Another important point to highlight is that these aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. They are speaking on the research which has been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlmZxO79tCE#t=15m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-929oSyjk#t=51m12s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzd6_ce0I#t=1h20m02s http://csp.org/psilocybin/

I've made this point so many times, I don't even want to hear myself say this again, but I'll say it again. You see, I think it's a flat-out mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural. That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case. Einstein understood a more sophisticated notion of the divine which is also expressed in this research. The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions, the nascency of each of the world's great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they're referring to as a "mystical experience," and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon. I get the impression no one is clicking these links. These aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifzF2BJxEE#t=22m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oGjYqhhw#t=6m26s

The only person spamming and trolling is yourself. Again, this is legitimate science I've referenced and I've not misrepresented it at all. I've been following this research for about a decade now only to find it has a richer history initiating with the work of William James, and so I made myself familiar with all the research relative to these topics that have been going on for decades now. Your issue is you think God is going to come in the form of a "deity," and Einstein rightly referred to that notion of God as the "childish analogy of religion." He, of course, understood a more sophisticated notion of the divine which is also expressed in this research. No, actually it was shown that the psilocybin-induced experience is virtually identical to those naturally occurring mystical experiences reported by mystics throughout the ages. That was the core finding of the research and it completely aligns with the view historically known as the Perennial philosophy.

I keep having to repeat this, but it's important enough to repeat. You see, it's a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural. That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case.The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions, the nascency of each of the world's great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they're referring to as a "mystical experience," and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon. I get the impression no one is clicking these links. These aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifzF2BJxEE#t=22m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oGjYqhhw#t=6m26s It is part of mainstream science, yes, the rest of the world has to catch, but this is, indeed, part of our mainstream science, and the professionals involved do consider mystical experience the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy, and as I've emphasized over and over, the divine is defined within this context. How do you know you're not pursuing some agenda? Are you an atheist? All I've done here is merely reiterate precisely what's been established by the science that's been done. So, you are atheist. No wonder you're having trouble coming to terms with this research. Atheists are all gung-ho when science suits their agenda, but when science contradicts their stance, they accuse people of lying, being delusional, obtuse, etc. Well, I'm not lying and I'm not delusional nor am I obtuse. If anyone is exhibiting those qualities, it is only yourself. It actually does show more than that. They've demonstrated that the psilocybin-induced mystical experience in the volunteer is virtually identical to those naturally occurring mystical experience reported by mystics throughout the ages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQOpWlyV5Q&t=4m51s

You're welcome to your opinion, but as I've pointed ad nauseum at this point, the actual science that's been done would disagree with you. The divine is now evidenced and it's now part of modern science. Get over it. Again, the science has demonstrated that the divine has always come by a revelation of the mind be it Jesus' experience of The Father or Siddartha Gautama's experience of Nirvana or Plotinus' experience of "The One," all these are metaphors for mystical states of enlightenment, and the science had demonstrated this to be the case. They're rather scientific facts based on established research which has been accumulating for decades now.

It seems as though you're just being introduced to this research. The so-called "complete" mystical experience is concretely defined within this research, and they're defining the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

This is legitimate research that has taken place and which the more recent studies have been published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. The methodology is explained in the peer-reviewed material as these are double-blind trials. Even Dawkins himself has recognized the scientific efficacy of the double-blind method. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCpDPlt59g#t=2m55s http://csp.org/psilocybin/

Alex Grey was an atheist prior to his own mystical experience, and you also failed to recognize that he was addressing a panel of professional who did not disagree with his comments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jd4PKMUJBI Yes, I've explained throughout this thread that the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and I recommend reading the top post on page 3 as I've elaborated on what this view on the major religions entails. It's not speculation at this point, this research as I've said goes all the way back to William James. The mystical experience is pretty much a scientific concept at this point, and they're defining in accordance with the Perennial philosophy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s The bolded text above is simply from an out-dated article. I've referenced more contemporary material which as Alex Grey rightly points out (and which the panel of professionals did not disagree) is the best evidence we have for the existence of God. I'm actually familiar with all of these articles, and again, the text you're highlighting is no longer the case, as I've mentioned, you're citing an out-dated article which is misrepresentative of the more current research relative to these topics. Psliocybin is an entheogen, caffeine is not.

Only that wasn't the conclusion of the research. Way to mischaracterize it there. What you don't seem to grasp is that this is actually legitimate science that's been done. 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=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

Smh. Alex Grey is a famous painter who just so happened to be at that lecture given by a panel of professionals who've contributed to this research, and they had no disagreement with his comments. What you fail to realize is that this research has a rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it was further elaborated throughout the decades by Walter. T. Stace, Ralph Hood, and Walter Pahnke, and it's been most refined in this more current research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine. No, I'm not wrong, and I am precisely reiterating this research as it has been presented. You referenced an article, I'm referencing peer-reviewed and published studies. Once again, I'd maintain the science would disagree with you. I suggest you look at the actual research and not some article that misrepresents it. It's also out-dated back to 2009, the research has come a long way since then, and the paper I've cited below was published in 2017. https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

I never said anything about conspiracy. Well, I maintain the science would disagree with you. This is, in fact, the first time science has recognized the existence of God. And calling an experience "subjective" is in no way a criticism as all experience is essentially subjective. That's empty criticism. And I truly doubt that you've had what these professionals are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience of which even for the atheists who attended this study, they no longer identified with atheism after this event. A "complete" mystical experience has been scientifically demonstrated to be a conversion experience for atheists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s

As Alex Grey rightly points out in a comment given to a panel of professionals who've contributed to this science is that this should be world-shattering news, and while it's been in the media, it's definitely not as popular as it rightly should be. However, it is definitely becoming more and more known. People are no doubt waking up to the science that's been done. Again, as Alex Grey correctly points out, this is the best scientific evidence we have for the existence of God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s

I'm merely redirecting people's attention to the science that's been done relative to these topics, nothing more, nothing less.

Again, you've not shown this not to be the case. I've thoroughly explained that I've quoted several paragraphs on the top of page 3 in a response to Strange which elaborately explicates how the divine his being defined within the Perennial philosophy, a view on the major religions which is in congruence with the science that's been done. You'd be wrong once again as I was an agnostic prior to having a mystical experience for myself. And again, I'd point out that the science would disagree with you.

I'm sorry, but you've not shown any signs of comprehending the research as I'm not claiming anything other than what's been established by the science I've referenced. Well, it's not as though the external reality is not part of this experience, the core impression inside the "complete" mystical experience is a literal unity with all existence. That's not just a metaphor, that an actual possibility in consciousness which has been confirmed by modern science. And I have explained that the description of the divine is panentheistic as it derives from the "complete" mystical state of consciousness. I've explained that the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and I've quoted several paragraphs defining precisely what this view entails and how God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. If you're reacting in an emotional fashion, that's simply because you've an emotional investment in atheism that you may have to decondition yourself in order to properly understand the research. Jordan Peterson has recognized this gut-level disgust that atheists have when they intuit evidence that contradicts their stance. It's perfectly highlighted in the clip below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Q4CXvqLM4 It's not that I'm bloody awful of explaining myself, it's rather that you're clearly not paying attention. I have quoted several paragraphs that go in-depth of defining the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy. You've obviously overlooked it. The post was directed to you and can be found on the very top of page 3. Well, you don't hear anyone calling caffeine an entheogen, do you?

I definitely would not compare psilocybin to caffeine, two entirely different drugs produce false analogies.

I'm not arguing that these experiences are "outside the brain," this is your misconception, and it's simply further evidence that you've not understood the research.

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 has always come as a revelation within a phenomenon in consciousness, and our modern science has recognized this phenomenon as the "complete" mystical experience which may have been happening since time immemorial.

Actually, I do have evidence, what you don't seem to grasp here is that the "complete" mystical experience is essentially a metanoia, it is a fundamental alteration of perception such that all that exist is literally perceived as one within this phenomenon in consciousness. 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. This is precisely why all the original descriptors for the divine, and the Perennial philosophy does, indeed, address this original etymology, so that you invariably find descriptions of the divine that are monistic, henotheistic, and panentheistic. So that the description of the divine embedded within the Perennial philosophy is panentheistic. This is precisely how Einstein defined God when he'd reference Spinoza, and Einstein himself admitted to having a mystical experience. So make no mistake, this scientific research that's been established is the best scientific evidence we have for the existence of God. https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/ Because simply he's had many professionals involved in this research on his podcast, and many individuals who've discussed these type of matters on his podcast. That's why I've referenced Joe Rogan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51PK6Hvaddg#t=1h30m08s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emNEgLP3Ds&t=1h38m30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGVEXR1GQs&t=2h17m31s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ1Dm-dcl68#t=50m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGHMv73_j04#t=1h34m24s

The science I've referenced is, indeed, evidence for the existence of God. You see, the problem with your search query is that you assume science is simply going to represent this research as "Evidence for existence of God," but the word God isn't the only name for the divine, so it's not expressed so crassly. Instead, the professionals say that mystical states of consciousness are evidence for the Perennial philosophy, that is to say evidence for the universal divine source which underlies all the world's great faith traditions. https://www.scribd.com/document/377509912/ME-2017CurrTopBehavNeuro-WCover-Copy http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf

I offered many paragraphs explaining how all this is represented within the Perennial philosophy. I had referenced the work of Ken Wilber, and so my guess is you probably overlooked it. You know, you can also Google the Perennial philosophy, even Wiki does on okay job of explaining it. Again, I don't know what your specific definition of God is, but the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy is defined quite specifically.

Well, like I said, you're obviously defining God out of its original context which is addressed by the Perennial philosophy.

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 something like that. However, what you don't seem to grasp is that God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy contained within this scientific research. So, you're merely creating a straw man argument with your comment.