Kafei

@beecee Ignoring the rest of your rhetorical preaching, the onus is on you to show me this evidence that supports some deity. If you are unable, then just admit that I was correct, and that all you have is philosophical musings. I maintain you're not paying attention. I emphasized that the notion of the divine as the "deity" is the childish analogy of religion as Einstein rightly pointed out. I don't admit you're correct, I maintain you've not heard what I said as the divine is not defined so childishly within the context of the Perennial philosophy. Again, mystical experiences are not evidence supporting some higher power or deity. Are you going to answer the question, or continue to evade? I've not evaded any questions. Again, I'd say the science that's been done of which I've referenced would disagree with you. Edited 7 minutes ago by beecee Yep, unscientific, unevidenced, excuses/myths to explain the universe around them. Science/cosmology of course has pulled the rug from underneath such nonsense and constructed models/theories, backed by evidence that supports a far more realistic scientific concept, and contrary to your final false claim, science continues to push back such mythical nonsense into oblivion and certainly not recognising. I disagree, again, I'd maintain this is your mere diatribe, this is a narrative you tell yourself based on your emotional investment in atheism so you never actually have to address science that actually undermines your very stance. Even Jordan Peterson has recognized this very phenomenon, and he describes you perfectly.

I maintain that you hold misconceptions on what you call the "supernatural." You think this has to be necessarily an attribute of the divine, and it is in certain senses of the word, but definitely not in the sense in which you've defined it. What you call supernatural completely denies the original descriptions of the divine found at the very heart of the major religions which are henoistic, monistic and panentheistic. Definitions to even Einstein adhered to as even he has admitted having a mystical experience in his lifetime. https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

As irrelevant as is the philosophical research you are supposedly directing people to. What do you mean by "philosophical research"? I never said anything about "philosophical research." This, again, is your projection. Perhaps you're referring to the Perennial philosophy? What must be emphasized is that the Perennial philosophy is not necessarily a philosophy, per se. It's rather a perspective on the major religions which views them as sharing a single universal divine source glimpsed in the mystical experience. You may see the word "philosophy" in the name "Perennial philosophy," but this view on the world's great faith traditions has also been referred to as the Perennial wisdom or Perennialism. To quote Dr. Bill Richards, a professional involved in this research : "This mystical consciousness we've come to, at least, I would argue that it's evidence of the so-called Perennial philosophy. In each of the great world's religions, there's a word that points to it. You know, samadhi in Hinduism, nirvana in Buddhism, sekhel mufla in Judaism, Theoria or the The Beatific vision in Christianity, baqá wa faná in Islam, The One in Neoplatonism, it is the Gnosis of the Gnostics and so on. It just seems to be something that's intrinsic to the human organism, and it can be facilitated in many different ways. Not everyone has to take psychedelics drugs, and actually there are many people who take psychedelics and don't have this experience, but it happens in some wonderful meditative states, it happens in sensory isolation and sensory flooding, sometimes it happens in natural childbirth. We guys can't explore that option. Sometimes it happens in midst of creative performance or athletic heights as in the runner's high, but it's just there, and some people would say that it comes purely as a gift of grace, you know, some people just wake up in the middle of the night and POOF! There it is. And it's so profound in its many variance. I like to distinguish between the visionary states of consciousness where there's an ego, you're everyday personality kind of looking, beholding, relating to something that is incredibly inspiring, but it's within the subject-object dichotomy. Then there's the unitive mystical consciousness where the ego or everyday personality seems to die, and immersed in this unitive state, sort of like the Hindu drop of water merging with the ocean, and then the rebirth of the ego afterwards. I would define that as the 'complete' mystical consciousness." - Dr. William (Bill) A. Richards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s I havn't got an issue, other then your pointless rhetorical repeats of what you supposedly claim in lengthy posts...so much to say with so little substance. Anyway I'm rather tired of answering all your mythical nonsensical claims so we'll skip to your final paragraph..... That point I'm trying to emphasize is that the major religions at their very root were about something concrete which our modern science is now recognizing and making people aware of today. The real reason why it is not headlines is simply because it is not as you claim...that is scientific evidence for some magical spaghetti monster. The research is emphasizing something more complicated than the parody of the spaghetti monster which is akin to Russell's teapot, it's a childish conception of the divine as Einstein rightly points out. Again, I believe it's more a comment on the maturation and the level to which people can grasp this research rather than it not being sufficient. It definitely is sufficient, and I'd maintain you're simply intellectually set-up to doubt simply because A.) you've not had a mystical experience, and B.) you've not fully grasped the implications of the research. You do realize when atheists volunteer for the so-called "complete" mystical experience, they no longer identify with atheism after this event? The science has demonstrated this to be the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s So now please tell this forum, and little old ignorant me, what is this empirical evidence that supports some being of supernatural qualities, or any interpretation that you seem to have. Please state this evidence/s and show how it is validated. ..show me some of this legitimate science and the empirical evidence supporting this concept...no links, no lengthy rhetorical excuses, what is this evidence. You're asking a loaded question, what do you mean by supernatural? I've already explained that this is a misconception of atheists. If I have to reiterate the point again, I guess it must be so, but I'll say it again... You see, it's actually a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something they often express as "supernatural." Now, there's two very popular definitions of this word, there's the definition of the supernatural of that which is beyond our current scientific understanding which would be true for mystical experience. It is beyond our current scientific understanding, we haven't even explained consciousness, let alone this other phenomenon of mystical experience which is a phenomenon in consciousnesss, so in this sense mystical experience is supernatural. However, there's the definition that many atheists use which is to define the supernatural as to be that which is metaphysical in the sense that defies the natural laws. 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," as I've been at great pains to emphasize, 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

@Moontanman You utterly failed to show that your assertions were anything but hallucinations, your assertions of effects outside the participants were no different that the effects of falling in love or nearly getting killed. Just because an experience changes your outlook on life doesn't mean god or some other supernatural cause was involved. What I've emphasized is this comment is a complete failure at actually understanding what this research conveys. No one is arguing mystical experiences are just mere hallucinations, not even the professionals involved in this research. Rather what they refer to as the "complete" mystical experience is something concretely defined, and they've recognized it reported within the scripture of all the world's major religions. Edit: There's a reason why these experiences are calling "mystical experiences" as opposed to "hallucinations." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s I asked you to not post youtube videos and stick to peer reviewed papers yet youtube videos are all you have which is tantamount to an appeal to authority fallacy. You claim you can do better, I suggest you do so and stop dancing around the issue... And I emphasized the fact that what you're calling "YouTube videos" are actually lectures on the peer-reviewed and published studies. You keep overlooking this fact. The lectures are only to help people understand what this research is about. I've also linked to the peer-reviewed studies throughout this thread that have been published in the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

IT WASN'T CLEAR THE TEXT WAS QUOTED. Sheesh Irrelevant. My point is I cited my source, and intended to emphasize the source of the quote. It was no attempt to plagiarize, if that's what you're insinuating. But, apart from those links, everything was copied from elsewhere, yes? The title, the body of the text (with no quotation marks or anything else to indicate it was copied from elsewhere) all copied? Yes, and I wasn't attempting to hide that fact. I agreed with the entire context of which was displayed. I thought it to be an accurate representation of this research. And yet you said: Are you trolling or just confused? No, I assure you, I'm not trolling. I sincerely am redirecting your attention to science which upholds this claim. Please, feel free to ask any questions. I'm quite familiar with this research and have been following it for about a decade now only to realize, as I've said, it has a very rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s. @Moontanman I am guilty. I am the friend that suggested he bring his assertions to the forum, we had a prolonged discussion about this topic and ended up in a stand still. I suggested he post here where assertions had to be backed up and the mods made sure if was fair. I don't agree with that. We didn't end in a stand still, perhaps in your eyes. All I saw was someone denying what is otherwise legitimate scientific research of which I've emphasized has been established by decades of research.

No you have presented nothing but philosophical musings Sir, and more to the point, science most certainly has shown ancient religious beliefs and myths to explain the universe around them as total nonsense...The Egyptians saw god in the Sun...other civilisations saw him/her in rivers, mountains etc. These points are irrelevant to the research of which I'm redirecting people's attention towards. The universe can be reasonably explained scientifically from t=10-43 seconds and work and research is continually being undertaken to further validate that picture. And of course the overwhelming evidence supporting that model [the BB] is now recognised by the Catholic church as is the theory of evolution. Well, if it's recognized by the church, then what's your issue? Is it? All I see is more philosophical musings. I once came upon a quote by someone saying that speaking broadly, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know" Try this one, it was uttered by Hypatia, I believe, she said echoing the teachings of Plotinus, "The goal of philosophy is a mystical union with the divine." What you have presented is nothing more then some speculative unsupported claims. I hardly call decades worth of established scientific research "unsupported claims." I maintain this is merely your projection. You've such an emotional investment to your atheism, that you in the light of clear evidence, you'll deny what is essentially a scientific concept at this point as an "unsupported claim." I'd say the science would disagree with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s Again many worthwhile speculative claims re the universe, what came before the BB and such are also presented, the difference being that those scientists specifically admit to such speculation. And of course most scientific theories and models were at one time simply speculation. And your philosophical musings and the philosophical musings from your article, are also no where near "validated" The article is referencing the same decades worth of cumulative scientific research that I've cited. Yes, what I'm talking about has been thoroughly validated. All you have referenced is philosophical musings All you have is false accusations. Challenge all you like. I have dealt with many who under different guises attempt to invalidate some aspect of science, or alternatively, trying to validate the unscientific notion of some super magical spaghetti monster. It aint science, period! I am challenging it. I'm saying you're essentially denying what is, indeed, raw science which has been done relative to these topics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=55m59s Again god or any supernatural, paranormal, event is unscientific, even though science certainly has done research into those areas, and come up essentially blanck. You see, I made this point earlier, but it's probably important to make it again. You see, it's actually a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something they often express as "supernatural." Now, there's two very popular definitions of this word, there's the definition of the supernatural of that which is beyond our current scientific understanding which would be true for mystical experience. It is beyond our current scientific understanding, we haven't even explained consciousness, let alone this other phenomenon of mystical experience which is a phenomenon in consciousnesss, so in this sense mystical experience is supernatural. However, there's the definition that many atheists use which is to define the supernatural as to be that which is metaphysical in the sense that defies the natural laws. 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," as I've been at great pains to emphasize, 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 We have overwhelming evidence supporting the BB, we have evidence showing that the theory of evolution of life is as close to certain as one could wish, and the simple fact that we are here, supports Abiogenisis at least once somewhere in the universe. I suppose you overlooked the fact that the science concluded that the mystical experience is, indeed, a natural phenomenon in consciousness. It's something that we all have the potential for. And I submit to you Sir, that if this was the case, it would be world wide headline news and people everywhere would be dropping to their knees. But the facts actually stand out like dog balls, in that all we have is another attempt by another newbie to try and justify the supernatural in whatever guise you chose by unsupported philsophical means and then pretentious objections when confronted. Well, recall, that's precisely what Alex Grey said, that this research should be headline news all over the world, it's a very shame that it's not, and I think that's more of a reflection of our society's maturation rather than the incontrovertible evidence presented by the research. @beecee No welcome to the place where no matter what section you post in, and on what subject matter, you will be confronted with scrutiny of unscientific baseless claims. So far you have failed miserably to present any concrete evidence that validates any concept of any supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky. You are not in the pulpit of your church on a Sunday, preaching to the mindless converted flock. Maybe because I'm not speaking of research that is validating the "supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky," this parody is precisely why many atheists cannot grasp this research, including celebrity atheists like Matt Dillahunty or even Richard Dawkins. Einstein rightly referred to as this the parody of what he called the "childish analogy of religion," and rightly so, and yet this is the concept most atheists have for their conception of God. What I've presented is legitimate science, by the way. Where's your evidence that what I've presented is supposedly, "unscientific baseless claims." That in and of itself is a baseless assertion.

Then you should have made it clear that you were quoting/copying the text from somewhere. You know, like use quotation marks. Or the QUOTE tag. That was my intention, that's why I attempted to use the HTML option, to make it clear that was the source, but like I said, it didn't work out. I apologize about that, but my intention was to make it clear that was the source of the quote. So shouldn't you have indicated that you copied that as well? I suppose I could've emphasized that, but is that stipulation truly relevant? In a way, I did, as that was the first link in the suggested lectures. So the very first link people would click on would reveal the title of the post. That's why I put it there. Your only contribution to that thread was a bunch of youtube links, then? No, as I emphasized, those weren't simply "Youtube links," those were lectures given by professionals who've performed actual science relative to these topics. This research initiated with the work of William James, it was further elaborated throughout the decades with the work of Walter T. Stace, Walter Pahnke, Ralph Hood, et al., and most refined in the more modern research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths and his team of professionals, and their initial study being published in 2006 in the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology, and they've been doing research since that continues to this day. I'm referring to _decades_ worth of established scientific research, and I linked at the very bottom to some published papers that sort of sum up the cumulative research. The "YouTube links" were for people's convenience to learn more about this research as they are lectures, like I said, given by professionals that are speaking on the peer-reviewed and published studies. They're definitely not for my convenience, I've seen 'em all in their entirety, some of them even more than once. I'm familiar with the peer-reviewed studies, all of them, I think, going back decades on this stuff. But So which is it? You think that hallucinations are evidence for god(s) or not? No, of course not, I think that's a gross interpretation of the research obviously based on an unfamiliarity and ignorance of it. I even had a discussion with Matt Dillahunty once on The Atheist Experience, and even he held these kind of misconceptions about the research. And when I attempted to school him, he got offended and hung up on me.

Because you screwed up the formatting, the word "source" can only be seen if you scroll the text to the right. As this appeared to be yet another link, I didn't see any need to do that. And as there was no reason to think the text was copied rather than your own words, there was no reason to go out of the way to identify a source. I was using HTML, I assumed you didn't have to create the <html> tag, but apparently you do, and you have to close it. PhiForAll definitely recognized I was citing a source. It doesn't matter anyway, my point is that I was citing my source, and I didn't intend for it to be interpreted as plagiarism. That's a false accusation. I cited the source as an attempt to link it with html, but it didn't work out. I'm getting used to the format, like I said, I am new to these forums. The source I've cited sums up the research rather nicely, and while I'm quite acquainted with this research and can speak on it myself, I didn't mind the summation contained in that article. I'd endorse the quote I've cited. So was your title ("This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God") deliberately misleading? No, not at all. It was quite sincere. The title was actually a quote from the Q&A section of a lecture given by a panel of professionals that are involved in this type of research. Alex Grey, the famous psychedelic artist who actually paints these psychedelic visions, he's painting the universal visual phenomena that are universally reported at the very height of these experiences, he commented that it was the first time that science has recognized the existence to which the panel did not show any signs of disagreement. So, yes, I submit to you and everyone that follows these threads that this scientific research has, indeed, demonstrated the existence of God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s

@swansont *You plagiarized material, you posted a bunch of links rather than discuss it - both of these are rules violations.* I didn't plagiarize material. You couldn't discern that the one link that was titled "source" wasn't the original text? @Phi for All Had no issue discerning that, and even acknowledged that I cited my source. So, your accusation is completely and utterly false. *Your post contained little science, and the links I checked did not support the title of the thread. Evidence that a drug will give you a "mystical" hallucination is not scientific evidence for the existence of God.* This is legitimate science being done here that has accumulated for decades now going back to the work of William James. This is established scientific research that you're obviously just being introduced to, and have also completely mischaracterized it in your summation above. The research did not conclude that ""mystical" hallucination is scientific evidence for the existence of God." Rather more accurately, and as explained in the very cited source of which I quoted from is that the mystical experience is evidence of the Perennial philosophy. That was the more accurate conclusion of the research. I don't see myself as an atheist, rather an observer to the fact that science has delivered us from such ancient mythical beliefs, through the scientific methodology. There's absolutely no science out there, sir, that has deemed the major religions as something from ancient mythical beliefs as though they were talking pure nonsense. To the contrary, I've presented science which shows the very opposite and by using the scientific methodology. The fact remains that science has pushed any need for any deity of any persuasion, into near oblivion. Still much to be done to explain all, but no reason or excuse for any short-circuiting or "god of the gaps" This is purely your misconception. This is your projection that God must be necessarily defined as a "deity." That is to say some type of being that's "out there" in or outside the universe, and that's not what the science is saying. Rather the science I've mentioned is congruent with the view of the major religions known as the Perennial philosophy which addresses an original etymology, not the contorted nonsense it's become today of which atheists attack. Atheists are essentially attacking a straw man argument, and this has been demonstrated by the science I've referenced. What you have presented is nothing more then some speculative unsupported claims. No, I'm referring to decades of scientific research that initiated with the work of William James in the early 1900s. We're well beyond speculation at this point. Again many worthwhile speculative claims re the universe, what came before the BB and such are also presented, the difference being that those scientists specifically admit to such speculation. And of course most scientific theories and models were at one time simply speculation. Again, I'm not talking about speculation, and mystics have been speculating what happened to prior to the Big Bang for centuries, long before physicists and modern scientists came into the scene. I admit to my amateur lay person status on this forum, as I have done many times, and certainly my ignorance exists in many areas. Well, one area it certainly exists in is in the science I've referenced. So, at least admit it. But I am able to sort the wheat from the chaff quite adequately and recognise pretentious carryings on. I challenge that. I don't think you're capable of that especially when you're you admit that you're ignorant about these things. In the meantime here is some worthwhile speculative science....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ I'm referencing modern research, the most recent of which published 2017, and on going research that is being done on self-confirmed atheists currently still in progress. It hasn't gone through the peer-review process yet, and I can't wait 'til they publish that study. Dr. Roland Griffiths has lectured on it. You're really going to reference science published in 2001? After all that, you offer some very weak criticism and judge what is essentially established scientific research as "unsupported claims." There's a reason I left all those links to the lectures on the peer-reviewed studies, it's so that people can actually inform themselves about this research, and the article I cited definitely summed up what the research is about.

@beeceeI read your post that is in question, and I call shananigans, bullshit and rubbish, all tied into one....psychedelic renaissance my arse! And no, science as yet does not recognise any supposed magical spaghetti monster or deity of any kind.Such mythical supernatural, paranormal nonsense is unscientific at best, and total nonsense at worst. You see, I think 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 This is first and foremost a science forum, and as such any non scientific non mainstream claim needs to run the gauntlet so to speak, but I can tell you without a shadow of doubt, that if there was any truth in the article you presented, and the provocative headline you installed, then it would be big world shattering news that every priest charlatan, and theologian would be shouting from the rooftops, your pretentious objections to the actions of the mods not withstanding. What I've presented is, in fact, science. I've reference cumulative research that has been peer-reviewed and published and has been accumulating for decades now all the way back to the work of William James. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR_jXm195Xs#t=16m51s There are many "speculative scientific" claims published in many reputable scientific journals, from multiverses to GR alternatives. They give us and scientists something to ponder over and either take up further research on the topic in question, or reject it. Most at best simply languish forever to be lost and forgotten. Again, I've referenced legitimate scientific research which you've just denied out of your ignorance and unfamiliarity with it. It's funny that atheists are willing to embrace science when it suits them, but deny it when it undermines their very stance, and that's the only reason I'm getting down votes on my posts.

@studiot This was a piece of journalism worthy of the Huffington Post instead of suitable material for a discussion site. At ScienceForums you have two degrees of freedom compared to the only one degree of freedom you would get on open court. 1) In both you can pose an identifiable question. 2) At SF you can also state (clearly and succinctly) a proposition for discussion. You have unfortunately achieved neither. Not true. I achieved both. If it wasn't clear or succinct for you, this may simply be because you're only being introduced to this research, and this is science that's taking place here. Let's make no bones about it. So I'm sure you are welcome to try again but cut it down to something short and identifiable. Rurther I wonder if you were referring to psychic surgery not psychedelic, which I associate with pop concerts and Pink Floyd. I'd rather not jump through your hoops just to get legitimate science recognized. If that's how you operate this forum, you really need to consider some revisions. @Phi for All The filters don't think, they look at people with fewer than 5 posts and flag their posts for approval if they have ANY links. The software isn't judging, nor would we want it to. It's just there to stop the hundreds of spam posts we get monthly. Sorry for the "atrocious" filters and the hassle, we're all volunteers, the site is non-commercial and only makes enough money to pay for the upkeep. Well, then what's the big deal? Why can't my post be published? You did cite the source, much appreciated. You just didn't use any of your own words, so it seemed odd that you chose discussion as your medium, when it looked more like you wanted to lecture using someone else's arguments. Not a huge deal, but I was trying to explain why your post was flagged for approval. Perhaps we require more rigor than you're used to? Not sure. Well, because I'm not the leader of the scientific research. It's not my argument, these are the claims of professionals. That's why I quoted the article relative to this research, and yes, I did cite my source. Thank you for acknowledging that. What you did was copy/paste part of an article that was entitled "Is Psychedelic Research Closer to Theology Than Science?" and re-titled it, "This Is The First Time Science Has Recognized the Existence of God". Anyone should be able to see the problem with THAT. Then you posted links to YouTube, which is always a big red flag for us, since so many people try to use us to promote their videos. It's part of our rules that posters can't require folks to go offsite or watch videos in order to participate, rules you agreed to when you signed up. We use links to support our arguments, and to show what we base critical thoughts on. The article you quoted was lean on science, and the links made it look like you wanted us to go searching offsite for the evidence to back up what someone else was claiming. Wrong. I wasn't necessarily re-titling the article. I titled the post that so that it could get views, sure, but it's also not a false title. And these aren't simply "YouTube videos," you say this as though it's all pseudoscientific. Sure, there's a lot of pseudoscience on YouTube, but the links I've left were of lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. They're speaking on the peer-reviewed and published research. And the title was actually taken from a comment given by Alex Grey to a panel of professionals involved in this research who've no issue of what he said. This is, indeed, the first time science has demonstrated the existence for God. Review the link for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s @Strange It wasn’t clear to me that the entire contents of your post was copied/quoted from elsewhere (which is itself a problem) so the “source” was just another link. I can only assume you have got away with this behaviour elsewhere because this is the first science forum you have joined. This is not the first science forum I've joined, and just because it wasn't clear for you, doesn't mean it was clear for others. It was the only link which indicated "Source," so how can you not recognize that? Even PhiForAll appreciated that I cited the source. He acknowledged this fact. And what behavior? I've done nothing wrong. I followed the rules. It's not my fault you have biased MODs that control the content of the this forum. Did you? Apart from youtube there was one link that didn’t work and another to an article of unknown provenance. Also neither the text you copied nor that article appear to support your claim in the title (or was that copied from someone else as well?) A bulk of this research has been peer-reviewed and published into the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. I sincerely request that my original post be published. There was no reason for it not to be published. http://csp.org/psilocybin/

@Phi for All Not when you don't include a ton of links in your first post. That's what spammers do, so we have procedures to deal with them. Those links were for people's convenience. Those were lectures given by actual professionals who have performed science relative to these topics. They are there to help people understand what the research is about. It wasn't an attempt to "spam." If you thought that spam, then your filters for so-called "spam" are atrocious. You also pasted a published piece without using any of your own words (except "Suggested Material"). We're used to folks making reference to published work, but your post was all copypasta. That delayed approval as well. I cited the source at the very bottom page. This is pure nonsense. This entire forum is biased. I've never had this experience at any other forum I've signed up to. And you should know, even though we have a Religion section, it's for discussing religious concepts using critically-thought-out methodology. We're a science discussion forum, and your post made many unscientific claims with no attempt to provide supportive evidence. I realize you didn't write the piece, but you posted it with a controversial title which was not supported by the content of your post. I posted links to the peer-reviewed and published studies relative to this research I've cited. So, that's absolute nonsense. This is essentially raw science that was denied by the MODs at a science forum. Smh. The title was supported by the research. If you actually reviewed it, you'd recognize that fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s Welcome to SFN. Welcome to a place where close-minded individuals get together and talk about nothing. Yeah, thanks. Great first impression.

I was invited from a friend, at least I hope he thinks of me as a friend, I try to befriend everyone online. I never ignore or block people. I think of myself a rational person, as an empiricist, and I try to attack arguments, not people. I attempted to post in the Religious thread, and it's been about 2 hours now, my comment is pending approval. In the meantime, my friend at G+ thought I should introduce myself. Is all that really necessary to initiate discussion relative these topics? Just wonderin'. Hadn't really needed to do this at any other forums I've posted at. Is that the norm here?

In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re in the middle of a psychedelic renaissance. Research into the healing potential of psychedelics has re-started at prestigious universities such as Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and Imperial College London, and is making rock stars out of the scientists carrying it out. Their findings are being reported with joy and exultation by mainstream media – on CNN, the BBC, even the Daily Mail. Respectable publishers such as Penguin are behind psychedelics bestsellers such as Michael Pollan’s book How To Change Your Mind (2018), which was reviewed enthusiastically across the political spectrum. Silicon Valley billionaires are putting their blockchain millions into funding psychedelics research, and corporates are preparing for a juicy new market. The counterculture has gone mainstream. Turn on, tune in, sell out. The renaissance involves the resurrection of many ideas from the first ‘summer of love’ in 1967, in particular, the mystical theory of psychedelics. This idea was introduced by Aldous Huxley in his classic The Doors of Perception (1954). Having studied mystical experiences for more than a decade without really having one, Huxley took mescaline, and felt that he’d finally been let in to the mystics’ club. Other 1960s gurus such as Alan Watts, Ram Dass and Huston Smith were also convinced that psychedelics led to genuine mystical experiences, and would be a catalyst for Western culture’s spiritual awakening. The mystical theory of psychedelics has five key tenets. The first is that psychedelics lead to a mystical experience of unitive, non-dual consciousness, in which all is one, you are united with It, God, the Tao, Brahman, etc. This experience is timeless, ineffable, joyful and noetic (you know that it is true). Second, that the psychedelic experience is the same as the experience of mystics, found in all religions. Different religions use different terms for ultimate reality, but all mystics are really having the same non-dual experience. This is the theory of the ‘perennial philosophy’, promoted by Huxley and other perennialists. It’s known in religious studies as the ‘universal core of religious experience’ theory. Third, that the mystical experience previously occurred mainly to ascetics such as St Teresa of Ávila, and was somewhat rare and unpredictable, therefore scientists dismissed it as ‘ego-regression’, ‘psychosis’ and so forth. But now psychedelics have revealed a predictable and replicable route to mystical experiences, so scientists can study them in the lab. They can measure them using brain-scans, or questionnaires such as the Hood Mysticism Scale, developed by the American psychologist Ralph Hood, which measures to what extent a person’s experience maps onto the ‘universal core’. Fourth, that this scientific research will create an empirical spirituality or ‘neuro-theology’. It will prove, or at least make more credible, the transcendent insights of the mystics. And finally, that this will change the world. Humanity will join a new scientific religion of mystical experience, beyond differences of language, nation, culture, religion, class, gender or ethnicity. We will all become liberal environmental progressives. We will all overcome our fear of death. After four centuries of materialism, Western culture will be re-enchanted, but in a predictable, rational and replicable way. Homo sapiens will be upgraded. These ecstatic ideas are back with a vengeance. The present psychedelic renaissance was started in 2006 by the Johns Hopkins’ psychedelic lab, with a paper called ‘Psilocybin Can Occasion Mystical-Type Experiences Having Substantial and Sustained Personal Meaning and Spiritual Significance’. This paper repeated the claim of Huxley et al that psychedelics (in this case, psilocybin or magic mushrooms) reliably lead to a unitive mystical experience which ‘may be foundational to the world’s ethical and moral systems’. It measured the depth of people’s mystical experiences using the Hood Mysticism Scale. Subsequent Johns Hopkins studies found that the stronger the mystical experience induced by psilocybin, the more people were freed from addiction, depression, even the fear of death. The millenarian hope bubbling below the cool, detached surface of the psychedelic renaissance is apparent if you read Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experience (2015) by William Richards, a psychologist at the Johns Hopkins psychedelic lab. The book climaxes in an epilogue of propositions that include: ‘In case you had any doubts, God (or whatever your favourite noun for ultimate reality may be) is’; ‘Consciousness, whether we like it or not, appears to be indestructible’; and ‘The ultimate nature of matter and mind (if you take the mystics seriously) appears to be an ontological source or force of energy called love.’ - Bill Richards Suggested material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxNk&t=53m52s 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 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 <A HREF="https://aeon.co/essays/is-psychedelics-research-closer-to-theology-than-to-science?hash=bb439c8a-f621-4580-a565-b76578106a07&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook>SOURCE</A>