The New Guy

[Kafei]

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? 

[Achilles]

Hello Kafei welcome to the forums.

[Silvestru]

3 hours ago, Kafei said:

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? 

Hello Kafei and welcome. Well maybe on other forums things go down differently but here unfortunately we have many members who try to spread baseless speculations. It's very good that you have this mindset. I also strive to become like you and attack arguments not people . On this forum we have to go the extra mile and (depending on the section you post in) attack arguments with data, proof points and valid sources.

Most members are very helpful so don't hesitate to ask any questions you might have. 

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Kafei said:

Is all that really necessary to initiate discussion relative these topics?

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. 

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. 

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.

Welcome to SFN.

[Kafei]

@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.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Kafei

[studiot]

As a most infrequent visitor to the religion section here I made a special trip to see what all the fuss was about.

 

This is my  honest impression/assessment.

 

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.

 

I once went to court to watch a friend of mine who was determined to conduct his case himself and he made the same mistake, insisting on diatribe attempting to question the witnesses.

He failed miserably.

Another friend once said for instance you do not say to the witness "The Highway Code says ......."

You have to pose it as a question.

 

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.

 

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

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.

8 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

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.

11 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

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.

27 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Welcome to a place where close-minded individuals get together and talk about nothing. Yeah, thanks. Great first impression.

I agree, great first impression.

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

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. 

27 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I posted links to the peer-reviewed and published studies relative to this research I've cited.

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?)

 

[studiot]

You may wish to look at a thread I started in what I consider the proper place  - Medical Science

Here I have tried to take my own advice about starting a topic.

 

 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Rurther I wonder if you were referring to psychic surgery not psychedelic, which I associate with pop concerts and Pink Floyd.

 

Brain salad surgery.

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Brain salad surgery.

Oooh, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. Welcome back my friends!

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Oooh, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. Welcome back my friends!

Yeah.

[Kafei]

@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/

[studiot]

48 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

I'm just a grunt I don't operate anything, but it's nice to know you appreciate my efforts on your behalf.

 

[rangerx]

51 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

Yes you have.
No you didn't.
Wrong. The mods could not be more fair. In fact, they have given you all of the gravity needed to make your case, instead you've attacked them personally. They see their fair share of crackpots, soapboxers and whiners.

You've demonstrated a semblance of the tenets of science, so I'll not suggest crackpotism, but you seem hellbent on the latter two.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

I 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. 

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.

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. 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by beecee

[Kafei]

@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.

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, Kafei said:

 You see, I think it's a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural.

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. 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" 

 

Quote

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.

What you have presented is nothing more then some speculative unsupported claims. 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.

 

Quote

Again, I've referenced legitimate scientific research which you've just denied out of your ignorance and unfamiliarity with it.

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. But I am able to sort the wheat from the chaff quite adequately and recognise pretentious carryings on.

In the meantime here is some worthwhile speculative science....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

"A Universe from Nothing

by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

"In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

 

[swansont]

You plagiarized material, you posted a bunch of links rather than discuss it - both of these are rules violations.

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.

[Kafei]

@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.

 

  Quote

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.

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.

 

 

 

  Quote

Again, I've referenced legitimate scientific research which you've just denied out of your ignorance and unfamiliarity with it.

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.

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Kafei said:

It was the only link which indicated "Source," so how can you not recognize that?

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.

 

22 minutes ago, Kafei said:

The research did not conclude that ""mystical" hallucination is scientific evidence for the existence of God."

So was your title ("This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God") deliberately misleading?

[Kafei]

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.

  23 minutes ago, Kafei said:

The research did not conclude that ""mystical" hallucination is scientific evidence for the existence of God."

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

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Kafei

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I was citing my source, and I didn't intend for it to be interpreted as plagiarism

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.

6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

So shouldn't you have indicated that you copied that as well?

Your only contribution to that thread was a bunch of youtube links, then?

7 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So, yes, I submit to you and everyone that follows these threads that this scientific research has, indeed, demonstrated the existence of God.

But 

49 minutes ago, Kafei said:

The research did not conclude that ""mystical" hallucination is scientific evidence for the existence of God."

So which is it? You think that hallucinations are evidence for god(s) or not?

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

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. 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. 

  

Quote

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.

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"

  Quote

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.

What you have presented is nothing more then some speculative unsupported claims.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

And your philosophical musings and the philosophical musings from your article, are also no where near "validated"

Quote

Well, one area it certainly exists in is in the science I've referenced. So, at least admit it. 

All you have referenced is philosophical musings 

Quote

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.

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!

Quote

 

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.

 

Some facts for you....You are referencing philosophical opinions and musings......There is not a sceric of any of the nonsense highlighted in your sensationalistic, provocative, nonsensical  headline,  "This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God"

Again god or any supernatural, paranormal, event is unscientific, even though science certainly has done research into those areas, and come up essentially blanck.

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.

12 minutes ago, Kafei said:

. So, yes, I submit to you and everyone that follows these threads that this scientific research has, indeed, demonstrated the existence of God.

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.

[Kafei]

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.

  10 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

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. 

  10 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So, yes, I submit to you and everyone that follows these threads that this scientific research has, indeed, demonstrated the existence of God.

But 

  51 minutes ago, Kafei said:

The research did not conclude that ""mystical" hallucination is scientific evidence for the existence of God."

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.