Strange Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 10 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'm disagreeing with you for a reason and that is because I'm representing legitimate science that's been established relative to these topics. You may be presenting legitimate science (possibly; if those two papers were published in credible journals) but you are grossly misrepresenting it by saying it supports your personal beliefs.
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, Strange said: You may be presenting legitimate science (possibly; if those two papers were published in credible journals) but you are grossly misrepresenting it by saying it supports your personal beliefs. What you don't seem to grasp is I'm not espousing personal beliefs, but rather reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done. -1
beecee Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Kafei said: Again, as I emphasized before, if MODs shut down the thread, it's not a criticism of the science I present or what I've said here in the thread, but rather more a comment on the biases of this entire forum. I never mentioned anything about conspiracy. More realistically it is in fact your own agenda and bias. Yes a conspiracy in trying to project that the bias exists with the majority. Quote Again, I'm merely redirecting people's attention to the science that's been done, and I'm accurately portraying it as opposed to your effort thus far You are grossly misinterpreting the research and are unable to point me to where they claim what you claim, or the evidence supporting that. Quote Likewise, disagree all you'd like, but when you do your so-called questioning, you're in for a rude awakening. Get real, stop pretending. It;s unknown because there was no positive worthwhile result. Live with it. Quote To the contrary, the modern science supports the Perennial philosophy, it doesn't consider it "inconclusive." It is no more then philosophy pertaining to spirituality......Philosophy is what we don't know: Science is what we know. Quote No, you're actually creating more misinterpretations. You're doing a disservice to the science that's been done. As everyone that has participated in this and the other thread, all agree with your over the top baseless misinterpretations and claims...particularly with regards to mystical experiences. Edited September 11, 2018 by beecee
Strange Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, Kafei said: If people are experiencing the actual divine, and you deny that people are actually having experiences of the divine, then you've contradicted yourself, and you miserably failed to recognize a point which Joe Rogan has emphasized in many podcasts. Again, you are struggling with your reading comprehension. I did NOT deny that people are actually having experiences of the divine. If you are incapable of understanding what people say (or you deliberately misrepresent it) then this exchange is doubly futile. Schizophrenics hear voices (which are absolutely real to them; not "in their head") but those voices don't exist. People experience the pleasure of looking at something beautiful but that doesn't exist outside their head. People experience the divine but that doesn't give "the divine" any objective reality. It is just something they experience.
beecee Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kafei said: What you don't seem to grasp is I'm not espousing personal beliefs, but rather reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done. Please show the forum the evidence for god.
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, beecee said: More realistic is your own agenda and bias. Yes a conspiracy in trying to project that the bias exists with the majority. The only person projecting a bias or conspiracy is yourself. I've not even spoken on these topics relative to what I've presented, I've only cited the research which has been established. Just now, beecee said: You are grossly misinterpreting the research and are unable to point me to where they claim what you claim, or the evidence supporting that. If you really believe that to be true, be specific. What precisely do you think I'm misinterpreting? I really doubt you can point that out. Why? Because I'm not saying anything other than what has been demonstrated by the research. Just now, beecee said: Get real, stop pretending. It;s unknown because there was no positive worthwhile result. Live with it.It is no more then philosophy pertaining to spirituality......Philosophy is what we don't know: Science is what we know. As everyone that has participated in this and the other thread, all agree with your over the top baseless misinterpretations and claims...particularly with regards to mystical experiences. Yet no one is able to specifically point out what these supposed "misinterpretations" are, and that's 'cause I have no misinterpretation.
Strange Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kafei said: What you don't seem to grasp is I'm not espousing personal beliefs, but rather reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done. No you are not. Don't lie. You claim this is evidence for the existence of god. (That was the title of your first thread.) But you also admitted that none of these scientists say that it is evidence for god. (Just the universality of experiences.) So you are making up the "evidence for god" bit. That is not supported by the science. So please stop lying about it.
beecee Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: Your antics are common amongst them. If you're not an atheist, you certainly act like one. And your posts and antics are common amongst many other god botherers we have had on this forum.
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Strange said: Again, you are struggling with your reading comprehension. I did NOT deny that people are actually having experiences of the divine. If you are incapable of understanding what people say (or you deliberately misrepresent it) then this exchange is doubly futile. If people are having actual experiences of the divine, then what's the problem? What's your disagreement? 2 minutes ago, Strange said: Schizophrenics hear voices (which are absolutely real to them; not "in their head") but those voices don't exist. Schizophrenia is not mystical experience. 2 minutes ago, Strange said: People experience the pleasure of looking at something beautiful but that doesn't exist outside their head. How is this relevant? 2 minutes ago, Strange said: People experience the divine but that doesn't give "the divine" any objective reality. It is just something they experience. Then, you've contradicted yourself. If people experience the actual divine, then you say it doesn't give the divine an objective reality, then you've contradicted yourself, and you've failed to comprehend how the divine is defined within the context of this research. Just now, beecee said: And your posts and antics are common amongst many other god botherers we have had on this forum. Really? Care to point to some evidence? I have evidence for my case. 2 minutes ago, Strange said: No you are not. Don't lie. I've not lied. I've been as honest as possible in regards to my responses here in this thread. 2 minutes ago, Strange said: You claim this is evidence for the existence of god. (That was the title of your first thread.) Of course, I maintain this is scientific evidence for God. The best that humanity has produced. 2 minutes ago, Strange said: But you also admitted that none of these scientists say that it is evidence for god. (Just the universality of experiences.) I never said that. 2 minutes ago, Strange said: So you are making up the "evidence for god" bit. That is not supported by the science. So please stop lying about it. No, you're creating a straw man. To the very contrary, I've explained quite otherwise.
beecee Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Kafei said: The only person projecting a bias or conspiracy is yourself. I've not even spoken on these topics relative to what I've presented, I've only cited the research which has been established. You have misinterpreted the research because of your obvious bias and gullibility. You are making the silly claims, not I. Quote If you really believe that to be true, be specific. What precisely do you think I'm misinterpreting? I really doubt you can point that out. Why? Because I'm not saying anything other than what has been demonstrated by the research. Let me also add being obtuse and dishonest to that collection of descriptive adjectives applying to yourself. But I'll answer anyway...a mystical experience is not evidence for god. The research undertaken does not claim that. Quote no one is able to specifically point out what these supposed "misinterpretations" are, and that's 'cause I have no misinterpretation I just did.. Edited September 11, 2018 by beecee
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, beecee said: You have misinterpreted the research because of your obvious bias and gullibility. You are making the silly claims, not I. I maintain I've not misrepresented this research. If you believe that's so, then please, point out specifically what I've misconstrued. I truly doubt you can. Why? Because I'm merely reiterating precisely what's been demonstrated by the research. Just now, beecee said: Let me also add being obtuse and dishonest to that collection of descriptive adjectives applying to yourself. But I'll answer anyway...a mystical experience is not evidence for god. The research undertaken does not claim that. This is simply the biased atheist narrative you tell yourself to deny the actual scientific evidence which has been demonstrated. Just now, beecee said: Yet I just did.. Did what? Attempt to save face in light of the scientific evidence?
Strange Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kafei said: If people are having actual experiences of the divine, then what's the problem? What's your disagreement? My disagreement is that you claim this is evidence for god. It isn't. 3 minutes ago, Kafei said: Schizophrenia is not mystical experience. I didn't say it was. I am trying to explain the difference between someone experiencing something and the existence of that thing. Maybe you are not bright enough to understand that distinction, I don't know. It seems pretty obvious to me. 4 minutes ago, Kafei said: How is this relevant? It is the difference between someone experiencing something and the existence of that thing. Sheesh. 7 minutes ago, Kafei said: I never said that. Stop lying. You said that no scientist would say anything as crass as you are: On 09/09/2018 at 3:23 PM, Kafei said: Quote You have already done that. Neither of the papers you linked to say, “and therefore god exists”. You made that bit up. No, I didn't. It's not announced so immaturely, I don't think any professional would say it so crass like that. 1 minute ago, Kafei said: I maintain I've not misrepresented this research. If you believe that's so, then please, point out specifically what I've misconstrued. The research shows (supposedly) the universality of mystical/divine experiences and that these are the same as some drug induced experiences. The research does not show that god exists. So stop lying about it. 1
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Strange said: My disagreement is that you claim this is evidence for god. It isn't. That's not my claim. That'd be the professionals involved in the research. You've obviously overlooked this fact. 5 minutes ago, Strange said: that these are the same as some drug induced experiences. The research does not show that god exists. So stop lying about it. I am not lying, but I've been accused of deceit by many atheists who've not been able to come to terms with this research. It's quite common, in fact. -1
beecee Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Kafei said: I maintain I've not misrepresented this research. If you believe that's so, then please, point out specifically what I've misconstrued. I truly doubt you can. Why? Because I'm merely reiterating precisely what's been demonstrated by the research. You are making the ridiculous claims based on your own bias. The onus is on you to show me and all the others that a mystical experience is evident of god, and that this research claims that it is evidence of god. Just now, Kafei said: That's not my claim. That'd be the professionals involved in the research. You've obviously overlooked this fact. Show the forum where these professionals doing some philosophical research into mystical experiences and spirituality, claim it is evidence for god. Quote I am not lying, but I've been accused of deceit by many atheists who've not been able to come to terms with this research. It's quite common, in fact. It's common because its true. We just had an agnostic also accuse you of deceit, and of course not everyone observing these threads is an atheist, yet no one has yet sprung to your defence.
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, beecee said: You are making the ridiculous claims based on your own bias. The onus is on you to show me and all the others that a mystical experience is evident of god, and that this research claims that it is evidence of god. I'm not making the claim. Again, that'd be the professionals involved in this research. I'm merely reiterating precisely the evidence which has been demonstrated by the science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdfhttps://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf -1
beecee Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, Kafei said: I'm not making the claim. Again, that'd be the professionals involved in this research. I'm merely reiterating precisely the evidence which has been demonstrated by the science. So your last thread was an illusion? You know the one that was closed because you persisted in ignoring all the answers to your misinterpretations.
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 9 minutes ago, beecee said: So your last thread was an illusion? You know the one that was closed because you persisted in ignoring all the answers to your misinterpretations. No, it was closed because the MODs who were just being introduced to this research hadn't readily comprehended it just like you. If it's closed, like I said, will only reveal the biases that are operative among the forum. -1
beecee Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, Kafei said: No, it was closed because the MODs who were just being introduced to this research hadn't readily comprehended it just like you. If it's closed, like I said, will only reveal the biases that are operative among the forum. Yeah sure! more conspiracies, more denials, more lies, more obfuscation. The evidence of your desperado tactics are here for all to read my friend.
Strange Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'm not making the claim. Again, that'd be the professionals involved in this research. I'm merely reiterating precisely the evidence which has been demonstrated by the science. There is nowhere in those two papers where they say this is evidence for the existence of god (as you yourself admit). So stop lying. As you say, claiming that this is evidence for god is "crass". So stop doing that. Edited September 11, 2018 by Strange
swansont Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 31 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'm not making the claim. Again, that'd be the professionals involved in this research. I'm merely reiterating precisely the evidence which has been demonstrated by the science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdfhttps://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf ! Moderator Note I warned you if you did this again the thread would be closed. Do not broach this topic again.
Strange Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 37 minutes ago, Kafei said: I've been accused of deceit by many atheists who've not been able to come to terms with this research. It's quite common, in fact. According to your logic, if it happens frequently, it must be true.
Ten oz Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 11 hours ago, Kafei said: Psliocybin is an entheogen, caffeine is not. Both are chemicals which have a measurable and fairly predictable reaction in the human body. Just because you perceive one of the 2 to be more meaningful is besides the point. The experience of something in ones mind is not affirmation of it as fat. Feeling more productive on caffeine doesn't literally mean one is more productive just as feeling there is a god/peace/power in the universe or etc as described by people on Psilocybin doesn't literal mean that exists. You are insisting the strength of the impression left by the experience affirms the experience as something which must be greater than merely a hallucination. No evidence proves that. Rather the evidence simply proves an experience is felt.
koti Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 39 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'm not making the claim. Again, that'd be the professionals involved in this research. I'm merely reiterating precisely the evidence which has been demonstrated by the science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdfhttps://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf Heres a debunk of Jordan Petersons ridiculous claims from the video you posted:
Strange Posted September 11, 2018 Posted September 11, 2018 The other reason why this research (and, in fact, perennial philosophy) is not evidence for god is because if these experiences are universal, then they are shared by religions that do not have a god (e.g. Buddhism).
Kafei Posted September 11, 2018 Author Posted September 11, 2018 4 hours ago, Strange said: There is nowhere in those two papers where they say this is evidence for the existence of god (as you yourself admit). So stop lying. As you say, claiming that this is evidence for god is "crass". So stop doing that. I've already explained, it won't be exclaimed so crassly as "Science demonstrates the existence of God," I don't know why atheists carry that expectation. Instead, it's expressed a bit more sophisticated in that they say mystical states of consciousness are evidence for the Perennial philosophy, a view which sees an universal underlying divine source at the root of all the world's major religions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13shttp://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf 4 hours ago, koti said: Heres a debunk of Jordan Petersons ridiculous claims from the video you posted: This is not a debunking. The host of this video misrepresents not only the scientific research which actually has a rich history initiating with the work of William James, but he also misrepresents Jordan Peterson's commentary. 4 hours ago, swansont said: ! Moderator Note I warned you if you did this again the thread would be closed. Do not broach this topic again. You're going to close the thread because I'm redirecting people's attention to the peer-reviewed and established science that's been done on these topics? I knew these forums were biased.
Recommended Posts