Hijack from God and science

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, Kafei said:

It actually does show more than that. They've demonstrated that the psilocybin-induced mystical experience in the volunteer is virtually identical to those naturally occurring mystical experience reported by mystics throughout the ages.

Okay, so if I read this correctly, you're suggesting hallucinations induced from intoxication by psilocybin is merely co-incidental to otherwise supernatural or divine intervention?

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I keep having to repeat this, but it's important enough to repeat. 

Or more realistically you are just driven to satisfy your religious Overlords and the crusade you have undertaken, by getting that last word in. It doesn't work Sir. This is a science forum, and your claim/s are unscientific, unevidenced and misinterpreted as all are trying to tell you. In fact this is getting to be trolling, so I'll leave you to your devices, delusions emotions and drugs.

The last time I looked any existence of any deity of any persausion is non existent. But I'll keep checking on the news daily and wait for any report/s on what you are claiming to be factual, is factual. But you won't mind if I don't hold my breath will you?  Bye, you take it easy. 

[Kafei]

Just now, beecee said:

Or more realistically you are just driven to satisfy your religious Overlords and the crusade you have undertaken, by getting that last word in. It doesn't work Sir. This is a science forum, and your claim/s are unscientific, unevidenced and misinterpreted as all are trying to tell you. In fact this is getting to be trolling, so I'll leave you to your devices, delusions emotions and drugs.

The only person spamming and trolling is yourself. Again, this is legitimate science I've referenced and I've not misrepresented it at all. I've been following this research for about a decade now only to find it has a richer history initiating with the work of William James, and so I made myself familiar with all the research relative to these topics that have been going on for decades now.

Just now, beecee said:

The last time I looked any existence of any deity of any persausion is non existent. But I'll keep checking on the news daily and wait for any report/s on what you are claiming to be factual, is factual. But you won't mind if I don't hold my breath will you?  Bye, you take it easy. 

Your issue is you think God is going to come in the form of a "deity," and Einstein rightly referred to that notion of God as the "childish analogy of religion." He, of course, understood a more sophisticated notion of the divine which is also expressed in this research.

6 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Okay, so if I read this correctly, you're suggesting hallucinations induced from intoxication by psilocybin is merely co-incidental to otherwise supernatural or divine intervention?

No, actually it was shown that the psilocybin-induced experience is virtually identical to those naturally occurring mystical experiences reported by mystics throughout the ages. That was the core finding of the research and it completely aligns with the view historically known as the Perennial philosophy.

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

virtually identical to those naturally occurring mystical experiences reported by mystics throughout the ages

A drug addled brain and supernatural characters have no connection to anything, no less each other in a scientific manner.

At least not other than psychosis.

[Kafei]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

A drug addled brain and supernatural characters have no connection to anything, no less each other in a scientific manner.

I've made this point so many times, I don't even want to hear myself say this again, but I'll say it again. You see, I think it's a flat-out mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural. That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case.

Einstein understood a more sophisticated notion of the divine which is also expressed in this research. The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions, the nascency of each of the world's great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they're referring to as a "mystical experience," and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon. I get the impression no one is clicking these links. These aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifzF2BJxEE#t=22m25s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oGjYqhhw#t=6m26s

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[iNow]

There is actual interesting science in this space.

The work being done is about how our brains work and does not empirically support claims of existence for deities. 

Its important to be able to distinguish the two domains and not conflate them.

Also, pro tip: Citing YouTube videos can be helpful when trying to give broader context or increase general conceptual understanding, but badly weakens one’s argument when being shared as evidence in place of actual peer reviewed studies.

[Kafei]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

There is actual interesting science in this space.

The work being done is about how our brains work and does not empirically support claims of existence for deities. 

Its important to be able to distinguish the two domains and not conflate them.

Also, pro tip: Citing YouTube videos can be helpful when trying to give broader context or increase general conceptual understanding, but badly weakens one’s argument when being shared as evidence in place of actual peer reviewed studies.

I'm noticing a lot of atheists here have the pre-conceived notion that the divine should necessarily be defined as a "deity," and I realize many atheists have this misconception. The reason you cannot recognize this science as evidence for God is because you're defining God outside of the context of this research, and Einstein rightly referred to that notion of God as the "childish analogy of religion." He, of course, understood a more sophisticated notion of the divine which is emphasized in these peer-reviewed studies which I have linked to, by the way, throughout this thread. Another important point to highlight is that these aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. They are speaking on the research which has been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlmZxO79tCE#t=15m50s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-929oSyjk#t=51m12s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzd6_ce0I#t=1h20m02s

http://csp.org/psilocybin/

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

There is actual interesting science in this space.

The work being done is about how our brains work and does not empirically support claims of existence for deities. 

Its important to be able to distinguish the two domains and not conflate them.

Agreed entirely, but it really must take an addled brain that is able to interpret the science in question as evidence for deities of any persausion to exist. It actually takes away from the real science being done. But its worth noting that most science forums at one time or another, are assaulted by many manners of god botherers/cranks/trolls that claim through many manners of false subjective reasoning that this or that deity is evidenced to exist.

 

 

[Kafei]

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

Agreed entirely, but it really must take an addled brain that is able to interpret the science in question as evidence for deities of any persausion to exist. It actually takes away from the real science being done. But its worth noting that most science forums at one time or another, are assaulted by many manners of god botherers/cranks/trolls that claim through many manners of false subjective reasoning that this or that deity is evidenced to exist.

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

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Kafei said:

I've made this point so many times, I don't even want to hear myself say this again, but I'll say it again. You see, I think it's a flat-out mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural. That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case.

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

A mystical experience as you suggested, is not evidence of anything other than a train of thought at a given time. Equating a so-called mystical experience as irrefutable evidence to the existence of a god is downright delusional.

Einstein was correct. The OP is indeed a "childish analogy of religion". I already explained to you, I'm not an atheist, yet automatically (if not desperately) defaulted to that talking point to refute my point. An agnostic may have faith, but not blind faith. That's what makes them so.  They give no credence to Zealots or fanatics, no less ones wrongfully perverting the tenets of science for justifying it.

I'm outta here. I'll no longer engage someone who romanticizes and advocates illegal activity as a godly thing. Good luck with your uncontrollable outbursts of laughter, excessive sweating, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure and sleep deprivation experiment or otherwise, buying a stairway to heaven.

/mike drop

[beecee]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1464070?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

What happens or is speculated within this so called perennial philosophy, stays within this supposed perennial philosophy.

The fact remains though, that according to the overwhelming bulk of science, and all of mainstream science, any mystical experience is subjective and definitely no evidence for any magical spaghetti monster of any kind.

Just now, rangerx said:

A mystical experience as you suggested, is not evidence of anything other than a train of thought at a given time. Equating a so-called mystical experience as irrefutable evidence to the existence of a god is downright delusional.

Einstein was correct. The OP is indeed a "childish analogy of religion". I already explained to you, I'm not an atheist, yet automatically (if not desperately) defaulted to that talking point to refute my point. An agnostic may have faith, but not blind faith. That's what makes them so.  They give no credence to Zealots or fanatics, no less ones wrongfully perverting the tenets of science for justifying it.

I'm outta here. I'll no longer engage someone who romanticizes and advocates illegal activity as a godly thing. Good luck with your uncontrollable outbursts of laughter, excessive sweating, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure and sleep deprivation experiment or otherwise, buying a stairway to heaven.

/mike drop

Well said. Advice given to me in the past is that one can never argue with a religious zealot which is so obvious in this thread.

[Kafei]

9 minutes ago, rangerx said:

A mystical experience as you suggested, is not evidence of anything other than a train of thought at a given time. Equating a so-called mystical experience as irrefutable evidence to the existence of a god is downright delusional.

Well, that's what this science has precisely done, and I assure you, it's nothing to do with delusion. We're talking about decades worth of scientific research going back to the work of William James.

Quote

Einstein was correct. The OP is indeed a "childish analogy of religion". I already explained to you, I'm not an atheist, yet automatically (if not desperately) defaulted to that talking point to refute my point. An agnostic may have faith, but not blind faith. That's what makes them so.  They give no credence to Zealots or fanatics, no less ones wrongfully perverting the tenets of science for justifying it.

Not the OP, the mainstream conception of the divine which atheists seem to share to is a major misconception according to Einstein. Einstein, by the way, was a Perennialist.

Quote

I'm outta here. I'll no longer engage someone who romanticizes and advocates illegal activity as a godly thing. Good luck with your uncontrollable outbursts of laughter, excessive sweating, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure and sleep deprivation experiment or otherwise, buying a stairway to heaven.

All I'm doing is merely redirecting people's attention to the science that's been done.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1464070?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

What happens or is speculated within this so called perennial philosophy, stays within this supposed perennial philosophy.

The fact remains though, that according to the overwhelming bulk of science, and all of mainstream science, any mystical experience is subjective and definitely no evidence for any magical spaghetti monster of any kind.

Well said. Advice given to me in the past is that one can never argue with a religious zealot which is so obvious in this thread.

The spaghetti monster is a perfect parody of the misconceptions of God of which most atheists have, it's a deistic entity that is "out there" be it somewhere in the universe or somewhere outside of space and time. Einstein, again, rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion." Make no mistake, the research I've cited has demonstrated that the mystical experience is, indeed, evidence of the so-called Perennial philosophy. Most atheists' definition of God deny the relationship between humanity and the divine which is expressed in the view of the Perennial philosophy, atheists tend to necessarily define God as something by requirement is "supernatural" which to their definition is something that essentially defies the laws of physics. It's something that cannot be demonstrated by definition, but that is simply the misconception that most atheists have, even the celebrity ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-929oSyjk#t=51m12s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlmZxO79tCE#t=15m50s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzd6_ce0I#t=1h20m02s

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

All I'm doing is merely misdirecting people's attention to the pseudoscience that's been done.

Fixed.

[Kafei]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Fixed.

The research I've referenced is in no way pseudoscientific. Jordan Peterson noted on this phenomenon within atheists, that atheists are so emotionally-invested in their atheism, that they're actually blinded by it and would fail to recognize evidence if it was presented them, even deny it and contort as you've done here. This is actually a very good example which perfectly illuminates the sort of motivations behind some of the atheists here. Intentionally or perhaps subconsciously reject or even contort evidence to the contrary with a gut level disgust that drives their mental gymnastics or any actual psychological terminology for their motivated reasoning.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Fixed.

Bingo!! I'll make a divine prediction...this nonsense will be closed like the other nonsense was closed the other day.

 

As I said previously, if this was in any degree true re evidence for any semblance of god, it would be world shattering news for weks, months and years....People would be falling to their knees in humble adoration. Guess what? All I got in return was conspiracy fabrication as to why it wasn't so. 

No wonder poor old Moontanman passed him onto us!   Don't blame you mate.

Edited September 11, 2018 by beecee

[Kafei]

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Bingo!! I'll make a divine prediction...this nonsense will be closed like the other nonsense was closed the other day.

No wonder poor old Moontanman passed him onto us!   Don't blame you mate.

Yeah, and I told him I would participate in the forums as a favor, but I also pointed out to him that this is a toxic environment filled with close-minded individuals who'd rather find ways to contort and deny the science, rather than to accept what the science has demonstrated. Perhaps this is simply the phenomenon that Jordan Peterson has recognized about atheists who are so emotionally invested in their atheism, that when they intuit anything that contradicts their stance, they react with a gut-level disgust which drives their mental gymnastics and causes them to deny or even contort the evidence being presented the suit their atheist agenda.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Yeah, and I told him I would participate in the forums as a favor, but I also pointed out to him that this is a toxic environment filled with close-minded individuals who'd rather find ways to contort and deny the science, rather than to accept what the science has demonstrated. Perhaps this is simply the phenomenon that Jordan Peterson has recognized about atheists who are so emotionally invested in their atheism, that when they intuit anything that contradicts their stance, they react with a gut-level disgust which drives their mental gymnastics.

Well yeah, we do get our share of god botherers, and most all like you are unable to interact withing the scientific methodology. Perhaps when you reply to this with your usual rhetorical nonsense, you can declare your crusade a success and get a medal off your Overlords. 

The forum to a man reject your nonsensical claims, not the science...It is you preaching and getting that last imaginary rebuttal to your nonsense, to interpret as your imaginary victory. 

The science stands old friend, and will tomorrow and next week and next year and the year after...You know that and I know that and that's what's eating at you and your imagination.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

a lot of atheists here have the pre-conceived notion that

<snip>

I realize many atheists have this misconception. The reason you cannot recognize this science as evidence for God is because

<snip>

Einstein ...

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with what I actually posted. Thanks, though. 

At this point, I’m fairly well convinced he’s just spamming his youtube link to increase its prominence in search engines. 

[Kafei]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Well yeah, we do get our share of god botherers, and most all like you are unable to interact withing the scientific methodology. Perhaps when you reply to this with your usual rhetorical nonsense, you can declare your crusade a success and get a medal off your Overlords. 

Is this your go-to narrative throughout these threads? All I've done is merely reiterate precisely what's been demonstrated by the research. 

Quote

The forum to a man reject your nonsensical claims, not the science...It is you preaching and getting that last imaginary rebuttal to your nonsense, to interpret as your imaginary victory. 

What you can't seem quite to grasp is that I'm not saying anything other than what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done.

Quote

The science stands old friend, and will tomorrow and next week and next year and the year after...You know that and I know that and that's what's eating at you and your imagination.

Yes, it will continue to stand.  This is scientific research and as it continues to build, I believe it will continue to shed more light on these type of experiences for which religion has alluded to for millennia.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with what I actually posted. Thanks, though. 

At this point, I’m fairly well convinced he’s just spamming his youtube link to increase its prominence in search engines. 

Again, I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this point, but these aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These professionals are speaking on the very science of which I've cited. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology, and I have posted the links to the peer-reviewed material, by the way.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, Kafei said:

The research I've referenced is in no way pseudoscientific. Jordan Peterson noted on this phenomenon within atheists, that atheists are so emotionally-invested in their atheism, that they're actually blinded by it and would fail to recognize evidence if it was presented them, even deny it and contort as you've done here. This is actually a very good example which perfectly illuminates the sort of motivations behind some of the atheists here. Using exclamation marks, intentionally or perhaps subconsciously reject or even contort evidence to the contrary with a gut level disgust that drives their mental gymnastics or any actual psychological terminology for their motivated reasoning.

I missed the part of the video which proves the existence of God by scientific means. Please comment by directing me to the point on the timeline where that happens.

No wait, don't bother. It's little more than anti-atheist rant and has nothing to do with anything, no less the OP. If you want an anti-atheist thread, start one, but cut with the bullshit that any dissent toward your assertion is an atheist conspiracy in this thread.

Why do you keep bringing that up anyway, when I have (several times) told you I'm agnostic, not atheist? All you've done is re-assure me in my position on the matter.

If it's your lot in life to a pro apostolate, you've failed your mission, miserably.

[Kafei]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I missed the part of the video which proves the existence of God by scientific means. Please comment by directing me to the point on the timeline where that happens. No wait, don't bother. It's little more than anti-atheist rant and has nothing to do with anything, no less the OP. If you want an anti-atheist thread, start one, but cut with the bullshit that any dissent toward your assertion is an atheist conspiracy in this thread. Why do you keep bringing that up anyway, when I have (several times) told you I'm agnostic, not atheist? All you've done is re-assure me in my position on the matter.

If it's your lot in life to a pro apostolate, you've failed your mission, miserably.

I've been following this research for decades, I'm not calling out conspiracies or anything like that, I mentioned a phenomenon that Jordan Peterson had spoken on, but I wouldn't necessarily call that a conspiracy. I was merely pointed out that many atheists (I realize you're agnostic) have these type of misconceptions about the divine which completely deny how God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy which is congruent with the findings of the research. I've time-stamped the lecture below where this is explained by Dr. Bill Richards, a professional involved in this research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Is this your go-to narrative throughout these threads? All I've done is merely reiterate precisely what's been demonstrated by the research. 

Show me in the research where it says its evidence that god exists? 

Quote

What you can't seem quite to grasp is that I'm not saying anything other than what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done.

Stop being obtuse. You are saying its evidence for god...its not as everyone is telling you.

 

Quote

Yes, it will continue to stand.  This is scientific research and as it continues to build, I believe it will continue to shed more light on these type of experiences for which religion has alluded to for millennia.

And I'll confidently say it won't change. We will  not find evidence of any god, not withstanding your imaginary misinterpretation of the experiment.

 

Quote

Again, I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this point, but these aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These professionals are speaking on the very science of which I've cited. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology, and I have posted the links to the peer-reviewed material, by the way.

They are opinions, nothing more nothing less...in other words no evidence of what you claim.

 

Quote

Again, I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this point, but these aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These professionals are speaking on the very science of which I've cited. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology, and I have posted the links to the peer-reviewed material, by the way.

I have no doubt you'll keep trolling. The links are not evidence that god exists, period.

[Kafei]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Show me in the research where it says its evidence that god exists? 

I've already explained that it's not expressed so crassly. No professional would reveal in a peer-reviewed article, "Science has demonstrated the existence of God." I don't know why atheists think it would be displayed so ambiguously and unsophisticated. Instead, they say that the mystical experience is evidence of the Perennial philosophy, that the universal mystical state of consciousness is the glimpse of the divine in each of the major religions. To quote a professional on 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, wu wei in Taoism, 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

"A mediating mechanism (psychological or otherwise) for a transformative perceptual shift after an introvertive mystical experience is that the individual now knows that a portal to something of inestimable and ultimate value resides within -- an access point to a sense of the transcendent, which is variously described in religious traditions as Soul, Holy Spirit, God, Brahman, or Buddha Nature." - Dr. Roland R. Griffiths

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

 

Quote

Stop being obtuse. You are saying its evidence for god...its not as everyone is telling you.

I'm not saying it's evidence for God, that'd be the professionals involved in this research.

Quote

And I'll confidently say it won't change. We will  not find evidence of any god, not withstanding your imaginary misinterpretation of the experiment.

To the contrary, you will find evidence for God, and it's more likely that your mind won't change as it's become quite clear that you're far too emotionally invested in your atheism to even fathom that there's science out there that undermines it.

Quote

They are opinions, nothing more nothing less...in other words no evidence of what you claim.

Again, this is established science and it's evidence for not necessarily what I claim, I'm not making any claims of my own. It's evidence for what these researchers are claiming.

Quote

I have no doubt you'll keep trolling. The links are not evidence that god exists, period.

Well, I have no doubt that you'll continue to ignore the links in order to maintain your atheist delusion.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, Kafei said:

These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology,

Yes, and as countless others here have already pointed out to you numerous times, those studies discuss the effect of chemicals on the brain, not the existence of gods beyond human imagination. 

But... I’m sure you’ll just continue dissembling until this thread is locked and your account suspended. Please do carry on. 

[Kafei]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, and as countless others here have already pointed out to you numerous times, those studies discuss the effect of chemicals on the brain, not the existence of gods beyond human imagination. 

Yeah, that's a complete mischaracterization of the research as the implications were far greater than simply that as I've explained above in my post to beecee.

Quote

But... I’m sure you’ll just continue dissembling until this thread is locked and your account suspended. Please do carry on. 

I'll continue to accurately represent the science. If the MODs decide to shut the thread down, that's not a criticism to the science or what I've laid out there. That rather speaks more to the biases that go on here, and the very proof of this fact is the amount of downvotes my posts are accumulating. Keep 'em coming. It's quite clear there's a large amount of atheists that attend these threads that obviously cannot come to terms with this research.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei