Hijack from God and science

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

You have done exactly the opposite. You have grossly misinterpreted the science and simply reenforced your own personal religious beliefs. And the only bias is that in your own thinking you believe you are right, when all you are doing is mentally re-enforcing your mythical beliefs.

Quote

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:

 Are so at last!!!it was never said. thank you. So much for your honesty and misinterpretation.

The rest of your ranting and raving is ignored for what it is...ranting and raving. 

[Kafei]

Just now, beecee said:

You have done exactly the opposite. You have grossly misinterpreted the science and simply reenforced your own personal religious beliefs. And the only bias is that in your own thinking you believe you are right, when all you are doing is mentally re-enforcing your mythical beliefs.

What mythical beliefs and what religious beliefs? You do realize I adhere to the science that's been done and have no issue at all referring to myself as a Perennialist, as an adherent of the Perennial philosophy. After all, that was the core finding of the scientific research.

Just now, beecee said:

 Are so at last!!!it was never said. thank you. So much for your honesty and misinterpretation.

The rest of your ranting and raving is ignored for what it is...ranting and raving. 

The only ranting and raving I see here is coming from you. It's quite clear that you're so far emotionally invested in your atheism that you cannot even fathom that there's actually science out there that undermines your atheist stance.

[beecee]

And of course like many other fanatics trying to push a particular religious concept, the old Einstein reference comes out. Let's get it straight, Einstein did not accept any god...He merely aligned with the obvious fact, as per Spinoza, that Nature itself evolved as Nature does. in other words the natural everyday atmospheric, natural physical occurrences in the world/universe....nothing more, nothing less, and I accept that. It is an analogy of sorts.

[Kafei]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

And of course like many other fanatics trying to push a particular religious concept, the old Einstein reference comes out. Let's get it straight, Einstein did not accept any god...He merely aligned with the obvious fact, as per Spinoza, that Nature itself evolved as Nature does. in other words the natural everyday atmospheric, natural physical occurrences in the world/universe....nothing more, nothing less, and I accept that. It is an analogy of sorts.

You do realize that Albert Einstein expressed a Perennialist view? Einstein was a theist, make no mistake. The science actually confirmed what Einstein already knew in the first place. Einstein himself admitted to having a mystical experience.

https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

What mythical beliefs and what religious beliefs? You do realize I adhere to the science that's been done and have no issue at all referring to myself as a Perennialist, as an adherent of the Perennial philosophy. After all, that was the core finding of the scientific research.

There was no finding as your reluctantly and finally admitted to, that this science was evidence for any god. And that standing will continue, even a 100 years, or 500 years hence.

Quote

The only ranting and raving I see here is coming from you. It's quite clear that you're so far emotionally invested in your atheism that you cannot even fathom that there's actually science out there that undermines your atheist stance.

I'll support my scientifically based claims against your unsupported ranting any day, and the length of your threads in trying to convert people with useless, baseless claims attest to that.

I would also worry about your own emotional state, as mine is pretty good and as you have been informed earlier, certainly not tied up with any atheist labeling. So much for the research that you claim you have done when you seem to have already forgotten that., and its you of course doing the ranting.

[Kafei]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

There was no finding as your reluctantly and finally admitted to, that this science was evidence for any god. And that standing will continue, even a 100 years, or 500 years hence.

Well, I attempted to explain for you, but it's quite you're going to continue to ignore the fact that this science has demonstrated the existence of God probably for the rest of your life.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I'll support my scientifically based claims against your unsupported ranting any day, and the length of your threads in trying to convert people with useless, baseless claims attest to that.

Only I am speaking of scientifically based claims, you simply reject them out of your biased atheistic proclivity. At this point, it's rather obviously so.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I would also worry about your own emotional state, as mine is pretty good and as you have been informed earlier, certainly not tied up with any atheist labeling. So much for the research that you claim you have done when you seem to have already forgotten that., and its you of course doing the ranting.

I'm perfectly calm, and I've actually had a "complete" mystical experience myself. It's quite a beneficial experience, and I never experience anxiety or anything you're suggesting, and it's partly due to the fact that I've had this experience. The science has even shown of the volunteers that they invariably come out more open-minded, more calm, more patient, more open to express their emotions, etc.

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, Kafei said:

 

 

10 minutes ago, Kafei said:

You do realize that Albert Einstein expressed a Perennialist view? Einstein was a theist, make no mistake. The science actually confirmed what Einstein already knew in the first place. Einstein himself admitted to having a mystical experience.

I also have had a mystical experience with two blonde twins when I was much younger. And close to other mystical experiences while lying back on a beach in Fiji one night with my trusty Binos, and for the first time making out the Galileon Satellites. It was awesome!!

But you are hampered by your incredible misinterpretation by accepting that a mystical experience is evident of god. It's not.

Edited September 11, 2018 by beecee

[Kafei]

Just now, beecee said:

I also have had a mystical experience with two blonde twins when I was much younger. And close to other mystical experiences while lying back on a beach in Fiji one night with my trusty Binos, and for the first time making out the Galileon Satellites. It was awesome!!

Trust me, you wouldn't be able to have sex, let alone walk during one of these experiences. And I did say I had a "complete" mystical experience which is definitely not described in the fashion you've displayed above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s

Just now, beecee said:

But you are hampered by your incredible misinterpretation by accepting that a mystical experience is evident of god. It's not.

That's not my misinterpretation. That's literally what these researchers are claiming. For some reason, you have trouble accepting this fact.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Kafei said:

That's not my misinterpretation. That's literally what these researchers are claiming. For some reason, you have trouble accepting this fact.

Show me, I'm waiting. No don't bother, we'll end up with a mile long useless texts and a waste of cyber space, where incidentally your claims will eventually be lost forever in. In the meantime, I'll leave you to rant some more...I have things to do and places to see, satisfied that you have achieved SFA here except another example of how illogical someone that is a religious fanatic can be.

[Kafei]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Show me, I'm waiting. No don't bother, we'll end up with a mile long useless texts and a waste of cyber space, where incidentally your claims will eventually be lost forever in. In the meantime, I'll leave you to rant some more...I have things to do and places to see, satisfied that you have achieved SFA here except another example of how illogical someone that is a religious fanatic can be.

I've attempted to show you a few times by now. You've not shown any signs of comprehending the research. Rather, you've simply displayed biased atheistic tendencies which actually prevent you from grasping the research. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[iNow]

Average response time is about 2 minutes, even for long posts. I wonder if this is just a decent;y program,ed bot

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I've attempted to show you a few times by now. You've not shown any signs of comprehending the research. Rather, you've simply displayed biased atheistic tendencies which actually prevent you from grasping the research. 

You have attempted nothing at all except referral to loads of text. Again show me where anyone concludes that there is any evidence for god.

There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

 

So much for philosophical jargon as determined by claims in this thread.

Just now, iNow said:

Average response time is about 2 minutes, even for long posts. I wonder if this is just a decent;y program,ed bot

The mind boggles! 

[Kafei]

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

You have attempted nothing at all except referral to loads of text. Again show me where anyone concludes that there is any evidence for god.

Yeah, perhaps if you tried reading those texts, you'd realize I've already offered what you've requested.

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

 

So much for philosophical jargon as determined by claims in this thread.

The mind boggles! 

I'm not mind-boggled by any of this, but you surely seem so.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Average response time is about 2 minutes, even for long posts. I wonder if this is just a decent;y program,ed bot

Just a quick typer, so I'll take it as a compliment.

[beecee]

Let's see, so far from this claim re evidence for god, we have [1]Conspiracy by the mods and lack of objectivity and fairness [or words to that effect], [2] Claims that although this would be world shattering news answering one of mankinds greatest questions, science and the powers that be, is holding it back, [3] Claims that mystical experiences as evidence for god, [4] claims that some philosophical scientific research which he supposedly has studied for many years, has claimed that we have evidence for god, but just in a manner the forum has failed to recognise. So a mixture of conspiracy explanations, misinterpretations of research, and/or obfuscating. And finally, some pretentious arrogance and victim claiming status. Seems you have everything covered in your own mind, that throw any doubt at all on your unevidenced and misinterpreted claims. But that's par for the course for most god botherers, and religious fanatics. 

Again, please point me to the evidence supporting your mythical/ mystical claims...not a block of text, as I'm really not interested in listening to or reading your rhetorical preaching and crusade...Simply highlight the actual sentence for me, just as I have highlighted the actual claims that this does not show that any god exists. 

[Kafei]

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Let's see, so far from this claim re evidence for god, we have [1]Conspiracy by the mods and lack of objectivity and fairness [or words to that effect], [2] Claims that although this would be world shattering news answering one of mankinds greatest questions, science and the powers that be, is holding it back, [3] Claims that mystical experiences as evidence for god, [4] claims that some philosophical scientific research which he supposedly has studied for many years, has claimed that we have evidence for god, but just in a manner the forum has failed to recognise. So a mixture of conspiracy explanations, misinterpretations of research, and/or obfuscating. And finally, some pretentious arrogance and victim claiming status. Seems you have everything covered in your own mind, that throw any doubt at all on your unevidenced and misinterpreted claims. But that's par for the course for most god botherers, and religious fanatics. 

Again, please point me to the evidence supporting your mythical/ mystical claims...not a block of text, as I'm really not interested in listening to or reading your rhetorical preaching and crusade...Simply highlight the actual sentence for me, just as I have highlighted the actual claims that this does not show that any god exists. 

[1] I never said there's a conspiracy, it's more accurately that the MODs haven't understood the research and perhaps are just being introduced to it.

[2] It's not that the science is holding this research back, it has been in the media, and while many people are, indeed, waking up to this stuff, it's definitely not readily understood upon being introduced to this scientific research as it has a very rich history initiating with the work of William James, and many people are ignorant to A.) what is a mystical experience, and B.) historical views on the major religions such as the Perennial philosophy.

[3] Mystical experience is evidence for the Perennial philosophy which is a view that sees mystical experience a glimpse into the universal divine source which underlies all the major religions.

[4] Yes, like I said many people are just being introduced to this research like yourself, and so they might assume it's about a philosophy because they see the word "philosophy" within the title of "Perennial philosophy," but it's not necessarily a philosophy, per se. It's more accurately a perspective on the major religions of which is aligned with our modern science. The view on the major religions referred to as the Perennial philosophy is also known as Perennial wisdom or Perennialism.

I've already pointed out that it's simply your atheistic biased proclivities that prevent you from recognizing that I've already answered your request. Your atheistic bias is evidenced by the fact that you have pre-scripted insults that you probably sprinkle throughout all these threads, terms like "God botherers" or "religious fanatics." What you don't realize is I was actually an agnostic prior to learning about this research, I never adhered to any religion in my entire life, and I've no issue now referring myself as  Perennialist, because that was, indeed, the core finding of the research, that the mystical experience is the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy. And by the way, you never highlighted any claims that contradict this research, you simply highlighted a comment from an article out-dated 2009 which is not representative of what the more recent research has established of which I linked to throughout the thread.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

[1] I never said there's a conspiracy, it's more accurately that the MODs haven't understood the research and perhaps are just being introduced to it.

You have accused the mods of unjust actions, as well as the powers that be in getting this supposed news out to the world: Truth be that there is no evidence supporting your myth of any god, and of course going on your pretentious reactions and comments elsewhere, moderation action was fair and reasonable.

Quote

[2] It's not that the science is holding this research back, it has been in the media, and while many people are, indeed, waking up to this stuff, it's definitely not readily understood upon being introduced to this scientific research as it has a very rich history initiating with the work of William James, and many people are ignorant to A.) what is a mystical experience, and B.) historical views on the major religions such as the Perennial philosophy.

The ignorance obviously rests on your shoulders and so far you have convinced no one here because you have confused and misinterpreted research

Quote

Mystical experience is evidence for the Perennial philosophy which is a view that sees mystical experience a glimpse into the universal divine source which underlies all the major religions.

Mystical experience  is evident of nothing more then hallucinating, dreaming and/or awe of something extraordinary, certainly not evidence of any god that some questionable philosophy deals with rather questionably.

 

Quote

[4] Yes, like I said many people are just being introduced to this research like yourself, and so they might assume it's about a philosophy because they see the word "philosophy" within the title of "Perennial philosophy," but it's not necessarily a philosophy, per se. It's more accurately a perspective on the major religions of which is aligned with our modern science. The view on the major religions referred to as the Perennial philosophy is also known as Perennial wisdom or Perennialism.

It will remain mostly unknown within and outside scientific circles, simply because it is research into subjective natter and material and fails to do what you so much wish for.

 

Quote

I've already pointed out that it's simply your atheistic biased proclivities that prevent you from recognizing that I've already answered your request.

If you were fair dinkum you would do as I ask. You ain't and the claim is nothing more then what has been fabricated in your mind.

 

Quote

Your atheistic bias is evidenced by the fact that you have pre-scripted insults that you probably sprinkle throughout all these threads, terms like "God botherers" or "religious fanatics." What you don't realize is I was actually an agnostic prior to learning about this research, I never adhered to any religion in my entire life, and I've no issue now referring myself as  Perennialist, because that was, indeed, the core finding of the research, that the mystical experience is the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy.

What you say you were is of no interest to me, only the falsity of your claims. And rather ironic that you claim my bias, when that bias has been shown to exist with yourself and your rhetorical ramblings that do not support what you claim. Your claim on some qquestionable philosophy is false.

 

Quote

And by the way, you never highlighted any claims that contradict this research, you simply highlighted a comment from an article out-dated 2009 which is not representative of what the more recent research has established of which I linked to throughout the thread.

The research did not conclude that there is evidence for god, and the fact that it has barely created a ripple in news services around the world, and within scientific circles, supports that rather mundane conclusion.

And finally no matter how many times you chose to repeat your untrue claims, does not make them true. The status quo re god, the divine, and the supernatural stands as it did yesterday, this morning and for any future prediction you care to make. Your claim, on this forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, will in time simply vanish in cyber space.

[Kafei]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

You have accused the mods of unjust actions, as well as the powers that be in getting this supposed news out to the world: Truth be that there is no evidence supporting your myth of any god, and of course going on your pretentious reactions and comments elsewhere, moderation action was fair and reasonable.

What you can't seem to grasp is I'm not being pretentious, I'm merely reiterating the science of which has been established over decades. It's merely your emotional attachment to atheism that you must respond in such manner.

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

The ignorance obviously rests on your shoulders and so far you have convinced no one here because you have confused and misinterpreted research

Yeah, because I'm dealing with biased and close-minded atheist such like yourself. Jordan Peterson has commented on this, that the atheist cannot fathom that there is science out there that undermines their position by virtue of the fact that they've years of emotional investment and prolonged identification as an atheist to the point where it actually impedes them from properly understanding the science that's been done relative to these topics.

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Mystical experience  is evident of nothing more then hallucinating, dreaming and/or awe of something extraordinary, certainly not evidence of any god that some questionable philosophy deals with rather questionably.

 

This is rather the cynical point-of-view simply detracting what our modern science has established as a "complete" mystical experience as mere hallucination when absolutely no professional in this research defines it in such away. This is just more evidence of your atheist biases to interpret such things in this fashion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ1Dm-dcl68#t=50m38s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51PK6Hvaddg#t=1h30m08s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

It will remain mostly unknown within and outside scientific circles, simply because it is research into subjective natter and material and fails to do what you so much wish for.

I disagree. As far as I can discern, more and more people are awakening to this research.

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

If you were fair dinkum you would do as I ask. You ain't and the claim is nothing more then what has been fabricated in your mind.

Again, if you actually refer to the research, the implications are much greater than than your myopic summation.

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

What you say you were is of no interest to me, only the falsity of your claims. And rather ironic that you claim my bias, when that bias has been shown to exist with yourself and your rhetorical ramblings that do not support what you claim. Your claim on some qquestionable philosophy is false.

This comment is simply further evidence that you've not understood the research. The Perennial philosophy is not necessarily a philosophy, per se, but rather a perspective on the major religions which is, indeed, congruent with our modern science.

 

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

The research did not conclude that there is evidence for god, and the fact that it has barely created a ripple in news services around the world, and within scientific circles, supports that rather mundane conclusion.

I disagree. As I've said, more and more people are awakening to this research, and it is, indeed, our best scientific evidence for the existence of God. Just because you feel it's not spreading fast enough, doesn't make the established research false. It's spreading right now in this very forum and myriads of places across the globe.

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

And finally no matter how many times you chose to repeat your untrue claims, does not make them true. The status quo re god, the divine, and the supernatural stands as it did yesterday, this morning and for any future prediction you care to make. Your claim, on this forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, will in time simply vanish in cyber space.

To the contrary, no matter how much you naysay the science, your criticism won't be true. As I've emphasized, this is established scientific research, and your attempt to criticize it is merely your own ego attempting to maintain the delusion of your atheism.

[beecee]

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

) All religions are not the same

The Perennial Philosophy, by being so universalist and essentialist, ends up doing violence to the traditions it tries to cohere. The Tao is not the same as the Christian God (the Tao cares nothing for individuals, as Lao Tzu says), nor are either the same as Buddhist sunyata or emptiness. The eternal now of Buddhism or Stoicism is fundamentally different to Christianity’s radical hope for the future. The mystics themselves do not agree that all religions are talking about the same ultimate reality.

2) Perennialists tend to rank religions hierarchically

All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others. Perennialists tend to rank religions, and even sects within religions. Shamanism is the lowest, then monotheisms like Christianity, Judaism and Islam, then mystics within these traditions (Rumi is better than Mohammad, Meister Eckhart is better than Jesus), then Buddhism and Hinduism, and the peak of the mountain is non-dualist philosophies of emptiness like Advaita and Tibetan Buddhism’s Dzogchen.

All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others

Christianity is usually near or at the bottom – Sam Harris says it has basically nothing useful to say about the human condition, Aldous Huxley said the Bible was an obstacle to evolution – and Tibetan Buddhism is at the top. Look at the Contemplative Studies conference I’m going to in Boston this month – I’d estimate 90% of the speakers are western Buddhists, hardly any are Christians, and the key-note speaker is, obviously, the Dalai Lama.

Perennialists tend to be western and tend to have rejected their Judeo-Christian background, and therefore rank Christianity low in their wisdom rankings. And of course Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, fits uneasily within a Perennial framework, with their tribal eschatologies and their faith in their unique revelation.

3) Perennialism often tends to the tyranny of empiricism and Cartesian reductionism

Perennialists like Huxley, Maslow, Wilber or Sam Harris tend to describe the Perennial Philosophy as a ‘science of consciousness’, providing empirical certainty for some of the claims of the mystics. Your mind is the laboratory, in which you can go and check these facts for yourself. This attitude, while understandable in its attempt to validate spiritual experiences within a hostile scientific materialist environment, tends to reduce such experiences to subjective occurrences in the individual brain.

Towards a participatory spirituality

So what is Ferrer’s alternative? He suggests that Perennialism often succumbs to an outdated ‘mental representation’ model of cognition: Divine Reality exists out there, and we experience it in our minds, like a camera taking a photo. Instead, he suggests a more participatory form of knowing. Our consciousness and imagination helps to create the reality we experience.

more at link here http://www.philosophyforlife.org/exploring-the-multiverse-of-spiritual-pluralism/

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::So much for this supposed superior perennial philosophy and its questionability. 

Here's some more on this hairy fairy subject of perennial philosophy  

https://www.quora.com/What-is-wrong-with-Perennial-philosophy

John Uebersax, Director, Californians for Higher Education Reform

Answered Nov 23, 2017

 

 

As a general concept, i.e., that all religions share certain core principles rooted in the eternal truths of Nature, human nature and reality itself, it makes good sense and is valuable for understanding religion.

However there are three potential problems one should be careful of.

The first is to become so involved in examining a wide range of religious thought that one never looks at any one system closely, or practices it with sufficient knowledge and dedication to experientially discover what religion really means. In other words, this is the danger of dilettantism.

The second potential problem is to blithely assume that just because there are common core principles amongst religions that there are not significant differences as well, or that all religions express these ultimate truths equally well and are of equal value. In contrast, a Christian perennialist like Marsilio Ficino might maintain that earlier religions were true in large part, but were nevertheless leading up to a even fuller expression of religion in the form of Christianity.

Third is the danger of mistakenly equating the views of a particular author with the genuine core of religious teachings. Thus, for example, Aldous Huxley, perhaps the most famous proponent of the theory, colors the interpretation of the perennial philosophy according to his personal prejudices through his selection of what common themes to either highlight or downplay.

second reply:

 

Voytek Potrzebowski, M.A. Philosophy, Jagiellonian University (2010)

Answered Apr 18, 2017

 

 

Looking for commonalities is deeply hard wired in our brains. It has to be there and it is unavoidable. Have you ever wondered why there are reappearing lines of a refrain in songs or why songs with a “catchy” refrain become so popular? It is simply because our brain “likes” that and cannot do without it. Such a way of information clinging says something very fundamental about our relationship with any data we experience. It is just impossible to think it could be in any other way.

In my personal opinion, it may also be a leading factor in the emergence of personality. A brain simply gets used to certain reoccurring patterns, applies something that can be called a “perennial function” and arrives at what is known as self-perception, which is simply a familiarity with certain patterns as well as anticipation of the said.

Perennial philosophy is often considered to be rooted in the idea of the One, which appeared in different versions or deliberations across antiquity and far beyond, maybe even as far as to the concept of singularity popular nowadays.

It seems to be just as fundamental as the concept of personality and contrary to the latter, the former seems to be just as fundamental and principal that our mind simply cannot go beyond even further. Maybe this is where the problem lies or where it is “wrong” in a sense of us being unable to crack it open.

Another argument might recall religious perennialism, which may have totally unexpected consequences of a search for common metaphysical or theological truth. One of the clearest intersections of Judaism, Christianity and Islam goes through a family of Abraham. It may appear that there is something deeply spiritual at that junction, which turns quite unexpected and not that deep at all. In this example, such a way of thinking can be simply “wrong” or a trick of a mind that simply leads itself towards what it “likes best” but not where the “truth”, which it should be after, is.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Actually re-enforcing my view on this hairy fairy philosophical nonsense and the unscientific claims that gullible people fabricate from it.

 

 

 

 

[Kafei]

@beecee Why do you keep posting out-dated articles? You must be getting really desperate. You do realize that all the contentions made against the Perennial philosophy have been utterly refuted by the more modern research I've cited, and which I've made many attempts to emphasize for you? Apparently not.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I disagree. As far as I can discern, more and more people are awakening to this research.

That's your perogative to disagree, but when this thread finally ends or is closed, that will be the end of it, not withstanding your dreams to the contrary.

 

Quote

This comment is simply further evidence that you've not understood the research.

Ahh yes the other conspiracy that I forgot to list...No one on this forum understands it.   Do you also believe in Santa and the easter bunny?

Quote

The Perennial philosophy is not necessarily a philosophy, per se, but rather a perspective on the major religions which is, indeed, congruent with our modern science.

A perspective that you due to your obvious previous agenda, has drawn the wrong conclusions from.

Quote

I disagree. As I've said, more and more people are awakening to this research, and it is, indeed, our best scientific evidence for the existence of God.

Disagree all you like. I'll do some research tomorrow when I go out and question 100 people for you on their so called awaking.   If I get one I'll be surprised. You need to get into the real world my friend. 

Quote

won'To the contrary, no matter how much you naysay the science, your criticism t be true. As I've emphasized, this is established scientific research, and your attempt to criticize it is merely your own ego attempting to maintain the delusion of your atheism.

Nup, try again. My criticism is supported totally by mainstream science and not the results of an inconclusive philosophical research project and your crusade for this god.

10 minutes ago, Kafei said:

@beecee Why do you keep posting out-dated articles? You must be getting really desperate. You do realize that all the contentions made against the Perennial philosophy have been utterly refuted by the more modern research I've cited, and which I've made many attempts to emphasize for you? Apparently not.

I'm simply posting arguments against your misinterpretations, nothing more, nothing less.

[Kafei]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

That's your perogative to disagree, but when this thread finally ends or is closed, that will be the end of it, not withstanding your dreams to the contrary.

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.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Ahh yes the other conspiracy that I forgot to list...No one on this forum understands it.   Do you also believe in Santa and the easter bunny?

I never mentioned anything about conspiracy.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

A perspective that you due to your obvious previous agenda, has drawn the wrong conclusions from.

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.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Disagree all you like. I'll do some research tomorrow when I go out and question 100 people for you on their so called awaking.   If I get one I'll be surprised. You need to get into the real world my friend. 

Likewise, disagree all you'd like, but when you do your so-called questioning, you're in for a rude awakening.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Nup, try again. My criticism is supported totally by mainstream science and not the results of an inconclusive philosophical research project and your crusade for this god.

To the contrary, the modern science supports the Perennial philosophy, it doesn't consider it "inconclusive."

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm simply posting arguments against your misinterpretations, nothing more, nothing less.

No, you're actually creating more misinterpretations. You're doing a disservice to the science that's been done.

[Strange]

I have skipped loads of this nonsense as it was getting too repetitive. But ...

2 hours ago, Kafei said:

[1] I never said there's a conspiracy, it's more accurately that the MODs haven't understood the research and perhaps are just being introduced to it.

As far as I can see, none of the mods have taken part in this discussion so that seems a pointless observation.

2 hours ago, Kafei said:

[3] Mystical experience is evidence for the Perennial philosophy which is a view that sees mystical experience a glimpse into the universal divine source which underlies all the major religions.

While I agree with the first part, it is pretty obvious (lacking any obvious to the contrary) that this "universal divine source" is just the normal (or possibly abnormal) operation of the brain. 

It might be time to call an end to this. The OP seems too narrow minded and and is unwilling to explain anything beyond just repeating the same thing endlessly.

[Kafei]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

As far as I can see, none of the mods have taken part in this discussion so that seems a pointless observation.

They've addressed me through PMs.

Quote

While I agree with the first part, it is pretty obvious (lacking any obvious to the contrary) that this "universal divine source" is just the normal (or possibly abnormal) operation of the brain. 

Okay, but you can't throw in the term "divine" and maintain your atheism. That's my point.

Quote

It might be time to call an end to this. The OP seems too narrow minded and and is unwilling to explain anything beyond just repeating the same thing endlessly.

No, this is just another biased atheist reaction. What I've presented is legitimate science despite the atheist's opinion on these matters such as what you've expressed in your above post.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's your perogative to disagree, but when this thread finally ends or is closed, that will be the end of it, not withstanding your dreams to the contrary.

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. If a MOD puts this thread to an end, it's not because this is pseudoscientific or their criticism is valid, it'll be more likely because they've misconstrued the research and so it speaks more to the biases that are prevalent throughout this forum.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ahh yes the other conspiracy that I forgot to list...No one on this forum understands it.   Do you also believe in Santa and the easter bunny?

Not no forum. Visit dmt-nexus.me/forum or erowid.com, and you'll find this is common knowledge.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

A perspective that you due to your obvious previous agenda, has drawn the wrong conclusions from.

I have no agenda. I'm merely redirecting people's attention to the established scientific research.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

Disagree all you like. I'll do some research tomorrow when I go out and question 100 people for you on their so called awaking.   If I get one I'll be surprised. You need to get into the real world my friend. 

You go do that, and find out the hard way that I've been telling you the truth all along.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kafei

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Okay, but you can't throw in the term "divine" and maintain your atheism. That's my point.

1. How do you know I am an atheist? 

2.. Of course I could; I don't deny the existence of people "experiencing the divine"; I just deny that it is evidence for the existence of the divine as anything other than an entirely  human experience caused by the operation of their brain.

 

9 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Not no forum.

He didn't say "no forum". You often misquote people like this. Is it deliberate dishonesty or do you have genuine comprehension problems (perhaps caused by doing too many drugs)?

[Kafei]

Just now, Strange said:

1. How do you know I am an atheist? 

Your antics are common amongst them. If you're not an atheist, you certainly act like one.

Just now, Strange said:

2.. Of course I could; I don't deny the existence of people "experiencing the divine"; I just deny that it is evidence for the existence of the divine as anything other than an entirely  human experience caused by the operation of their brain.

That doesn't make sense. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ1Dm-dcl68#t=50m38s