Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Strange said: But you have nothing new to contribute to discussion. You simply repeat the same thing again and again. Sometimes just copying and pasting it. This is not a discussion, it is soapboxing (another rule violation). I'm simply reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done. That's all. If it sounds like repetition to you, it's because I have to keep clarifying the same points over and over for people who can't seem to comprehend them, like yourself.
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kafei said: No one's debunked this research, and the MODs shouldn't be controlling content that reveals legitimate science if this is a science forum. They are not controlling it. They allowed you to present it. The criticisms came from the members, not the mods. They shut you down because of your propensity to break or subvert the rules. Too bad too, because it actually is a topic for discussion in a scientific manner. My first post in response to it was to let it stand because you initially appeared to actually take science seriously, but I was wrong. You're proven yourself a crackpot, after all.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, beecee said: There was none, and never was none. I personally requested a dozen times to link me to the exact piece claiming that this was evidence of god...It never happened, just the usual conspiracy, obtuseness, and claims of legitimate conclusive science. No conclusion was reached other then in the mind of the instigator of this nonsense, and driven by his incredible bias. Again my only criticism of the mods is excess leaning over backwards to give him a chance. Again, as Strange pointed out, it's not expressed so crassly. Your issue is that you think that the research title is going to read "Science proves God," but what you don't realize is God is not the only name for the divine, and so it's expressed in a more sophisticated fashion within the science that's been done of which you cannot seem to comprehend, and that is the divine is demonstrated via the Perennial philosophy. Quote As this thread suggests, he owns all the bias, and is attempting to now control through devious means his own content, on something that was previously locked and settled. Again, I'm not saying anything other than what's been demonstrated by this research. 4 minutes ago, rangerx said: They are not controlling it. They allowed you to present it. The criticisms came from the members, not the mods. They shut you down because of your propensity to break or subvert the rules. Too bad too, because it actually is a topic for discussion in a scientific manner. My first post in response to it was to let it stand because you initially appeared to actually take science seriously, but I was wrong. You're proven yourself a crackpot, after all. They are controlling by the fact that they misconstrued what is essentially legitimate science as "not science." And I'm no crackpot, as I've pointed out, you atheists/agnostics have a great propensity to make accusations, but you fail to back them up. I could call you a crack pot, too, but in order to confirm it, I should have evidence for my claim, of which you do not. And that's an example, I'm not calling you a crackpot, nor do you have evidence that your accusation is true. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei
Silvestru Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Can you just drop it Kafei? You weren't following the forum rules, that's ok, it happens. No one is trying to censor you. Just start a new topic after reading the rules. I'm sure people will gladly participate as long as you are giving legitimate sources from which you draw your conclusions.
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Kafei said: Again, as Strange pointed out, it's not expressed so crassly. It wasn't expressed at all just insideously misinterpeted by yourself due to your bias and probable brain washing. Quote Your issue is that you think that the research title is going to read "Science proves God," but what you don't realize is God is not the only name for the divine, and so it's expressed in a more sophisticated fashion within the science that's been done of which you cannot seem to comprehend, and that is the divine is demonstrated via the Perennial philosophy. Science proves nothing as I have often told others that seek to push their religious convictions on this forum. That is the beauty of science and the scientific methodology, rather then the "stick in the mud"attitude of god botherers. Quote Again, I'm not saying anything other than what's been demonstrated by this research. The research was based on a philosophy with personal opinions. Mystical experiences, drug taking and philosophical jargon, are not evidence for any god of any persausion and misinterpreted by your own bias.. Edited September 12, 2018 by beecee
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kafei said: They are controlling by the fact that they misconstrued it as "not science." And I'm no crackpot, as I've pointed out, you atheists/agnostics have a great propensity to make accusations, but you fail to back them up. Lies. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You were locked for breaking rules, not because of your point. You just don't get it.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, beecee said: It wasn't expressed at all just insideously misinterpeted by yourself due to your bias and probable brain washing. You do realize I'm not saying anything other than what's been demonstrated by the research, don't you? Quote Science proves nothing as I have often told others that seek to push their religious convictions on this forum. That is the beauty of science and the scientific methodology, rather then the "stick in the mud"attitude of god botherers. You still don't get it. I'm not a Christian or a Muslim or Catholic. I have no issue referring to myself as a Perennialist, because that was the conclusion of the research. Perennialism is not a religion, by the way. Perhaps instead of focusing on ad hominem attacks, maybe you should actually pay attention to the science of which I've referenced. Quote The research was based on a philosophy with personal opinions. Mystical experiences, drug taking and philosophical jargon, are not evidence for any god of any persausion. Again, this is your misconception. Perennial philosophy is also referred to as the Perennial wisdom or Perennialism, it's not necessarily a philosophy, per se, as you keep assuming. It's rather a perspective on the major religions which is congruent with our modern science. 7 minutes ago, Silvestru said: Can you just drop it Kafei? You weren't following the forum rules, that's ok, it happens. No one is trying to censor you. If that's so, please point out which rule I broke? I maintain I did not break any rules. Quote Just start a new topic after reading the rules. I'm sure people will gladly participate as long as you are giving legitimate sources from which you draw your conclusions. What you fail to realize is I've done this, and every single time, the thread is closed. 3 minutes ago, rangerx said: Lies. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You were locked for breaking rules, not because of your point. You just don't get it. Yeah, more baseless accusations. Where's the specificity? Where do you point out how I supposedly broke the rules? This is simply empty criticism, and you've shown nothing to back up your case. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei
koti Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Kafei said: Again, as Strange pointed out, it's not expressed so crassly. Your issue is that you think that the research title is going to read "Science proves God," but what you don't realize is God is not the only name for the divine, and so it's expressed in a more sophisticated fashion within the science that's been done of which you cannot seem to comprehend, and that is the divine is demonstrated via the Perennial philosophy. Again, I'm not saying anything other than what's been demonstrated by this research. They are controlling by the fact that they misconstrued what is essentially legitimate science as "not science." And I'm no crackpot, as I've pointed out, you atheists/agnostics have a great propensity to make accusations, but you fail to back them up. I could call you a crack pot, too, but in order to confirm it, I should have evidence for my claim, of which you do not. And that's an example, I'm not calling you a crackpot, nor do you have evidence that your accusation is true. You know what, since you’re not the average proponent of god on this site and you can at least express yourself in a civil manner with more than 42 words in your vocabulary I’ll be frank; Being convinced that getting high puts your mind into a state which enables you to link with the devine in some way is not only ridiculous on every level, its also evidence for being full of yourself. How dare you imply (Jordan Peterson does that too) that your tiny little evolved mind has some kind of special place in this universe? I suggest you use your time here (on this planet and on this forum) on finding out more about what is actually happening around you instead of focusing on the crap that your brain’s altered chemistry feeds you while on psychodelic drugs. Edited September 12, 2018 by koti 1
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, Kafei said: What you fail to realize is I've done this, and every single time, the thread is closed. What we all realize is you getting all pissy as the slightest criticism. 2 minutes ago, Kafei said: If that's so, please point out which rule I broke? I maintain I did not break any rules. I pointed out four of them, but you ignored them anyway. Nobody has to explain anything to you and your responses are petulant by default.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, koti said: You know what, since you’re not the average proponent of god on this site and you can at least express yourself in a civil manner with more than 42 words in your dictionary I’ll be frank; Thanks? Quote Being convinced that getting high puts your mind into a state which enables you to link with the devine in some way is not only ridiculous on every level, its also evidence for being full of yourself. Your statement above is a complete mischaracterization of what's been demonstrated by the science. 6 minutes ago, koti said: How dare you imply (Jordan Peterson does that too) that your tiny little evolved mind has some kind of special place in this universe? I suggest you use your time here (on this planet and on this forum) on finding out more about what is actually happening around you instead of focusing on the crap that your brain’s altered chemistry feeds you while on psychodelic drugs. I'd argue that you've not comprehended the research, and you possess the same biased tendencies expressed by many of the commenters here, and it's evidenced by little details such as your intentional misspelling of psychedelic. 5 minutes ago, rangerx said: What we all realize is you getting all pissy as the slightest criticism. I'm not pissy at all, and what criticism? I cannot discern any. All that people have expressed here are vacuous statements in the face of the science that's been established. Quote I pointed out four of them, but you ignored them anyway. Nobody has to explain anything to you and your responses are petulant by default. Pointed out what specifically? More empty criticism? Empty criticism is not criticism, you do realize this, right? Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 23 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'm simply reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by the science that's been done. That's all. If it sounds like repetition to you, it's because I have to keep clarifying the same points over and over for people who can't seem to comprehend them, like yourself. There is a difference between repeating (which is what you do) and clarifying (which you don't do; you never did define what you meant by "god" choosing, instead, to repeat the same description fo perennial philosophy instead). 22 minutes ago, Kafei said: Again, as Strange pointed out, it's not expressed so crassly. Your issue is that you think that the research title is going to read "Science proves God," And that is what YOU keep claiming. So what else are we to think?
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Strange said: There is a difference between repeating (which is what you do) and clarifying (which you don't do; you never did define what you meant by "god" choosing, instead, to repeat the same description fo perennial philosophy instead). I defined all this elaborately in the thread that was closed. That's why I've complained that this legitimate science shouldn't be censored. Now, I have to go through the tedious process of explaining it all over, and I have explained it. What you interpret as repetition, I'd say is simply a failure of your comprehension, and so you construe it in such a way. And it's not as though I am obligated to school everyone on the science that's been done. The peer-reviewed studies are public for anyone to view for themselves, these lectures I've posted for the convenience of everyone here precisely describe what I'd only reiterate in the forum. Quote And that is what YOU keep claiming. So what else are we to think? It is the claim, it's just not going to be expressed so crassly without the peer-reviewed research. Instead, it's addressed more accurately via the Perennial philosophy. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kafei said: I defined all this elaborately in the thread that was closed. That's why I've complained that this legitimate science shouldn't be censored. You still don't get it. You were locked for breaking rules, not your point. Get over yourself and that phony assertion.
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kafei said: It is the claim, it's just not going to be expressed so crassly without the peer-reviewed research. Instead, it's addressed more accurately via the Perennial philosophy. Your so called debatable Perennial Philosophy, drug taking and Mystical experiences are not evidence for god: That's simply your misnterpretation due to your bias.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, rangerx said: You still don't get it. You were locked for breaking rules, not your point. Get over yourself and that phony assertion. And yet again, a lack of specificity that in no way clarifies how I broke any rules at all. It's simply false accusations that are made with no evidence to support the claim whatsoever. 8 minutes ago, beecee said: Your so called debatable Perennial Philosophy, drug taking and Mystical experiences are not evidence for god: That's simply your misnterpretation due to your bias. First of all, this is not "my" Perennial philosophy. Perennial philosophy is a view that is deeply rooted in our history, and holds origins in Neoplatonism, perhaps going even further back than that. And yes, these professionals involved in this research certainly consider mystical experiences the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy. Make no mistake, I've not misconstrued or misinterpreted this research in any sense whatsoever, I've no biases driving my efforts because I'm merely reiterating precisely what's been demonstrated by the science that's been established relative to these topics. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, Kafei said: And yet again, a lack of specificity that in no way clarifies how I broke any rules at all. It's simply false accusations that are made with no evidence to support the claim whatsoever. Nobody owes you anything, no less clarity on abundantly clear rules. It's been explained to you a hundred times. You just don't get it, because you refuse to hear it.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, rangerx said: Nobody owes you anything, no less clarity on abundantly clear rules. It's been explained to you a hundred times. You just don't get it, because you refuse to hear it. To the contrary, it's not been explained once. Care to point to a screenshot or some type of evidence for your claim? You can't. Why? Because I've done no such thing.
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kafei said: And yet again, a lack of specificity that in no way clarifies how I broke any rules at all. Swansont said which rule you broke. 16 minutes ago, Kafei said: And it's not as though I am obligated to school everyone on the science that's been done. The peer-reviewed studies are public for anyone to view for themselves, these lectures I've posted for the convenience of everyone here precisely describe what I'd only reiterate in the forum. OK. You are not obliged to "school" anyone, just show them the science. You have done that. Your work here is done. Bye. 17 minutes ago, Kafei said: It is the claim, it's just not going to be expressed so crassly without the peer-reviewed research. So why do you keep expressing it in that crass way?
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, Strange said: Swansont said which rule you broke. OK. You are not obliged to "school" anyone, just show them the science. You have done that. Your work here is done. Bye. So why do you keep expressing it in that crass way? Swansont made a false accusation, and I've clearly demonstrated that by virtue of the fact that I have been referring to legitimate science that's been established over decades.
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kafei said: To the contrary, it's not been explained once. Care to point to a screenshot or some type of evidence for your claim? You can't. Why? Because I've done no such thing. Here, maybe you missed it (I know you didn't because you commented on it but ignored the bit about the rules) 13 hours ago, Strange said: Really? See that bit: "Our rules state ..." ?
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Weak argument. Now you insist on wasting my time screenshotting things you can read by scrolling back. Another rule broken, right there.
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Kafei said: First of all, this is not "my" Perennial philosophy. Perennial philosophy is a view that is deeply rooted in our history, and holds origins in Neoplatonism, perhaps going even further back than that. And yes, these professionals involved in this research certainly consider mystical experiences the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy. Make no mistake, I've not misconstrued or misinterpreted this research in any sense whatsoever, I've no biases driving my efforts because I'm merely reiterating precisely what's been demonstrated by the science that's been established relative to these topics. Again despite your misinterpretation, the scientific research is not in question.What is in question is your bias in misinterpreting the non conclusive results so far. You continued denials and apparent arrogance certainly fit the god botherering troll/crank examples the forum has had in the past.
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, Kafei said: Swansont made a false accusation, and I've clearly demonstrated that by virtue of the fact that I have been referring to legitimate science that's been established over decades. Whether there is legitimate science or not is irrelevant. I don't think there is a rule against that (perhaps surprisingly).
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kafei said: To the contrary, it's not been explained once. Care to point to a screenshot or some type of evidence for your claim? You can't. Why? Because I've done no such thing.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Strange said: Here, maybe you missed it (I know you didn't because you commented on it but ignored the bit about the rules) Yes, and I've explained that swansont misinterpreted legitimate science as "no science," because he was simply being introduced to this research.
Recommended Posts