beecee 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. Care to point to a screen shot or some type of evidence showing that the research resulted in evidence of god. Of course not! That's just your personal bias,
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, Kafei said: Yes, and I've explained that swansont misinterpreted legitimate science as "no science," because he was simply being introduced to this research. What is wrong with you. That has nothing to do with the rules. You seem to have a severe cognitive deficit and be unable to read what is put right in front of you.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, beecee said: 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. I maintain that I'm not saying anything other than what has been demonstrated by this research. I've not misconstrued it or misinterpreted it, and I can prove this is so by the fact that you cannot explain how I've supposedly misconstrued the research. You merely make the accusation, but you don't back it up with any evidence whatsoever.
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 If the truth tickled you with a thousand feathers you'd still be obtuse AF.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, Strange said: What is wrong with you. That has nothing to do with the rules. You seem to have a severe cognitive deficit and be unable to read what is put right in front of you. He closed the thread because he mistakenly perceived it as "not science." Just now, rangerx said: If the truth tickled you with a thousand feathers you'd still be obtuse AF. I could say the same for you.
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kafei said: Yes, and I've explained that swansont misinterpreted legitimate science as "no science," because he was simply being introduced to this research. Any more claims, conspiracies or denial to side step the fact that you are simply horribly delusional due to your bias?
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, beecee said: Care to point to a screen shot or some type of evidence showing that the research resulted in evidence of god. Of course not! That's just your personal bias, I've done this. I said that the divine is being defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf 2 minutes ago, beecee said: Any more claims, conspiracies or denial to side step the fact that you are simply horribly delusional due to your bias? I've never claimed conspiracy, this has been your projection as I've not mentioned conspiracy once. This is something you brought up. The only person here in denial is yourself. I've not side-step any point people wanted to address, and I'm not delusion nor biased. Although, I'm not sure I could say the same about you. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Maybe you should start your own forum then. This one seems to get under your skin. By hey, masochism is a thing too, you know all that sciencey stuff.
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kafei said: I maintain that I'm not saying anything other than what has been demonstrated by this research. I've not misconstrued it or misinterpreted it, and I can prove this is so by the fact that you cannot explain how I've supposedly misconstrued the research. You merely make the accusation, but you don't back it up with any evidence whatsoever. And yet this forum has dismissed everything that you arrogantly continue to maintain. Why not put your money where your mouth is and show the forum that you don't just have a religious bias? Why not you take this out to the world at larger...I mean earth shattering news will not stay hidden no matter how you want to dance around that fact. C'mon! manup...take it to the world! If it is as you say you'll be a hero, and all of us here will be ignorant fools in not being able to see it as you do. The balls in your court! No excuses, no conspiracy nonsense.
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 That's fourth or fifth time you posted that. Yet another rule transgression. You make this too easy. Maybe if you post it a couple more times, I might roll over. Not.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, rangerx said: Maybe you should start your own forum then. This one seems to get under your skin. By hey, masochism is a thing too, you know all that sciencey stuff. I'm not fazed in the slightest. I don't mind sharing this research, even if it means I have to decondition some of the emotional investment which atheists have developed into their prolonged identification as an atheist that actually prevent them from grasping this research. 2 minutes ago, beecee said: And yet this forum has dismissed everything that you arrogantly continue to maintain. Where? This forum dismissed absolutely nothing. Quote Why not put your money where your mouth is and show the forum that you don't just have a religious bias? Why not you take this out to the world at larger...I mean earth shattering news will not stay hidden no matter how you want to dance around that fact. C'mon! manup...take it to the world! If it is as you say you'll be a hero, and all of us here will be ignorant fools in not being able to see it as you do. What you don't get is I've never identified with religion. I've always been agnostic my entire life, it wasn't until I had a what these professionals call a "complete" mystical experience for myself which naturally led me to the Perennial philosophy. Quote The balls in your court! No excuses, no conspiracy nonsense. I've never mentioned anything about conspiracy. I maintain this has always been your projection. Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Converting the heathens. Yet another rule broken. 1 minute ago, Kafei said: I'm not fazed in the slightest. I don't mind sharing this research, even if it means I have to decondition some of the emotional investment which atheists have developed that actually prevent them from grasping this research.
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, Kafei said: I've done this. I said that the divine is being defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf Thanks for nothing! Again your bias prevents you from admitting that it does not claim what you claim it claims. Quote never claimed conspiracy, this has been your projection as I've not mentioned conspiracy once. This is something you brought up. The only person here in denial is yourself. I've not side-step any point people wanted to address, and I'm not delusion nor biased. Although, I'm not sure I could say the same about you. You have claimed quite afew but being in denial as a result of your bias, you will always fail to recognise your own short comings and misinterpretations.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, rangerx said: Converting the heathens. Yet another rule broken. I'm not attempting to convert anyone. I'm merely reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by our modern science. Atheists often say, "If evidence were produced, I'd cease being atheists." Well, now we'll get to see whether they adhere to this statement. Just now, beecee said: Thanks for nothing! Again your bias prevents you from admitting that it does not claim what you claim it claims. More accusations with no evidence to back it up. What you fail to realize is I'm not claiming anything other than what has been demonstrated by the research I've cited. Just now, beecee said: You have claimed quite afew but being in denial as a result of your bias, you will always fail to recognise your own short comings and misinterpretations. You should learn to heed your own insults.
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'm not fazed in the slightest. I don't mind sharing this research, even if it means I have to decondition some of the emotional investment which atheists have developed into their prolonged identification as an atheist that actually prevent them from grasping this research. Where? This forum dismissed absolutely nothing. What you don't get is I've never identified with religion. I've always been agnostic my entire life, it wasn't until I had a what these professionals call a "complete" mystical experience for myself which naturally led me to the Perennial philosophy. I've never mentioned anything about conspiracy. I maintain this has always been your projection. Your whole pretense in rejecting all the forum has told you is one big conspiracy.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, beecee said: Your whole pretense in rejecting all the forum has told you is one big conspiracy. I'm not claiming any conspiracies at all.
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kafei said: I'm not attempting to convert anyone. I'm merely reiterating precisely what has been demonstrated by our modern science. Atheists often say, "If evidence were produced, I'd cease being atheists." Well, now we'll get to see whether they adhere to this statement. What part of your own quote don't you understand? " even if it means I have to decondition some of the emotional investment which atheists" The prerequisite is not the conversion itself, but the act of attempting to do so.
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, Kafei said: He closed the thread because he mistakenly perceived it as "not science." That was one reason. Did you read the bit about "Our rules ..."? Did you even read the rules? Do you think they don't apply to you?
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kafei said: "If evidence were produced, I'd cease being atheists." Well, now we'll get to see whether they adhere to this statement. You have no evidence! the perennial Philosophy? How is that evidence? Your so called mystical experience? Again certainly not evidence, other then evidence that drug taking leads to nonsensical behaviour and highlights your bias.
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, rangerx said: What part of your own quote don't you understand? " even if it means I have to decondition some of the emotional investment which atheists" The prerequisite is not the conversion itself, but the act of attempting to do so. But it's not because I'm religious, this is the fact you can't comprehend, it's because I adhere to the science that's been done.
rangerx Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, beecee said: Your whole pretense in rejecting all the forum has told you is one big conspiracy. Shhh. Our handlers have instructed us to not use the c word
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Strange said: That was one reason. Did you read the bit about "Our rules ..."? Did you even read the rules? Do you think they don't apply to you? I have read the rules, and of course they apply to me, they apply to everyone. However, I maintain that I've not broken any of the rules. Just now, beecee said: You have no evidence! the perennial Philosophy? How is that evidence? Your so called mystical experience? Again certainly not evidence, other then evidence that drug taking leads to nonsensical behaviour and highlights your bias. And you've not shown any signs that you understand the science that's been done or how they relate this to the Perennial philosophy. 1 minute ago, rangerx said: Shhh. Our handlers have instructed us to not use the c word The only person using the C word is beecee. I've not mentioned conspiracy once, not a single time. This is something that beecee simply projects.
Strange Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, Kafei said: I've done this. I said that the divine is being defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. That doesn't say "there is proof of god" (that would be crass) it says the evidence "is consistent with" (not proof of) perennial philosophy. Perennial philosophy is not god. You may say that god (or the divine) is defined in the context of perennial philosophy, but that doesn't define what "god" (or "the divine") IS, it just says what the context of the definition is. Why don't you give a short, one sentence definition of what YOU man by the word "god"?
Kafei Posted September 12, 2018 Author Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, Strange said: That doesn't say "there is proof of god" (that would be crass) it says the evidence "is consistent with" (not proof of) perennial philosophy. Perennial philosophy is not god. Atheists love to cherry-pick the grammar there, you don't know how many atheists I've encountered that have attempted to what you've demonstrated above. It's hilarious. What they fail to realize is if you're going to define mystical states of consciousness in accordance to the Perennial philosophy. Do you know how the mystical experience is defined in the Perennial philosophy? Apparently not. You haven't been paying attention, obviously. Just now, Strange said: You may say that god (or the divine) is defined in the context of perennial philosophy, but that doesn't define what "god" (or "the divine") IS, it just says what the context of the definition is. Why don't you give a short, one sentence definition of what YOU man by the word "god"? I defined it quite elaborately in the initial thread which was closed, but make no mistake, there is a very elaborate definition of how these things are defined within this view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf
beecee Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, Kafei said: I'm not fazed in the slightest. I don't mind sharing this research, even if it means I have to decondition some of the emotional investment which atheists have developed into their prolonged identification as an atheist that actually prevent them from grasping this research. Are you on drugs? Quote Where? This forum dismissed absolutely nothing. Liar, liar, pants on fire! Quote What you don't get is I've never identified with religion. I've always been agnostic my entire life, it wasn't until I had a what these professionals call a "complete" mystical experience for myself which naturally led me to the Perennial philosophy. Were you or are you on drugs? I need to ask that as you seem totally bereft of what you have said and claimed over two closed threads and this excuse to again raaaise your pet thingy to continue your crusade. Quote I've never mentioned anything about conspiracy. I maintain this has always been your projection. Other then all the mods were mistaken and have unfairly dismissed your claims, and all the members that have participated are atheists despite at least one telling you that wasn;t true, and how this ground breaking, earth shattering news is being hidden etc etc etc
Recommended Posts