Perennial philosophy - Atheism and Theism are DEAD

198 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
If you're referring to the

Kafei: If you're referring to the tobacco study

I'm not talking about the tobacco study. I have only ever mentioned the tobacco study to say that I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE TOBACCO STUDY!!! I already made that painfully clear:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/perennial-philosophy-a...
+50 points for going back to claiming I was talking about the tobacco study after I clearly explained I wasn't.

Sir Random's picture
New total: 676.

New total: 676.

Kafei's picture
If you're not talking about

Nyarlathotep, I'm not sure as to why it even matters at this point. I've already explained that they're building on statistical data of studies done in the past. So, it's not as though you have one study with 15 participants that isn't worthy of recognition because they used so few participants. They already have multiple studies that have been done with the same success that was exhibited in the study with only 15 participants.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I just linked the post

I just linked the post explaining it. +100 points for not even trying.

Kafei's picture
Nyarlathotep, what's your

Nyarlathotep, what's your point? How is pointing out there are only 15 participants in one particular study any significance? You've commented on everything but the original post thus far. Can't we get back on topic?

Nyarlathotep's picture
"Kafei: I'm not sure as to

"Kafei: I'm not sure as to why it even matters at this point"

I gave a review of an article. Included was the footnote:

Nyarlathotep: 2. Different forms of tests were done, many with as few as n=15 participants.

You then said that was not the right article, then proceeded to link THAT EXACT ARTICLE.

Kafei's picture
@Nyarlathotep Again, what's

@Nyarlathotep Again, what's your point?

Nyarlathotep's picture
You've commented on

Kafei: You've commented on everything but the original post thus far

+25 points for saying I haven't commented on the original post when:

It was discussion about the original post (remember, I asked about the article eluded to but not identified in the original post?) that got us here.

Kafei's picture
The original post had more

The original post had more than 15 participants in the study. And I'm still not sure what your point is, anyway. At this point, you're like a point-giving troll. You're totally breaking rule number one in the Forum Guidelines.

Sir Random's picture
That reminds me. New total is

That reminds me. New total is 801 points.

Kafei's picture
@Tieler So, you're not a

@Tieler So, you're not a point-giving troll, but you keep track of points that are given by point-giving trolls? What kind of forum is this?

Sir Random's picture
Oh, it has nothing to do with

Oh, it has nothing to do with the forum. I am literally just keeping tally for the hell of it.

Kafei's picture
Tieler, but Nyarlathotep's

Tieler, but Nyarlathotep's point-system is based on nothing. You do realize this, don't you? He keeps obsessing over a study that involved 15 participants. The original study I mentioned had more participants than that. I believe the total was 54. The other study which he linked to had 36 participants. So, I don't really know what he's on about. The only study that had precisely 15 participants was the one involving the tobacco addicts. I'm still not sure what his point is. -_-

Sir Random's picture
That's a matter drowned in

That's a matter drowned in subjectivity.

Kafei's picture
@ Tieler I suppose this is a

@ Tieler I suppose this is a forum that would rather discuss nonsense than contemporary research that I believe could alter the way we view religion, consciousness, etc.

Sir Random's picture
I do hope you realize the

I do hope you realize the subjectivity was in reference to the points alone. I replied before you edited your post.

And as I said: get the 75% concurrence, and I'll take you seriously.

Kafei's picture
Not everyone that is a

Not everyone that is a neuroscientist is studying mystical experiences. However, I'd say of the ones that are following the research have no quarrel with it.

Sir Random's picture
"I'd say"

"I'd say"

Subjectivity never helps a cause.

Kafei's picture
@Tieler You do realize this

@Tieler You do realize this study has been peer-reviewed and accepted into The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology, don't you? You do understand what peer-review is, correct? Peers within the field review the study, if the findings of the study are inconclusive then it's rejected and simply not published. However, that's not the case with this study. Multiple studies have already long since established that "mystical experience" exist. If that's what your arguing against, then you'd be simply in denial not to admit this is so. What these studies have shown is that psilocybin can mimic the mystical experience. So, what is exactly your quarrel?

Sir Random's picture
I'm arguing that even if

I'm arguing that even if mystical experiences do exist, they still do not have any sginifigant effect on daily life. I don't care about them because there is no reason to.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The original study I

Kafei - "The original study I mentioned had more participants than that. I believe the total was 54. The other study which he linked to had 36 participants."

I just discovered what happened:

Let's compare two versions of Kafei's post:
-----------------------------
Kafei(past): Nyarlathotep, I've referenced multiple studies. If you give me time, I can get you the links to every one of them. Here's one:https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf

Kafei(current): Nyarlathotep, I've referenced multiple studies. If you give me time, I can get you the links to every one of them. Here's one:http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/single_dose_of_halluc...
-----------------------------
Kafei switched out the link to the article with a post facto edit! Then had the audacity to claim I had the wrong one! Personally I have to say this is a new low for the forums. +1000 points. I'm retiring from this thread.

Kafei's picture
Nyarlathotep, I made that

Nyarlathotep, I made that edit right after I posted that! I was trying to link to the website so you can review all the studies. I was trying to do you a favor. However, even in the original link there were 36 participants, not 15, so you're still wrong. Here's a better link:

http://csp.org/psilocybin/

Sir Random's picture
After that bullshit move, I'm

After that bullshit move, I'm following Nyars move. I fold, and leave the table.

Kafei's picture
That wasn't a "bullshit" move

That wasn't a "bullshit" move. I replaced that link with what I thought would be a better link. I linked to the website that contains all the peer-reviewed articles published since 2006. I was trying to do Nyarlathotep a favor by posting a better link. And even if I were to leave that original link, it linked to an article with 36 participants, not 15. So, Nyarlathotep was still incorrect. You guys are just giving up. I mean, if you are the regulars here at this forum, then that's pretty sad.

If there's any bullshit moves going on here, it's all the crap Nyarlathotep's posted so far, and your "I fold and leave the table." Now, that's what I call a bullshit move. You guys are trolls, through and through, balls to bone.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well I guess I'll make one

Well I guess I'll make one more appearance: (that +10 points for me this time!).

Kafei - "I made that edit right after I posted that"

Actually I have a snapshot of the thread taken 1 hour and 40 minutes after you made the original version of the post, and it still has the old link, so your "right after" is more than 100 minutes later.

Kafei's picture
@Nyarlathotep Yes, I took

@Nyarlathotep Yes, I took some time to search for a better link. You see, Erowid used to have 'em all in one spot conveniently, but the bookmark I had for it took took me to a broken link. However, it wouldn't even matter. In that original link you claimed there were only 15 participants, and that's incorrect. There were actually 36 participants, so even if you refer to that original link, you're still wrong. I ended up finding a link that refers to all the published articles, and so anyone going through the thread, I'd like to leave the best possible link.

http://csp.org/psilocybin/

Instead of arguing any real points, you're still hung up on something trivial. And what's with this point-system? Do you do this in your actual life? "Oh, I woke up on the right side of the bed today, that's +10 points for me!" What's with that? I mean, I thought I'd come on an atheist forum, meet some open-minded individuals, but it just seems like a bunch of kids who are afraid of being wrong, so they nit-pick on trivial stuff so that they can feel as though they've won some type of argument.

The Pragmatic's picture
@ Kafei

@ Kafei

- "I'm here to sharpen my ability to speak about these things."

Care to enlighten us why you feel the need to sharpen your ability to speak about these things?

Kafei's picture
@Pragmatic The mystical

@Pragmatic The mystical experience is something that most people feel (who've had such an experience) is something you should experience for yourself, that no amount of words will suffice to be transmitted to another to even know what this thing is about. Nevertheless, people will attempt to articulate it. William James felt that it couldn't be transmitted through words. That direct experience is necessary for understanding, and so people who've not had this type of experience will at best with an open-mind, and at the very least, consider these ideas, but without direct experience, they will just be ideas worth considering, nothing more. William James felt that the insights hold true, but they only hold true for anyone who's actually had a mystical experience. Otherwise, they're simply ideas worth pondering.

Sir Random's picture
There you go trying to

There you go trying to convince us of it, after you said that wasent what you where here to do!

Kafei's picture
I don't think I have to

I don't think I have to convince people of something that's already been scientifically confirmed. However, articulating this experience to someone who's never had such an experience is a different story. That's where I care to sharpen my ability to articulate the mystical experience.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.