I am positive God the Father never appeared to anyone. 

Then you're as dishonest as you are stupid.

Genesis 18
And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.

Genesis 12:7
The Lord appeared to to Abram and said,...

Genesis 17:1
Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him,

Acts 7:2
And he said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia,

Ferguson 1951 "Owing to your university teachings"

Wrong again, I have never attended a university. The arrogance of your verbiage is trumped only by its breathtaking ignorance.

These tantrums are just making you look more and more silly, and given your contributions thus far, that's impressive in it's own right.

Ferguson 1951 "You keep reapting the same things like a scratched record. It really is too much for me."

Well dim-witted bombast, and arrogant superstition does tend to bead up and roll off cogent reasoned logic. Though to be fair you've got something right here for once, as it's clearly been too much for you from the start, you're way out of your depth. I'd feel sorry for you if you were not quite so angry and arrogant.

In Spirit "Hi Ferguson

Legitimate question.

How do they know it was Mother Mary and not some other person?
Some of the visual descriptions sound like UFO lights or something else I can't describe."

How exactly are we ruling our perfectly natural phenomena? Natural phenomena after all have the advantage of existing as objective fact.

@Old man shouts

You really are either stupid or deliberately obtuse, or have been addled by your own drug taking to excess.

I don't use drugs, and I could say the same to you. I've explained this to you three times, and you still haven't gotten it, and you want to talk about being "deliberately obtuse"? The only obtuse person here is yourself. My third explanation should have cleared this up for you, but here's a fourth attempt.

"Psilocybin has a low toxicity and a low harm potential. Possession of psilocybin-containing mushrooms has been outlawed in most countries, and it has been classified as a scheduled drug by many national drug laws. Wiki

It IS fucking toxic.

Not at low doses. In fact, this is why micro-dosing has become so popular. If we were to go by your definition, and just call it "toxic," then in this sense, everything is toxic. Even water. If you drink enough water, you could die. However, if you have water in moderation, it's necessary for your survival. So, I think it's misleading to call it toxic at any level, when the toxicity only occurs in the extremely high doses which are well above the "heroic dose." By your thinking, then water is toxic, even in minute doses. However, you were talking about ODing, and ODing only occurs at the toxic or fatal dose. To say it's toxic at any dose range implies you could OD off a single gram, and that's simply not the case. To characterize it in such a way is simply misleading.

I have read the papers. Have you?

Yes, I have, in detail. Unlike you I also read the academic paper's conclusions.

It doesn't seem like you've read the papers. You're still misconstruing and mischaracterizing how all this works.

Hardly news is that that the conclusion is the unsurprising news that overdoses of certain hallucinogens can produce hallucinations. Fucks sake. How many times do I repeat that?

That wasn't the implication, I'll let Dr. Roland Griffiths inform you on the implications. If your summation was correct, then your summation would be exhibited in an article which would resemble this parody, however it's simply not the case. That's why it's part of the parody.

Psilocin causes chemical changes to the brain, much like those that can be experienced with deep meditation. That is a fact. The rest of your nonsense woo salad is just that. A mixture of wishful thinking and drug perceived hallucination.

No, I'm not saying anything other than this here, that all the major religions practiced some form of mysticism at their core, and the modern science is recognizing the fact that they can reproduce these same type of experiences with psilocybin. That these mystical states of consciousness have been occurring throughout millennia, perhaps time immemorial.

Please point me in paragraph and line numbers where all these "professionals" (Identified by name) specifically conclude that " consider these mystical states of consciousness evidence for the Perennial philosophy, and the divine or God is most understood within this particular context.

Otherwise this will, like many of your claims , be dismissed as a fallacious claim to an non existent authority.

I've done that. You can find that here and here.

In Perennial philosophy there is no concept of a deity/god/divine, merely of 'oneness with All", so there is no need for the term "god/deity or Eric the Rainbow Farting Unicorn" to be understood in any philosophical context. Merely experienced.

The All is the understanding of God within the Perennial philosophy. That's right, it isn't a deity, it isn't a supernatural entity, etc. It's rather a panentheistic (not to be confused with pantheism) understanding of the divine.

It is the same goal of many gurus, shamans, monks, warriors, priests of all varieties of life, race and religion. It is still NOT EVIDENCE of anything that you have described as "god/divine/deus...whatever the fuck.

It's evidence for the Perennial philosophy, and the divine is most properly understood within this context. As Paul Tillich rightly pointed out that the root of all atheism is the rejection of the traditional image (of God as presence/being; what Einstein rightly called childish analogy of religion) and this is also what Ramesh Balsekar has recognized as the very root of atheism. In other words, all atheists are essentially attacking that which is not God, but a straw man of God.

Individual hallucinations or deep meditation as INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES are not evidence of anything except the chemical effects of a drug/meditation/exercise.

Says the person who's never engaged these type of experiences. More informed people will tell you of the potential of such experiences to completely break down the subject-object dichotomy and to completely dissolve the ego in an experience psychologists know as "ego death."

If 20 people have similar hallucinations while trialling a drug it is not evidence that their hallucination is real, it is evidence of the effect of the drug.

This is more like millions of people throughout history who've had the same unitive vision that can be reproduced in the volunteers at Johns Hopkins in a phenomenon in consciousness known as a "complete" mystical experience. We're not talking about a mere 20 people, but thousands throughout history, perhaps millions, and something that could potentially happen to your dear self.

With the misconceptions you've held throughout, I'm not quite sure you've understood what I've "brought to the table." I'm attempting to redirect people's attention to the science which has been established which certainly isn't an attempt to spew "word salad" at all.

Yet you have.
Over blown undefined paragraphs of verbiage.

So, all I'm hearing is that a lot of this stuff is simply going over your head. That's fine. Instead of admitting your failure to grasp these things, you'd rather just blame it on the other person and just say, "You're just walking word salad." Well, I've news for you, I've not used any single instance of a "word salad" here at all. Everything I say is backed in decades worth of scientific research.

Ill thought out terms that you re defined to suit your needs as opposed to the correct definitions in dictionaries.

No, I'm referencing how these terms are defined in the research, not the dictionary. You're the one that fails to recognize that. You think that these terms have been laid out in the dictionary somehow, and they haven't. You're referring to the WORD "mystical," when the TERM "mystical experience" is being used in the research.

Misrepresentation of academic papers and conclusions, all to suit your pre supposition.

Incorrect again. I'm not saying anything other than what's been established by this research.

You do have an arrogant and grating writing style which makes it very difficult to read, without the urge to vomit.

So, you don't like reading atypical and uncommon words or even religious vocabularies. I don't find any of this difficult at all.

Let me paraphrase what you should say, and should have had as your OP...

In other words, you're going to euphemize what I've said so it's more palatable to your own reading.

"I think that the ingestion of "Magic Mushrooms" (Psilocybin) under controlled conditions bears out the Perennial philosophy, which I call god. Here's some links to the academic studies [not fucking youtube] that I base my conclusions upon. What do you guys think?"

I'd point out that the YouTube lectures are based on the peer-reviewed and published material. There's nothing in the lectures that's not in the peer-reviewed material. And I have been posting the peer-reviewed material throughout this thread. Perhaps you haven't come across the link. You could also run a search on Google scholar for "mystical experience," and that would yield plenty of results.

If you had written something like that you wouldn't come across as such a turd.

I did write it to that effect, perhaps not that exact phrasing, but that is essentially what I've said.