God experience can change atheists

[Shad]

I did not say so.

Ergo the point was irrelevant

Yes. Evidently.

Wrong as one of the same drugs, DMT, was involved in both cases. Drug induced God experience.... Oh no these people have no issues with drugs. Drug induced alien experience.... Oh that person must be escaping life.... Hilarious.....

 

[ecco]

You're misinformed. Here's a link (American Psyhological Association) to begin with if you're interested.

I posted his review because it does a good job of "Evaluating the Evidence for
Paranormal Phenomena" as its title would have us expect.

Let's try to stay on topic. The topic is there is little or no evidence to support psi.

You asserted: You're misinformed.

To support that comment you posted a link.

As I pointed out, the article in the link really does nothing to support psi. It is one believer commenting on the findings of another believer.

That's the equivalent of a creationist reviewing an article posted in answersingenesis.

Neither you nor the reviewer showed any specific findings from any double-blind independent tests.

You're making the same logical error that the Wikipedia article you posted makes. You offer the fact that hoaxers have been exposed and expect others to take that as evidence that the phenomenon they mimic isn't real. That's not a logical deduction.

That is half of the argument. The other half is the absence of any double-blind independent tests supporting psi.

You have been given ample opportunity to provide some. You have not been able to do so.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT

...

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

There are many different states of consciousness(4-7). But, all states of consciousness have two things in common. They are all a closed system(like the circulatory system), and they are all completely subjective(no dualism). Our conscious awareness represents less than 5% of all mental activities of the brain. Imagine what would happen if we had to think about how we should react to an emergency. Or, if we had to consciously control all our muscles, our heart rate, our movements, or what sensory inputs we should respond to. This would simply slow us down. Hence, for evolutionary reasons, consciousness plays only a tiny role in how we interact with our environment. Our interaction is almost totally dependent on our instincts, reflexes, and our genes. But, as humans became more socially complex, and capable of speech, language, emotions, and the ability to make tools, they needed a consciousness to assist the unconscious mind to decide between two or three very simple options. For example,

If you are holding your breath underwater or carrying a hot dish. Your musculoskeletal system wants you to take a breath, or drop the dish. However, your unconscious brain is aware of the consequences of why both of those choices are a bad idea. So this conflict is sent to the conscious mind to keep you in control until you reach the surface, or put the hot dish down on the table. It is our unconscious/subconscious mind, and our genes, that defines who we are, how we behave, what our reality is, and how we interact with ourselves and others. The conscious mind is not essential for survival. The rest is just pseudo-sophistry, labels, and ignorance.

I'm afraid I don't see how having a drug-induced mental experience, has anything to do with science or God. I wonder what sort of experiences the Chinese, the American Indians, or the Indigenous Eskimos might have?

 

[joe1776]

As I pointed out, the article in the link really does nothing to support psi. It is one believer commenting on the findings of another believer.

Read Charlie's post. He at least now understands that the reviewer is a scientist who is reporting on his own experiments as well as reviewing the book.

Neither you nor the reviewer showed any specific findings from any double-blind independent tests.

References to a meta-analysis that involved 69 replicated studies were mentioned.

That is half of the argument.

So, an illogical deduction is half your argument?

The other half is the absence of any double-blind independent tests supporting psi.

The auto-ganzfeld test is pretty much standard in ESP testing, it employs no staff in testing.That eliminates the need for standard double-blind protocol.

So, half your argument was illogical and the other half based on you lack of understanding of the test protocol.

 

[ecco]

People who debunk, do it for a living. James Randi gave up his gigs as a stage magician when he found he could make big bucks on TV talk shows by debunking the paranormal. Furthermore, debunking the charlatans on TV is low-hanging fruit. It's evidence of nothing that most intelligent people don't already know.

You really have a high opinion of what constitutes "most intelligent people".

Also, how do you differentiate between people with "real" psi abilities and "charlatans"? Is it just that charlatans are the ones who have been outrageous and caught? Uri Geller is still revered among the psi crowd even though he was busted by Johnny Carson decades ago.


It's big business. Follow the money and you will see why people promote psi. The following is just for "Certified" Psychics and Mediums.

Statistics
Statistics of the American Federation of Certified Psychics and Mediums on the profession of psychics, the business of divinatory arts, and their clients for 2015-2017

The statistics are based upon the research of author Maximillien de Lafayette, and polls, and surveys conducted by the American Federation of Certified Psychics and Mediums, New York.

ON PSYCHICS
Psychics’ annual earning, and wealth:

• Approximate annual earning of a very successful psychic in the United States (Celebrity-psychic and mega name): Over $5,000,000.
• Approximate annual earning of a reasonably successful psychic in the United States: $500,000.
• Approximate standard annual earning of a psychic in the United States: $150,000-$75,000.
  • Approximate percentage of psychics in the United States who earn less than $50,000 a year: 79%.
  • How many psychics in the United States have earned more than $1,000,000 a year: 35.
  • How many psychics in the United States have earned more than $3,000,000 a year: 11.
  • How many psychics in the United States have earned approximately $5,000,000 a year: 6.
  • Estimate number of American lightworkers-authors who have earned more than $1,000.000 from royalties and sales of their books: 6.
  • Estimate earning (Books’ royalties and global sale) of a successful American lightworker-author per year: $50,000.
  • Average earning (Books’ royalties and sale) of an American lightworker-author per year: $13,000.
  • Percentage of psychics/mediums who own a home: 83%. Data 2011-2014. And 36% in 2015.
  • Psychic industry/psychic business national revenues: $2.1 Billion.
  • Increase in global national revenues: 6%.

Poll: Most Believe In Psychic Phenomena
BY BOOTIE COSGROVE-MATHER

APRIL 29, 2002 / 1:06 PM / CBS
A majority of Americans - 57% - say they believe in psychic phenomena such as ESP (Extra Sensory Perception), telepathy or experiences that can’t be explained by normal means.

Just over a third, however, do not think such phenomena occur. But the number of believers has declined somewhat over the years. In 1989, when CBS News last polled on the subject, 64% of the public said they believed in psychic phenomena; 26% said they did not.

There are some demographic differences. Americans age 65 and over are most skeptical about ESP, telepathy and other like experiences. Those age 65 and over do not believe in the paranormal by 47% to 32%. By 62% to 31%, those under 65 think psychic phenomena take place.

Religion plays a role in people’s opinions about psychic phenomena. Two-thirds of those who identify themselves as Catholic say that psychic phenomena occur, compared to only 52% of Protestants and other religions. Interestingly, there are some differences with regard to education. By 60% to 54%, those with at least some college education are slightly more likely to say psychic phenomena occur than are those with less education.
​

All Emphases mine

 

[ecco]

You asked: How about some real investigations? And then you posted and article from a site called "Mysterious Universe" entitled Russian Scientists are Debunking Paranormal TV Shows and More.

Did you bother even reading the excerpt? Did you miss the part about who is conducting the studies:

that the RAS (Russian Academy of Science) Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research and the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation are working with the Harry Houdini Prize organization to offer a one million ruble ($17,000) prize to the first psychic who can pass their rigid scientific test.

In a two-pronged attack on psychics, the group uses scientists, magicians ands skeptics to expose the tricks used by psychics and mentalists to convince or deceive the public (and take large sums of money from some of them).
​

The people conducting the study are not psi hangers-on like your book reviewer.

 

[ecco]

With my six-year old daughter sending from one room and me in another, I saw visions of playing cards well enough to identify 13 cards in a row before my daughter tired of the game and quit sending. If my math is correct, the odds of my guessing 13 in a row was 18.5 million to one. But I wasn't guessing. That's worthless anecdotal evidence for you but extraordinary evidence for me that telepathy is a real phenomenon.

Gosh. It's too bad you didn't think to record you and your daughter during the process.

If nothing else, you would have gotten a couple of million views on youtube. You probably would have also gotten invites to demonstrate your powers on the morning and late night talk shows, just like Uri Geller.

 

[atanu]

Wrong as one of the same drugs, DMT, was involved in both cases. Drug induced God experience.... Oh no these people have no issues with drugs. Drug induced alien experience.... Oh that person must be escaping life.... Hilarious.....

What? Since DMT is common in an addict experiencing aliens ( as per your verbal report) and also in the God experiences referred in the subject study, the paper must be trashed?

The referenced paper was authored by John Hopkins University researchers. I feel that you have not read the paper and do not have any idea of the rigorous methodology and validated questionnaire used. You may wish to at least see how the questionnaire was created.

Validation of the revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin
Validation of the revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin

 

[joe1776]

You really have a high opinion of what constitutes "most intelligent people".

Huh?

Also, how do you differentiate between people with "real" psi abilities and "charlatans"?

Probabilities. The real ones probably don't charge for their services. The fakes probably do.

It's big business. Follow the money and you will see why people promote psi. The following is just for "Certified" Psychics and Mediums.

You still don't understand that hoaxers are not logically evidence challenging the fact that the ability they mimic is real, do you?

The statistics you offered on how many people (general public) believe in physic phenomena are of no interest in this discussion. The statistic you understandably chose to ignore in Bem's review that I linked earlier was significant: . "A survey of more than 1,000 college professors in the United States found that 68 percent of natural scientists, social scientists (excluding psychologists), and academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that extrasensory perception (ESP) is either “an established fact” or “a likely possibility.”

That statistic is higher than I would have guessed. There's definitely a correlation between intelligence and the ability to spot and ignore bias.

​

 

[joe1776]

Gosh. It's too bad you didn't think to record you and your daughter during the process.

If nothing else, you would have gotten a couple of million views on youtube. You probably would have also gotten invites to demonstrate your powers on the morning and late night talk shows, just like Uri Geller.

This happened some years ago when Randi's million dollar challenge was still running. I tried to apply for it but was told they wouldn't accept "pairs." Later I found out that the million dollars wasn't cash but was the face value of bonds which might actually be worthless. I was reminded of that when I read the story you linked that included the $17,000 challenge supposedly offered by "scientists."

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Experience is ‘not out there somewhere ‘.

And, in my Vedantic view, the universe ( all that can be directly cognised or known through report) is actually God. We are in God/reality.

What most people take as reality is object filled veil that mind-senses have created, covering up the undivided whole. Everyday, everyone experiences the unlimited and space-time free substratum of this objective universe in deep sleep.

It is a situation similar to the sun being temporarily veiled by clouds.

An experience of the whole through grace, or meditation, or entheogen can help one to overcome the veil and the wrong knowledge that the objects of mind-senses are objectively real.

The corollary is that only a few may understand or take note of what has been said in this post.

What most people take as reality is object filled veil that mind-senses have created, covering up the undivided whole. Everyday, everyone experiences the unlimited and space-time free substratum of this objective universe in deep sleep.

Are you saying that when I look at an apple on a table, or a car coming at me, that they are just part of an object-filled veil created by my mind-senses? Any object that exist in reality(physical), cannot also physically exist in the mind. Also, conceptualized objects cannot exist in the physical reality, because they are dimensionless. Therefore, you need to define what you mean be reality. It is very true that our perception of reality is really the minds best guess, given the limitations on our sense organs. One can truly experience the sensation of timelessness and random subconscious images, because the subconscious mind is also dimensionless. But so is an illusion, or a delusion. It may seem real, but it only exists in your mind.

Are you also saying that Atheist need to take drugs, to have the same type of God experience that believers do? Does this mean that many believer's relationship with God, is the product of being drug induced?

The corollary is that only a few may understand or take note of what has been said in this post.

I think the goal of any rational argument, is that it should be clear enough that many should be able to understand, not just a few. Simply giving the perception of complexity, by using undefined and foreign terminologies, will guarantee that only a few may understand. Was this your goal?

 

[ecco]

Read Charlie's post.

I did. Did you? Perhaps you missed this part. I'll add my emphases...

Of note, the authors of the meta-analysis do respond to one of the replies by saying, "Note, however, that our General Discussion section lists several recent references that discuss substantive theoretical models that go well beyond metaphor and hand-waving in trying to accommodate psi phenomena."
Even by the authors, psi is by no way substantive.

References to a meta-analysis that involved 69 replicated studies were mentioned.
The auto-ganzfeld test is pretty much standard in ESP testing, it employs no staff in testing.That eliminates the need for standard double-blind protocol.

Given that the only thing that is said about the tests is...

In these experiments, physiological indices of participants’ emotional arousal are continuously monitored as they view a series of pictures on a computer screen. Most of the pictures are emotionally neutral, but on randomly selected trials, a highly arousing erotic or negative image is displayed.​

...it's impossible to see where there is and is not human involvement.

 

[joe1776]

I did. Did you? Perhaps you missed this part. I'll add my emphases...

I read that and wasn't surprised that a critique would have criticism.


.

..it's impossible to see where there is and is not human involvement.

Well, of course there was human involvement. The subjects were human. The point is that the auto-ganzfeld protocol keeps the staff out of it.

 

[ecco]

Probabilities. The real ones probably don't charge for their services. The fakes probably do.

Can you name some real ones who do not charge for their services? Do the researchers and reviewers you have referenced get paid for their services? If so, are you admitting they are frauds and charlatans?

You still don't understand that hoaxers are not logically evidence challenging the fact that the ability they mimic is real, do you?

Why do you want to ignore that I have repeatedly stated that there are two reasons to disbelieve psi as summarized below...

1. All practitioners of psi that have been tested or investigated have been found to have no psi powers.
2. No independent double-blind studies have consistently shown any positive results.

The statistics you offered on how many people (general public) believe in physic phenomena are of no interest in this discussion.

I posted those statistics to show that your comment...

Furthermore, debunking the charlatans on TV is low-hanging fruit. It's evidence of nothing that most intelligent people don't already know.

...was incredibly uninformed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm sorry, but that's basically what you are doing by saying this:



Screw considering theological perspectives outside of classical monotheism, right? Because they don't matter, since they were wiped out in our culture and are not "commonly accepted." We can just ignore the fact that our ancestors widely deified natural phenomena and that natural phenomena obviously exist. Gods like Amaterasu (aka, the sun) and Helius (again, the sun) aren't a thing. We can also just ignore the fact that deification of humans - things like ancestor worship or divine appointees - was something our ancestors did too. And we'll certainly ignore that modern people do these things to this day in spite of monotheist attempts at wiping out other types of theism. Nope, we can only consider classical monotheism.

Fine. If that's the limit of your scope, you probably have a point. However, that's not my scope. And we're going to continue talking past each other as a result, so there's little reason to continue this conversation. You refuse to consider theological diversity when considering whether or not there is evidence for gods, which is not uncommon for those who reject other theological ideas. Their position doesn't make sense otherwise, especially when taken to the extremes you are using in your choice of words. Exclusivist theists do the same thing, so you'll have plenty of company, I guess. Not my type of party.

So sorry that you apparently can't understand the difference between accepting that someone has deified something and agreeing that what they have deified is a genuine deity.

And again, IF you'd started off this conversation stating that you do not believe that any deities in the CONVENTIONAL sense actually exist, but that you accept that anything anyone might choose to deify is then an actual deity, we could have saved a great deal of time.

 

[ecco]

This happened some years ago when Randi's million dollar challenge was still running. I tried to apply for it but was told they wouldn't accept "pairs." Later I found out that the million dollars wasn't cash but was the face value of bonds which might actually be worthless. I was reminded of that when I read the story you linked that included the $17,000 challenge supposedly offered by "scientists."

You, of course have something to back up your assertion that is was possibly worthless bonds, not cash.

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

James Randi developed the idea for the challenge during a radio panel discussion when a parapsychologist challenged him to "put [his] money where [his] mouth is."[1] In 1964 Randi offered a $1,000 prize, soon increasing it to $10,000. Later, Lexington Broadcasting wanted Randi to do a show called the $100,000 Psychic Prize, so they added $90,000 to the original $10,000 raised by Randi. Finally, in 1996, one of his friends, Internet pioneer Rick Adams, donated U.S. $1,000,000 for the prize.[2] The prize is sometimes referred to in the media as the "Randi Prize".​

You have documentation from the Randi Institute to show that you were refused because they didn't accept "pairs".

By April 1, 2007, only those with an already existing media profile and the backing of a reputable academic were allowed to apply for the challenge. It was hoped that the resources freed up by not having to test obscure and possibly mentally ill claimants would then be used to challenge high-profile alleged psychics and mediums such as Sylvia Browne and John Edward with a campaign in the media.[3]
​

Note: people like Sylvia and John never applied although, at least Sylvia said she would on several occasions.

From:

Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
The fact is that most parapsychologists have given up trying to find a single person with a single paranormal ability. They study groups of people and collect gobs of data, hoping to find a statistic not likely due to chance, which they then declare to be evidence of psi because it is their hypothesis that if the statistic is not likely due to chance then it is reasonable to conclude that it is due to psi. In other words, they've gone from being duped by con artists to duping themselves.

Wikipedia lists prizes being offered to those who can prove they have paranormal powers.
​

Make note of that bottom link. There are many, many places you and your daughter can go and win some big bucks.

 

[ecco]

I read that and wasn't surprised that a critique would have criticism.


.Well, of course there was human involvement. The subjects were human. The point is that the auto-ganzfeld protocol keeps the staff out of it.

Do you want me to just take your word for it? Can you not show the actual testing procedure? Do you even know what the actual testing procedure is?

 

[ecco]

I did get it from the study and there were actual numbers , but had to use simple maths to determine the number. Unfortunately, the descriptives from this study are weirdly done and I don't consider this a very good paper either. Use maths.

If you want, I can explain where and how I got this number from the paper?

Sorry for the delayed response. While digging around I just now saw your post.

By all means, please show how you got...

Out of the 789 atheists whom took hallucinogenics, 511 became theists.

 

[joe1776]

You, of course have something to back up your assertion that is was possibly worthless bonds, not cash.

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

James Randi developed the idea for the challenge during a radio panel discussion when a parapsychologist challenged him to "put [his] money where [his] mouth is."[1] In 1964 Randi offered a $1,000 prize, soon increasing it to $10,000. Later, Lexington Broadcasting wanted Randi to do a show called the $100,000 Psychic Prize, so they added $90,000 to the original $10,000 raised by Randi. Finally, in 1996, one of his friends, Internet pioneer Rick Adams, donated U.S. $1,000,000 for the prize.[2] The prize is sometimes referred to in the media as the "Randi Prize".​

You have documentation from the Randi Institute to show that you were refused because they didn't accept "pairs".

By April 1, 2007, only those with an already existing media profile and the backing of a reputable academic were allowed to apply for the challenge. It was hoped that the resources freed up by not having to test obscure and possibly mentally ill claimants would then be used to challenge high-profile alleged psychics and mediums such as Sylvia Browne and John Edward with a campaign in the media.[3]
​

Note: people like Sylvia and John never applied although, at least Sylvia said she would on several occasions.

From:

Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
The fact is that most parapsychologists have given up trying to find a single person with a single paranormal ability. They study groups of people and collect gobs of data, hoping to find a statistic not likely due to chance, which they then declare to be evidence of psi because it is their hypothesis that if the statistic is not likely due to chance then it is reasonable to conclude that it is due to psi. In other words, they've gone from being duped by con artists to duping themselves.

Wikipedia lists prizes being offered to those who can prove they have paranormal powers.
​

Make note of that bottom link. There are many, many places you and your daughter can go and win some big bucks.

It's amusing that people who label themselves "skeptics" were never skeptical of the million dollar challenge despite the fact that James Randi made his living as an expert in deception for years before he began his debunking gig and made the challenge. That fact alone should have been enough to cause doubt. That's why critics refer to them as pseudoskeptics.

If that wasn't enough, the fact that disputes were to be settled by what Randi called "negotiation" was a tip-off to anyone with a little expertise in negotiation.Whether someone passed or failed a test is not a matter for negotiation. The only fair way to settle such disputes is via independent arbitration -- which wasn't included in Randi's offer.

 

[joe1776]

Do you want me to just take your word for it? Can you not show the actual testing procedure? Do you even know what the actual testing procedure is?

There's this thing called a search engine...nevermind I'll do it for you. Here's an explanation of it from The Skeptics Dictionary so you will be reading of a description of the auto-ganzfeld from the skeptic's perspective.

Near the end, you'll find Susan Blackmore's comments. She's been a longtime adversary of the ESP experiments. She says:

Of course the new autoganzfeld results appear even better. Perhaps errors from the past do not matter if there really is a repeatable experiment. The problem is that my personal experience conflicts with the successes I read about in the literature and I cannot ignore either side. I cannot ignore other people's work because science is a collective enterprise and publication is the main way of sharing our findings. On the other hand I cannot ignore my own findings—there would be no point in doing science, or investigating other people's work, if I did. The only honest reaction to the claims of psi in the ganzfeld is for me to say "I don't know but I doubt it.

ganzfeld - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com