God experience can change atheists

[ecco]

On the link I provided Bem is being interview on TV by Steven Colbert. He explains why 53% is huge over a large number of transactions.

He also states that the Old Testament refers to precognition and it works because of quantum mechanics. Woo woo woo.

I guess you missed the parts that clearly showed Colbert was laughing at him and his ideas. Did the author of the article include the video to also laugh at Bem?

 

[ecco]

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

Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT
21% of 3476 vs 8% of 3476.
minus the 8% of 21% and you have your answer.

Thanks for your response.


Religious orientation before and after the encounter experience for Non-Drug Group and the combined Psychedelic Group

I didn't see the charts, because I didn't drill down from the pictures in the main article.

My math (questionable) comes to different answers.
Total Drug Group: 3476
Atheists Before; 21% .21*3476=730
Atheists After; 8% .08*3476=278
Conversions 730-278=452

I just wanted to add, I don't think this is a particularly good study, and I've seen a few methodological problems, which would probably influence the results. Though, I'm much more curious if this study can be replicated and if this'll even happen. One of the reasons I didn't mention my critique of it is because this phenomenon, if it exists, is not something to be proud about. Someone needs to take strong hallucinogenics to not only convert an atheist, but also a monotheist. I find it quite funny actually

Yeah. I too found many problems with the study. One problem was the initial percentage of atheists for the drug group - 21%! The real average is 3%. Does that mean atheists are more prone to use drugs than non-atheists? Heathens we be.

The other problem was the amount of time that had elapsed since the "conversion": wo/Drugs 20.5 years; w/Drugs 8.8 years.

All in all the main result of the study seems to be to give people like atanu an opportunity to boldly assert...

more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter

The biggest problem is that in order to participate, the respondents...:
(4) Had a God encounter experiences (sic)

I can't think that I would still be an atheist if I had had a "God encounter experience". So, the interesting part isn't how many atheists converted. It is why any still didn't believe.

 

[ecco]

I can only suggest reading the paper.

Reading the paper is obviously something you did not do since you couldn't/didn't answer my questions about
the numbers. Charlie SC was finally able to produce them.

It appears that you are still ducking and dodging because you haven't read the actual report.

 

[ecco]

But the large number of college students he tested has convinced other scientists that there's a statistically significant ability in average humans.

What "other scientists"? Or is this just another "assertion without evidence" you decided to make?

 

[charlie sc]

Thanks for your response.


Religious orientation before and after the encounter experience for Non-Drug Group and the combined Psychedelic Group

I didn't see the charts, because I didn't drill down from the pictures in the main article.

My math (questionable) comes to different answers.
Total Drug Group: 3476
Atheists Before; 21% .21*3476=730
Atheists After; 8% .08*3476=278
Conversions 730-278=452




Yeah. I too found many problems with the study. One problem was the initial percentage of atheists for the drug group - 21%! The real average is 3%. Does that mean atheists are more prone to use drugs than non-atheists? Heathens we be.

The other problem was the amount of time that had elapsed since the "conversion": wo/Drugs 20.5 years; w/Drugs 8.8 years.

All in all the main result of the study seems to be to give people like atanu an opportunity to boldly assert...


The biggest problem is that in order to participate, the respondents...:
(4) Had a God encounter experiences (sic)

I can't think that I would still be an atheist if I had had a "God encounter experience". So, the interesting part isn't how many atheists converted. It is why any still didn't believe.

Yup, your math is correct. Yes, you’re right. I need recheck their survey but I’m lazy. How they advertised the survey and chose participants is a problem. If they advertise their survey in a selective manner, like you mentioned, only means their sample is not random, which therefore means it’s not generalisable to all atheists. Not every atheist gets a god experience or takes drugs. Also, as you noticed, the sample size for study 1 is tiny, which most likely reflects this. This is probably why they used proportions to work out p value. And these calculations do not look at the strength of the assocation or difference.

The first study compares atheists who don’t take drugs and convert after a god experience. They found no significance. They kinda used this as the control. However If get a god experience with drugs, you’re more likely to become a theist, from the second study.

The non drug group was the first study, which advertises participants that had a god experience. The drug group study was the second one, which wanted participants with a god experience and drug induced thing. If their only evidence is atheists that take drugs and have god experiences, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. There’s probably some concern for the individual if they’re taking drugs in the first place. I’d love to see this replicated

I could be wrong because I’m going on memory.

 

[atanu]

Considering you babbled about points I never made you should really try again. Start with reading my posts. You also distorted the study to say something it never said namely that God experience means anything.

Excuse me. Babbling? Is that a civil word to describe a poster? Please?

Please also show me there exactly I distorted/mis-represented your and author’s views.

 

[atanu]

Reading the paper is obviously something you did not do since you couldn't/didn't answer my questions about
the numbers. Charlie SC was finally able to produce them.

It appears that you are still ducking and dodging because you haven't read the actual report.

Honestly, I avoid reading and responding to some posters.

In a previous post, I had pointed out to another friend the tables that contained the relevant numbers.

Stop personal attacks and the blame game and come to the point.

Can you please tell me as to what you find problematic with the number of atheists in the survey that may contradict the conclusions made by the authors.

 

[Shad]

Excuse me. Babbling? Is that a civil word to describe a poster? Please?

Is it civil to bring up points I never made? Ergo you were babbling.

Please also show me there exactly I distorted/mis-represented your and author’s views.

You are distorting the use of DMT when it comes to the "God experience" and the "Alien experience". You treat the former as if a valid experience while dismiss the latter as an addicts fantasy. I dismiss both as drug induced fantasies. That point is contained in your own replies which you can see for yourself.

 

[Shad]

This is a correlational study, so it doesn't look at causes

Except part of the study includes causes, namely drugs....

 

[atanu]

Is it civil to bring up points I never made? Ergo you were babbling.

Please explain to me again what your point was and how I misrepresented or misread you.

I have not used any adjective to describe you or your posting. Please desist from personal attacks.

You are distorting the use of DMT when it comes to the "God experience" and the "Alien experience". You treat the former as if a valid experience while dismiss the latter as an addicts fantasy. I dismiss both as drug induced fantasies. That point is contained in your own replies which you can see for yourself.

How?

I am not the author of the paper The authors have used a validated and published questionnaire (QEM 30 linked in a previous post) to define god/ultimate experience.

How one example of someone seeing aliens after taking DMT invalidate the application of the validated questionnaire?

We may differ. But that is not personal. We may simply agree to differ instead of calling names.

 

[Shad]

Please explain to me again what your point was and how I misrepresented or misread you.

"Suppose, we have a person who self reports that under effect of entheogen he sees ghosts. And there are 100 others who report expanded consciousness or a dissolution of ego boundary. Do we say that statements of the latter 100 are suspect?"

This is a distortion via analogue. I never claimed their experience was suspect. I said they are ignoring the fact hey are taking drugs which cause hallucinations while making their conclusion.

I have not used any adjective to describe you or your posting. Please desist from personal attacks.

Look up what a personal attack is...

How?

By ignoring the common link in both.... DMT. You put stock in the "God experience" under DMT but dismiss the "alien experience" as drug addiction, escaping life, etc. I was pointing out both are created by DMT induced hallucinations that show only people do too many drugs and create false conclusions while ignoring the fact they are on a hallucinogenic drug.....

I am not the author of the paper The authors have used a validated questionnaire (QEM 30 linked in a previous post to define god/ultimate experience.

You dismissed the point not the author.

QEM does not mean anything as it is completely based on subjective views. Calling X a God experience does not make it one. Watch. Farting is a God experience. It is chili night. I am going to have a lot of God experiences tonight.

How one example of a drug addict seeing aliens invalidate the application of the validated questionnaire?

I was pointing out a soundness issue. Valid does no mean sound.

 

[ecco]

... If their only evidence is atheists that take drugs and have god experiences, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. There’s probably some concern for the individual if they’re taking drugs in the first place. I’d love to see this replicated

I could be wrong because I’m going on memory.

I still have a hard time believing the starting number of atheists in the drug group being 23%.

 

[ecco]

Honestly, I avoid reading and responding to some posters.

When you make a post, especially when you start a thread, it is your responsibility to address questions.

In a previous post, I had pointed out to another friend the tables that contained the relevant numbers.

I don't necessarily read all comments between two posters. In any event, I asked for the actual numbers, not references to tables.

Stop personal attacks and the blame game and come to the point.

See above.

Can you please tell me as to what you find problematic with the number of atheists in the survey that may contradict the conclusions made by the authors.

I'll repeat...

I still have a hard time believing the starting number of atheists in the drug group being 23%.

Also, what do the words "god experience" mean? Was that clearly defined? What kind of "god experiences" convinced 2/3 of the people to abandon atheism and become believers?


Also, how do you explain the timing of the drug usage to the "god experience"?

 

[charlie sc]

I still have a hard time believing the starting number of atheists in the drug group being 23%.

From what I remember from study, they didn’t measure atheists, or anyone, who took drugs and didn’t have a god experience. Therefore, one might imagine most atheists who take drugs don’t become theists. We just don’t know without the data. People that have dog(typo but I’m leaving it in there) experiences and take drugs may already be prone to believing in the metaphysical. However, I see no reason to deny the data. If this is to be taken seriously, it needs to be replicated and modified to have more explanatory power. Though I’m not sure how well received this particular study will be by the scientific community.

 

[atanu]

"Suppose, we have a person who self reports that under effect of entheogen he sees ghosts. And there are 100 others who report expanded consciousness or a dissolution of ego boundary. Do we say that statements of the latter 100 are suspect?"

No. But that was my point.

This is a distortion via analogue. I never claimed their experience was suspect. I said they are ignoring the fact hey are taking drugs which cause hallucinations while making their conclusion.

The study has used a validated questionnaire comprising questions related to mystical experiences (based on controlled administration of entheogens to participants). That is a published paper. Authors have used that published questionnaire to obtain responses from people who have had mystical experiences.

You insist that since experiences with entheogens are hallucinations, the study must be unsound. Reviewers and the publishers of the paper probably found the paper sound. And I also cannot agree fully with you. There are many researchers on the subject who have commented upon the long-standing dominant paradigm that a priori regards hallucinogenic drug use as necessarily maleficent and devoid of merit.

I do not endorse use of entheogen for spiritual practices. Indeed the dangers are more than the benefits, if these practices are not undertaken under strict supervision of a guiding-benevolent teacher. But this is deep subject and I do not think that this thread is the correct place to discuss about that. Let me link an article for those who may wish to get an intro.

file:///C:/Users/48118/Downloads/2843-Article%20Text-10438-1-10-20170227.pdf

 

[atanu]

When you make a post, especially when you start a thread, it is your responsibility to address questions.

Yes. But 'No' when questions include aggression or personal attacks.

I don't necessarily read all comments between two posters. In any event, I asked for the actual numbers, not references to tables.

Well. That cannot be my fault.

It is easy to extract numbers from the tables. Furthermore, tables 13 and 14 enumerate very significant data in very comprehensive manner that genuine readers should examine. Table 13 indicates that among the non drug group, there were 24 self declared atheists before the experience and only 8 respondents remained atheist after the experience. Among the drug induced group, the corresponding numbers were 726 and 278 respectively.

But I will request you (and others) to examine table 13 and find the number of monotheists who renunciated montheism after the experience. So, it is not a an anti-atheist thingy.

Also, what do the words "god experience" mean? Was that clearly defined? What kind of "god experiences" convinced 2/3 of the people to abandon atheism and become believers?

This aspect is covered in the paper and in cited references. The aspects comprising the so-called God experience are elaborated in the following:

http://www.prati.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/5.pdf

 

[atanu]

All in all the main result of the study seems to be to give people like atanu an opportunity to boldly assert...

The biggest problem is that in order to participate, the respondents...:
(4) Had a God encounter experiences (sic)

I can't think that I would still be an atheist if I had had a "God encounter experience". So, the interesting part isn't how many atheists converted. It is why any still didn't believe.

In the drug group there were 21% atheists to start with. Experience changed some of them. What is illogical or unthinkable in that?

BTW, you saw Table 13, but did you notice how many montheists ceased being monotheists? Friend, I have been an atheist 5/6 of my life of 59 years. I am not a theist too, in conventional sense. But due to personal transformation (drug-less of course), I can easily accept that some people go through experience/s that change their worldview. They stop believing that the universe is only limited to what senses tell us and the corresponding paradigm changes from 'truth is external to brains' to 'we are in the truth itself'.

I do not think that atheist-theist conflict is significant in my worldview.

...

 

[Shad]

No. But that was my point.

It was a loaded point as it ignored what I said.

The study has used a validated questionnaire comprising questions related to mystical experiences (based on controlled administration of entheogens to participants). That is a published paper. Authors have used that published questionnaire to obtain responses from people who have had mystical experiences.

Subjective views of a subjective experience does not mean anything to me regardless of how many times you say valid.

Considering there are no objective definitions of mystical experiences it is still completely subjective. Again it does not mean anything. If I fart I can easily start checking off boxes on your silly list. It does not mean anything.

You insist that since experiences with entheogens are hallucinations, the study must be unsound.

No I said the conclusions of the people involved is unsound as is the self-reporting.

Reviewers and the publishers of the paper probably found the paper sound. And I also cannot agree fully with you. There are many researchers on the subject who have commented upon the long-standing dominant paradigm that a priori regards hallucinogenic drug use as necessarily maleficent and devoid of merit.

If they thought a subjective set of views they can not validate in any objective way is sound they are crackpots.

if these practices are not undertaken under strict supervision of a guiding-benevolent teacher.

Pseudobabble. Do note you didn't say medical professional just some "teacher"

But this is deep subject and I do not think that this thread is the correct place to discuss about that. Let me link an article for those who may wish to get an intro.

file:///C:/Users/48118/Downloads/2843-Article%20Text-10438-1-10-20170227.pdf

Link does not work on my end. Can anyone else confirm this?

 

[ecco]

Yes. But 'No' when questions include aggression or personal attacks.

The first time I asked, I asked politely. You could not / did not provide them. I suggested that the reason you conuold not provide them was that you hadn't actually read the report prior to statting the thread.

eco previously:
I don't necessarily read all comments between two posters. In any event, I asked for the actual numbers, not references to tables.​

Well. That cannot be my fault.

You make nonsensical evasive comments like that and then you wonder why you get treated with disdain.

It is easy to extract numbers from the tables. Furthermore, tables 13 and 14 enumerate very significant data in very comprehensive manner that genuine readers should examine. Table 13 indicates that among the non drug group, there were 24 self declared atheists before the experience and only 8 respondents remained atheist after the experience. Among the drug induced group, the corresponding numbers were 726 and 278 respectively.

Did you clearly state any actual numbers in your OP? No.
Were the tables legible in the original article? No.
Did you clearly state in which tables the actual numbers could be found? No.

You've been on this forum for almost 10 years and yet you feign dismay when people complain that they have to painfully extract information that you should have provided in your OP.

But I will request you (and others) to examine table 13 and find the number of monotheists who renunciated montheism after the experience. So, it is not a an anti-atheist thingy.

Uh huh. That's why you titled the thread "God experience can change atheists". Were you disingenuous then or are you being disingenuous now?

ecco:
Also, what do the words "god experience" mean? Was that clearly defined? What kind of "god experiences" convinced 2/3 of the people to abandon atheism and become believers?​

This aspect is covered in the paper and in cited references. The aspects comprising the so-called God experience are elaborated in the following:

http://www.prati.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/5.pdf

Once again, getting information from you about YOUR THREAD is really painful. I asked YOU to tell us what was meant by "god experience" Do you answer? No. You lazily post a link to an entirely different paper - a 15 page PDF. I have choices to consider:

• You, yourself do not know how the original study defined "god experience".
• You don't understand how the original study defined "god experience" so you cannot clearly state the essence of it.
• You do know how the original study defined "god experience" but you believe it's OK to post vague links with a "go find it for yourselves" attitude.

I'll not post my conclusions about your methods because I don't want to get wrist-slapped - you're simply not worth it.

 

[joe1776]

... Joe would have known that if he had bothered to actually read the article.

Why make arguments that would only convince people who already agree with you? What's the point? Do you honestly believe that unbiased minds would conclude that I didn't read the article because you emphasized the critical points in a well-balanced article?

Do you honestly believe that ridiculing an opponent's position by labeling it "woo" persuades unbiased minds that you're right? Ridicule alerts intelligent readers of your extreme bias on the topic. That' isn't smart. If you want to make arguments that persuade people, you should at least learn to fake objectivity.

When one makes a debatable claim, the burden of proof is theirs. However, in fairness, that burden should be reasonable. It's no great trick for opponents to raise the standard of proof to an unreasonable level. Both you and Charlie used that unfair tactic on me in this forum, but Charlie backed off when I pointed it out. You haven't.

Interestingly that's the very same unfair tactic that mainstream scientists use against psi research. Mainstream scientists are dominated by philosophical materialists which explains their bias against psi research. Philosophy should play no role in science but unfortunately it does. If the standard of proof for ordinary experiments in psychology was as high as it is for psi, none would make the grade.

Despite the bias and lack of funding, there's been some worthwhile research done. Here's a list of some of the research available on the topic you have ridiculed by labeling it "woo," the subject which you claim has no evidence to support it. You'll also find links to other lists.

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm