God experience can change atheists

[joe1776]

Your wonderful list excluded a reply by Hyman but included replies to this reply lol. I wonder who is biased now?

You missed the link to Hyman's criticism of Bem and Honorton. Here it is.

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Hyman1994.pdf

Anyway, you are factually incorrect. I looked at his reply and his view aligns with mine perfectly. I'll repeat just in case it's difficult to process the first time: you are factually incorrect.

Here's the link to Hyman's criticism again in case you missed it.

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Hyman1994.pdf

Here is a quote by Hyman in his reply to Storm et. al. meta analysis -
"For parapsychologists who believe in psi, such inconsistencies must be discouraging, indeed. Their typical remedy is to propose that such inconsistencies are an inherent property of psi. This not only begs the question but makes it impossible to prove the existence of psi within the framework of science. Science cannot investigate a phenomenon that is inherently unpredictable and evasive." - Hyman, R. (2010). Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals

This is literally the same thing I said, so what the hell are you talking about?

Hyman's criticism can't possibly be literally the same thing you said because he was criticizing research done before 2016 by Bem and Honorton. Your amateur criticism concerned Bem's recent research on an entirely different psi phenomenon.

So go test it rather than spouting nonsense. Testing a theory is much more difficult than making one up.

Science doesn't yet have the tools with which to examine my theory. So, for now, logic will have to do. So, instead of labeling it "nonsense," can you offer a logical counter-argument?

 

[joe1776]

I asked valid questions. You evaded answering them. Instead, you posted links..

You claimed there was no evidence of psi. I linked you to a long list of evidence and you refused to open the link (or so you claimed). So I posted its contents.

Now, if you had said that there's no evidence that you're willing to accept, I wouldn't have bothered.

They can run but they can't hide -- Heavyweight Champ Joe Louis

 

[charlie sc]

You missed the link to Hyman's criticism of Bem and Honorton. Here it is.

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Hyman1994.pdf

Here's the link to Hyman's criticism again in case you missed it.

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Hyman1994.pdf

No, I'm still correct even after this attempted rebuttal. I even explained it in my last reply to you. I'll let you try to understand where you went wrong before I even consider correcting you. Let's see if you can work it out.

Hyman's criticism can't possibly be literally the same thing you said because he was criticizing research done before 2016 by Bem and Honorton. Your amateur criticism concerned Bem's recent research on an entirely different psi phenomenon.

I was exaggerating slightly. The quote is in-line with what I've been saying. You were comparing myself to Hyman, so I corrected you. I don't know why you are now deflecting to Bem after mentioning Hyman. We spoke about Bem and there is a vast amount of criticism against his research, but, surprise, scientists are not taking much note of this wasteful type of research for good reason.

Science doesn't yet have the tools with which to examine my theory. So, for now, logic will have to do. So, instead of labeling it "nonsense," can you offer a logical counter-argument?

This would be like asking a counter-argument for alien abduction stories or breatharian stories. It's a waste of time. Once you can provide evidence, it'll be substantiated. Similarly, the alien abductees need to show some kind of evidence for aliens and the breatharians need to show they can actually survive without food and water. However, the one study that kept a breatharian under almost constant watch(not in the toilet) nearly died from malnourishment. Oh my, what a surprise.

 

[joe1776]

I was exaggerating slightly. The quote is in-line with what I've been saying.

In line with what you've been saying? The only thing in line between you and Ray Hyman is that you both are critical of paranormal research. The difference between you is that Hyman is a respected critic and you're not.

This would be like asking a counter-argument for alien abduction stories or breatharian stories. It's a waste of time...

In other words, you don't have a logical counter-argument. The best you can offer are false analogies.to dumb ideas.

 

[ecco]

#283

Bem's psi experiments have been replicated and, according to this story, Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which Means Science Is Broken.

#300

What science is broken? Did Daryl Bem prove ESP?

joe1776 proudly posted this link to make his point: ESP, et al is really re4al.

Like many woosters, he found a provocative headline and linked to it. Unfortunately, the article does not support what joe1776 thinks it does. This is something a lot of woosters fall prey to. Like many woosters, he did not bother to actually read the article. Perhaps he hoped the article supported his views. Perhaps he believed others would be as lazy and sloppy and not bother to read it.

Sorry, Joe, I did read it.

You claimed there was no evidence of psi. I linked you to a long list of evidence and you refused to open the link (or so you claimed). So I posted its contents.

Now, if you had said that there's no evidence that you're willing to accept, I wouldn't have bothered.

Indeed I did claim there is no evidence supporting esp/psi. In response you posted #283 (reproduced above). It was one of your standard post-a-link-and-someone-to-read-it posts. Well, I did read it as I pointed out in post #300 (also reproduced above).

The key parts of post #300 are:

• Unfortunately, the article does not support what joe1776 thinks it does.
• Like many woosters, he did not bother to actually read the article.

As I said previously...

Apparently, you are under the impression that the ability to cut and paste is evidence that you understand and can intelligently discuss a subject. You are wrong.

 

[joe1776]

#283

... In response you posted #283 (reproduced above). It was one of your standard post-a-link-and-someone-to-read-it posts. Well, I did read it as I pointed out in post #300 (also reproduced above).

The key parts of post #300 are:

• Unfortunately, the article does not support what joe1776 thinks it does.
• Like many woosters, he did not bother to actually read the article.

.

Your claim that I didn't read the article is based on your claim that the article doesn't support what I think it does. What did I think the article supported and how did you arrive at your conclusion?

 

[charlie sc]

The difference between you is that Hyman is a respected critic and you're not.

I didn't say I was, but I guess this is what the conversation has deteriorated into. Btw, I had a feeling this would turn into a **** show, which is why I tried to end in amicably.

In other words, you don't have a logical counter-argument. The best you can offer are false analogies.to dumb ideas.

Who am I to deny testimony? However, if you want to convince someone who wants evidence, you'll probably need to supply it. If not, any testimony would be valid and reliable. Here, let me try, " I met an angel the other day and she told me that psi does not exist and is a made-up concept by delusional people." Ok, offer a logical counter-argument and, remember, science does not have the tools to test this testimony? Oh man, what do we do now? Nothing, I guess.

 

[joe1776]

I didn't say I was, but I guess this is what the conversation has deteriorated into. Btw, I had a feeling this would turn into a **** show, which is why I tried to end in amicably.

We are debating here, after all.. Still,I didn't realize you were so sensitive or I wouldn't have bothered to point out the obvious difference between you and Ray Hyman after you drew a weak comparison of his criticism to yours.

Who am I to deny testimony?

What you read wasn't testimony. It was a logical argument for a theory which you could have denied by finding a flaw in the logic.

 

[charlie sc]

We are debating here, after all.. Still,I didn't realize you were so sensitive

You mistook kindness for sensitivity. As much as I like debating, I don't really enjoy beating a dead horse. Basically, I felt sorry for you.

I wouldn't have bothered to point out the obvious difference between you and Ray Hyman after you drew a weak comparison of his criticism to yours.

My 326 post aligns with the quote from Hyman. Again, show where I am wrong instead of asserting it. Assertion are pointless. Here, let me try: you are wrong. Oh my, that was easy.

What you read wasn't testimony. It was a logical argument for a theory which you could have denied by finding a flaw in the logic.

In my rebuttal example, what I said was testimony. You based your whole, "theory," based on your anecdotal testimony. Before I, or anyone who wants evidence, will even consider your theory you need to demonstrate the evidence is true. This is what you said -

I know as a fact that she's a gifted telepathic sender because I was the one who received images from a deck of 52 playing cards -- which by the way was a far more difficult task than seeing the difference between the five distinctly different Zener cards used in some psi research.

I have a theory on it. I think people who use both sides of their brains see images better than people who are left-side dominant. I think genius, in people like Einstein, isn't just a matter of IQ, I think they sometimes see images of the entire problem as metaphor (measuring light from a moving train) that lead to solutions. Thus your belief that such phenomena as telepathic communication is impossible might be true -- for you.

Here's some alternate explanations for your anecdotal evidence. One, you're delusional, two, you cheated(unintentionally or intentionally), three, you lied, four, luck, and I can think I some more if I had more context. If you want someone to believe you without evidence it would be exactly the same as asking someone to believe alien abduction stories without evidence of aliens or the abduction.

Do you believe in alien abduction stories and if not, why? There are many testimonies and lots of pictures of UFOs apparently defying normal physics. If you deny these anecdotal claims then you are not being intellectually honest; you can criticise others, but you're not able to use the same logic and reasoning on yourself.

I'll make this simple for you. You either (a) believe alien abduction is real or (b) you think it's false or unlikely, because you need evidence.

If you think (a) then I have nothing else to say. We have nothing else to discuss, lol.
If you think (b), you are being intellectually dishonest.

Good luck

 

[ecco]

Your claim that I didn't read the article is based on your claim that the article doesn't support what I think it does. What did I think the article supported and how did you arrive at your conclusion?

I'll be glad to repost what I have said twice before.

... In response you posted #283 (reproduced above). It was one of your standard post-a-link-and-someone-to-read-it posts. Well, I did read it as I pointed out in post #300 (also reproduced above).

The key parts of post #300 are:

• Unfortunately, the article does not support what joe1776 thinks it does.
• Like many woosters, he did not bother to actually read the article.

Either...
You posted an article that you knew didn't support your woo views. Why would anyone do that?
Or
You thought the article did support your woo views. You could have only thought the article supported your views if...

1. You just went by the title and didn't actually read the article.
2. You just went by the title because you didn't understand the article.

Do you really want to continue to call attention to yourself?

 

[joe1776]

You mistook kindness for sensitivity. As much as I like debating, I don't really enjoy beating a dead horse. Basically, I felt sorry for you.

You pouted because I pointed out that Ray Hyman was a respected critic and you were not. You were feeling sorry for yourself

For background, Hyman collaborated with Honorton -- a collaboration which resulted in moving the ganzfeld trials to autoganzfeld. He doubts the existence off psi but he doesn't compare it to a belief in Santa Claus. We know that because he's given the science so much thought for several years.

My 326 post aligns with the quote from Hyman. Again, show where I am wrong instead of asserting it. Assertion are pointless. Here, let me try: you are wrong. Oh my, that was easy.

You made the positive claim of alignment ( My 326 post aligns with the quote from Hyman). The burden of proof is yours.

In my rebuttal example, what I said was testimony. You based your whole, "theory," based on your anecdotal testimony. Before I, or anyone who wants evidence, will even consider your theory you need to demonstrate the evidence is true.

My theory was not based on anecdotal evidence. It was a theory offered to partially explain the phenomenon based on my extraordinary evidence of it. That means that my argument is based on the conditional premise that telepathy is a real thing. Arguments based on conditional premises are commonplace..

You don't have to accept the premise. You can simply ignore the argument. But you can't argue that the argument is unsound simply because you don't accept the premise.

I'll make this simple for you. You either (a) believe alien abduction is real or (b) you think it's false or unlikely, because you need evidence.

Since my argument is based on my evidence of telepathy, this is a false analogy.

 

[England my lionheart]

Some peop

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.

Some people have seen dancing bananas whilst on a trip,once the trip is over are they still there?,I doubt it.

 

[joe1776]

You thought the article did support your woo views. You could have only thought the article supported your views if...

1. You just went by the title and didn't actually read the article.
2. You just went by the title because you didn't understand the article.

So, your "reasoning" went something like this:

Despite being shown a mass of research on the topic, you still consider psi to be "woo." Therefore, all those scientists and everyone else who believes in woo must be really stupid people, not nearly as smart as you are.

And since in your judgment I believe in woo, you figure that I fell for the click-bait title to the article and didn't read the article.

Here's what I think: I think you're fairly bright but your main purpose in this thread, which you argued on two fronts, has been to annoy your debate opponents rather than to engage in intelligent debate. That goal only makes you appear dumber and more biased than you really are.

 

[ecco]

So, your "reasoning" went something like this:

Despite being shown a mass of research on the topic, you still consider psi to be "woo."

The first part of the "mass of research on the topic" that you presented, stated there is no basis to believe psi, esp, woo. Had you read and/or been able to understand the article, you would have known that. You didn't. You just saw a title "Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which Means Science Is Broken." and p**d your pants with glee.

Therefore, all those scientists and everyone else who believes in woo must be really stupid people, not nearly as smart as you are.

In addition to being wrong about psi, you also apparently have no concept of the relationship between intelligence and belief in woo.

And since in your judgment I believe in woo, you figure that I fell for the click-bait title to the article and didn't read the article.

I don't need to figure at all. It's blatantly obvious that either...

• You didn't read the article.
• You didn't understand what you read.
• You posted the article in the hope no one would actually read past the headline.
• You intentionally posted an article that shows your woo ideas are wrong.

None of which puts you in a good light. I've posted this before and you still haven't said why you posted an article that shows your views are wrong. As I asked in a previous post, how long do you want to go on embarrassing yourself?

Here's what I think: I think you're fairly bright but your main purpose in this thread, which you argued on two fronts, has been to annoy your debate opponents rather than to engage in intelligent debate. That goal only makes you appear dumber and more biased than you really are.

You are entitled to your opinion. What did you do after I showed that you posted an article without having read it? You posted three pages of links to other articles that you probably have not read either.

Tell us again who is appearing dumber?

 

[atanu]

Some peop


Some people have seen dancing bananas whilst on a trip,once the trip is over are they still there?,I doubt it.

Yes, dancing banana experience may also be life transforming mystical experience.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes, dancing banana experience may also be life transforming mystical experience.

Especially if you slip on the skin

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So, your "reasoning" went something like this:

Despite being shown a mass of research on the topic, you still consider psi to be "woo." Therefore, all those scientists and everyone else who believes in woo must be really stupid people, not nearly as smart as you are.

And since in your judgment I believe in woo, you figure that I fell for the click-bait title to the article and didn't read the article.

Here's what I think: I think you're fairly bright but your main purpose in this thread, which you argued on two fronts, has been to annoy your debate opponents rather than to engage in intelligent debate. That goal only makes you appear dumber and more biased than you really are.

Until such time where researching something equates to evidence for something, the logical default position will always be skepticism. Unfortunately, cut copying and pasting a hundred research studies into the paranormal and the supernatural, does not equate to conclusive, falsifiable, and reproducible evidence. In science, certainty is not determined by a consensus of interests. It is determined by the quality of the evidence, or the data.

Doesn't it seem odd that since the dawn of mankind, no one has clearly demonstrated any psychic, paranormal, or supernatural abilities? Why, like the existence of a God(s), has this been so hard to prove or demonstrate? What is the substrate being used to connect a paranormal cause with its effect? What are its physical or metaphysical properties that are exclusive only to the paranormal and the supernatural? How do we distinguish between naturally occurring anomalies, paranormal anomalies, sensory anomalies, and statistical anomalies? There are no paranormal or supernatural tools in science to study these phenomena.

Maybe you can point to just ONE conclusive scientific study, that clearly demonstrates and explains the existence of the paranormal and the supernatural? Just one would do it. Certainly by now, there should be a lot of rich psychics, Nobel Laureates, or other clear examples of paranormal and supernatural abilities. So far, just humans attempting to gap-fill their ignorance with inconclusive results. So what is your best example(since you've read all the studies you've posted), of conclusive falsifiable, and irrefutable evidence for the existence of the paranormal and the supernatural?

Just more smoking mirrors, and huffing and puffing.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Especially if you slip on the skin

It won't be banana skins that you will be slipping on.

 

[charlie sc]

You pouted because I pointed out that Ray Hyman was a respected critic and you were not.

I never said I was a respected critic, but you seem to think it has relevance.I don't know if this is an insult and/or this is some argument you think is valid. I'd respect you more if this was some kind of juvenile insult than some argument you're trying to invoke. If this is some kind of argument against me, then you're one of the worst debaters I've ever seen.

You were feeling sorry for yourself

Believe what you will.

You made the positive claim of alignment ( My 326 post aligns with the quote from Hyman). The burden of proof is yours.

I did provide evidence. I ask anyone with half a brain to examine what I said in #326 vs #338(the quote from Hyman). They may also compare my general attitude of psi in this thread with Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals: comment on Storm et al. (2010). - PubMed - NCBI (if they have access). Considering how many times you've been corrected in this thread, I don't expect you to comprehend this, let alone read it. However, anyone else who's observing this thread can.

My theory was not based on anecdotal evidence. It was a theory offered to partially explain the phenomenon based on my extraordinary evidence of it. That means that my argument is based on the conditional premise that telepathy is a real thing. Arguments based on conditional premises are commonplace..

You don't have to accept the premise. You can simply ignore the argument. But you can't argue that the argument is unsound simply because you don't accept the premise.

I don't have to take your argument for granted nor will I grant you this. Also, It seems like you have no knowledge of how the brain works, considering your basic theory and a lack of comprehension of logic. For fun, let's see you construct a logical syllogism or construct some theory with scientific references for whatever it is you're trying to push?

Since my argument is based on my evidence of telepathy, this is a false analogy.

It's the perfect analogy; you just fail to understand it.

 

[atanu]

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.

I thought it fit to share a thought of Huxley here.

From pure sensation to the intuition of beauty, from pleasure and pain to love and the mystical ecstasy and death — all the things that are fundamental, all the things that, to the human spirit, are most profoundly significant, can only be experienced, not expressed. The rest is always and everywhere silence.

After silence that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.

Aldous Huxley
Music at Night and Other Essays
​