Childish bickering? These aren't "my ideas," by the way. I'm simply pointing people to recent research that has only been done in the past few decades, and the implications of those studies and their findings. Nyarlathotep with his silly "point-system" and the fact that Tieler indulges Nyarlathotep's nonsense is what I'd call childish bickering. This is basically the impression I have of Atheist Republic, and I'm new here. The only person that seemed to have genuine questions about the topic out of this entire dialogue was you. I find the dialogue at ThinkAtheist or even AtheistNexus are more constructive and you don't get the sense that you're engaging teenagers or atheists in their early 20s. And I maintain their input is some kind of accepted form of trolling on these forums.

@The Pragmatic

"You seem to be missing the point I’m trying to make:

I'm not trying to argue against your position, I’m talking about why you're not getting a red carpet treatment."

That's your point? I didn't expect red carpet treatment here. I've pointed out that most atheists are completely unfamiliar with mystical experience or even the implications of such experiences such as the Perennial philosophy.

"The Pragmatic - "Your title alone, where you are declaring that Atheism and Theism are DEAD, is very concrete and explicit, and it is quite evident that Atheism and Theism are neither dead nor dying."

Kafei - "No, if you truly consider the Perennialist perspective..."

Of course you can argue that from a specific philosophical perspective atheism and theism is dead. But in practice it is not and in the view of everyone who is not already convinced in the Perennialist perspective, you're statement in the topic title IS false."

The only reason why theism and atheism still exists is because of ignorance. If we knew how these things came to be, then there'd be no reason to debate. I believe the atheist is fighting an uphill battle in that they've got a very dualistic mindset, and cannot see beyond this notion of "either God exist or God doesn't exist." They don't see an alternative perspective around that, and that's precisely what Perennial philosophy is. It's not a theist or even atheist perspective. It's a completely different interpretation altogether.

"An atheist could argue with an ISIS fanatic that their belief is false and based on a dead theistic concept, until he gets his head cut off.

The Pragmatic - "You also made an impression as someone peddling the (in my view) petty idea that we should all take drugs to connect with this cosmic truth, in short 'Stop bickering and arguing and get high.'
Not a serious impression either."

Kafei - "Again, incorrect. The psilocybin studies I've referred to claim that the…"

I'm not arguing about the validity of the studies. I'm explaining the impression you’re making (at least from my perspective).

Well, if it's simply an impression to you, then that's all that is. As I've pointed out, I'm not attempting to peddle anything like that here. I don't think people should underestimate just how powerful these plants and fungi can be. We're not talking about a mere nudge of an altered state of consciousness, but an overwhelmingly titanic altered state of consciousness that most people (atheists and theists alike), despite the fact that this experience can happen naturally, have NOT experienced.

"The Pragmatic - "...it's even possible that there might be some common denominator in all these experiences. But that is not a valid basis to draw any conclusions of 'cosmic truths'."

Kafei - "...the mystical experience doesn't necessarily have to be induced by the psychedelics themselves. This is a point I…"

That is not what I was talking about, I’m just pointing out that you are jumping to unmerited conclusions. Granted, this hinges a lot on what ‘cosmic truths’ means. But I doubt you’ll be prepared to define it."

I don't think the study is saying that there is a "cosmic truth" to this experience. That's a deeper question. However, they are pointing out the fact that there is a common denominator to this experience, and they list 6 major characteristics in the study that are present in every individual said to have a full-blown mystical experience. So, that's not just a possibility, that is inevitable to anyone who has such an experience. Perennial philosophy highlights the accounts of mystical experience found throughout all major religions from Hinduism to Christianity.

"The Pragmatic - "I highly doubt that the research is making claims about actually finding anything resembling a 'cosmic truth'. I highly doubt that they are claiming that something beyond what is already in our brains can be tapped into by these experiences. Do you have anything to the contrary?"

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmic truth." Did you pick up this term by skimming the Wiki page on Perennial philosophy? If you're reading Wiki and come across the word "cosmic truth," I'd replace that with mystical experience. After all, the so-called "cosmic truth" may very well be the enlightenment of this experience. I've explained how the core characteristic in mystical experience is the powerful intuitive impression that everything that exists is ultimately a unicity. Our contemporary physicists also allude to the multiverse ultimately being one unseparable whole. People have also reported the feeling of being able to "feel their fate," as though they had no free will. Ramesh Balsekar speaks of this experience in that fashion, there's also EgoDeath.com which speaks about entheogenic experiences relative to this phenomenon. Now, whether these things are truly so, that is to say whether they bear correspondence to reality, I don't even believe our science is sophisticated enough to even answer such a question.

"Kafei - "...when you say "beyond what is already in our brains" I'm not sure what you mean."

I mean, something beyond our brain, not just beyond normal consciousness. It sounds like you’re implying that we can reach something beyond what’s already in our brains, almost like some form of astral projection but within some mystical realm that is invisible and undetectable. It sounds like you’re implying something supernatural."

I suppose I can see how it may seem that way, but seem is the operative word here. I'm not implying the supernatural, however, despite the fact that N,N-DMT is already in our brains, that doesn't mean we experience it in a conscious state of mind. There's speculation that we may experience it during the REM stage of sleep, during a near-death experience, and also during deep states of meditation, but at the same time I wouldn't compare a dream to taking ayahuasca or psilocybin. Perhaps the near-death experience and the deep meditative states resemble mystical experience more so than a dream, but my point is that most people do not meditate nor have had a near-death experience. So, to induce a mystical experience via psilocybin is like inducing a near-death experience on-demand only you live to tell the tale. So, yes, it's already in us, but I'd say most people will not access that potential for a natural mystical experience 'til perhaps they're on their deathbed.

"The Pragmatic - "Just because you are referring to research and mentioning that it's getting some spotlight in our cultural mainstream, doesn't make 'perennial philosophy' correct or your personal conclusions correct."

I disagree. I believe mystical experience is evidence for a Perennialist perspective. I believe the more we explore the nature of this experience, the more light we will shed on many things; religion, the nature of consciousness, and perhaps finally we'll have a paradigm shift.

"Kafei - "I believe this is the direction these studies, ..., is going. The research is more and more hinting towards a Perennial philosophy."

Can't you see how this sounds? It sounds just like a creationist or a new age healer.

If I would say "I believe these studies are confirming my conclusions. The research is more and more hinting towards what what I'm trying to sell to you"

Wait a second now. These aren't "my conclusions." If you follow the studies, and actually try and understand what they're about, then the obvious implication is a Perennial philosophy. We don't have the mummy of Christ, so of course we can't detect if he had an overactive pineal gland or something like that or if he was practicing meditative techniques or ingesting entheogens or let alone if he even existed. So, we can't necessarily conclude it for a fact, but Perennial philosophy makes a strong case where accounts of mystical experience are concerned, and they're found throughout history within all the major religions. Perennialists such as Aldous Huxley, Frithjof Schuon highlight the scriptural accounts of mystical experience riddled throughout the history of the various major religions.

The problem with Wiki is it has a certain tone, and it's scattered, edited by different people here and there, and ultimately even sometimes contradicting itself. You see, Perennial philosophy originally saw mystical experience as the underlying core of religion, but it defined it differently in the 1800s. It's a concept that came from The Traditionalist School of Thought which has roots in Neoplatonism. Mystical experience was defined as dissolution into the divine or the Absolute. Nowadays, it's being defined in science as a very specific altered state of consciousness, and Perennial philosophy has taken this sway, too. Well, at least in the more contemporary material I've read on it. People have argued that the term Neurotheology be used, which is accepted by some professionals in related fields as the scientific study of mystical experiences. Then again some people don't even like the word neurotheology, and prefer "neuroscience of religion." But then many people don't feel comfortable with the term "mystical experience" itself, and make the mistake of thinking it has something to do with the supernatural instead of a very particular altered state. So, I agree, there's definitely an issue in the vocabulary chosen and being discussed even in these scientific studies. The only way to pave the way for a new language is to engage in discussions like these otherwise it's left up to the so-called "professionals."

"I wouldn't expect any better response than "Hello Ray Comfort, not so nice of you to drop by. Please, fuck off!".

The Pragmatic - "Bringing up your call to the Atheist Republic didn't help much either. They did what they could to remain respectful..."

Kafei - "Tracie agreed with pretty much everything I said, and she was aware of what psilocybin is, only she hadn't heard of the studies nor had she heard of the Perennial philosophy. Russell, on the other hand, was completely unfamiliar with psilocybin, and pretty much clueless on how to respond..."

I wouldn't expect you to interpret it any differently, since you brought it up to strengthen your case. But I saw something completely different than what you describe. I don't want to be mean, so I'll just say that she very professionally agreed with the agreeable points, while did what she could to not disagree with you. I'll leave it at that."

Russell really threw me off, and I thought I'd have a couple of drinks to take the edge off, but ended up overdoing it, and they took my call after all the international calls, so an hour into it, I was drunk. I wanted to address Tracie specifically, and tell Russell just to be quiet for a second. The only rebuttal they had was at the very end where they said they didn't believe the founders of the major religions had any mystical experience. I think there's way more evidence in the opposite direction, but anyway... They admitted they were ignorant of this stuff, so it wasn't very surprising. I wanted to call in again to correct myself. I said it was intravenous psilocybin, it was actually capsule. Like I said, Griffiths is still recruiting volunteers. Maybe I'll challenge Tracie to "have a mystical experience." Dawkins is obviously too pussy to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JEVTCc2jzA

"The Pragmatic - "Confirmation bias is making Theists draw conclusions not merited by evidence. In that regards, I don't see much difference between you and them..."

Kafei - "The biggest difference between this view and the theist's view is that it's not a theistic point-of-view. I think the issue is that people assume it to be."

Even if it's not theistic, it's still not merited by evidence, so arguing that seems irrelevant."

Well, I'd say the extraordinary evidence is the extraordinary experience. However, beyond that, we don't have Gautama's remains, so we can't prove it unmistakably, but through the accounts in religious text highlighted in Perennial philosophy, we do have scripture, poetry, hyms, etc. inspired by mystical experience. Christian mystics referred to this state as "Christ consciousness," we have myriads of depictions in art conveying this experience; "The Beatific vision," "Shekinah" in Judaism, and it's no secret that the eastern meditative techniques are designed to induce naturally occurring mystical experience which they've given many names in Hinduism and Buddhism; samadhi, moksha, nirvana, satori, sunyata, etc.

"Speaking for myself, I didn't assume any theistic element in your argumentation. What it seems like is instead a new-age-istic promotion of taking drugs to connect with some form of supernatural 'cosmic truth', in some semi-supernatural experience.
The fact that you say that the same result can be reached by natural means does little to remedy your credibility or improve the reception you could expect."

You did mention you were speaking for yourself as it's quite obvious you've never engaged such an experience. Of course me pointing out the fact that it can be induced naturally doesn't have an effect on you, you haven't had it; naturally or chemically-induced. You think I'm still promoting drugs and talking about something new-age and semi-supernatural. To the contrary, I'm talking about something very, very old, and completely natural. It's simply that the natural occurrence is a more rare occurrence, and I'd wager most people only ever meet this experience in the near-death experience, and unfortunately do not live to speak about it. That's probably why most people don't know about it.

"To sum up:"

Oh, shit. I can't wait to hear this.

"Even if you would happen to be 100% correct, you have given the same kind of impression as someone dressed up in a penguin suit running into a restaurant yelling "The aliens are coming, everyone have to stick something up your rectum right now, our you're going to get probed!", but you seem to expect everyone to just go "Hmm, you know, I think he has a point."

O_o

Really, after all these exchanges, this is what you've gotten out of it? I'd put it a different way. People are so alienated from their own soul that when they meet their soul they think it comes from another star system. In other words, most people have lost complete touch with this mystical experience. It still lurks on the peripheral of our culture, mentioned in scientific studies no one's heard about, forums/chatrooms on the internet, and shamans are still keeping it alive outside the countries that have made it illegal. But it's there and available to anyone, even the doubters. Also, you keep saying, "If you're correct." Why? These aren't my concepts. I'm just following the evidence to its natural conclusion. Given your penguin anal probing analogy, I'd imagine you might see it differently. What say you?