[MEGA] God

[Enlitx]

I get what you mean, but my pre-cog experiences have been WAY too drastic to be "coincidences" (I put that word in quotes because it's a word you would use, but I personally don't believe in coincidences at all). I only wrote a few of them out in the other thread.

Yeah I could see something randomly happening that is weird once in awhile, but I mean, what are the chances of dreaming vividly about someone you haven't seen or thought about in years, and then running into them the next day? Now what are the chances of this happening as often as this has happened to me? (a lot, more times than I can count)

I agree we look for patterns but I also feel some patterns are just boldly THERE, there's no denying it. And I'm not saying I'm so magical and special or anything, I think everyone taps into what I call this "grid of synchronicity" somewhat, some just more than others.

Also, for the record, I don't forget most of my dreams. When I have a dream that means something to me (In whatever way, even if it just feels like my subconscious is trying to tell me something) I write it down so I can ponder it. I also have an amazing memory, I can still remember in detail dreams I had as a small child..

Like I said before, humans are going to find patterns no matter what the case. Mix in the befuddled memory from dreams and the desire to see precog connections and you will have people claiming they dream about the future. You have so many dreams every night, the probability is in your favor to have these experiences.

Now, if you could actually predict something concrete happening, lets say 9/11, that would be something. No one ever seems to have dreams that tell them the exact time and nature of an event. They are always fuzzy and left wide open for interpreation. I just think this is another instance where you want to see connections that aren't there. It is like that episode of House where he dreams he is in Iraq and is with this soldier. When he wakes up, he has to treat the same guy he saw in his dream, who he thought he had never seen before in his life. At first, even to House, it appears that there is some metaphysical precog going on. It is at this point that someone like you would just stop and say "Hey, precog is real, I experienced it!". Long story short, he had known the guy from before, knew he was in the army, and therefore he dreamed about him in that scenario. It was just chance that he ended up treating the guy the next day.

It is all a matter of you wanting these ideas to be true.

 

[Enlitx]

As MDAO states, despite your contrary declaration, occam's razor doesn't work when you are trying to equate parts which may be unquantifiable.

Sure does, that is exacty why it is so useful. It negates the need for all of these added layers of complexity to explain the universe. That is why people have been using Occam's razor with reference to God for a long time now.

No, you do not fully understand. You will not fully understand what we are talking about without having experienced these things yourself.

Well, I do not fully understand a schizophrenic in the sense that I am not schizophrenic myself. That doesen't mean that I don't have a good idea what is happening with the schizoprhenic though, and that I don't understand the types of things he is going through. Again, not in the sense that I have experienced them, but I can generally grasp delusional/paranoid thinking and why it might be occuring.

 

[Enlitx]

oo, this looks fun.

Indeed, jump in .

The reasoning you have provided here is also a product of your brain activity. Does that somehow disqualify your reasoning and experience? The fact that peak states of consciousness have qualitatively different brain activity is a big "no shit".

This is not what I was saying at all. I said that you can predict the altered brain activity based on abnormalities in the anatomy of the brain. There is a casual relationship there. It goes from altered anatomy->altered perceptions-> paranormal experiences. There is a distinct line of casual relationships, I thought this was a big "no shit".

It is analagous to me smashing your prefrontal cortex with a hammer, which results in you not being able to make decisions very well. You could say that the reason you can't make decisions is because you are being influenced by a metaphysical entity that is soothing your brain so that you don't have the problem of decisions, or you could choose the obvious answer that someone smashed the shit out of the front of your brain. While the changes involved in paranormal experiences/delusional thinking are much more subtle, it is the same principle.

All this shows is that these experiences do exist and they are a unique mode of experiencing.

When you can tie many of the paranormal experiences to an actual cause, it shows quite a bit more than you are willing to admit. The fact that scientists can induce mystic and out of body experiences suggests that the entire experience itself is a manifestation of the brain, and not an external metaphysical entity causing the brain to react differently. Unless you consider electromagnetic waves as metaphysical.

It sounds like you are implying that the absence of such brain activity would be needed to qualify these peak state experiences. What is your logic there?


1) Again, everyday life experience have correlate neurological activity. This doesn't say that much either way.

2) On what grounds are you making the claim these experiences are feelings?

I have already explained the casual relationship. 400 years ago, almost every claim of paranormal experience was taken at face value. Over the years, we have slowly defined diseases and abnormalities in brain function. We have been mapping these to specific regions. While we can't explain every single experience yet, it would be wise to think that we will keep narrowing down exactly why people are experiencing the things they do. I am sure you guys would have loved it 1000 years ago, when many many scientifically explained phenomenom were accredited to metaphysical events.

 

[yougene]

Sure does, that is exacty why it is so useful. It negates the need for all of these added layers of complexity to explain the universe. That is why people have been using Occam's razor with reference to God for a long time now.

Occam's razor doesn't negate anything. It's a generalization for inductive speculation not a logical rule.

Last time I checked layers of complexity was the corner-stone of science.

 

[Enlitx]

I agree. I think Enlitx can understand what HE/she(?) (you are a he right? Sorry I don't know why I assumed that) THINKS our experiences must have been like from his perspective. But what isn't being understood here, is you simply CANT understand without having the experience. There is an x factor of instinct and intuition involved which I do truly think you have to feel to understand.

Even though all I can do is assume what you guys went through, it changes nothing about what I have said. Can a doctor not treat a schizophrenic because he doesen't know what it is like? Just because you experienced it does not make it real (in the sense that it is more than a manifestation of your mind), and if there is a likely explanation that I know of, I don't need to have actually gone through it to determine what is probably happening.

 

[Enlitx]

People only know what they beleive. People can only teach what they know. This is the kind of subject that really cant be discussed cause it will end up in an argument. when it comes to God and Deity beleifs people arnt willing to waver cause these are eternal beleifs. The things of God are eternal. Even the Holy bible says not to argue over Scriptures, or argue over Jesus or God. This type of discussion will never end up being solved, its pointless.

It is high time people argued over this stuff. Maybe 2000 years ago when we didn't have good scientific explanations for our origins it was OK to make up a sky daddy just popping people into existence. We need to do better now that our society has evolved. We need to realize that these beliefs are a product of our emotional needs and not reflective of the actual situation. Considering all the problems religions have brought and are still bringing in this world, it is not ok just to let delusional thinking go unchecked.

 

[Enlitx]

%)

I entertain the possibility there's something to what she claims about her friend. Perhaps not what appears at face value, but I don't know. I'd have to see it happen, or fail to happen, to make up my mind.

This is my kitchen, and I serve up plenty of good healthy debate, don't you worry %)

I guess that is where we differ. Until there is a good reason to believe something, I will not entertain the idea that all posibilites are just as likely. Especially since history has taught us that humans tend to make extremely exaggerated claims.

No worries here, I just hope you can get a little dirty in the kitchen if you need to %).

When you get right down to it, Occam's razor, when wielded by the most hardnosed and practical of people, actually cuts away all metaphysical inquiry entirely. After all, it's not necessary to assume ANY metaphysical position, including yours, for getting things done and making decisions in the real world. The most practical of people would consider this whole discussion, and much of this whole forum, a waste of time and a distraction from action.

So as soon as we even bring up the subject of things that exist beyond the physical, we've thrown Occam's razor out the window.

Well that is not entirely true. For example, when discussing parallel universes/multiple dimensions/time travel, there are plenty of probable outcomes that you can't cut away with occam's razor, because they are all likely interpretations of what we know.

Do you really expect people to stand there and listen to you tell them they are delusional and needy? Those are fighting words, that show disrespect. I also happen to think that we sentient beings have it in our bones to reach for something higher and beyond our mundane existence. But note the way I phrased this.

Fighting words? I just defined what hope is. I hope for things because it makes me feel better, but that doesen't change what it fundamentally is.

You misunderstand how medicine works. The burden of proof for deeming something pathological hinges on showing impaired functioning and decreased quality of life. This is especially true of psychiatric diagnoses.

No, I have a pretty good understanding how medicine works. I am going to graduate school for pharmacology, I am not lacking in understanding. Just because something isn't a problem at that moment doesen't mean it won't be.

No. I have suggested that once we leave the realm of the physical and quantifiable, we have no basis for quantitatively assessing probability.

Not quantitatively, but we can apply qualifying logic.

Let's assume for a second that nothing ultimately matters. No cosmic plans, no ultimate purpose to anything. What basis, then, have we for saying that post-Enlightenment people have inherently 'better' existences than pre-Enlightenment people. Or that anyone's life is better-lived than anyone else's? Seems to me in this scenario, I'm free to do / speak / think / believe as I please, as do you, and neither of us has any grounds for criticizing the way the other lives his life or makes up his mind.

That really doesen't make any sense. Just because there is no absolute scheme of things that makes your life matter doesen't mean that logic doesen't apply. Everyone is free to do what they want, that isn't the issue here.

Which brings me to my final point. Feel free to not be my patient. Feel free to encourage others not to be my patients. That's no skin off my back. My work will speak for itself.

I understand why you think as you do, and I don't have any disrespect for your point of view, even though I don't hold it. I don't feel you reciprocating, though. You've painted hope, faith, and subjective experience in a wholly negative light. You've attacked my professional competence, even though what I told you is straight from my training. And most infuriating of all, you've made me repeat myself multiple times. I'm a big boy -- I can take it. (You're not the first to take me to task as you have, and you won't be the last. It keeps me on my toes.) But don't wonder why a lot of posters here don't dig you.

I have attacked certain ideas, and like I have said, if I feel that an idea is lacking in logic or support I will make that known. Like I said, if people just want others to say what a nifty idea they have it should be written down in a journal, not open for discussion on a public forum. And I totally get why people don't dig me, I have enough friends, I didn't get on a message board to make more.

 

[Enlitx]

Premonition, intuition, synchronicity are the great elements of the unconscious in conjunction with nature which aligns fields and brings them into consciousness and makes them connect. Great power as well as spooky!

What does that mean? Align what fields? What element of unconscious? You are being entirely too broad for that statement to carry any meaning.

 

[Enlitx]

Occam's razor doesn't negate anything. It's a generalization for inductive speculation not a logical rule.

Last time I checked layers of complexity was the corner-stone of science.

It negates the need for added layers of complexity.

Last time I checked, science must fundamentally verify one layers before trying to determine a more complex interaction.

Occam's razor is useful in doing away with more ideas than are necessary (i.e. god creating man). As such, it negates layers of complexity in an explanation that aren't needed. Instead of heaping on more "what ifs" and "this might explain it", you can just stop at what is the simplest and least muddled view.

 

[yougene]

This is not what I was saying at all. I said that you can predict the altered brain activity based on abnormalities in the anatomy of the brain.

No you can't. Most all peak states can be experienced by everyone. There is nothing abnormal about something that is universal. You are interjecting your own opinions here and trying to pass them off as scientific conclusion.

These states are reachable by everyone through the countless methods out there. Meditation, drugs, devices, sports, the Grand Canyon, etc...

There is a casual relationship there. It goes from altered anatomy->altered perceptions-> paranormal experiences. There is a distinct line of casual relationships, I thought this was a big "no shit".

I think you meant to say causal.

This sort of data doesn't show a causal relationship. This shows a correlation.

On the flip-side, oh wow this guy can stop his brainwaves using his mind. Causal relationship from mind to brain.

It is analagous to me smashing your prefrontal cortex with a hammer, which results in you not being able to make decisions very well. You could say that the reason you can't make decisions is because you are being influenced by a metaphysical entity that is soothing your brain so that you don't have the problem of decisions, or you could choose the obvious answer that someone smashed the shit out of the front of your brain. While the changes involved in paranormal experiences/delusional thinking are much more subtle, it is the same principle.

Not a good contrast. People who meditate and do other sorts of state training have more developed brains as a result and reap all sorts of positive benefits. Increased attention spans, calmer emotional states, increased mobility through psychological stages, and so on.

Your characterization of these states is elementary and goes against what we know about them. Your arguments depend on categorizing these experiences in ways that fit your argument rather than doing the logically/scientifically respectable action. Experiencing these states for yourself several times, and making your own conclusion from 1st hand experience.

When you can tie many of the paranormal experiences to an actual cause, it shows quite a bit more than you are willing to admit. The fact that scientists can induce mystic and out of body experiences suggests that the entire experience itself is a manifestation of the brain, and not an external metaphysical entity causing the brain to react differently. Unless you consider electromagnetic waves as metaphysical.

Not really. For one "entity's" are enacted in a small subset of these types of states. If your reasoning is built on the assumption of acting entities you have missed the mark. Second, most of these states are not interpreted as an external force acting on an individual even from the traditional views. They are perspectives that one can enter, not entities of contact. Being able to enter a perspective by the use of magnetism, electricity, brainwave entrainment, drugs, meditation, or whatever doesn't say much about the perspectives validity and is consistent with certain traditional assertions.

I have already explained the casual relationship. 400 years ago, almost every claim of paranormal experience was taken at face value. Over the years, we have slowly defined diseases and abnormalities in brain function. We have been mapping these to specific regions. While we can't explain every single experience yet, it would be wise to think that we will keep narrowing down exactly why people are experiencing the things they do.

Like I said before, you're logically putting the cart before the horse here.

I am sure you guys would have loved it 1000 years ago, when many many scientifically explained phenomenom were accredited to metaphysical events.

Well look at the flipside of the type of logical fallacy performed by some these days. Dismissing phenomenon on the fact that someone had attributed metaphysical structures to it in the past.
"Yeah, those ancient people thought there was an angel behind every blade of grass. This whole idea of grass must be complete bullshit!"

 

[Enlitx]

No you can't. Most all peak states can be experienced by everyone. There is nothing abnormal about something that is universal. You are interjecting your own opinions here and trying to pass them off as scientific conclusion.

Wait, peak states? Are we referring to the same thing? I was referring to paranormal contact.

These states are reachable by everyone through the countless methods out there. Meditation, drugs, devices, sports, the Grand Canyon, etc...

If paranormal contact is inducible by an abornal alteration in neuropharmacology (i.e. drugs) shouldn't that tell you something about what is actually causing the paranormal feelings, as in people having natually altered chemical profiles in their brain? Then again, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.

I think you meant to say causal.

Yep, I just got done with finals, give me a break .

This sort of data doesn't show a causal relationship. This shows a correlation.

On the flip-side, oh wow this guy can stop his brainwaves using his mind. Causal relationship from mind to brain.

I believe the brain produces a quantam holographic field, so you can change certain brain functions with your mind. It is still all dependent on your brain producing the field in the first place though. I think it does indicate a causual relationship when you can induce mystic states with electromagnetic waves. At least this would be supporting evidence to suggest a causual relationship.

Not a good contrast. People who meditate and do other sorts of state training have more developed brains as a result and reap all sorts of positive benefits. Increased attention spans, calmer emotional states, increased mobility through psychological stages, and so on.

I believe in meditation, and I agree about its benefits. That is why I think we might be referring to seperate things.

Your characterization of these states is elementary and goes against what we know about them. Your arguments depend on categorizing these experiences in ways that fit your argument rather than doing the logically/scientifically respectable action. Experiencing these states for yourself several times, and making your own conclusion from 1st hand experience.

Could you clarify what you are trying to say here? I am a little confused because I totally agree that meditation can do the things you claimed, I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

Not really. For one "entity's" are enacted in a small subset of these types of states. If your reasoning is built on the assumption of acting entities you have missed the mark. Second, most of these states are not interpreted as an external force acting on an individual even from the traditional views. They are perspectives that one can enter, not entities of contact. Being able to enter a perspective by the use of magnetism, electricity, brainwave entrainment, drugs, meditation, or whatever is completely consistent.

I agree with this. I think that most of the experiences we have been talking about are nothing more than entering a certain perspective. I think we may agree more than we know .

Like I said before, you're logically putting the cart before the horse here.

I think we need to clarify some things before we can determine that.

Well look at the flipside of the type of logical fallacy performed by some these days. Dismissing phenomenon on the fact that someone had attributed metaphysical structures to it in the past.
"Yeah, those ancient people thought there was an angel behind every blade of grass. This whole idea of grass must be complete bullshit!"

I find that most metaphysical claims are generated by the same desires/needs/neurological conditions that produced the same claims thousands of years ago. It is just that now people have to be a lot more vague and abstract about it since science can explain so much. Before, people could say that a god lived on a mountain and did all kinds of stuff since no one could check. Now, people have to use words like "energy fields" and "universal love" so that it is harder and harder to pin it down and show how silly it is.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

%)

I guess that is where we differ. Until there is a good reason to believe something, I will not entertain the idea that all posibilites are just as likely. Especially since history has taught us that humans tend to make extremely exaggerated claims.

No worries here, I just hope you can get a little dirty in the kitchen if you need to %).

Yeah, that must just be a difference of thinking style between us. I'm not a 'just the facts ma'am', 'stick to what we know' kind of guy, I'm pretty whimsical. No worries.

Well that is not entirely true. For example, when discussing parallel universes/multiple dimensions/time travel, there are plenty of probable outcomes that you can't cut away with occam's razor, because they are all likely interpretations of what we know.

But that's just it -- whatever the universe has just beneath the deepest levels of what we've currently detected could very well be inconsistent with everything we've ever seen thus far.

You say that logic is what's gotten our species as far as it has. I agree, but so have imagination, creativity, and the willingness to depart from the known and familiar.

Fighting words? I just defined what hope is. I hope for things because it makes me feel better, but that doesen't change what it fundamentally is.

hope
   /hoʊp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb, hoped, hop⋅ing.
–noun
1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.
2. a particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.
3. grounds for this feeling in a particular instance: There is little or no hope of his recovery.
4. a person or thing in which expectations are centered: The medicine was her last hope.
5. something that is hoped for: Her forgiveness is my constant hope.

I don't see anything here that carries the implication of delusion. It's certainly a matter of feeling, intuition, and/or desire, rather than cold reason. But unlike delusions, a person's metaphysical and spiritual beliefs are often quite consistent with that person's experience of the world, and what they aim for in life.

No, I have a pretty good understanding how medicine works. I am going to graduate school for pharmacology, I am not lacking in understanding. Just because something isn't a problem at that moment doesen't mean it won't be.

I never said I wouldn't look for other symptoms of illness if someone told me about paranormal experiences they had. What I said is, I would not jump to the conclusion that someone was ill just because they had such experiences. For example, I would need to see at least several other DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia or psychosis, plus clear evidence that the person and/or his family was burdened by the behavior, before I would make a diagnosis or referral, or prescribe an antipsychotic.

Not quantitatively, but we can apply qualifying logic.

Sure. In which case it becomes a good thought experiment. But since it won't ever be conclusive, it's not binding in the way inductions about the physical world are.

That really doesen't make any sense. Just because there is no absolute scheme of things that makes your life matter doesen't mean that logic doesen't apply. Everyone is free to do what they want, that isn't the issue here.

Different people reach different logical conclusions based on what they've lived and experienced, and what they've learned to trust. Ever seen the movie Rashomon?

I have attacked certain ideas, and like I have said, if I feel that an idea is lacking in logic or support I will make that known. Like I said, if people just want others to say what a nifty idea they have it should be written down in a journal, not open for discussion on a public forum. And I totally get why people don't dig me, I have enough friends, I didn't get on a message board to make more.

You're welcome to debate with any posts here that challenge people to critique their ideas. But please respect the fact that not everyone comes here looking for a debate. P&S exists because drugs have a long history of association with philosophy and spirituality, and users who've been blessed with revelations, or brought back pieces of wisdom from their drug experiences, need a safe place to share what they've seen and learned with others who've been there and understand, in the midst of a larger world that's less understanding. Someone doing reductionist takedowns of their experiences, or telling them their interpretations are delusional, is not helpful to this end.

This place is a sanctuary as much as it is a discussion forum. Since no one really knows what's going on beneath surface reality, we have a rule here that everyone is to treat everyone else's worldview with equal respect, unless someone advocates harm toward themselves or others. The results speak for themselves -- the forum has attracted a wider range of both posters and readers, and borne more interesting discussion fruit, since it abandoned a logical Law-of-the-Jungle approach and adopted a spirit of ecumenism, of mutual respect for many paths to truth.

Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

P.S. The folks over in the Lounge love themselves a good cathartic God- and religion-bashing thread, it's truly no holds barred, if that's more your cup of joe.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Like I said before, humans are going to find patterns no matter what the case. Mix in the befuddled memory from dreams and the desire to see precog connections and you will have people claiming they dream about the future. You have so many dreams every night, the probability is in your favor to have these experiences.

Now, if you could actually predict something concrete happening, lets say 9/11, that would be something. No one ever seems to have dreams that tell them the exact time and nature of an event. They are always fuzzy and left wide open for interpreation. I just think this is another instance where you want to see connections that aren't there. It is like that episode of House where he dreams he is in Iraq and is with this soldier. When he wakes up, he has to treat the same guy he saw in his dream, who he thought he had never seen before in his life. At first, even to House, it appears that there is some metaphysical precog going on. It is at this point that someone like you would just stop and say "Hey, precog is real, I experienced it!". Long story short, he had known the guy from before, knew he was in the army, and therefore he dreamed about him in that scenario. It was just chance that he ended up treating the guy the next day.

It is all a matter of you wanting these ideas to be true.

No, you still aren't getting it. But there's nothing I can do to show you..

It's just going in circles at this point.

 

[L2R]

Enlitx, since you're bringing up tv shows, have you seen the Futurama episode where Bender is flying through space and a civilisation sprouts on him and he tries to be a good god for them but they just wipe themselves out? In it, he meets God who teaches him about using an elegant touch.

God: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
God: Yes, if he makes it look like an electrical thing. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

What does that mean? Align what fields? What element of unconscious? You are being entirely too broad for that statement to carry any meaning.

Don't worry about it, I am rumbling on in a language that is only understood by the ones who understand!


>And I totally get why people don't dig me, I have enough friends, I didn't get on a message board to make more.

Yes it is obvious, since your attitude is not friendly at all. By the way, we all have enough friends that does not make us use the attitude you demonstrate.
Cold rationalist and over analysing to the point that you want to kill the whole idea, whatever the idea may be, does not create a good environment where a nice exchange can take place! I wonder whether you let yourself open at all and to wonder!

I just experience a vexation coming from you! It tires the spirit down, and please don't ask me to clarify what spirit is, or negate it for me! I just know that after constantly being addressed in the manner that you do, I feel drained! The reason you don't understand anyone's expressions here IS because you have absolutely no faith other then in chemistry, which alludes me as to what you are doing in a theosophical debate.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Don't worry about it, I am rumbling on in a language that is only understood by the ones who understand!

Haha well put. I understand!

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

Haha well put. I understand!

I know!! I had absolutely no doubt of that!!!!!!!!!!1
I don't think it is his language though!

 

[Enlitx]

But that's just it -- whatever the universe has just beneath the deepest levels of what we've currently detected could very well be inconsistent with everything we've ever seen thus far.

Anything at all "could" be, so really there would be no point in talking about that stuff unless you use some qualifying logic.

You say that logic is what's gotten our species as far as it has. I agree, but so have imagination, creativity, and the willingness to depart from the known and familiar.

I agree with you there.

hope
   /hoʊp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb, hoped, hop⋅ing.
–noun
1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.
2. a particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.
3. grounds for this feeling in a particular instance: There is little or no hope of his recovery.
4. a person or thing in which expectations are centered: The medicine was her last hope.
5. something that is hoped for: Her forgiveness is my constant hope.


I don't see anything here that carries the implication of delusion. It's certainly a matter of feeling, intuition, and/or desire, rather than cold reason. But unlike delusions, a person's metaphysical and spiritual beliefs are often quite consistent with that person's experience of the world, and what they aim for in life.

Maybe delusion was too strong of a word. It is just the feeling of wanting. At any rate, I think that some people's metaphysical explanations or views on god are consistent with their experiences because they take everything at face value. I think better explanations are available, but they require emotional honesty and a bit of hard reading.

Different people reach different logical conclusions based on what they've lived and experienced, and what they've learned to trust. Ever seen the movie Rashomon?

Different people reach different conclusions, but I wouldn't call all of them logical. Nope, never seen that movie.

You're welcome to debate with any posts here that challenge people to critique their ideas. But please respect the fact that not everyone comes here looking for a debate. P&S exists because drugs have a long history of association with philosophy and spirituality, and users who've been blessed with revelations, or brought back pieces of wisdom from their drug experiences, need a safe place to share what they've seen and learned with others who've been there and understand, in the midst of a larger world that's less understanding. Someone doing reductionist takedowns of their experiences, or telling them their interpretations are delusional, is not helpful to this end.

This place is a sanctuary as much as it is a discussion forum. Since no one really knows what's going on beneath surface reality, we have a rule here that everyone is to treat everyone else's worldview with equal respect, unless someone advocates harm toward themselves or others. The results speak for themselves -- the forum has attracted a wider range of both posters and readers, and borne more interesting discussion fruit, since it abandoned a logical Law-of-the-Jungle approach and adopted a spirit of ecumenism, of mutual respect for many paths to truth.

Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

P.S. The folks over in the Lounge love themselves a good cathartic God- and religion-bashing thread, it's truly no holds barred, if that's more your cup of joe.

I just don't agree that on a public discussion forum you have to respect every view. That does not lead to healthy debate. I will try to rerfrain from making judgements though.

 

[Enlitx]

No, you still aren't getting it. But there's nothing I can do to show you..

It's just going in circles at this point.

I just think you like to believe I am not getting it. Either way, we are getting redundant.

 

[Enlitx]

Don't worry about it, I am rumbling on in a language that is only understood by the ones who understand!

Well then explain it.