Hold on burn, that's changing your point entirely. I can see no end of mystical and spiritual things about psychedelics. I just can't see any in organised religion. You were also claiming that organised religion comes from the same source as psychedelic spirituality, some desire to explain the mind/cosmos. Despite organised religion offering no direct experience of anything spiritual apart from meditation and "here, read this book from 2000 years ago and BELIEVE what it says".
I haven't changed my point at all, youre the one who keeps going off on tangents. I haven't once used the phrase "organized religion" , unless I was quoting you. When I talk about religion, I am referring to the spiritual beliefs and traditions of various cultures and peoples around the globe. Yes, these traditions in some cases gave birth to what may now be referred to as "organized religions", so what? I would also say that you should consider the possibility you are spiritually impaired if you think psychedelics are the only way to have a mystical experience.
Ok, so you've abandoned that argument you've been pushing for the last 3 pages about organised religion being an "attempt to explain the mind/cosmos" that we should treat the same as anything psychedelics can offer us. Now it's bait and switch and moving on to to trying to say all you meant was that psychedelics are spiritual?
LOl, now you're telling me I am abandoning arguments I never made in the first place? What I said was, just like Freud used a model of the, ego ID and superego to lend insight into the workings of the psyche, so also, spiritual traditions, religions, mythologies, have their own stories which are intended to lend insight in the workings of the psyche, life and the cosmos.
If you are unable to understand them, or you prefer to only focus on the negative and corrupt aspects of modern day "organized religions" and ignore the spiritual and mystical roots, that's your choice. But it has nothing to do with my argument.
Not really no, you'd need to give the quote some context. Unless you want to explain what you believe they mean.
And as I've told you before, don't lump all these guys together as one and try and claim they all support your theories. For example, Alan Watts drank himself to a long, slow miserable death on whiskey at the same time as giving lectures on spirituality. So no, learn a little more about these people before you try and reduce them to a one line quote.
How does Alan Watts drinking himself to death (which I was aware of) disprove anything I've said? I used to be a heroin addict, that does invalidate my arguments? Just because someone has spiritual beliefs or ideals, doesn't make them immune to evil or vice.
Hmmm...Could you give one of these alleged "truths" instead of one line quotes from people and then claiming their one line quotes support all the stories in the bible? It's leaps of deranged thinking like this that weaken your argument so catastrophically.
I never claimed that, you are the one who is making deranged leaps. I don't want to see another post from you where you put words in my mouth or even attempt to paraphrase me. This whole thread, you have been unable to refute my point so you have taken to repeatedly trying to go off on tangents making use of straw men and red herrings over and over again.
Science progresses and new things become accepted. Religion doesn't. No-one gets out origin of species and says "That's the word of God and will be true forever".
Religion also progresses, you honestly think religious thought today is the exact same as it was 5,000 years ago? Give me a break. Also, this is not a science vs religion argument.
You seriously believe the eternal truth can be found in bibles and korans?
My personal beliefs aren't whats at stake here. My point was that some facts of life don't change. A lot of things which were true 2,000 years ago are still true today. The human psyche functions the same way it did 2000 years ago today. The Earth orbits the sun the same way it did 2,000 years ago, today. 2 + 2 eqalled 4 2,000 years ago just as it does today. Therefore, lots of ancient wisdom is still as applicable to life today as it was then. Not saying it can't progress , as i said religious thinking does progress. Philosophers, theologians, saints, mystics, etc have been writing about spiritual and religious truths and "progressing" them for the last 2,000 years.
The standard burn out argument policy - pick one line or one person and then claim that supports an entire world view. Back in the 60s a troubled gay guy took psychedelics and became religious after losing his well paid job. It happens. Do you really want to use him to push your arguments?
Absolutely. That's why I said I am on the same page as guys like Ram Daas. If you disagree, fine, but understand I am not the first or the last person to appreciate or see mystical truth in both religion and psychedelics. A lot of very smart, well respected people in the psychedelic community are on my side. thats all Ive been saying.
I've no doubt there's other people who took psychedelics, went to India and came back and never bothered with it again like Ringo.
Speaking at the Grammy Museum, Los Angeles, in February 2010, Starr stated that he had recently returned to monotheism, saying "I stepped off the path there for many years and found my way [back] onto it, thank God."[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_the_Beatles
Btw, the fact that some people take psychedelics, become interested in religion and then give it up proves absolutely nothing. You fail at logic.