Does anyone disbelieve in God but believe in the Spiritual Realm?
- Thread starter taetae
- Start date
my point was that you can give rats LSD, they won't know that it's LSD (because they can't speak or read, neither they have any clue what LSD is) but you're still going to see these effects
studies like the one you posted use rats that are already addicted so they know how their drug looks like and/or how it smells
anyway, it is ridiculous to claim that LSD effects are due to placebo
studies like the one you posted use rats that are already addicted so they know how their drug looks like and/or how it smells
anyway, it is ridiculous to claim that LSD effects are due to placebo
You were implying it, otherwise why would you quote that post? You were implying that people who take LSD have these experience because of placebo effects, which is completely different from what they do with those rats.
BTW the effect of LSD was discovered by accident by Albert Hofmann who synthesized it so any "placebo hypothesis" is totally inconsistent
BTW the effect of LSD was discovered by accident by Albert Hofmann who synthesized it so any "placebo hypothesis" is totally inconsistent
Quote his post or your post?
No, if I implied that I would have posted up something pertaining to LSD. Remember, your statement was, " I am sure you'll agree there are no place bo effects in rats..." and in this statement you make NO MENTION of LSD. In fact, I don't recall seeing anyone mentioning LSD except for you. Again, you said there are no placebo effects in rats, and I showed that is incorrect. If you wanted to limit the statement you should have been specific.
So if I show you something from a credible source that states and explains the placebo effect of LSD will you leave this board for 3 months?
No, if I implied that I would have posted up something pertaining to LSD. Remember, your statement was, " I am sure you'll agree there are no place bo effects in rats..." and in this statement you make NO MENTION of LSD. In fact, I don't recall seeing anyone mentioning LSD except for you. Again, you said there are no placebo effects in rats, and I showed that is incorrect. If you wanted to limit the statement you should have been specific.
So if I show you something from a credible source that states and explains the placebo effect of LSD will you leave this board for 3 months?
No, first, because it's a trap, and second, because you just can't do that
That LSD is a potent agonist for most 5-HT serotonin receptors has been verified experimentally in vitro, in animal models, in every way you can think of, it's a fact. So I can't imagine how you're going to present me credible evidence it doesn't do anything on people
That LSD is a potent agonist for most 5-HT serotonin receptors has been verified experimentally in vitro, in animal models, in every way you can think of, it's a fact. So I can't imagine how you're going to present me credible evidence it doesn't do anything on people
What is a trap? And what do you mean by "you just can't do that"?
OK, but if I show you something from a credible source that states and explains the placebo effect of LSD will you leave this board for 3 months?
If you can't imagine it you would feel very confident in your position and would wager your status. I've wagered my status MANY times on this board, and since you claim to have experience in biology you should be eager to prove me wrong.
Now, my question to you is why bring up LSD in the first place? A person can achieve similar results (hallucenating etc) by failing to eat or by experiencing sensory deprivation, but how does it relate to this topic?
OK, but if I show you something from a credible source that states and explains the placebo effect of LSD will you leave this board for 3 months?
If you can't imagine it you would feel very confident in your position and would wager your status. I've wagered my status MANY times on this board, and since you claim to have experience in biology you should be eager to prove me wrong.
Now, my question to you is why bring up LSD in the first place? A person can achieve similar results (hallucenating etc) by failing to eat or by experiencing sensory deprivation, but how does it relate to this topic?
no, but if you have such a study I am curious to see it
I brought LSD to show you you don't need supernatural explanations for "spiritual experiences" and they are often caused by chemical compounds or certain conditions of the organism. Thus, the most plausible explanation for all of them, given the lack of evidence in support of any supernatural forces playing role, is that these exeriences are based on human physiology rather than anything else
If you can't imagine it you would feel very confident in your position and would wager your status. I've wagered my status MANY times on this board, and since you claim to have experience in biology you should be eager to prove me wrong.
Now, my question to you is why bring up LSD in the first place? A person can achieve similar results (hallucenating etc) by failing to eat or by experiencing sensory deprivation, but how does it relate to this topic?
Now, my question to you is why bring up LSD in the first place? A person can achieve similar results (hallucenating etc) by failing to eat or by experiencing sensory deprivation, but how does it relate to this topic?
Myuahhhaaha, I had suspected that someone would bring up drugs because it is pertinent to this topic.
BUT, even if you can prove that this is all physiological, how does that disprove it being supernatural? Just because there are physiological effects doesn't mean the experience is not supernatural.
Furthermore, if you DO believe in the real power of placebo, which most scientists do, then why can't you comprehend the REALITY of an experience that you would call "psychosomatic"? Maybe it is all in our minds.
Supernatural=unexplainable phenomena... if it's physiological then that means it's very explainable.
Of course it is all in our minds, our mind is what decodes sensory input and makes sense of outside stimuli. How our minds decode that sensory input is going to determine our perception.
Einstein's theory of relativity is based on perception and observed point of view (laws of space, time and gravity are not absolute but rather they depend on frame of reference and point of view). It's all about perception.
Of course it is all in our minds, our mind is what decodes sensory input and makes sense of outside stimuli. How our minds decode that sensory input is going to determine our perception.
Einstein's theory of relativity is based on perception and observed point of view (laws of space, time and gravity are not absolute but rather they depend on frame of reference and point of view). It's all about perception.
Just because there are physiological effects accompanying a supernatural experience doesn't mean that the experience is 100% physiological.
I agree with your comment on perception and observed point of view, but that contradicts thaG's assertion that according to scientific method, something must be objectively observed in order to be real.
Know what I mean?
I agree with your comment on perception and observed point of view, but that contradicts thaG's assertion that according to scientific method, something must be objectively observed in order to be real.
Know what I mean?
Haha what?
Yeah maybe its like 70% physiological and 30% supernatural...
Or wait maybe 40% physiological and 60% supernatural...
Or do you think it's 50/50?
I think you fail to realize with Physiological effects, were looking at strictly physical and tangible things.
No actually ThaG's assertion is right on, for something to be real it must be objectively observed. (It's impossible to perceive the whole picture if your part of it). This is very clear in the scientific method.
The whole reason Einstein's relativity (and frame of reference) came about is because there is no way to objectively view space and time (because we are in the picture, not outside of it, get it?). We are stuck within the laws of space and time so we cannot objectively analyze them, thus Einstein's special relativity (and the whole point of view of observation thing).
Yeah maybe its like 70% physiological and 30% supernatural...
Or wait maybe 40% physiological and 60% supernatural...
Or do you think it's 50/50?
I think you fail to realize with Physiological effects, were looking at strictly physical and tangible things.
No actually ThaG's assertion is right on, for something to be real it must be objectively observed. (It's impossible to perceive the whole picture if your part of it). This is very clear in the scientific method.
The whole reason Einstein's relativity (and frame of reference) came about is because there is no way to objectively view space and time (because we are in the picture, not outside of it, get it?). We are stuck within the laws of space and time so we cannot objectively analyze them, thus Einstein's special relativity (and the whole point of view of observation thing).
the topic is "Does anyone disbelieve in God but believe in the Spiritual Realm?"
first, this is logically impossible becasue God and the "Spiritual Realm" are tightly connected
think about it:
if you don't believe in God, you hve to accept that we evolved from single-celled (arche)bacteria-like organisms
did they have soul and spiritual experiences - of course not
so, if you claim there is such a thing as soul and out-of-body experiences or anything else non-material in us, you have to explain how it appeared in evolution and you can't do that because evolution is entirely based on chnages in the physical and functional properties of organisms
which leads to the idea of "God" who "put it into our bodies" - we have contradiction
all that is if you accept evolution
if you don't accept evolution and don't believe in God, I don't know what you believe in and I don't know if such people exist
the conclusion is that either you believe in God, or you reject the "supernatural"
first, this is logically impossible becasue God and the "Spiritual Realm" are tightly connected
think about it:
if you don't believe in God, you hve to accept that we evolved from single-celled (arche)bacteria-like organisms
did they have soul and spiritual experiences - of course not
so, if you claim there is such a thing as soul and out-of-body experiences or anything else non-material in us, you have to explain how it appeared in evolution and you can't do that because evolution is entirely based on chnages in the physical and functional properties of organisms
which leads to the idea of "God" who "put it into our bodies" - we have contradiction
all that is if you accept evolution
if you don't accept evolution and don't believe in God, I don't know what you believe in and I don't know if such people exist
the conclusion is that either you believe in God, or you reject the "supernatural"
This is incorrect. A person can believe in a spiritual world where no gods or god exists. I believe in another thread you said you only speak on things where you have expertise in. With that being said, can you explain animism and religions involving ancestor worship, and why they may have a spiritucal realm but no god or gods?
No you don't. You can believe anything you want.
Sure they exist. Agnostics, secular humanists, heretics etc.
No you don't. You can believe anything you want.
Sure they exist. Agnostics, secular humanists, heretics etc.