|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jul 30, 2018 19:44:35 GMT
I stumbled across this YouTube video. It's a weekly, internet only, call-in talk show called The Atheist Experience. It is run by a group in Austin, Texas. In this photo from yesterday's show, they are talking to a man named King. What kind of a name is King? Does anyone else see anything wrong with this screen-scrape?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 30, 2018 19:48:21 GMT
Yeah I'll sometimes watch it, some of the callers are pretty funny. In case you don't know, that's Matt Dillahunty on the right, a fairly well known atheist commentator who started the Athiest Experience. He debated Jordan Peterson a few months ago (Peterson got his ass handed to him)
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jul 30, 2018 19:59:36 GMT
Yeah I'll sometimes watch it, some of the callers are pretty funny. In case you don't know, that's Matt Dillahunty on the right, a fairly well known atheist commentator who started the Athiest Experience. He debated Jordan Peterson a few months ago (Peterson got his ass handed to him) I've never seen the Atheist Experience, and it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be of much interest to me, but Dillahunty comes across well in that debate. Peterson is a ridiculous jackass, and so vague and obscurantist whenever he talks about anything relating to religion or philosophy. Dillahunty does a good job of pinning him down on what his positions actually are. People online always wank over Peterson but on the youtube comments there a lot of them seem to realize just how shallow he is.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 30, 2018 20:06:30 GMT
Yeah I'll sometimes watch it, some of the callers are pretty funny. In case you don't know, that's Matt Dillahunty on the right, a fairly well known atheist commentator who started the Athiest Experience. He debated Jordan Peterson a few months ago (Peterson got his ass handed to him) I've never seen the Atheist Experience, and it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be of much interest to me, but Dillahunty comes across well in that debate. Peterson is a ridiculous jackass, and so vague and obscurantist whenever he talks about anything relating to religion or philosophy. Dillahunty does a good job of pinning him down on what his positions actually are. People online always wank over Peterson but on the youtube comments there a lot of them seem to realize just how shallow he is. Wasn't there a part during the debate where Peterson argued people having drug hallucinations was some how proof of a "mystical/spirit realm"? OMG, is this guy seriously supposed to be a psychologist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 0:15:29 GMT
I've watched The Atheist Experience for years now, it's a fun show. They encourage theist callers, and it's quite amusing to see just how terrible the arguments put forward by them are. Not that dissimilar to this forum, actually.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 31, 2018 7:24:11 GMT
I've never seen the Atheist Experience, and it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be of much interest to me, but Dillahunty comes across well in that debate. Peterson is a ridiculous jackass, and so vague and obscurantist whenever he talks about anything relating to religion or philosophy. Dillahunty does a good job of pinning him down on what his positions actually are. People online always wank over Peterson but on the youtube comments there a lot of them seem to realize just how shallow he is. Wasn't there a part during the debate where Peterson argued people having drug hallucinations was some how proof of a "mystical/spirit realm"? OMG, is this guy seriously supposed to be a psychologist? He's not 'supposed to be' a psychologist, he actually is one. That's indisputable. All you're saying in your comment is that you're completely ignorant about the topic of psychedelic drugs and/or 'Entheogens'. Entheogens have been used by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands. If you're not curious about them or find any mystery in their existence then you don't know anything about them or you're not a person who is fundamentally curious. Discounting those who are curious as being somehow 'intellectually fraudulent' (as you implied) is shallow.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 31, 2018 7:38:55 GMT
Wasn't there a part during the debate where Peterson argued people having drug hallucinations was some how proof of a "mystical/spirit realm"? OMG, is this guy seriously supposed to be a psychologist? He's not 'supposed to be' a psychologist, he actually is one. That's indisputable. All you're saying in your comment is that you're completely ignorant about the topic of psychedelic drugs and/or 'Entheogens'. Entheogens have been used by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands. If you're not curious about them or find any mystery in their existence then you don't know anything about them or you're not a person who is fundamentally curious. Discounting those who are curious as being somehow 'intellectually fraudulent' (as you implied) is shallow. "He's not 'supposed to be' a psychologist, he actually is one. That's indisputable."
Fine, I don't care. The fact that he makes weird statements like that makes me question his credentials for the same reason if he were to say he believes in leprechauns.
"All you're saying in your comment is that you're completely ignorant about the topic of psychedelic drugs and/or 'Entheogens'."
I know what psychedile drugs are. I'm saying the idea that it's somehow "proof" of mysticism which seems to be what he is saying is gibberish.
"Entheogens have been used by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands."
That doesn't dispute what I actually said.
"If you're not curious about them" Strawman
"Discounting those who are curious"
Another strawman
"somehow 'intellectually fraudulent'"
I think he's "intellectually fraudulent" because instead of actually answering a question he responds with inane weird soup that goes no where. Not to mention other weird nonsense that went on during the debate "Without God, art and poetry would cease to exist!"
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 31, 2018 7:52:55 GMT
He's not 'supposed to be' a psychologist, he actually is one. That's indisputable. All you're saying in your comment is that you're completely ignorant about the topic of psychedelic drugs and/or 'Entheogens'. Entheogens have been used by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands. If you're not curious about them or find any mystery in their existence then you don't know anything about them or you're not a person who is fundamentally curious. Discounting those who are curious as being somehow 'intellectually fraudulent' (as you implied) is shallow. "He's not 'supposed to be' a psychologist, he actually is one. That's indisputable."
Fine, I don't care. The fact that he makes weird statements like that makes me question his credentials for the same reason if he were to say he believes in leprechauns.
"All you're saying in your comment is that you're completely ignorant about the topic of psychedelic drugs and/or 'Entheogens'."
I know what psychedile drugs are. I'm saying the idea that it's somehow "proof" of mysticism which seems to be what he is saying is gibberish.
"Entheogens have been used by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands."
That doesn't dispute what I actually said.
"If you're not curious about them" Strawman
"Discounting those who are curious"
Another strawman
"somehow 'intellectually fraudulent'"
I think he's "intellectually fraudulent" because instead of actually answering a question he responds with inane weird soup that goes no where. Not to mention other weird nonsense that went on during the debate "Without God, art and poetry would cease to exist!"
I laughed at the statement in bold. Thanks. Sounds like your mind is already made up and you already know everything. Must be sweet! When it comes to psychedelics the only opinions that are worth anything are the opinions of those with direct personal experience... otherwise it's like an argument about vegetables with a child who has never tried them.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 31, 2018 8:05:12 GMT
"He's not 'supposed to be' a psychologist, he actually is one. That's indisputable."
Fine, I don't care. The fact that he makes weird statements like that makes me question his credentials for the same reason if he were to say he believes in leprechauns.
"All you're saying in your comment is that you're completely ignorant about the topic of psychedelic drugs and/or 'Entheogens'."
I know what psychedile drugs are. I'm saying the idea that it's somehow "proof" of mysticism which seems to be what he is saying is gibberish.
"Entheogens have been used by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands."
That doesn't dispute what I actually said.
"If you're not curious about them" Strawman
"Discounting those who are curious"
Another strawman
"somehow 'intellectually fraudulent'"
I think he's "intellectually fraudulent" because instead of actually answering a question he responds with inane weird soup that goes no where. Not to mention other weird nonsense that went on during the debate "Without God, art and poetry would cease to exist!"
I laughed at the statement in bold. Thanks. Sounds like your mind is already made up and you already know everything. Must be sweet! When it comes to psychedelics the only opinions that are worth anything are the opinions of those with direct personal experience... otherwise it's like an argument about vegetables with a child who has never tried them.
"I laughed at the statement in bold."
You can go ahead you didn't actually refute anything I said.
"Sounds like your mind is already made up and you already know everything. Must be sweet!"
I'm willing to change my mind. Show me the evidence.
"When it comes to psychedelics the only opinions that are worth anything are the opinions of those with direct personal experience..."
A lame argument from authority. If someone takes hallucenegenics and sees a bunch of leprechauns, is that some how proof for the existence of a leprechaun realm?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 31, 2018 8:21:12 GMT
I laughed at the statement in bold. Thanks. Sounds like your mind is already made up and you already know everything. Must be sweet! When it comes to psychedelics the only opinions that are worth anything are the opinions of those with direct personal experience... otherwise it's like an argument about vegetables with a child who has never tried them.
"I laughed at the statement in bold."
You can go ahead you didn't actually refute anything I said.
"Sounds like your mind is already made up and you already know everything. Must be sweet!"
I'm willing to change my mind. Show me the evidence.
"When it comes to psychedelics the only opinions that are worth anything are the opinions of those with direct personal experience..."
A lame argument from authority. If someone takes hallucenegenics and sees a bunch of leprechauns, is that some how proof for the existence of a leprechaun realm?
Refute what? That you have a personal opinion about something? That's what you're doing, stating your personal opinion and that's fine. 'Show me the evidence'. -- Somehow I don't think you'd consider the fact that thousands and thousands (millions?) of people have reported having spiritual experiences while using psychedelics to be any kind of evidence. If you would consider that, the internet has no shortage of those kinds of 'eye witness accounts'. Just join a 'DMT discussion group' on facebook. The only other way to prove to you that people can have deeply spiritual experiences while using psychedelics would be to give you that experience in the right setting when you were feeling ready for it. When it comes to psychedelics (some say 'Entheogen'), direct experience is the difference between an informed opinion and a regurgitation of someone else's opinion. For you to simply discount the possibility that such things might be possible is extremely close minded IMO.. irrationally so.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 31, 2018 8:31:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 31, 2018 8:48:57 GMT
"I laughed at the statement in bold."
You can go ahead you didn't actually refute anything I said.
"Sounds like your mind is already made up and you already know everything. Must be sweet!"
I'm willing to change my mind. Show me the evidence.
"When it comes to psychedelics the only opinions that are worth anything are the opinions of those with direct personal experience..."
A lame argument from authority. If someone takes hallucenegenics and sees a bunch of leprechauns, is that some how proof for the existence of a leprechaun realm?
Refute what? That you have a personal opinion about something? That's what you're doing, stating your personal opinion and that's fine. 'Show me the evidence'. -- Somehow I don't think you'd consider the fact that thousands and thousands (millions?) of people have reported having spiritual experiences while using psychedelics to be any kind of evidence. If you would consider that, the internet has no shortage of those kinds of 'eye witness accounts'. Just join a 'DMT discussion group' on facebook. The only other way to prove to you that people can have deeply spiritual experiences while using psychedelics would be to give you that experience in the right setting when you were feeling ready for it. When it comes to psychedelics (some say 'Entheogen'), direct experience is the difference between an informed opinion and a regurgitation of someone else's opinion. For you to simply discount the possibility that such things might be possible is extremely close minded IMO.. irrationally so.
"Somehow I don't think you'd consider the fact that thousands and thousands (millions?) of people have reported having spiritual experiences while using psychedelics to be any kind of evidence."
That's just an argument ad populum. Tons of people have claimed to have seen bigfoot, that's not proof of the existence of a giant forest ape.
"The only other way to prove to you that people can have deeply spiritual experiences while using psychedelics would be to give you that experience in the right setting when you were feeling ready for it. "
I never said people can't have "deeply spiritual experiences" from drugs, I said that's not really a valid reason to believe in a "mystic realm" beyond our understanding which is pretty much what Peterson said.
"For you to simply discount the possibility that such things might be possible is extremely close minded IMO.. irrationally so."
I'm not sure how it "might be possible", when it's never even came close to being demonstrated. Otherwise any number of outrageous claims "might be possible" just because they've never been disproven (leprechauns, magic, bigfoot, lochness monster, etc). Besides, being "close minded" (which is really just "skepticism" in this case) isn't really a bad thing. If someone claims to do be able to do a backflip (which in this case we actually know "might be possible" since people have done them before) but doesn't want to do one to prove it, am I "close minded" because I refuse to believe him until he actually does one?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 31, 2018 9:03:42 GMT
Refute what? That you have a personal opinion about something? That's what you're doing, stating your personal opinion and that's fine. 'Show me the evidence'. -- Somehow I don't think you'd consider the fact that thousands and thousands (millions?) of people have reported having spiritual experiences while using psychedelics to be any kind of evidence. If you would consider that, the internet has no shortage of those kinds of 'eye witness accounts'. Just join a 'DMT discussion group' on facebook. The only other way to prove to you that people can have deeply spiritual experiences while using psychedelics would be to give you that experience in the right setting when you were feeling ready for it. When it comes to psychedelics (some say 'Entheogen'), direct experience is the difference between an informed opinion and a regurgitation of someone else's opinion. For you to simply discount the possibility that such things might be possible is extremely close minded IMO.. irrationally so.
"Somehow I don't think you'd consider the fact that thousands and thousands (millions?) of people have reported having spiritual experiences while using psychedelics to be any kind of evidence."
That's just an argument ad populum. Tons of people have claimed to have seen bigfoot, that's not proof of the existence of a giant forest ape.
"The only other way to prove to you that people can have deeply spiritual experiences while using psychedelics would be to give you that experience in the right setting when you were feeling ready for it. "
I never said people can't have "deeply spiritual experiences" from drugs, I said that's not really a valid reason to believe in a "mystic realm" beyond our understanding which is pretty much what Peterson said.
"For you to simply discount the possibility that such things might be possible is extremely close minded IMO.. irrationally so."
I'm not sure how it "might be possible", when it's never even came close to being demonstrated. Besides, being "close minded" (which is really just "skepticism" in this case in this case) isn't always a bad thing. If someone claims to do be able to do a backflip (which in this case we actually know "might be possible" since people have done them before) but doesn't want to do one to prove it, am I "close minded" because I refuse to believe him until he actually does one?
The first bold part, that's your opinion. I disagree. I also believe our dreams are evidence of a 'mystic realm' beyond our understanding. But there is no need to post 'That's pretty much what Peterson said'. His discussions and lectures are all easy to access and are seldom edited, so he can generally be quoted in context (but he usually isn't). I'd be happy if you posted a link to the discussion you're thinking of. I'd rather have the direct words. And the part in bold at the end, IMO it's not a good analogy since a backflip can be externally observed, while a 'spiritual experience' is subjective and cannot be externally observed. I'll try another analogy. Psychedelics change the way you see the world just as a telescope or a microscope change the way you see the world. You can explain it to a group of scientists who have never seen a telescope or microscope but until they actually put their eye to the instrument they will only be working on second hand knowledge and experiences.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 31, 2018 9:38:50 GMT
"Somehow I don't think you'd consider the fact that thousands and thousands (millions?) of people have reported having spiritual experiences while using psychedelics to be any kind of evidence."
That's just an argument ad populum. Tons of people have claimed to have seen bigfoot, that's not proof of the existence of a giant forest ape.
"The only other way to prove to you that people can have deeply spiritual experiences while using psychedelics would be to give you that experience in the right setting when you were feeling ready for it. "
I never said people can't have "deeply spiritual experiences" from drugs, I said that's not really a valid reason to believe in a "mystic realm" beyond our understanding which is pretty much what Peterson said.
"For you to simply discount the possibility that such things might be possible is extremely close minded IMO.. irrationally so."
I'm not sure how it "might be possible", when it's never even came close to being demonstrated. Besides, being "close minded" (which is really just "skepticism" in this case in this case) isn't always a bad thing. If someone claims to do be able to do a backflip (which in this case we actually know "might be possible" since people have done them before) but doesn't want to do one to prove it, am I "close minded" because I refuse to believe him until he actually does one?
The first bold part, that's you'r opinion. I disagree. I also believe our dreams are evidence of a 'mystic realm' beyond our understanding. But there is no need to post 'That's pretty much what Peterson said'. His discussions and lectures are all easy to access and are seldom edited, so he can generally be quoted in context (but he usually isn't). I'd be happy if you posted a link to the discussion you're thinking of. I'd rather have the direct words. And the part in bold at the end, IMO it's not a good analogy since a backflip can be externally observed, while a 'spiritual experience' is subjective and cannot be externally observed. I'll try another analogy. Psychedelics change the way you see the world just as a telescope or a microscope change the way you see the world. You can explain it to a group of scientists who have never seen a telescope or microscope but until they actually put their eye to the instrument they will only be working on second hand knowledge and experiences. "The first bold part, that's you'r opinion."
So is your assertion that I'm wrong, so I dunno what point you're trying to make.
"But there is no need to post 'That's pretty much what Peterson said'."
That is what he essentially said during his debate with Dillahunty, which is what I'm specifically adressing.
"I'd be happy if you posted a link to the discussion you're thinking of. I'd rather have the direct words."
Around 24:50
"And the part in bold at the end, IMO it's not a good analogy since a backflip can be externally observed, while a 'spiritual experience' is subjective and cannot be externally observed. "
The again that's not really sufficient reasoning to believe in something, otherwise we would have to entertain any number of riddiculous assertions, such as a secret leprechaun realm.
"I'll try another analogy. Psychedelics change the way you see the world just as a telescope or a microscope change the way you see the world. You can explain it to a group of scientists who have never seen a telescope or microscope but until they actually put their eye to the instrument they will only be working on second hand knowledge and experiences. "
I don't deny people have drug experiences they describe as "mystical" (I've already admitted to this). I'm saying that's not valid proof of a mystic/supernatural realm. There's a reason crime investigators value DNA evidence over first hand accounts. People have claimed to a have seen ghosts, and I believe they saw what they believe were ghosts. But I deny what they saw were actually ghosts because they have never been proven to exist.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 31, 2018 9:52:43 GMT
The first bold part, that's you'r opinion. I disagree. I also believe our dreams are evidence of a 'mystic realm' beyond our understanding. But there is no need to post 'That's pretty much what Peterson said'. His discussions and lectures are all easy to access and are seldom edited, so he can generally be quoted in context (but he usually isn't). I'd be happy if you posted a link to the discussion you're thinking of. I'd rather have the direct words. And the part in bold at the end, IMO it's not a good analogy since a backflip can be externally observed, while a 'spiritual experience' is subjective and cannot be externally observed. I'll try another analogy. Psychedelics change the way you see the world just as a telescope or a microscope change the way you see the world. You can explain it to a group of scientists who have never seen a telescope or microscope but until they actually put their eye to the instrument they will only be working on second hand knowledge and experiences. "The first bold part, that's you'r opinion."
So is your assertion, so I dunno what point you're trying to make.
"But there is no need to post 'That's pretty much what Peterson said'."
That is what he essentially said during his debate with Dillahunty, which is what I'm specifically adressing.
"I'd be happy if you posted a link to the discussion you're thinking of. I'd rather have the direct words."
Around 24:50
"And the part in bold at the end, IMO it's not a good analogy since a backflip can be externally observed, while a 'spiritual experience' is subjective and cannot be externally observed. "
The again that's not really sufficient reasoning to believe in something, otherwise we would have to entertain any number of riddiculous assertions, such as a secret leprechaun realm.
"I'll try another analogy. Psychedelics change the way you see the world just as a telescope or a microscope change the way you see the world. You can explain it to a group of scientists who have never seen a telescope or microscope but until they actually put their eye to the instrument they will only be working on second hand knowledge and experiences. "
I don't deny people have drug experiences they describe as "mystical" (I've already admitted to this). I'm saying that's not valid proof of a mystic/supernatural realm. People have claimed to a have seen ghosts, and I believe they saw what they believe were ghosts. But I deny what they saw were actually ghosts because they have never been proven to exist.
Thanks for posting the video, I'll probably watch the whole thing tomorrow. I did watch the few minutes around 24:50 and I'm not seeing him say anything definitive or absolute about psychedelics, he actually forms his statement in the form of a question so IMO it's an inquisitive line of thought and not an authoritarian one. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seemed to imply he made a more definite stand when you paraphrased him here: "Wasn't there a part during the debate where Peterson argued people having drug hallucinations was some how proof of a "mystical/spirit realm"? OMG, is this guy seriously supposed to be a psychologist?" I'll watch the rest again, but the parts around 24:50 have no mention of there being any 'proof' or Peterson claiming that there is such proof. You seem to have misrepresented what he said. If there was proof, we'd all know about it and there would be no discussion.. that's the thing about proof, it's indisputable.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 31, 2018 10:04:27 GMT
"The first bold part, that's you'r opinion."
So is your assertion, so I dunno what point you're trying to make.
"But there is no need to post 'That's pretty much what Peterson said'."
That is what he essentially said during his debate with Dillahunty, which is what I'm specifically adressing.
"I'd be happy if you posted a link to the discussion you're thinking of. I'd rather have the direct words."
Around 24:50
"And the part in bold at the end, IMO it's not a good analogy since a backflip can be externally observed, while a 'spiritual experience' is subjective and cannot be externally observed. "
The again that's not really sufficient reasoning to believe in something, otherwise we would have to entertain any number of riddiculous assertions, such as a secret leprechaun realm.
"I'll try another analogy. Psychedelics change the way you see the world just as a telescope or a microscope change the way you see the world. You can explain it to a group of scientists who have never seen a telescope or microscope but until they actually put their eye to the instrument they will only be working on second hand knowledge and experiences. "
I don't deny people have drug experiences they describe as "mystical" (I've already admitted to this). I'm saying that's not valid proof of a mystic/supernatural realm. People have claimed to a have seen ghosts, and I believe they saw what they believe were ghosts. But I deny what they saw were actually ghosts because they have never been proven to exist.
Thanks for posting the video, I'll probably watch the whole thing tomorrow. I did watch the few minutes around 24:50 and I'm not seeing him say anything definitive or absolute about psychedelics, he actually forms his statement in the form of a question so IMO it's an inquisitive line of thought and not an authoritarian one. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seemed to imply he made a more definite stand when you paraphrased him here: "Wasn't there a part during the debate where Peterson argued people having drug hallucinations was some how proof of a "mystical/spirit realm"? OMG, is this guy seriously supposed to be a psychologist?" I'll watch the rest again, but the parts around 24:50 have no mention of there being any 'proof' or Peterson claiming that there is such proof. You seem to have misrepresented what he said. If there was proof, we'd all know about it and there would be no discussion.. that's the thing about proof, it's indisputable. "You seem to have misrepresented what he said."
No, that is pretty much what he said: "God=true because people have had mystical experiences", therefore you can infer he believes drugs create access to some "mystic realm" beyond human comprehension. Matt Dilluhunty further expounds upon it (around 10:50):
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 31, 2018 10:39:09 GMT
Then you fundamentally don't understand how to reason from facts to conclusions which rationally follow from those facts. You believe what you want to believe, not what reality suggests is true.
You are the sole arbiter of what a dream or a psychedelic experience was like or what it means to you. That's it. Conclusions from the data provided by those experiences must be thoroughly and completely vetted by intersubjectively verifiable and authenticated data from other sources or they are utter and complete bullshit.
Ironic that you have more in common with postmodernists (everything you disagree with is dismissed as mere "opinion") than you do with the founders of the Enlightenment, seeing as your cult leader makes so much noise about all those wonderful Enlightenment values of reason being erased by the culture's supposed fondness for postmodernism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 11:10:33 GMT
I have seen a bit of it
seems like mostly morons calls in.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 31, 2018 13:26:53 GMT
Then you fundamentally don't understand how to reason from facts to conclusions which rationally follow from those facts. You believe what you want to believe, not what reality suggests is true.
You are the sole arbiter of what a dream or a psychedelic experience was like or what it means to you. That's it. Conclusions from the data provided by those experiences must be thoroughly and completely vetted by intersubjectively verifiable and authenticated data from other sources or they are utter and complete bullshit.
Ironic that you have more in common with postmodernists (everything you disagree with is dismissed as mere "opinion") than you do with the founders of the Enlightenment, seeing as your cult leader makes so much noise about all those wonderful Enlightenment values of reason being erased by the culture's supposed fondness for postmodernism.
Obviously. My point was that you can't dismiss those experiences as bullshit since you can't prove if they are or aren't legitimate, and that Peterson never stated that it was 'true' only 'possible'. And as far as psychedelics go, there is experience then there is opinion.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 31, 2018 16:48:33 GMT
My point was that you can't dismiss those experiences as bullshit since you can't prove if they are or aren't legitimate, and that Peterson never stated that it was 'true' only 'possible'. There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate experience and there is no such thing as a bullshit experience.
What can be legitimate or bullshit are the conclusions one draws from those experiences. And I'm sorry, but no matter what kind of experience anyone has, that cannot be legitimate grounds for concluding that there is a mystical realm out there. Anyone who does so is scientifically illiterate and on a very fundamental, basic level doesn't understand how to think rationally.
|
|