I do not have a problem with this gent. Yes, at times he is combative, but in context, he is defending a work he has put a lot of time and effort into. At times he is prickly, but shows admirable restraint and displays acceptable, even respectful conduct.
Please, attack the argument, not the person.
@David_Killens I have no interest, which is why, I am leaving it to you folks to deal with him.
But before he posts anything about hallucinations and such, he needs to do some research on what it is. I can EASILY find information on hallucinations on the internet, as can Joel. There are different types of hallucinations, and maybe degrees of it, that can be researched on the internet, or can be asked of, of a medical professional. I suggest that he does his homework on the matter, before he speaks.
Seems to me that he just has an agenda and is trying his best to hold onto it regardless of the facts being tossed his way.
"Still, âThe Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion With No Nameâ is kind of about psychedelics. The main thesis of Murareskuâs exceptional investigative work: the modern Eucharist is a placebo variation of a psychedelic brew that originally represented the body and blood of Christ, as was likely practiced during the secret Eleusinian Mysteries. Unlike other religions and mythologies (which acknowledge prior influences), Christian leaders have remained steadfast in the assertion that Christianity emerged whole-cloth as a unique (and, in the eyes of believers, true) faith.
Thatâs just not how religion works. Nothing is created in a vacuum.
This power playâone that, Muraresku writes, potentially demonized psychedelics and ousted them from spiritual rituals, as well as the keepers of ancient ritualistic secrets, womenâhas forced us to attribute the foundations of Western civilization to Christianity. The real lineage belongs to Greece. Muraresku, who holds a degree in Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, spent 12 years investigating this book due to his longstanding love of the Classics, which he believes to be the Westâs actual inspiration."
Fascinating. Was aware hallucinogens were used by say some Native American tribes. I also suspect the author of The Book Of Revelations was off his face at the time. Opium? Ergot poisoning? Mushrooms?
Iâm aware that opium has been around for millennia***. Makes sense to me that the priestly caste would use drugs which alter the perception of reality. Plus, that such practices would remain secret or shrouded in mystery.
***A quick search showed opium has been used since before 500 bce at least. I seem to remember reading that it was used in pharaonic Egypt
Making sense, or agreeing with an idea does not mean it was so or even necessarily likely.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That triggered a couple of memories. One was about the Sufis, as described by Indries Shah Sayed in his book âThe Sufisâ. Itâs fair to mention that there is some controversy about his claims of the great antiquity of Sufism. Worth a read though.
In the same broad area, " The Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley is also worth a glance.
Once you start peeling away layers, a study of religion can be like an onion, which has nothing in the center.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
he secretive Mysteries conducted at Eleusis in Greece for nearly two millennia have long puzzled scholars with strange accounts of initiates experiencing otherworldly journeys. In this groundbreaking work, three expertsâa mycologist, a chemist, and a historianâargue persuasively that the sacred potion given to participants in the course of the ritual contained a psychoactive entheogen. The authors then expand the discussion to show that natural psychedelic agents have been used in spiritual rituals across history and cultures. Although controversial when first published in 1978, the bookâs hypothesis has become more widely accepted in recent years, as knowledge of ethnobotany has deepened. The authors have played critical roles in the modern rediscovery of entheogens, and The Road to Eleusis presents an authoritative exposition of their views. The bookâs themes of the universality of experiential religion, the suppression of that knowledge by exploitative forces, and the use of psychedelics to reconcile the human and natural worlds make it a fascinating and timely read. This 30th anniversary edition includes an appreciative preface by religious scholar Huston Smith and an updated exploration of the chemical evidence by Peter Webster.
Well, it certainly explains how early Xians managed to invent all that crap. Especially Paul. (John of Patmos is a bit obvious)
âWonât even start on the Egyptians and the Hindus with their zoomorphic gods
âThe Maya, Inca and Aztec also give the impression they may have had some chemical assistance.
If you havenât read it, I recommend âConfessions Of An Opium Eaterâ by Thomas De Quincey (1821)
No evidence will make (most) atheists change their minds⌠Lets say hypothetically that the sky opens apart and they get to see God, will they believe then? Probably not. They will claim that this is not God, they will claim it is a scientific phenomena or something we dont know about and it would be a fallacy to assert that this is God, they will need to make âscientificâ trials on God to see if he is truly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent⌠Humans forget that they were once nothing but a drop of sperm yet their arrogance can be limitless.
Their problem isnt about having an evidence. In my assessment , the main problem is an emotional one.
How will we know it is THE god? I can look at a painting and find any amount of gods depicted. So a chap (I assume your god of choice is masculine?) floating about on the clouds would have to demonstrate that he is NOT an alien but is indeed a god somehow.
Welcome!
Argue against an atheist rejecting âevidenceâ of a hypothetical idea of god actually making its existence known is a new low. Almost a straight out admission you also have nothing to offer up.
Itâs a standard of evidence, btw. A small claims court carries a minimum standard for evidence to determine (as close as humanly possible) what is true. Why wouldnât I do the same?
EDIT: @Old_man_shouts_at_cl ⌠I also thought of conspiraturd warning Operation Bluebeam or Voice of God technology.
In a normal straw-man, the culprit attempts to subtly alter your argument to make it ridiculous. Then they simply point out how ridiculous your argument (now) is. Easy on paper, but requires you to be a little clever.
In this new and improved version, the âpushy straw-manâ; the culprit forgoes all the difficulty of making subtle underhanded changes to alter the argument you actually made; instead they just make up something stupid and assign that arrangement to you. @peaceâs method is much more efficient!
Welcome, although I think such an ignorant and arrogant beginning does not bode well
â and you know this exactly how?
Iâm an agnostic atheist. That means I do not believe [due to a lack of empirical evidence] but make no claims about knowledge.
See I have no idea about precisely what I will be able to accept. Not my problem. As far as Iâm concerned an omniscient god will have no trouble presenting me with evidence I will be able to accept. What you think or feel about the question is a matter of indifference to me. After all is said and done, this is a matter between me and a putative god. Neither you nor the most pious expert gets a say.
One of the things that has always given me trouble about this whole god-believing thing (even back when I as a child used to believe) is this silly game of hide and seek played by these gods. Granted, my personal experience with religiosity is limited to the judeo-christian god and the weird Jesus-on-a-stick story. In any case, a god that aspires towards world domination does an extremely bad job of recruiting followers when her modus operandi is to exclusively rely on a book that can be proven to be consisting of parts forgery, random alterations, and non-random alterations[1], and that has competitive pieces of work that all claim to be the One True Book. And as if that isnât enough, within each of the three major branches of the abrahamic religions, there are countless sects and sub-branches that all consider themselves to be the only true religion, and all the others as heretics or heathens. All this mess from a purportedly allmighty, all-knowing and omnipresent god. She cannot even dictate a book that does away with interpretation and second-guessing, nor even make sure that her intellectual work is not altered, or even divinely inspire sect leaders to cooperate in order to agree and join forces. But no, it seems that as time goes by, there is just more diverging interpretation and splintering. Had any of the abrahamic so-called holy books really been a result of divine authorship or intervention, one should have expected that they were entirely differently composed, that translation to other languages would be straightforward, and that the mythology was not totally dependent on society as it was in the Middle East in the bronze age.
Back to the game of hide and seek. As a myriad of âgod-proofsâ have, one after the other, been shown to be either false, erroneous, or based on misunderstandings or ignorance of Nature and natural laws, the indications that there is a god have dwindled, and we are now left with a god-in-the-gaps situation. And these gaps are getting smaller and fewer as time goes by.
Personally, I am in the atheist camp, tending towards strong atheism. Considering the state of the evidence (or rather, the lack of positive evidence) in favor of a god, I see no reason to belive in any of the myriad of gods and religions out there. I just cannot see any credible evidence in favor of the existence of any god or gods, which indicates to me that there are none. In any case, which god is the True God? The first gods we know by name, namely the gods of the Sumerian pantheon, like Inanna, Nammu, Nergal and Enlil? Since these were the first gods we know of by name, and which by a huge margin precedes any of the abrahamic gods, surely they must have been closer to the True pantheon of gods? Or perhaps the pantheon of ancient Greece is the True one? After all, it precedes both judaism and christianity, and should be closer in time to the True pantheon.
So you see, there is an abundance of gods and pantheons out there, all that with good reason can be claimed to represent the True God(s). So which one should we choose? The one based on a book that has been shown to be at least parts forgery[1], or something else?
In any case, if there is such a thing as an almighty, all-knowing and omnipresent god, why all this hide and seek? Why present us humans with this pretense of free will in belief where the only real choice given is total surrender (âI gave you free will so you can choose to believe in me, but if you donât, prepare to be damned to an eternity of torture and miseryâ). It fails on its basic premises.
So, what would it take for me to start believing in a god? I have no idea. Firstly, I donât know which god I should supposedly believe in (there are so many to choose from), I donât know how to identify a god (how do I know it is a true godly god-manifestation of a god, and not just fever-induced fantasies, a dream, or a hoax?), and I have no idea why I should worship this god (what has this god or gods done for me, and why is this god acting like a total asshole killing innocent children with the tortures of war, famine, disease and abuse?). So, an all-knowing, omnipresent and all-powerful god would know what it would take for me to start believing, because I sure as heck do not. But no gods have so far bothered to present me with evidence I would accept. In any case, it surely is not my problem.
[1] Bart Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God, Forged: Writing in the Name of GodâWhy the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are by Bart D. Ehrman | Goodreads
Edit: minor corrections and additions
Thanks for making exactly my point. 
Nonsense: Most would be very curious to find out which God it is. Imagine for example it is the Chriatian god⌠You know, that Trinity thing, where one of them is an evil murderous Fuck, the other pretends to be all Loving but is a Bigot and the Final will Kill you if you Blaspheme against it. Letâs say it is this YHWH Beast that parts the clouds. Most of us would want to know why in the fuckâŚ
20,000,000 People, men, women, babies, and all the animals on the planet were butcherd in the flood?
2,000, were wiped out in Sodam and Gamora, Every single person was evil? Babies?
What was up with butchering Lotâs wife?
What the fuck were you thinking when you killed Onan?
Why in the fuck would you kill 70,000 people in a world wide famon?
500,000 first born children in Egypt because you were arguing with the King? really? WTF is wrong with you???
God delivers 10,000 lusty Moabites? And then gives us the 10 commandments, Thou Shalt Not Kill?
Gideonâs story: The Lord set every manâs sword against his fellow?
[
A city is massacred and 1000 burn to death because of Godâs evil spirit
This fucking list goes on and on and on and then culminates with the butchering death of his own son. Because the God creator of the universe is too fucking stupid to say, hey guys, letâs sit down and talk about this.
It would be fantastic if your stupid fucking God poked his head through the clouds. We have a whole lot of questions for him. But what we believe, is that the stories about your god are made up. There just isnât any evidence supporting his actual involvement in any of them. In fact, there isnât any good evidence supporting his existence or even the existence of his supposed son that he sent to us to be sacraficed that was really him in disguise. That leaves us in a position of non-belief. Non-belief until he does pop his little nose through the clouds.
When he does that, we will all believe that somelthing has popped its nose through the clouds. Now all he has to do is demonstrate that he is the creator God YHWH and justify his butchery of humanity. At that point, we might begin to believe he was actuall the God the Bible speaks of. But worship him? I doubt it⌠I have too much integrety to knowingly worship a piece of shit. I could probably fake it to save my own skin. But I would always know the truth. The god of the Bible is a piece of shit.
Evidence is overwhelming from the smallest particle to the biggest galaxy out there. The evidence of fine-tuning has always been thereâŚBut you refuse to attribute this to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Creator. so were you created from nothing? or are you your own creators?
This observable, demonstrable evidence is thanks to humans, over time using the Scientific Method to âget as close as humanly possibleâ to what is true. Our ability to explore our natural world, solar system, galaxy and universe, in various forms - to give the best explanations based on evidence (ie Germ Theory, Relativity, Evolution, Quantum, etc) is âthanksâ to our ability to add to our knowledge base.
âŚso says the puddle. âLook!!! This hole was made exactly right for me to fit!â
Evidence of such is sorely lacking. That is evidence of the low type. A high standard for evidence, the Scientific Methodology, it is absent altogether.
This creator doesnât even get a pass for credible evidence in Judge Judyâs court.
First off, you cannot provide evidence of any creator.
We observe change in energy forms from one thing to another.
Your âexistenceâ is solely due to your fatherâs sperm and motherâs egg, and the resulting combination of two âformsâ.
As far as asking âwhether I am capable of creatingâ? It is a silly question. I am capable of imagining. I am capable of transforming materials from one thing to another.
Perhaps 
you should examine your mindâs ability to imagine something that myths have passed down and you have absorbed as an explanation.
EDITED to ADD: Perhaps a better question is what is the standard for evidence that your base you life decisions upon?
First of all, I understand your frustration. But if you do comparative religion studies you would probably figure out that Allah is the one and only God. The God of Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, David, Lot, Adam, Joseph (Peace be upon them all) etc⌠The God that sent down the Torah and the Bible and entrusted to humans to preserve but they decided to alter and put lies in them. So He sent down the Quran, and vowed to preserve it Himself rather than entrusting humans. So if you want the truth about all the questions you have you should refer to the Quran. Truth is there:
According to Islamic teachings, the Flood was intended as a lesson and punishment for a single group of wicked, disbelieving people, and it is not assumed to be a global event, as is believed in other faiths. And no mention of numbers in the Quran.
The Quran confirms that the punishment on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was not for one sin but for many great sins.
a. Attempted violent homosexual attack on the angels of Allah.
b. Violent homosexual attack on men who visited Sodom.
c. Highway robbery.
d. Wicked behaviour on the earth instead of righteous behaviour on the earth.
and no mention of numbers or babies (which I doubt they have any since the entire village was homosexual)
According to the Quran she is a disbeliever even though her husband Lot is a messenger. So God decided to punish her with the rest of Sodam after all the signs have been shown to her. Her arrogance and wickedness led her to that ending.
No mention of Onanâs story in the quran.
No mention of such story in the quran.
No mention of such story in the quran.
No mention of such story in the quran.
No mention of such story in the quran.
evil spirit?? No mention of such story in the quran.
Jesus is not the son of God in islam, and he was not killed according to the quran. Jesus is a messenger sent to the people of israel. Allah has no son or wife and He is One not Three in islam.
All of the stories you are citing are either manmade or greatly altered by humans.
Nonsense. The conditions of the universe were not made to accommodate the type of life we can see and observe and live now. Itâs the other way around: Life has evolved to exist and thrive in the conditions that were already there. If there is any fine-tuning, it is the fine-tuning of life to the pre-existing conditions.
Your words.
Your words.
Notice something? Anything? Seriously 
Give it a shot⌠here, some definitions to help you along.
Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.
Omniscient: knowing everything
Omnibelevolent: possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.
And again⌠your words He sent down the Quran, and vowed to preserve it Himself rather than entrusting humans.
Howâs this working out for the almighty?
Our ability to explore our natural world, solar system, galaxy and universe, in various forms - to give the best explanations based on evidence (ie Germ Theory, Relativity, Evolution, Quantum, etc) is âthanksâ to our ability to add to our knowledge base.
I wonder how humans got this ability
Evidence of such is sorely lacking.
Have you ever read about this topic? For example if the Gravitational constant varied in only 1 in 10^60 parts no one would exist, same goes with A LOT of physical constants like the expansion rate of the universe⌠If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 1 part in 10^10^123 thee universe would be hostile to life in any form.
I wonder how the first sperm and egg were originated though?