Posted: Nov 08, 2018 11:10 pm
Kafei wrote:And I've called in more recently into The Atheist Experience, and I got Matt to admit he's unfamiliar with this research. Therefore, he has no valid criticism to offer
Really?
Kafei wrote:I've been following this research quite diligently for about a decade now. I'm quite sure I'm interpreting precisely as it has been demonstrated.
Kafei wrote:I've been following this research quite diligently for a little over a decade now. You'd have an uphill battle arguing that I'm somehow misconstruing this research.
Kafei wrote:I'm reiterating precisely what these professionals have said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKS4duj ... tu.be&t=36
"I think I said last time they're using intravenous psilocybin, but it was actually psilocybin in a pill form"
Kafei wrote:Although, they've also shown if an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, he/she will no longer identify as an atheist after this event.
Does that look like decade long precise familiarity? Is lack of familiarity to any degree (and we know that Dillahunty has some familiarity since Kafei has spoken at extreme length to him on the subject, and we've seen Jordan Peterson misrepresent aspects of it to him) all it takes to disqualify any and all criticism?
Does one have to be familiar with research to understand why assertions not present in that research don't follow from that research? To understand experimenter bias? Selection bias? Or are some criticisms valid even without precise familiarity?