Awesome, man! I will work as hard as humanly possible to make sure it's as non biased as possible. That is a personal guarantee from me to you.
Possibly your most valuable contribution to this entire forum. Thank you, this is what people like me need to hear.
Look, I understand that, and I hope you don't think I'm (or any of us that take the skeptical reins here are) oblivious to it. I'm fully aware it exists, having said that, it should let you know that I am willing and able to rise above it and get to the actual substance of the argument. I'm not interested in arguing over the emotional aspects of each of our personalities that come out when one of us gets heated. It does nothing for either one of us and contrary to the goal actually causes more unnecessary animosity between us. I for one am tired of that, it's just too emotionally draining. I can honestly say I used t get a kick out of it, but not anymore. I find nothing thrilling and have no desire to argue with someone for (literally) months.
OTOH, you must also acknowledge that there is the same kind of arrogance on the other side of the fence as well.
Can we meet half way here?
Can you provide a link to the thread you're referring to? I may have missed it.. I'd just like to be sure I'm commenting on the correct one.
That's understandable, as most people feel and act the same way, myself included (interesting, right? Remember that..). I wouldn't consider myself 'militant' only because I believe I'm consistent. The fact is, remaining consistent in reality requires you to be as skeptical about religion as you are about things like Santa Clause. Perhaps though, I'd admit, the 'frustrated Padawan' comes out and it's difficult to restrain myself, depending on the post or poster, but I'm working on it...
If Rogan claims absolute certainty towards anything, he's making a mistake. As I've expressed before, I believe there is nothing in existence that is can be absolutely certain, so it's my contention that he's wrong. Again though, as I mentioned before, I don't think this makes him any less intelligent, just less consistent.
I also understand the enthusiasm, easy! I remember the first time I tried MDMA, I was sold, everyone NEEDS to try this, OMFG, you are missing out!! But again, no matter how enthusiastic a person is about something, especially on a substance that alters your state of mind, like DMT, you still need to stick to scientific standards, no matter what, to ensure you're not making any mistakes and coming up with the wrong conclusions. We don't do this just because we want to beak balls, we do it so that we're able to feel the rush of that same exact MDMA feeling again and again, and we're able to rely on it, we're able to responsibly give it to our friends to try, you know what I mean?
I don't though. When I try to figure something out, I look at it from all the angles I can think of, I think about the best possible solution I can come up with, what somebody else might try, what somebody from the 16th century might try... and on and on.. eventually you develop a solution. If you take on problems scientists from centuries past have taken on and tag along with them, reading the history of their discoveries, and what I mean by that is what was going on at the time, what the man (or woman) was thinking the instant the revolution came to them, how they incorporated it into their research, how the society around them reacted to it, how it was received, how it was produced, how it was manufactured, how that impacted society at large.. literally dozens of variables (which is an interesting en devour in itself as you're exposed to multitudes of different disciplines)... Albert Hofmann's research on LSD is enough to get anyone hooked!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD#Discovery
... you realize science isn't something that is taken on someones word. It is a systematic process with built in solutions to preconceived problems due to human nature and human error.
This actually sort of offended me because it shows you haven't given my responses much consideration.
"Oh, this is interesting and could be possible. I dont trust myself
(this never comes into account. 'Trusting myself' is irrelevant as I'm not a scientist) so I better check some skeptic/science website to see it its legit rather than studying it myself without biased opinions to sway my judgement...
(as average human beings, we don't have the ability to research certain things with extensive detail, therefore, we're subject to a degree of faith. I'd like to make it clear right here right now that the faith I'm referring to is not the same kind of faith religious institutions rely on and emphasize again why the scientific method is so important and useful) Oh... they said its absolute bullshit... I guess I'll take their word for it."
(the international scientific community ensures 'taking anyones word' for anything is impossible. There are rigorous academic and scientific obstacles to cross along the way. I'm confident enough to say that if the theory isn't true, or doesn't present a degree of truth to it, it will not pass through the scientific process. If you disagree and believe something could, please provide evidence of something that might, or an explanation as to how something could.)
This is really telling, dude. 'for some reason'? Science won't test the supernatural because it can't. How can we test something that isn't real? If it was real, wouldn't we be able to test it?
Again, man, you've gotta understand, as I've told you before, I've been in this game a long time. I've heard everything hundreds of times before from a lot of different people, most of these ideas are pretty consistent, for the most part. I've had a lot of time to reflect and ponder upon them. You're 100% right, if something 'supernatural' happened in reality, then it would not be 'supernatural'. We know whether something actually happens in nature or not by studying the available data. The thing about things like Bigfoot, the Cupacabra, Santa Clause, etc.. is that there is literally nothing to measure. There is no data. This is the point where I ask you, what do we measure? What is there? Where is the Sasquach skeleton? Where are the gigantic mechanical tools the ancients used to build the pyramids? Where are the stone tablets which contain the 10 commandments? There is just nothing to go on, except hearsay and secondhand accounts. I'm sorry, man, but that just does not convince me. I wish it did because some of the shit would be really cool to believe in, but it just doesn't..
I need to make one thing clear to you, the scientists that get 'belittled' by the international scientific community do exactly what you do, they come with an idea... but no evidence. All of them collectively say "OMFGBBQ!!!! REALLY!!!?! How the fuck did you figure that out?!?!! Holy shit!!", and they're met with "oh... well, I mean... I was in my bedroom thinking about shit... and it just CAME TO ME!!!!".. See what I mean, dude? If we had something to go on, we'd be ALL THE FUCK OVER THAT!! Bigfoot dude?? You don't think any scientist out there would LOVE to be known for discovering fuckin' BIGFOOT?! All of them would, it's just the evidence available now (which means there could be evidence eventually that DOES point to Bigfoot being real) doesn't suggest it exists.
No I won't spare you, because you really need to understand this stuff!
Experience is not nearly enough to conclude anything. I know you've experimented with substances in your personal life, I know you've felt different states of mind, different 'realities'.. Now this is an honest question... Why should you believe anything from your sober state of mind is any 'more real' than something from an intoxicated state of mind you've experienced?
Don't you think you need something to distinguish between the two? Something consistent, something useful? This is the scientific method. With that, it doesn't matter how fucked up you get, if you follow the rules, you can't stray from the path. It is designed that way.
I'm completely open to anything that follows the rules of the scientific method.
Dont get too excited about the podcast thing. Sounds like a great idea but it is very revealing and the idea of having a big audience kinda gives me stage fright lol. But I just might do it. It will make people look at us for who we actually are and not just some smug skeptic and crazy spiritualist.
I agree there is arrogance on both sides. The reason I was so aggressive and that I responded with emotion when I first got here is because I never knew "skeptics" existed. I knew what scientists had to say about such things but I didnt know normal people were so passionate about the same materialistic view. I was used to talking to people who said "this is what I think is happening, it kinda makes sense" rather than "Scientists say this, so why should I be interested in that? Why do you believe in that? Thats silly". I was confronted by those with absolute certainty that I was wrong. I expected a friendly environment where people discussed ideas, experiences, and what truths they have found in life. Instead I got the message of "Your ideas are illogical, your experiences mean nothing, your truths delude you, because my perspective says so". I did not like the smug, skeptic, know-it-all nature of a forum that starts with Spirituality, I did not think it was right. It also felt like I was being converted into a religion as well.
I have found consistency in my experiences. The odds that my first experience was just a combination of chance and trickery seemed very slim. How out of complete silence my friend said "no you cant, Chief", and answered a question that I just thought of. Then at the end of the walk he knew I was panicking on the inside about him being able to read everyone of my shameful thoughts so he said "Chief. Your faults are what define you, they are the diamond of your being.", and put me at ease. The dozens of experiences after that showed no error on his part, he was right every single time. Then I guess the material explanation would be that he was using clever guess work and trickery, I dont buy that at all though. Theres been too many different situations and circumstances where he got the same correct outcome every time. The specifics of his answers were way too detailed and thought out to be simple chance, guess work, and trickery. I am not trying to convince you of anything though, just that there is indeed truth in some experiences, and you dont believe in certainty, so you should be uncertain that experiences mean very little.
See this is where things seem dogmatic and biased to me. Why must every single person stick to scientific standards, especial that of materialism? Is it one of those exceptions to the rule of forbidden certainty? No one HAS to do anything, thats not how the world works. It would be quite a boring world if everyone HAD to follow such standards. Of course people will respond with negativity when you tell them they HAVE to do this in order to be sure of anything. IMO, thats just not true at all.
On the other hand, I believe people kinda use the scientific method when learning about mysterious things like the human brain, dreams, lucid dreams, ghosts, creation, the universe, and altered states of consciousness because some of the metaphysical theories seem just as possible as the materialistic theories, and its ok to believe in plausible theories. What I believe to be true is that reality runs on vibrations, resonance, consciousness, and "fields". I explained it to an intelligent atheist friend and she thought I was talking about the Higgs field, she overlooked my use of the word "consciousness" I guess. Its not like the Higgs field though. I think psychedelics turn a dial in your brain and tunes into different frequencies of reality and thats why physical reality appears to change and that DMT completely sends you into a another level of reality. Dr. Strassmans did an experiment where two volunteers are sharing the same DMT trip and speaking to the exact same angelic being at the same time, thats amazing! I think thats one of the examples where the "supernatural" becomes natural.
I've witnessed Heis take someones word for a book I suggested and judging from the points he made, his source was probably a hard atheist or a skeptic that is totally biased and against the metaphysical. He talked about how the author supposedly lied and made things up. But just by going off of the authors scientific sources for information (mostly materialists), the connections the author has made makes a lot of sense. If you only studied his sources of information without the authors commentary than you too would make some astonishing connections. Now how could the author lie about such things? Why did these materialistic, well respected scientists not sue the shit out of the author for lying about their research and giving them a bad name? Because he wasnt lying, and Heis's source for information was biased and completely false about the author lying.
Science says its supernatural and not real out of ignorance. Its not that they cant test it, its that they WONT test it because they think it is not real, and the scientists attempting to test these things face ignorance and ridicule, especially when they develop a plausible theory thats against materialism.
Im not talking about things like bigfoot, chupacabra, and santa, they dont interest me. My take on those creatures is that who knows? They world is huge and an ocean of forest and land has not been touched by humanity. I see it as possible, not really something I care about though.
My latest thread about Sheldrakes research shows data from controlled experiments that exposes the natural side of the "supernatural". Im assuming you already read the article and dismissed it as woo though. I ask you to go to his site, read around a bit if you want to, and PLEASE listen to one of the debates that are found in the "controversies" section. The respectable skeptical scientists hosting the debates show much resistance to what Sheldrake has to offer, but that is all they show, they are unable to provide information that contradicts his studies, and the audience ends up siding with Sheldrake. The book that Heis ignorantly dismissed shows many consistencies in multiple "supernatural" beliefs from all over the world, its pretty sad that people dismiss the only piece of information about "supernatural" consistencies.
I dont believe the ancients needed gigantic machines to accomplish great tasks. I believe that they were masters of consciousness and resonance and had greater control over reality and used spirit infused technology that to us would just be a piece of metal because we are spiritually lost. I dont think the Arch of the Covenant is a stone tablet with commandments from god on them. I think it is great piece of spirit infused technology. It is believed that the Arch is in Ethiopia under the surveillance of anciently traditional black Jews. No one is allowed to enter the building because they say the Arch will kill them. All the guardians of this building live short lives and often die because of cancers and tumors because of the radiation coming off of this technology. This is all just a theory though. No one can know because no one can enter the building.
I just provided an example of scientists and researchers that provide evidence and dont fall under your description of "supernatural" researchers.
Once again, I dont care about bigfoot.
Once again, I dont HAVE to understand anything, and neither does anyone else. Why do we HAVE to understand these things in a world that is supposedly completely uncertain? Because of the exception to the rule of forbidden certainty that is the scientific method? You are CERTAIN that is the only true way to figuring out reality? I think if you got rid of those exceptions to the rule of certainty, then you would have a better grasp of reality. That being said, the scientific method is starting to leap into the unknown and expose the falsely named "supernatural", but I dont think it is necessary, but it is necessary for those that are not convinced, like yourself.
and enjoy the fruits of your labor 
