Of course non-credible science gets published once in a while. But the system of peer-review ensures that that stays at a minimum. Religion has no peer review. I don't know why you think science is "evil." No, but it has a better chance of being credible than some shit that you just make up. Right, which is scientific in nature... Yup.
Sounds pretty same old same old to me. It can't even have a new experience. BEYOND same old same old. I will make a thread that attempts to prove it with math and physics. You didn't draw a conclusion about what you saw because you thought it wasn't real. Funny how several others have the same non-real experience and claim it is a revelation. Some without the use of any drugs at all. If you don't think it's profound you shouldn't have had such a hard time believing what you saw was real while tripping. You keep saying things with authority like that makes it logical and understandable. It doesn't- you are saying it's common knowledge and then you discredit a way it was discovered. You even discredit your own eyes because of some drug that might be causing you to see things and you think it must be false- even though it's parallel with common knowledge that isn't profound from what you imply. Seems to me such non-profound things wouldn't require dismissal because you're tripping. It would seem it would make sense considering it's so reasonable and easily understood. Especially with your understanding of how marijuana works sometimes. Buuuuuut that's not the case. So I've said my peace, you may disagree but that's fine.
Religion has peer review, too, they just don't call it that. Martin Luther was a peer reviewer... Science is not evil in itself, but it can be used for evil. Science created the Atomic bomb for instance, not evil in itself, but enough bombs could be used to destroy the planet. Cars are a product of science. They are filling the earth will pollutants... Everything starts out as just some shit that you make up. Darwin's theory of evolution, Freud's theory of psychoanalysis... You have to be skeptical about everything to see through all the bullshit...
Religion doesn't have any peer review. You think whenever Pat Robertson says something like "abortionists caused 9/11," there's a committee weighing his claims against the evidence? A lot of Freud's theories were just made up, you're right. But Darwin? No way. His theories were based on observations he made while in the Galapagos.
^ Sounds pretty made up to me considering it's his theory and all... The evidence doesn't jump out and say evolution he had to use his imagination somewhere.
I'm not saying he didn't use his imagination, just that he didn't make it up out of whole cloth (like, say, Samuel Hannehman, who invented homeopathy).
Well duh... it's impossible to do scientific research if you don't have a body of work created by other scientists to base it on.
All I'm saying is that imagination has filled in the gaps of a lot of theories, from the lightbulb to language. So perhaps, just maybe- the mind is the missing link to understanding the universe even more in-depth. So instead of looking outwards like this skeptic is doing- he should look inwards. Whether it's drugs or meditation it doesn't matter. If he doesn't then he isn't taking his own subjective belief into account, which is just as bad as a Catholic that doesn't take someone else's objective understanding into account.