Theists believe in God for many reasons but the best reason is communion with God. — EnPassant

I can't argue without asking: What do you mean by 'best'? It seems to be the least reliable, the least amenable to interrogation, the least presentable and the least-strong in terms of any logical deduction. It can be explained in many ways besides an actual communion with a hypothetical God.

So what do you mean by 'best'?

Why anyone be unable to commune with God? — EnPassant

Well, God doesn't appear to exist for one - but you're also simply ignoring the argument. It doesn't matter why. The concept is that if people are unable to, you've said you wouldn't use the term defective - so, what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily?

I am not talking about medical issues I'm talking about abuse of these substances. The damage they do is well documented. — EnPassant

Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

Popular reporting, to be sure, but hte sources are reported statistical realities. I understand being resistant due to being ill-informed, but you are wrong on this count. Paddle boats do more damage.

What do you mean by 'best'? — AmadeusD

There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran...

what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily? — AmadeusD

There are many reasons. There is a time for everyone, People need to be ready. This is what religion is for: it makes it know to people that they can know God. Many people are not interested because they want to live on their own terms. Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God.

Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. — AmadeusD

What kind of damage are they measuring? I'm talking about psychic damage. These people are entering into areas they don't understand. These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. I knew one such 'psychonaut' as he called himself. His mind was visibly burned out.

There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran... — EnPassant

I think you may, for whatever reason, be disposed to misread these questions. I presume you're a theist?

The question asked was why is it this experience

Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God. — EnPassant

Not at all, and explicitly so. I take it you've not read any of his work? He's clearly not an angry man beyond watching religious zealotry illogically cause damage, whether personal or social. You may disagree, and that's fine, but his position isn't one of anger - quite clearly. He just has a rather reasonable gripe with supernatural beliefs because beliefs encourage/motivate behaviours. Many of which, from the religious impulse, are negative in his view (and mine, and millions of others).

What kind of damage are they measuring? — EnPassant

Physical, psychological, social, economic.

All of them. There's nothing missing that could matter.

These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. — EnPassant

You're going to need to say a lot more about what you mean by "psychic realities" and how they could be "dangerous" for this to fly anywhere. I also suggest you do not have a visual line on that bloke's mind. That is absurd.

Not at all, and explicitly so. I take it you've not read any of his work? He's clearly not an angry man beyond watching religious zealotry illogically cause damage, whether personal or social. — AmadeusD

Religions are corrupt. Supernatural beliefs per se don't cause damage, it is the corruption and misuse of religion that causes damage.

Physical, psychological, social, economic. — AmadeusD

Read about Syd Barret from Pink Floyd and the damage these substances did to his mind.

You're going to need to say a lot more about what you mean by "psychic realities" and how they could be "dangerous" for this to fly anywhere. — AmadeusD

Syd Barret. There are many who have been seriously damaged. This is well documented.

Religions are corrupt. Supernatural beliefs per se don't cause damage, it is the corruption and misuse of religion that causes damage. — EnPassant

Well, no. What you call 'corruption' are logical inferences from texts. It's worth noting "religion" is not a monolith. Early Christian teachings were barbaric. Current islamic ones are (and were, tbf). They aren't the same thing in practice, so I understand what you're saying - but you again, missed the point. Supernatural beliefs motivate behaviour. This is a bad thing because any negative result can be attributed to the will of the supernatural. Its simply intellectually dishonest.

Read about Syd Barret from Pink Floyd and the damage these substances did to his mind. — EnPassant

I am big Pink Floyd fan, and know well Syd Barrett's story. If that's your rebuttal to peer-reviewed meta studies, I'm going to say you're trolling.

Your next response doesn't begin to come close to answering the question asked. Syd Barrett is not a psychic reality. You seem to not know anything about that which you speak.

Supernatural beliefs motivate behavior. This is a bad thing because any negative result can be attributed to the will of the supernatural. Its simply intellectually dishonest. — AmadeusD

Unscrupulous individuals can use anything as an excuse for evil. Even Stalin used religion. That does not, in itself, make religion evil. The world is corrupt. What's new? At any rate these evil uses of religion say nothing about whether spiritual teachings are true. Religion begins with revelation to various individuals. The problem begins when people distort the original teachings and infiltrate them with untruths and corruptions of all kinds. But revelation is continually given to humanity. Read the saints. Read Kahlil Gibran or the many mystics who have continually updated the correct teachings of religion.

I am big Pink Floyd fan, and know well Syd Barrett's story. If that's your rebuttal to peer-reviewed meta studies, I'm going to say you're trolling. — AmadeusD

Let me put it straight to you. These substances are a kind of poor man's magic. They open the mind to maligned spirits and terrible things can result. Syd Barret is only one of many examples of people who have been destroyed by this stuff. The studies you mention don't measure psychic damage. Schizophrenia for example is mentioned in this link https://americanaddictioncenters.org/lsd-abuse/what-does-lsd-do-to-your-brain

I can't believe you are defending something that has been clearly shown to be psychically lethal.

t any rate these evil uses of religion say nothing about whether spiritual teachings are true. — EnPassant

You're not actually engaging with that which is being said to you.

In any case, no one said religion was evil. So this is incoherent.

With the greatest respect, you are entirely ignorant about that which you speak:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/?utm_
https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/challenging-old-assumptions-twin-study-reveals-surprising-connection-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis/?utm_
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38280572/

You are peddling long-debunked myths in support of I know not what. This exchange is pointless. But suffice to say, you should be humble and admit you don't know what you don't know, and that you now have that information.

With the greatest respect, you are entirely ignorant about that which you speak: — AmadeusD

There is a link to mental illness. I have seen it with my own eyes. I once witnessed a friend of mine in a state of pure terror from taking this stuff. No 'study' can nullify what I have seen with my own eyes.
I just posted a link showing that lsd can cause schizophrenia. You posted one saying the opposite. So much for links. I'll trust my own first hand experience of people who take this stuff.

You posted a propaganda site.

I posted three peer-reviewed studies that you did not read.

You are not capable of a rational exchange on this, it seems.

You are not capable of a rational exchange on this, it seems. — AmadeusD

Like I said, I have seen with my own eyes what this stuff does. Nothing you post can compete with first hand knowledge. I don't see anything 'irrational' about reporting first hand experience. You are gaslighting me.

Again, with respect, that is utterly absurd. An aggregate of more than 1000 first-hand experiences trumps yours. Sorry.

I can only repeat what I said: these studies are framed within standard definitions of 'mental'* illnesses. Psychic damage does not necessarily fit into these academic definitions. Many many people are damaged in this way but don't fit into the academic criteria of mental illness.

*Generally speaking, 'mental' conditions are spiritual conditions. In recent times the medical community has created a misleading nomenclature that has replaced traditional spiritual language. Now spiritual conditions are bleached of their meaning and turned into a kind of medical tautology: new labels have been invented and everything has been renamed. As a result the psyche has become little more than an academic medical tautology. But changing labels and renaming everything does not change reality. The mind is a real thing, not the academic whirl of definitions that have been invented.

You may not agree with all that is said here but is relevant to this conversation https://www.facebook.com/reel/872683952250418

*Generally speaking, 'mental' conditions are spiritual conditions. — EnPassant

We live in entirely different worlds. I suggest yours is a bit unfortunate. Take care mate.