BirdmanDMT
"You going to pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?
First, I'm sorry to have unknowingly opened the coffin on this thread. I did a Google search on "Atheism and DMT" and this DMT Nexus thread was the very first search result, so kudos to the DMT Nexus! Since the topic is not anything "dated" (like if The Eagles will beat the Patriots) then new views will probably emerge over time anyway.
I'll make this last comment and let it go back to sleep. I apologize in advance for its length.
...I would definitely want to "have certainty" as this represents knowledge. I would think an Atheist would want the same? But there is no logical way to claim certainly without already having certainty. But if I DID have certainty, I would definitely claim so! Your question asking "What's so bad about claiming that you are not certain?" is the only logical way to think when certainty is not present.
That is EXACTLY what perplexes me with Atheism!
I believe that God (a purpose-driven intelligence) exists, but I am not "certain." I forward my thinking as if God does exist based on whatever circumstantial evidence I can provide, but the truth is that I am not certain at all. Atheism is a non-belief in any god(s) as there is a lack of evidence to provide any "certainty" in that regard. But isn't it illogical to claim that God does not exist with any certainty if the possibility of God has not been Logically-eliminated?
True Atheism would not care either way! An Atheist would simply say, "I don't believe there is a god(s)." and leave it at that. No argument or reasoning for a non-belief in God is required unless there is "certainty" present that there is indeed a God. The moment an Atheist says, "Show me empirical evidence of god's existence!" they accept the premise of God within their question and this opens the door to "uncertainty."
If anything, I would have thought the brutally raw and powerful experience that DMT presents to an Atheist would be enough for an Atheist to accept the "possibility" of the existence of God. I am surprised how little of an effect DMT has had in even "opening the door" to the possibility of the existence of God.
ÅikyǬ touches on this in his comment:
...ÅikyǬ's argument leads us to believe that we cannot claim "certainty" for things that are not of this world and does so very eloquently. If two people's interpretations of something are totally different, then where is your "certainty?" Example: We can claim with absolute certainty that the Earth is spherical and not flat, but we cannot claim with absolute certainty that the Earth was purposely created by some totally unknown entity called God. Likewise we can't claim with absolute certainty that the Earth exists as a result of non-purposeful factors, but it seems more likely than an all-powerful Wizard waving his magic wand.
Atheism wins the battle of certainty in this regard!
So that leads us to Buxin's comment which demonstrates exactly the difficulty of the point ÅikyǬ just made:
...Buxin is using "things" we can recognize and understand in this world to describe things in another world (inner self) that don't have names or are not simply recognizable or understandable in this world. He uses the "crystal-forming analogy" in a very effective way and I am better able to understand. This is what many are trying to do to get Atheists to accept the "possibilities" of the things we don't know for certain.
Hypothetical: Let's say we all lived in a 2-dimensional realm called "Flatland." I recently tried DMT and had a extra-dimensional experience. I encountered "Sphere!" How would I describe a sphere (as our Earth is) to the other inhabitants of Flatland? What words would I use? I would be forced to only use "recognizable things" found in Flatland and create analogies in an attempt to explain something that simply is not known or understood at all in Flatland. I might use a series of circles that grow and shrink in size to simulate how "sphere" would pass through flatland, but would this really make sense to everyone else in Flatland ...or show proof of the existence of "Sphere?"?
However, if other inhabitants of Flatland used DMT and also saw "Sphere" then they would know exactly what I was trying to describe. When the DMT finally wears off, they would all return to Flatland. Some would say,"Yes, I definitely encountered Sphere!" Others would say, "I encountered what people have claimed is Sphere, but I'm not sure if what I saw was actually "Sphere" or not?" and some would probably say, "I encountered something that people claim is "Sphere" but I think it's just a vivid hallucination of something that does not exists due to me taking a hallucinogenic drug."
Then the intellectual battle between the "known and the unknown" emerges in Flatland as demonstrated by Dragonrider's comment:
...Dragonrider injects the cold antiseptic sting of reality into this whole "Sphere" issue. Dragonrider points out that all things being equal, whatever presents itself as being closet to a known "demonstrable" reality is what should be deemed as having the highest level of certainty. Many inhabitants of Flatland will argue that the only thing that is known for certain are the things that can be demonstrated as "already being certain" in Flatland... and rightfully so!
This Atheist argument is logical, solid and why Atheists present a good point, but I had really hoped to see more Atheists moving more towards the "middle ground" after taking DMT.
Flatlanders who used DMT got to see "Sphere" first hand as opposed to it being merely described as a bunch of growing and shrinking circles. However, they still don't know what "Sphere" really is because it is not present in Flatland. Back on planet Earth, we know spheres exist and we also know what 2-dimensional things are. We know how difficult it would be to describe something that is 3-dimensional to a world that is 2-dimensional ...so this is a perfect analogy for accepting the possibility of the existence of God.
So, after all of this, the question I ask the Atheist is, "Why don't you even consider the possibility for the existence of God if nothing is known for certain?"
I'll make this last comment and let it go back to sleep. I apologize in advance for its length.
dragonrider said:But why would anybody want to have certainty, or want to claim it, or want to shove it down other people's throat, on something about which there simply CAN be no certainty?
What's so bad about admitting that you're not certain?
...I would definitely want to "have certainty" as this represents knowledge. I would think an Atheist would want the same? But there is no logical way to claim certainly without already having certainty. But if I DID have certainty, I would definitely claim so! Your question asking "What's so bad about claiming that you are not certain?" is the only logical way to think when certainty is not present.
That is EXACTLY what perplexes me with Atheism!
I believe that God (a purpose-driven intelligence) exists, but I am not "certain." I forward my thinking as if God does exist based on whatever circumstantial evidence I can provide, but the truth is that I am not certain at all. Atheism is a non-belief in any god(s) as there is a lack of evidence to provide any "certainty" in that regard. But isn't it illogical to claim that God does not exist with any certainty if the possibility of God has not been Logically-eliminated?
True Atheism would not care either way! An Atheist would simply say, "I don't believe there is a god(s)." and leave it at that. No argument or reasoning for a non-belief in God is required unless there is "certainty" present that there is indeed a God. The moment an Atheist says, "Show me empirical evidence of god's existence!" they accept the premise of God within their question and this opens the door to "uncertainty."
If anything, I would have thought the brutally raw and powerful experience that DMT presents to an Atheist would be enough for an Atheist to accept the "possibility" of the existence of God. I am surprised how little of an effect DMT has had in even "opening the door" to the possibility of the existence of God.
ÅikyǬ touches on this in his comment:
ÅikyǬ said:There is truth and it takes many forms because all is subject to movement. If you go to very deep meditation state and experience unity, it will impossible for you to explain and you might explain it in two very different ways on different days or to different people.
...ÅikyǬ's argument leads us to believe that we cannot claim "certainty" for things that are not of this world and does so very eloquently. If two people's interpretations of something are totally different, then where is your "certainty?" Example: We can claim with absolute certainty that the Earth is spherical and not flat, but we cannot claim with absolute certainty that the Earth was purposely created by some totally unknown entity called God. Likewise we can't claim with absolute certainty that the Earth exists as a result of non-purposeful factors, but it seems more likely than an all-powerful Wizard waving his magic wand.
Atheism wins the battle of certainty in this regard!
So that leads us to Buxin's comment which demonstrates exactly the difficulty of the point ÅikyǬ just made:
Doc Buxin said:My theory? That some souls (in this context, the word "soul" meaning: the most indestructible yet subtle fraction of our consciousness, i.e. the irreducible part of each of us that has always been and always will be, aka "The Watcher" or "The Witness" ) are not yet to their "maturity point" as of the moment (I've always pictured this in same the way that a crystal grows or a seed becomes produced ba plant) in order to be able to process the entirety, let alone even a fraction, of the cosmic fire hydrant of information (nearly infinite amounts I feel) transmitted and/or received during a "Peak Experience".
...Buxin is using "things" we can recognize and understand in this world to describe things in another world (inner self) that don't have names or are not simply recognizable or understandable in this world. He uses the "crystal-forming analogy" in a very effective way and I am better able to understand. This is what many are trying to do to get Atheists to accept the "possibilities" of the things we don't know for certain.
Hypothetical: Let's say we all lived in a 2-dimensional realm called "Flatland." I recently tried DMT and had a extra-dimensional experience. I encountered "Sphere!" How would I describe a sphere (as our Earth is) to the other inhabitants of Flatland? What words would I use? I would be forced to only use "recognizable things" found in Flatland and create analogies in an attempt to explain something that simply is not known or understood at all in Flatland. I might use a series of circles that grow and shrink in size to simulate how "sphere" would pass through flatland, but would this really make sense to everyone else in Flatland ...or show proof of the existence of "Sphere?"?
However, if other inhabitants of Flatland used DMT and also saw "Sphere" then they would know exactly what I was trying to describe. When the DMT finally wears off, they would all return to Flatland. Some would say,"Yes, I definitely encountered Sphere!" Others would say, "I encountered what people have claimed is Sphere, but I'm not sure if what I saw was actually "Sphere" or not?" and some would probably say, "I encountered something that people claim is "Sphere" but I think it's just a vivid hallucination of something that does not exists due to me taking a hallucinogenic drug."
Then the intellectual battle between the "known and the unknown" emerges in Flatland as demonstrated by Dragonrider's comment:
dragonrider said:Yeah....but you do realise that when you talk about 'taking action in the world', you speak about the material world, don't you? What i mean is, that when you're reading this, THAT world is a lot more certain (at least on a phenomenological level) than the 'spirit world', or whatever you like to call it. And my question is, why that would be a problem.
...Dragonrider injects the cold antiseptic sting of reality into this whole "Sphere" issue. Dragonrider points out that all things being equal, whatever presents itself as being closet to a known "demonstrable" reality is what should be deemed as having the highest level of certainty. Many inhabitants of Flatland will argue that the only thing that is known for certain are the things that can be demonstrated as "already being certain" in Flatland... and rightfully so!
This Atheist argument is logical, solid and why Atheists present a good point, but I had really hoped to see more Atheists moving more towards the "middle ground" after taking DMT.
Flatlanders who used DMT got to see "Sphere" first hand as opposed to it being merely described as a bunch of growing and shrinking circles. However, they still don't know what "Sphere" really is because it is not present in Flatland. Back on planet Earth, we know spheres exist and we also know what 2-dimensional things are. We know how difficult it would be to describe something that is 3-dimensional to a world that is 2-dimensional ...so this is a perfect analogy for accepting the possibility of the existence of God.
So, after all of this, the question I ask the Atheist is, "Why don't you even consider the possibility for the existence of God if nothing is known for certain?"