Its one difference. But it doesn't mean that anything you experience on psychedelics provides sufficient evidence for any sort of belief system beyond that of what we already know through evidence based discovery.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
DMT - Dangerous for your Mind?
- Thread starter Angel_Above
- Start date
Its one difference. But it doesn't mean that anything you experience on psychedelics provides sufficient evidence for any sort of belief system beyond that of what we already know through evidence based discovery.
Well, one thing is for sure- there's no convincing a person of something they wish not to believe. The debates concerning God waged between believers and atheists always generate more heat than light. Ultimately, belief or non-belief is a purely subjective experience and like all subjective experiences- it cannot be "proven" one way or another.
Just because my subjective experience shows me that the entire cosmic phenomenon is rife with intelligence, creative power and purpose- that should not lead me to think it is just as obvious to others. Just because my heart overflows with gratitude to the Prime Creator for the miracle (yes, my "subjective" experience shows me it's a miracle) of life, it does not necessarily follow that someone else's heart will be overflowing with gratitude in the same way.
What is interesting though is that no one can prove my experience wrong- and why would they even want to? My experience is one that brings me satisfaction, is grounded in my own consciousness and therefore, purely subjective. It follows that the atheist should expect neither to prove him/herself or be proven wrong concerning his/her own particular brand of faith- and for the same reason- it's purely subjective.
What serves my growth may not serve another's. Devotion (voluntary love) and surrender(a deep trusting from the heart)towards the Divine may not be everyone's cup of tea- but for me, it my unalloyed bliss and joy.
Just because my subjective experience shows me that the entire cosmic phenomenon is rife with intelligence, creative power and purpose- that should not lead me to think it is just as obvious to others. Just because my heart overflows with gratitude to the Prime Creator for the miracle (yes, my "subjective" experience shows me it's a miracle) of life, it does not necessarily follow that someone else's heart will be overflowing with gratitude in the same way.
What is interesting though is that no one can prove my experience wrong- and why would they even want to? My experience is one that brings me satisfaction, is grounded in my own consciousness and therefore, purely subjective. It follows that the atheist should expect neither to prove him/herself or be proven wrong concerning his/her own particular brand of faith- and for the same reason- it's purely subjective.
What serves my growth may not serve another's. Devotion (voluntary love) and surrender(a deep trusting from the heart)towards the Divine may not be everyone's cup of tea- but for me, it my unalloyed bliss and joy.
tryptographer
tryptamine photographer
burnt said:
I don't believe in belief systems. Any belief has to be ditched sooner or later when new evidence pops up.
But good point. The direct experience even becomes somewhat indirect when leaving the trance, when it's reduced to only a memory... but there is this 'sensor' that tells me if I'm dreaming or awake, and I remember this sensor telling me it was REAL, even hyperreal. But yes, that's purely subjective... can't prove it, only tell about it. Hey, in court witnesses are sometimes taken seriously!
burnt said:
As usual, we are on the opposite side of the fence.
I was once an atheist, and I once thought like you do, but I now know better, and I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone that God exists, that’s for you to find out on your own.
I'm more agnostic than ever 
The only time I'm insane from DMT is when I have had too much drink and I can't stop telling folk how amazing DMT is.
The only time I'm insane from DMT is when I have had too much drink and I can't stop telling folk how amazing DMT is.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it if it doesn't effect people's decisions. It can even effect your decisions as long as it's not something that effects the lives of others. I make a lot of personal decisions that don't actually make sense because they're based on my weird philosophy/beliefs, but when I'm dealing with others I go into total James Randi mode.Phlux- said:
Anyway, I can't really speak for others, but I always assumed that when people say they talked to god while tripping they were just describing it like something that happened in a dream, and were just talking about it to get into the philosophical repercussions of having the experience of talking to god. Like they don't REALLY think they talked to god. At least, that's my interpretation.
After the way this thread has evolved I went back and re-read the original post and I have to say that I cannot determine from it whether the quoted poster was religious or secular. I think that what is really important about the post was the poster's attempt to inflame intolerance. Whether the poster sincerely believes the ignorant rabble rousing that he spews is less important than letting it go uncontested. Hitler may have been sincere in his beliefs but the effect of his inflammatory diatribe cost millions of people their lives. Whether the poster spoke from ignorant fear or malicious hate is less important than the damage that kind of inflammatory hysterical rabble rousing can cause.
If you come away from a DMT trip saying those things in the original post, you're probably not insane, but you're wrong and deluded, the people who are susceptible to that are the ones who are able to make mental leaps of imagination... I am somewhat convinced that most religions/religious experiences are based on the trip effect, to the old folk that probably seemed like god was talking to them, what other explanation?... crucially all those people as well as the folks saying "I just know" don't know anything really and are jumping to some deluded explanation for what actually happened to them. If you "just know" and yet can't explain anything with any sense or detail, then you really don't know and are making an assumption. I am an atheist in the strictest sense (that being really just an agnostic on the topic of all gods), I've had hindu religious experiences on drugs, but the only conclusion I come to is that the tibetan folks were probably consuming the same molecules. Don't get me wrong, I think what happens on those molecules is super interesting and I haven't got a good explanation for that, I can live without a complete explanation I don't need to invent one.
Re: affecting decisions: it was recently brought to my attention that I should give more. For no reason, other than to give, because we are all interconnected. The butterfly effect, observers collapsing probabilities (I'd love to hear what the hardcore chemists have to say about those 
).
Life is precious...
(Edit: would a head full of harmalas disqualify a post in this thread?
)
).Life is precious...
(Edit: would a head full of harmalas disqualify a post in this thread?
)
I don't like the word belief when it comes to spice. There's nothing to belief for you but only to KNOW.
What your ego makes of it afterwards is your egos decision.
What your ego makes of it afterwards is your egos decision.
I'm also starting to believe more that we may have a genetic predisposition to believing in higher powers, I mean, lets face it, non-believers generally haven't survived too long up until recently, evolution has favoured people who have at least pretended to believe. Its funny how something small can be embodied with so much of a sense of importance.
I'm still waiting for the day, primatologists for the first time find a group of religious primates.lbeing789 said:
I still don't believe that DMT is dangerous for our minds. It doesn't take me a fraction of a second longer to solve sudoku's since i've started with it.
It will never end this God vs science debate... I am a fan of science, am doing a science degree, and hope to study science at a postgraduate level. However, I'm not sure if you remember ages ago burnt in a previous thread about dark energy, and what I though was something like 90% of the supposed mass of the universe is invisible to us...however, we can detect this gravitational influence of all this mass. That is it though. We can detect its presence...but that is it, apart from that, it remains completely shrouded to us, and if what I have read is true, this stuff makes up the bulk of the known universe!! So we have SO much more to learn, and so much more mystery to traverse concerning the universe we inhabit. And a little random, but imagine a century ago, if I had harped on about the existence of radio waves, and yet was unable to prove their existence scientifically at that time, as the tools necessary for their detection did not exist yet. People would think I was mad!
I have met quite a few scientists, both young and old. Some of them I consider my closest friends and mentors...and yet many, particularly the younger ones, are of the 'if its not in the Web of Science journal database, it doesn't exist" mentality. Some of these people are so focused on what is directly in front of them they seem to miss a lot of the mystery that is very much apart of life.
And I know some people here might hold up Richard Dawkins very high (am assuming you here burnt). Well I have it on a very good authority, that despite his brains and ideas, Richard Dawkins is a bit of errr...probably a word I shoudn't use here. I'll just say he is not a very decent or pleasant individual. You do find some very arrogant conceited academics out there. So I don't particularly respect that. And I won't respect you just because you have a porsche and earn £50,000+ a year. Who and what you are as a person defines whether I respect you.
A quote from Simon Buxton;
"What is it, this life?
I know, I know, that between the investigations, the quantifications and the rationalizations of the scienstist, there is a gap, like the white space between words or the pause n a sentence that gives meaning to to the spoken word."
I think Carl Sagan, as well as being a very intelligent individual, was a genuine, decent human being, who was very open to the mysteries of life and the universe. I think he was a credit to our species, and we he sets a good example to all of us...scientists in particular.
From Wikipedia, concerning Sagan' thoughts on god;
Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about the conventional conceptualization of God as a sapient being. For example:
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic." Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.
I have met quite a few scientists, both young and old. Some of them I consider my closest friends and mentors...and yet many, particularly the younger ones, are of the 'if its not in the Web of Science journal database, it doesn't exist" mentality. Some of these people are so focused on what is directly in front of them they seem to miss a lot of the mystery that is very much apart of life.
And I know some people here might hold up Richard Dawkins very high (am assuming you here burnt). Well I have it on a very good authority, that despite his brains and ideas, Richard Dawkins is a bit of errr...probably a word I shoudn't use here. I'll just say he is not a very decent or pleasant individual. You do find some very arrogant conceited academics out there. So I don't particularly respect that. And I won't respect you just because you have a porsche and earn £50,000+ a year. Who and what you are as a person defines whether I respect you.
A quote from Simon Buxton;
"What is it, this life?
I know, I know, that between the investigations, the quantifications and the rationalizations of the scienstist, there is a gap, like the white space between words or the pause n a sentence that gives meaning to to the spoken word."
I think Carl Sagan, as well as being a very intelligent individual, was a genuine, decent human being, who was very open to the mysteries of life and the universe. I think he was a credit to our species, and we he sets a good example to all of us...scientists in particular.
From Wikipedia, concerning Sagan' thoughts on god;
Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about the conventional conceptualization of God as a sapient being. For example:
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic." Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.
The versions of 'what does god look like?' vary from the oversized bearded guy who sits on a cloud, to an extremely large vagina that encompasses the whole universe (i believe ohayoco sees god this way).
My position is that i belief in god, although i doubt he exists. I am a skeptical believer.
I god ever complains about that, i'll tell him that he shouldn't have given us such a critical mind then.
Oh, and thanks for the apple, btw:wink:
My position is that i belief in god, although i doubt he exists. I am a skeptical believer.
I god ever complains about that, i'll tell him that he shouldn't have given us such a critical mind then.
Oh, and thanks for the apple, btw:wink:
Astralking
Rising Star
69ron said:
Damn good post ron. BOTH of them, even though i only quoted the first
and i agree whole heartedly.
Bancupuma: Your right there still is tons of mystery. Thats why I get annoyed at people who think their personal experience / education of what they think of god is automatically correct. I happen to not believe in "god" for a number of reasons. My reasons are evidence based which I won't go over there's so many. There could be a god but things make far more sense and match up with observation without having to include any sort of intelligent being guiding the universe into the equation.
Concerning Dawkins. The world needs more people like him. Who have the courage to stand up to the filth and nonsense being spread by religious people. Hes not arrogant hes honest.
Actually they don't. Every debate I've ever watched between a religious person and an atheist has shown how clearly ignorant religious people are about 1) their religions history 2) the natural world. Also its clear that they can't come up with ANY new arguments.
I am also sick of this subjective experience talk. Its such nonsense. It will be provable in the near future to explain how hallucinations of gods are created by the mind. We already know that when people pray for example the parts of their brain that light up when they talk to friends start lighting up. God is just an adult version of an imaginary friend. There is far more evidence that this is hallucinations then just that. I've posted numerous articles and had numerous discussions about it which I am not going to repeat.
As usual you just highlight your own arrogance. You assume that what you experienced is correct and undeniable proof of god. Utterly unconvincing. Anyone who tries to debate you about it you refuse. Anyone who claims to have similar experiences and still not believe you ignore. Typical.
Anyway I am getting off topic.
Isn't it obvious? All so called religious or mystical experiences can be induced by taking drugs that drastically alter your brains perception machinary. Thats evidence enough that ALL religion is fake. Not to mention the numerous historical innacuracies etc etc etc.
For me personally though what made me really start to ask these questions was after I had a psychedelic experience where I had conversations with some recently dead relatives (more then once). I wanted to know if that was real. I don't think it was after many years of research and thought and experimentation.
Concerning Dawkins. The world needs more people like him. Who have the courage to stand up to the filth and nonsense being spread by religious people. Hes not arrogant hes honest.
Actually they don't. Every debate I've ever watched between a religious person and an atheist has shown how clearly ignorant religious people are about 1) their religions history 2) the natural world. Also its clear that they can't come up with ANY new arguments.
I am also sick of this subjective experience talk. Its such nonsense. It will be provable in the near future to explain how hallucinations of gods are created by the mind. We already know that when people pray for example the parts of their brain that light up when they talk to friends start lighting up. God is just an adult version of an imaginary friend. There is far more evidence that this is hallucinations then just that. I've posted numerous articles and had numerous discussions about it which I am not going to repeat.
As usual you just highlight your own arrogance. You assume that what you experienced is correct and undeniable proof of god. Utterly unconvincing. Anyone who tries to debate you about it you refuse. Anyone who claims to have similar experiences and still not believe you ignore. Typical.
Anyway I am getting off topic.
Isn't it obvious? All so called religious or mystical experiences can be induced by taking drugs that drastically alter your brains perception machinary. Thats evidence enough that ALL religion is fake. Not to mention the numerous historical innacuracies etc etc etc.
For me personally though what made me really start to ask these questions was after I had a psychedelic experience where I had conversations with some recently dead relatives (more then once). I wanted to know if that was real. I don't think it was after many years of research and thought and experimentation.
Burnt, I have seen many of your posts and understand from other's references to you that you have a reputation here for a hard-headed analytical approach. That's cool- people like you are important to have around when there is an honest search for truth going on in a group setting. Material reductionism is a popular cosmology among atheists- they go hand in hand and serve each other's agenda.
For theists like myself, it always seems remarkable to observe the intense struggle of fish attempting to refute the water that is their home and life blood. I know this kind of assumption drives people like you mad. If you set yourself to refuse the idea of the Divine Intelligence which is ultimately responsible for the GLORIOUS fact of existence, there's little anyone can do, say or demonstrate to convince you otherwise.
We all struggle with feelings of being loved and having a special place in this universe. Your chosen interpretive lens refuses the admission of all the light and love that surrounds you which actually exists to help you into a proper understanding of your relationship to the Divine. Fact is, and I know this IDE gonna drive you nuts, God is Love-God is Light, and God is loving you in supreme fashion at all times whether you choose to accept to believe it or not! And for this assertion, I offer you no proof whatsoever.
For theists like myself, it always seems remarkable to observe the intense struggle of fish attempting to refute the water that is their home and life blood. I know this kind of assumption drives people like you mad. If you set yourself to refuse the idea of the Divine Intelligence which is ultimately responsible for the GLORIOUS fact of existence, there's little anyone can do, say or demonstrate to convince you otherwise.
We all struggle with feelings of being loved and having a special place in this universe. Your chosen interpretive lens refuses the admission of all the light and love that surrounds you which actually exists to help you into a proper understanding of your relationship to the Divine. Fact is, and I know this IDE gonna drive you nuts, God is Love-God is Light, and God is loving you in supreme fashion at all times whether you choose to accept to believe it or not! And for this assertion, I offer you no proof whatsoever.
burnt said:
As usual you misinterpreted my point. That’s why I don’t really bother arguing with you much anymore burnt. You like to see things you own way and so often misread my statements. I think this is why you can’t see God. You want to see things your own way and are closed to experiencing God because of it.
Until you’re opened to the possibility of experiencing God, I don’t think you can.
Just because you can’t feel the presence of God in all things, doesn’t mean God is not there. We cannot feel radio waves, and yet they are there. We cannot see infrared light, and yet it is there.
The fact that I was once an atheist and like you could not see God, gives me a lot of insight into why you are the way you are. You need to open up. Maybe when you die this will happen and you’ll see God and then realize why the vast majority of people believe God to exist.
Atheists are the minority. And I’m sure you are aware of that. When I was an atheist, I was just like you. I would argue how there’s no proof and that personal experience means nothing, etc. I know exactly where you’re coming from. But once you’ve experienced God’s presence, it’s undeniable. I can at all times feel God’s presence in all things now. God is so obviously there, I can’t understand why I was so blind to it before, but like you I was.
Until you experience God for yourself, you just have no idea what you’re talking about Burnt.
It’s not merely belief. I can feel God there. I don’t just believe I can feel God’s presence. I actually can feel God’s presence and it’s is so obviously. I think this is the reason most people say God exists. They can feel God’s presence in their daily lives.
The fact that the majority of people say that God exists should be something for atheists to examine. God believers basically run the world, and the atheists are just a small fraction of the people out there.
Look at this poll from the USA. It’s from http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/homepages/isomin/files/LegalTimes_Atheism.pdf
Percent with a “Mostly” or “Very” Unfavorable View of Certain Groups
50% Atheists
31% Muslims
17% Evangelical Christians
14% Catholics
13% Hispanics
12% Asians
10% Jews
8% Blacks
Percent Unwilling to Vote for “Well-Qualified” Candidate of Their Party Who Belongs to Certain Group
50% Atheist
38% Muslim
37% Homosexual
15% Evangelical Christian
12% Woman
10% Jewish
6% Black
5% Catholic
Wow. Atheists are at the top as being the most unfavorable group. Holly crap! People like you have it tough Burnt.
guys please lets not turn this into a personal attack thread, yes?
Cant people just have different perspectives and agree to disagree? I mean, one believes in god, and his own personal experience is proof enough for him.. the other doesnt believe and thinks personal experiences can also be mistaken and takes a more skeptic approach.. Both valid stances and already clearly established! One should never look down on the other because its just different ways of seeing the world... If one is healthy, good to those around him, searching for more sustainable living, trying to be always evolve, etc, then it shouldnt matter, right? Just different maps for reality, but its how you act that counts, not what map you use
Im sure now can move on into more productive arguments
Cant people just have different perspectives and agree to disagree? I mean, one believes in god, and his own personal experience is proof enough for him.. the other doesnt believe and thinks personal experiences can also be mistaken and takes a more skeptic approach.. Both valid stances and already clearly established! One should never look down on the other because its just different ways of seeing the world... If one is healthy, good to those around him, searching for more sustainable living, trying to be always evolve, etc, then it shouldnt matter, right? Just different maps for reality, but its how you act that counts, not what map you use
Im sure now can move on into more productive arguments
Similar threads
