Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Greetings, and welcome In regards to the way the DEA rationalizes their control over a chemical within all of our bodies, I've come to the impression that it's not something they seem to think about in a moral/rational way. That's simply not how they think about these things. The DEA mindset is more like a guard-dog mentality: they are very territorial about these things, and are threatened by a perceived lack of control. But if you look at the supreme court decision upholding the UDV church's right to use ayahuasca, as soon as it was determined that this was legal, the DEA immediately became very helpful in making sure the church understood the guidelines for importation and storage... much like a guard-dog becoming accustomed to a new yard. Their objection to DMT doesn't seem to be ideologically grounded at all! It's a very strange mentality.About the athiesm thing, I think you'll find that the DMT experience will only slide it back a ways if that's something that you're looking for out of the experience. It's surely an awe-inspiring experience, and one that contains great personal relevance and benefits.... but it is not an experience incompatible with atheism at all. It's only if you accept subjective experience as literally reflecting objective reality that its likely to change your views on the subject. I find it's all a matter of interpretation. The benefits of the experience are undeniable, but the source of the experience is currently unknowable (and I've not yet encountered any objective evidence that supports the interpretation that it has an external source). If you're seeking theism, it can provide a foundation for that. If you're seeking to improve yourself, it can provide that too. But neither of those two objectives is contingent upon the other (in my experience).[For myself, I guess I'd say I'm a 6 on Dawkin's scale... what keeps me from being a 7 is the variability of the definition of God. I'm entirely comfortable with the pantheist definition of God.... I hold the sheer tremendous wonder of nature in the same reverence as a pantheist, though I personally am not inclined to define it as God simply due to the anthropomorphic connotations that "God" has in the common parlance]
Greetings, and welcome
In regards to the way the DEA rationalizes their control over a chemical within all of our bodies, I've come to the impression that it's not something they seem to think about in a moral/rational way. That's simply not how they think about these things. The DEA mindset is more like a guard-dog mentality: they are very territorial about these things, and are threatened by a perceived lack of control. But if you look at the supreme court decision upholding the UDV church's right to use ayahuasca, as soon as it was determined that this was legal, the DEA immediately became very helpful in making sure the church understood the guidelines for importation and storage... much like a guard-dog becoming accustomed to a new yard. Their objection to DMT doesn't seem to be ideologically grounded at all! It's a very strange mentality.
About the athiesm thing, I think you'll find that the DMT experience will only slide it back a ways if that's something that you're looking for out of the experience. It's surely an awe-inspiring experience, and one that contains great personal relevance and benefits.... but it is not an experience incompatible with atheism at all. It's only if you accept subjective experience as literally reflecting objective reality that its likely to change your views on the subject. I find it's all a matter of interpretation. The benefits of the experience are undeniable, but the source of the experience is currently unknowable (and I've not yet encountered any objective evidence that supports the interpretation that it has an external source). If you're seeking theism, it can provide a foundation for that. If you're seeking to improve yourself, it can provide that too. But neither of those two objectives is contingent upon the other (in my experience).
[For myself, I guess I'd say I'm a 6 on Dawkin's scale... what keeps me from being a 7 is the variability of the definition of God. I'm entirely comfortable with the pantheist definition of God.... I hold the sheer tremendous wonder of nature in the same reverence as a pantheist, though I personally am not inclined to define it as God simply due to the anthropomorphic connotations that "God" has in the common parlance]
