The Atheist DMT Experience

[Hyperspace Fool]

To say atheism is not a belief strikes me as odd...it is a belief that something is false, untrue or non-existent.

Not really. I don't want to debate terminology too much but "atheist" comes from the greek roots a - without and theist - god (or relating to). Atheism is simply a lack of belief, not the same as an "anti-theist." You could never be exposed to the idea of god and still technically be an atheist. So it's not really a belief that god is false, but rather a lack of belief that he is real. So an Atheist could be anyone ranging from neutral (commonly called agnostic) to full fledged anti-theist. It's a pretty broad term.

As an Atheist myself I'd have to say my DMT experiences, and psychedelic experiences in general, are rather "religious." I still get all the "oneness," "you are god," whatever revelations that I think most people get on psychedelics. I actually don't know if I could still be categorized as an Atheist as my psychedelic experiences have blurred the line between God/no god. I've come to see the universe as a giant self-perpetuating organism. It's "all-knowledgable" and "all-powerful" because all knowledge and power that we know of are defined under it's terms. So how do I really separate that from the concept of god? Can I still call myself an Atheist because the universe doesn't have a white beard and look like a human, or because it doesn't act consciously but rather out of perfection? Or do I accept myself as a constituent part of this all encompassing being and call it God? At least that's how I've been looking at it recently.

1) You are clearly not an atheist.

What you describe is textbook pantheism possibly bordering on pandeism, but certainly not anything close to atheism.

2) Your definition of atheism is not exactly accurate.

While there are people who use the term in the way you do (typically when defending atheism from critiques), the vast majority of the people who use this term adopt a far more narrow definition... namely that atheism is the "belief that there are no gods or deities."

The lack of belief thing is a convenient way to avoid debate, but it is a meaningless use of the word because it includes a good number of branches of theism under its umbrella. This is why nearly every major writer on the subject of atheism acknowledges that atheism is the belief that theism is untrue or sometimes not having any theistic belief.

See this post for further clarification and exposition on this matter: The Atheist DMT Experience - Welcome discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

The fact is that many people who claim to be atheists actually know very little about the various types of theism, and thus are unqualified to say that they don't fall under one of the theistic categories. Many people are turned off from the term G*d due to bad experiences with religion. Most people of intelligence come to realize that the religion they were spoon fed growing up is a ludicrous crock of shit. However, jumping from a recognition that your religion is bullshit to atheism is not necessarily rational.

Fact is, that simply believing the universe is one thing of which you are a part makes you a theist. Whether there is a classic deity immanent or transcendent to the universe merely clarifies one into more specific branches of theism.

This leads me to

Would you say that this is what defines you as a pantheist?

I am not a pantheist. I feel that the universe is not only a living organism and holistic, but that it is conscious, intelligent and creative. This places me into the category of panentheism.

Though I even find that term to be rather restrictive, because I believe in higher dimensions, infinite universes, many worlds interpretation, as well as other more esoteric things... and my inner knowingness (as well as numerous experiences with or without entheogens) informs me that the sum total of all of this is one transcendent conscious being. I call myself an omniversal entheist... or omnientheist.

Furthermore, I believe that this world amounts to nothing more than a dream. That there are other dream realms that are as real or more real than this one is a matter of my direct experience as a lifelong lucid dreamer. And, additionally, I find that the field of consciousness in which all this cosmic dreaming is taking place is not only immanent in its manifestations, but also supreme and transcendent to these manifestations of its infinite creativity.

Finally, I find that I am not separate from this omniversal being. I am as much a part of it as a cell is a part on my body. Depending on the scale we are talking in, it may or may not be useful to recognize and acknowledge my seeming separateness from the "all that is" but it is an abstraction and a fallacy fundamentally.

This idea is being discussed on this thread at the moment. Humans are God? (and other mysteries) - Spirituality & Mysticism - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

 

[JacksonMetaller]

Let me rephrase... I WAS an atheist before DMT. I guess if seeing the universe as an entity, whether it be conscious or not, makes me a theist then I'm now a theist of some sort.

As for the second part, regardless of how it's used, that does not change the greek roots of the word. It is a broad spectrum as you can fit agnostic, anti-theist, etc under it. Lack of belief does not include theism underneath it because that's exactly what it's lacking. So I'm not sure what you're getting at there. But "a" means without, not against. Without is an absence not a declaration of disbelief. Sure people who actively believe there is no God can still fall under that term, but so can infants and people who have no notion of God.

The best analogy I've heard is Atheism is to belief as not-playing-golf is to sport.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

I am not an atheist, but have never had any spiritual connection or experience to or with DMT.

I guess I have just done a lot of psychedelics...?
I can't say I have seen or experienced anything on DMT, high doses or low, oral with aya or smoked, that could be considered spiritual.

It certainly didn't shift my worldview or ontology, but since I am very spiritual in practice maybe I was already at the place I would have shifted too...? I can't say.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Let me rephrase... I WAS an atheist before DMT. I guess if seeing the universe as an entity, whether it be conscious or not, makes me a theist then I'm now a theist of some sort.

As for the second part, regardless of how it's used, that does not change the greek roots of the word. It is a broad spectrum as you can fit agnostic, anti-theist, etc under it. Lack of belief does not include theism underneath it because that's exactly what it's lacking. So I'm not sure what you're getting at there. But "a" means without, not against. Without is an absence not a declaration of disbelief. Sure people who actively believe there is no God can still fall under that term, but so can infants and people who have no notion of God.

The best analogy I've heard is Atheism is to belief as not-playing-golf is to sport.

Cool.

Let's look at the Wikipedia entry for Atheism. The first two lines are:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Broad or narrow, infants don't really fall under this banner. Because it is a belief. It is not a lack of a belief. It is a belief that there is nothing worth believing in, perhaps. Generally, it is defined as the belief that there is no G*d.

Hate to get all nit picky here, but this is how these threads tend to go.

 

[JacksonMetaller]

Cool.

Let's look at the Wikipedia entry for Atheism. The first two lines are:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Broad or narrow, infants don't really fall under this banner. Because it is a belief. It is not a lack of a belief. It is a belief that there is nothing worth believing in, perhaps. Generally, it is defined as the belief that there is no G*d.

Hate to get all nit picky here, but this is how these threads tend to go.

Don't worry, I get the nit picky thing. It is the internet after all and there's no use in anyone getting hurt over a little discussion.

But I think you proved my point. The REJECTION of belief is not the same as believing God doesn't exist. In fact you seem to have purposely neglected the next line which says "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

If you want a better source than wikipedia go to the dictionary. Atheist - a person who denies OR disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Then I guess we should further define disbelief. "to have no belief in; refusal or reject belief in."

As you can see, there is nothing under the definition of the term Atheism that requires any active participation in order to be classified under it's terms. It's in its most simple sense a "lack of belief in god or gods." Of course under it's broad definition fall all the other types of people who believe God does not exist, as well as those who are uncertain, as well as those who have no notion of God.

Read this as well en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism This is what you speak of, but it's not the whole spectrum of Atheism. In it they also define "weak/soft" Atheism.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Positive v. Negative, Implicit v. Explicit, Hard v. Soft, Strong v. Weak, Broad v. Narrow...

Yeah, I know all the angles.

Still, it is pretty much a moot point. The people who self-identify as Atheists generally accept that atheism means that they don't believe in any god or gods. This means that they believe there is no G*d. The "lack of belief" thing is just a way to try and drag agnostics under their banner.

Sorry.

Truthfully most people these days are actually apatheists...

 

[Garyp88]

Still, it is pretty much a moot point. The people who self-identify as Atheists generally accept that atheism means that they don't believe in any god or gods. This means that they believe there is no G*d. The "lack of belief" thing is just a way to try and drag agnostics under their banner.

I registered to address this. If someone proposes that Y is true and I reject their proposition based on lack of evidence it does not mean I assert that Y is untrue. In other words if someone asserts a god exists and I say I don't believe them because they haven't demonstrated it to be true, it does not mean I am saying they are wrong. it just means there, to me, is no way of knowing if they are right. Withholding belief on something is the default position when a claim is made which is not backed by anything. I am an atheist, but I have no idea whether there is a god or not. I actually think it is entirely possible that there is some "higher power" or an afterlife or something, I just see no evidence for it. So I hold no god beliefs, which makes me an atheist. I am an agnostic as well because I do not claim knowledge of there being no god. Gnostic/Agnostic is about knowledge, theist/atheist is about belief. A "gnostic atheist" asserts that there are definitely no gods, I have yet to meet someone who does that. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. Bare in mind that the word "agnostic" doesn't necessarily refer to god beliefs, someone can be gnostic/agnostic in regards to anything. I am an agnostic atheist, some people are agnostic theists.

 

[JacksonMetaller]

Positive v. Negative, Implicit v. Explicit, Hard v. Soft, Strong v. Weak, Broad v. Narrow...

Yeah, I know all the angles.

Still, it is pretty much a moot point. The people who self-identify as Atheists generally accept that atheism means that they don't believe in any god or gods. This means that they believe there is no G*d. The "lack of belief" thing is just a way to try and drag agnostics under their banner.

Sorry.

Truthfully most people these days are actually apatheists...

It's not a way to drag agnostics, it's the definition of the word plain and simple. Only reason weak atheists rarely subscribe to the term atheist is because they think there's a distinction between agnosticism and atheist when in reality agnosticism is just a sub category.

I lived under the label "atheist" for years and gave no care in the world if god did or didn't exist. But only because I was familiar with the term. I agree with you that most people don't use it that way, but I think that's a result of the negative connotation religious people give it. When you want to blend into a world of spiritual folk agnosticism just seems so much more pacifist.

Also, you keep confusing "not believing in god" with "believing there is no god." they simply just aren't the same. They're rectangles and squares. Like I said, if not believing something is a belief, then not playing golf is an activity.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Also, you keep confusing "not believing in god" with "believing there is no god." they simply just aren't the same. They're rectangles and squares. Like I said, if not believing something is a belief, then not playing golf is an activity.

This is the same semantic contortion that rears its head in all of these discussions.

Let's pretend like there is a difference between these two statements (which, for the sake of transparency, I will state right now, I don't believe to be the case, at least not in any meaningful sense)...

Then, in your opinion:

"not believing in god" ≠ "believing there is no god"

Ok...so let's drop the "believing there is no god" and set:

"not believing in god" = "not believing in god"
or
"not believing in god" = "disbelief in god"

Then, we factor out disbelief to get its definition:

disbelief = mental rejection of something as untrue

so:
"not believing in god" = "mental rejection of the concept of god" = "the concept of god is untrue"

Which can be simplified to:
"god = false"

Now, unless you are saying that you have proof that the concept of god is false...this is a belief, not (as so many would claim) the absence of belief.

 

[Eliyahu]

I agree with the above equation^....nice deductive reasoning skills there Snozz

 

[Garyp88]

This is the same semantic contortion that rears its head in all of these discussions.

Let's pretend like there is a difference between these two statements (which, for the sake of transparency, I will state right now, I don't believe to be the case, at least not in any meaningful sense)...

Then, in your opinion:

"not believing in god" ≠ "believing there is no god"

Ok...so let's drop the "believing there is no god" and set:

"not believing in god" = "not believing in god"
or
"not believing in god" = "disbelief in god"

Then, we factor out disbelief to get its definition:

disbelief = mental rejection of something as untrue

so:
"not believing in god" = "mental rejection of the concept of god" = "the concept of god is untrue"

Which can be simplified to:
"god = false"

Now, unless you are saying that you have proof that the concept of god is false...this is a belief, not (as so many would claim) the absence of belief.

It's not just a semantic game. It is a legitimate difference. Recently on youtube someone asserted to me that the US supreme court had made a ruling that atheism was a religion. I asked him to show me the ruling, he did not, I googled and could find no such ruling although I did find a ruling along similar lines by a federal appeals court, it related to allowing atheists to congregate in the same manner as religious people in prison. His refusal to show me the ruling, coupled with my inability to find it caused me to reject it. I did not accept his assertion. That *does not* mean I am convinced he is wrong. There could easily have been such a ruling and perhaps he couldn't remember where he seen it or it is in some obscure place online or something... but in the absense of evidence I reject his assertion. That is analogous to how I reject god claims. I do not reject the notion of god, I reject the claims made by theists because they have not met their burden of proof.

This thing seems to cause much confusion... and it always seems to be non-atheists telling atheists that the we are essentially asserting that there is no god. I'm really not sure how many times atheists can respond explaining that we are asserting nothing, we are simply not accepting the assertions of others. Some atheists of course do assert that there are no gods, but these atheists have a burden of proof... and they cannot meet it. I reject their assertion as well.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I understand this to be the point behind your example...yes?

I did not accept his assertion. That *does not* mean I am convinced he is wrong.

However, immediately prior to the above quote, you stated

His refusal to show me the ruling, coupled with my inability to find it caused me to reject it

Meaning...you believed him to be wrong. You rejected it based on the belief that it was not correct. This belief stemmed from his refusal to give evidence coupled with your own inability to locate the ruling in question. This belief is implicit in your words, even if you don't explicitly state it.

More semantic contortionism.

Imo, agnosticism is the only rational foundation, but due to its relatively boring stance...I find possibilianism significantly more alluring

 

[Eliyahu]

Garyp88

That is analogous to how I reject god claims. I do not reject the notion of god, I reject the claims made by theists because they have not met their burden of proof.

Why does the proof have to extend beyond each individual observer? For me personally God has proven his existence to me NOT ONLY VISUALLY but also by manifesting a ridiculous amount of unbelievably constistent synchonistic occurences and sybolisms that go far beyond anything that could fall under the definition of coincedence. The idea that the existence of God could be proven to ALL defies his very essence. IMO.. God is actively HIDING from those who do not choose to seek the real truth of the matter...

Reality is what you make it, if a Godless reality is a reality that you enjoy then God is understanding enough to not interfere with that identity you have chosen...

If one is truly open minded to the idea of God existing it seems only logical that natural curiosity would lead that person to investigate all possible avenues, especially psychedelic avenues to find out first hand... whether or not it's a tangible phenomena...
------------------------

I personally believe that many people are afraid that believing there is a God means that they will have to trust in BLIND FAITH and the guidance of others creating an unhealthy state of mind where one is contantly unsure of the actual reality of the situation.

The great benifit of psychedelics and the reason I believe they are the originators of spirituality in mankind is this......

I strogly believe that psychedelics have the UNIQUE power to facilitate a person with a genuine, firsthand and direct mystical experience. There is no other thing that can offer this with such consistent results...not meditation, not prayer, not years of Yoga, not a healthy diet. Not occult practices.....not religion.... None of those things on their own without psychedelics can constitently deliver a genuine mystical and/or spiritual experience the way proper respectful usage of psychedelics can do..........

IMO no human has anything to lose by seeking the Creator... Seeking the Creator does not mean you are a gullible person it means you want to know the truth. Buying into the idea that OTHER PEOPLE are your only access to spirituality,(e.g late nite T.V preachers) is gullibility in it's purest form however....I believe a person must take responsibility for finding out the truth on their own.....

God is a being that wants humans to absolutely have the ability to question everything. God desires to have logical people to be on his team and to speak on his behalf. When a Human being has the ability to rationalize in a flexible way then they are then ready to accept whatever curve ball reality throws at them, including the existence of a Creator who actively conceals himself.

 

[Garyp88]

I understand this to be the point behind your example...yes?

I did not accept his assertion. That *does not* mean I am convinced he is wrong.

However, immediately prior to the above quote, you stated

His refusal to show me the ruling, coupled with my inability to find it caused me to reject it

Meaning...you believed him to be wrong. You rejected it based on the belief that it was not correct. This belief stemmed from his refusal to give evidence coupled with your own inability to locate the ruling in question. This belief is implicit in your words, even if you don't explicitly state it.

More semantic contortionism.

Imo, agnosticism is the only rational foundation, but due to its relatively boring stance...I find possibilianism significantly more alluring

I didn't believe him to be wrong. I think it is completely possible that he was telling the truth and was correct... I just didn't accept his claim. I really don't get how you don't understand that. His argument was basically "atheism must be a religion because the supreme court says so" (which is of course a fallacy in itself, but nevermind) and my response was that I was not going to just accept that what he was saying is true without him demonstrating the truth of the claim by showing me the ruling.

So not only are you telling me I am asserting that there is no god when I am not, you are also telling me that I am saying there was never a supreme court ruling on atheism, which I am not. Can't you see the difference between me saying "you are wrong" and saying "I'm not convinced you are right"? You are creating a false dichotomy. Giving me the option of either agreeing that it is true or asserting that it is wrong... I don't need to do either.

 

[Garyp88]

Why does the proof have to extend beyond each individual observer?

Proof for yourself doesn't, you can be convinced of whatever you are convinced of without having to prove it. But if you want me to believe it, the evidence has to extend beyond your own subjective experience. Subjective experience isn't always what it appears to be. This is a DMT forum, so I am sure many of us have had incredibly interesting experiences with drugs that could be interpreted in a million different ways. I have had several experiences that if I chose to I could say confirm to me that there is a god, I have also had at least one that I could choose to interpret as confirming that there is in fact no god. I have had nothing that would even come close to confirming the biblical god. But none of that matters to me. I have no way of knowing if what I experienced was real or if it was just a complex hallucination. I have had many complex hallucinations and I assume at least some of them were not veridical.

In fact, that is yet another example of how someone does not need to either accept something as true or assert it as wrong. My experiences, I don't believe them to be veridical, but I don't believe them to be mere hallucinations either. I have no idea one way or the other so I withhold belief, and that is not a choice I am making... it is just a product of my not having any way of distinguishing between them as truth or hallucination.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I understand this to be the point behind your example...yes?

I did not accept his assertion. That *does not* mean I am convinced he is wrong.

However, immediately prior to the above quote, you stated

His refusal to show me the ruling, coupled with my inability to find it caused me to reject it

Meaning...you believed him to be wrong. You rejected it based on the belief that it was not correct. This belief stemmed from his refusal to give evidence coupled with your own inability to locate the ruling in question. This belief is implicit in your words, even if you don't explicitly state it.

More semantic contortionism.

Imo, agnosticism is the only rational foundation, but due to its relatively boring stance...I find possibilianism significantly more alluring

I didn't believe him to be wrong. I think it is completely possible that he was telling the truth and was correct... I just didn't accept his claim. I really don't get how you don't understand that. His argument was basically "atheism must be a religion because the supreme court says so" (which is of course a fallacy in itself, but nevermind) and my response was that I was not going to just accept that what he was saying is true without him demonstrating the truth of the claim by showing me the ruling.

So not only are you telling me I am asserting that there is no god when I am not, you are also telling me that I am saying there was never a supreme court ruling on atheism, which I am not. Can't you see the difference between me saying "you are wrong" and saying "I'm not convinced you are right"? You are creating a false dichotomy. Giving me the option of either agreeing that it is true or asserting that it is wrong... I don't need to do either.

I understand what you are asserting (although I feel that you may have misunderstood the point of my last post), but I don't accept what you are saying.

I do not believe/think/feel/conjecture/etc. that the human mind ever exists as a blank slate (certainly not once 'knowledge' has been inserted into it) and therefore do not think that it is possible for a human to function without belief/conjecture as there are far too many unknowns in reality for this to be the case.

That is to say, the claim that you merely reject a given position, yet have no belief (or whatever synonym you desire) strikes me as untenable. Even agnostics have a belief...they believe that they do not have enough information, etc. to make a concrete statement one way or the other. This is why it is all, imo, semantic contortion.

I guess you could say that I'm just "atheist" with regards to your claim

 

[Garyp88]

Fair enough. Agree to disagree I guess

 

[Garyp88]

I think you are right about one thing. This is an issue of semantics. You have a different definition of "atheist" from what the dictionary does and from what atheists themselves do, the issue would be resolved if you decided to just view atheists as agnostics, since that is what most of them are. Deal with the issue of gnostic atheism if you ever meet a gnostic atheist, i don't think anyone in this convo is one of them.

 

[Eliyahu]

Garyp88 said:

Proof for yourself doesn't, you can be convinced of whatever you are convinced of without having to prove it. But if you want me to believe it, the evidence has to extend beyond your own subjective experience. Subjective experience isn't always what it appears to be. This is a DMT forum, so I am sure many of us have had incredibly interesting experiences with drugs that could be interpreted in a million different ways. I have had several experiences that if I chose to I could say confirm to me that there is a god, I have also had at least one that I could choose to interpret as confirming that there is in fact no god. I have had nothing that would even come close to confirming the biblical god. But none of that matters to me. I have no way of knowing if what I experienced was real or if it was just a complex hallucination. I have had many complex hallucinations and I assume at least some of them were not veridical.

In fact, that is yet another example of how someone does not need to either accept something as true or assert it as wrong. My experiences, I don't believe them to be veridical, but I don't believe them to be mere hallucinations either. I have no idea one way or the other so I withhold belief, and that is not a choice I am making... it is just a product of my not having any way of distinguishing between them as truth or hallucination.

I would agree that the idea of a traditional biblical "God" is quite unbelievable, that is why the word "God" exists in my opinion, in order to perpetuate confusion..

While I won't get into the multi fuaceted meaning of the Hebrew gliph YHWH on this thread I will say that my psychedelic experiences have shown me that the typical idea of God as a santa claus type figure is in fact false.

...A more accurate description for the Creator is YHWH or at the very least Abba, (father).

In my opinion the shining benifits of having the most ancient being in the universe as your friend and ally go way beyond the inconveniences surrounding having to seriously investigate such phenomena...


EDIT: I would like to add that the expectations of Athiests to have other people PROVE the existence of God to them before they will even consider such a thing is flawed because God himself does not allow his existence to be proven to all at this time for a number of what I percieve to be obvious reasons.

 

[Garyp88]

You are welcome to that position Eliyahu. I am not saying you are wrong. As it goes I am inclined to think you in fact probably are wrong (if for no other reason than simple statistical probability, there are hundreds of similar but contradictory claims made by others, and they can't all be right) but I have no way of really knowing, so I make no assertion one way or the other. I certainly have no interest in trying to talk you out of your beliefs, and if you are not trying to talk me into yours then really it doesn't matter what I think