The Atheist DMT Experience

[Eliyahu]

Maxx said,

Therefore the only religion that truly makes sense to me is Buddhism

From what I observed, THe SAME EXACT esoteric truths are found within Hinduism/Veda, Kabbalah, Sufi Mysticism, The teachings of Christ Yeshua, North American Indian, Mexican Indian, South american Indian, Eskimo,Confusionism, greek mythology, Celtic beliefs, Druids, Sumerians, African mythology, Aborigane Mythology and on and on and on.....

The truth is universal in my most humble opinion..to say that only this or that makes sense is to confine your own potential to understand the bigger picture.

 

[Jarl Von Hoother]

Why cant we just say that Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. Now weather or not any premise remains to be true can only be understood in their psyche.

Perhaps religion it's self is a biology of language, stories, and traditions than what would prevent us from the statement; religion (not dogma) is a supreme human being gifted in all ways benevolent made out of the collaboration of people thinking, acting even dancing as one.

I mean the pharaoh didn't build the pyramid everyone else did.

weather it's their ancestors or saints we all sort of become one in our desperate attempts to play out a role and to be received with equal seriousness as if we were children after watching the power ranger movies trying to fight off the evil space monsters or what have you.

in many cases we all have emulated wise, brave, heroes first by passion of spiritual development etc. than for others or means to and end

 

[JacksonMetaller]

Btw Hyperspace Fool just wanted to thank you for pointing out Pantheism. I looked into that and it looks pretty close to what I believe, though I'm more from the Atheist roots of it. You mentioned Pandeism too and I can't quite seem to get a clear distinction between Pandeism and Pantheism. Would you mind clearing that up? I'm sure I could read through pages of this stuff, but since you already know a little about it if you wouldn't mind sharing some of the key points that'd be awesome! Finally a religion that makes sense!

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Btw Hyperspace Fool just wanted to thank you for pointing out Pantheism. I looked into that and it looks pretty close to what I believe, though I'm more from the Atheist roots of it. You mentioned Pandeism too and I can't quite seem to get a clear distinction between Pandeism and Pantheism. Would you mind clearing that up? I'm sure I could read through pages of this stuff, but since you already know a little about it if you wouldn't mind sharing some of the key points that'd be awesome! Finally a religion that makes sense!

No problem mate.

Pandeism differs from Pantheism in the way that Deism differs from basic Theism. (Note: Deism was the prominent belief of most Enlightenment age thinkers including the vast majority of the US founding fathers, Hume, Locke & Voltaire et. al. The majority of Freemasons in that era were also Deists... This is all despite the fact that modern conservatives paint the founding fathers as born-again Christians and most modern Freemasons are just in it for the business connections.)

Thus, I will briefly explain Deism.

Deism is a philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator. According to deists, the deity seldom, if ever, intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own.

Pandeism is thus the belief that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity. Whereas pantheists believe that the Universe (as it is) is one being which could be considered G*d, and often has little or no supernatural or transcendental elements... pandeists believe in this "Architect Of The Universe" concept. (A supreme and transcendental being that created the Universe and its laws and lets it play out without supernatural interference for the most part) But, in addition to deism's premise... they envision that said creator made the Universe out of itself. Thus the G*d figure is both the clockmaker and the clock.

Any monistic or holistic deity would have to make things out of itself, as, by definition, there exists nothing else. Naturally, most religions that call themselves monotheistic have figured out ways to get around this. They take the biblical astonishment that "G*d is ONE" to mean that there is only one god who is a lot like them, only more powerful in his jealousy and psychosis.

The pandeist philosophy is actually very similar to another variation of pantheism... namely panentheism. Panentheism also believes in a deity that is both immanent in, and transcendent to the physical universe. The idea that an entity created the universe out of itself, and yet remains transcendent to it... often with the ability to intervene or help people within the universe to transcend it themselves. This belief is akin to the old "Universe as a Dream of a divine being" model in that the entire thing is taking place within the mind of a deity who may or may not choose to enter the dream as a divine persona. Technically, the godhead would be playing all the roles in the universal dream... just as we do in our more typical subconscious driven dreams.

Of course, there are a number of varieties of these categories. Many panentheists don't ascribe to a dreaming god motif, for example, but have another vision of how G*d may have created the Universe in a way that it is both omnipresent in the creation, and also simultaneously still existing in perfection outside of the creation.

Some people even speak of panendeism... something only subtly different from panentheism. Both tend to have concept of "experiential metaphysics" – the idea that a mystical component exists within the framework of panendeism or panentheism, allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation, prayer or some other type of communion. This is a major departure from classical deism.

These philosophies are all interesting, and how they deal with the theistic concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence etc. are typically unique.

Science is generally a type of pandeism in that the Big Bang created our universe and established the laws by which the clockwork unfolds... they just tend to envision a blind and inhuman clockmaker.

This is getting rather long, but I think that many people who have considered themselves atheists actually fall within one of these belief systems. People often talk about pantheistic atheism actually... despite the oxymoron there.

I myself have an even more complicated belief in that I find the entire Omniverse of all possible multiverses to be a single being who is also transcendent to but still immanent in this infinite creative field. Furthermore, I believe in a myriad of lesser but still divine entities which are part of the whole, but can interact independently. Thus, Gaia is clearly a deity of sorts, the solar system, the galaxy etc. but also there are non-human entities (physical and non-physical) that are superior to humans and thus also fall into the category of gods. Hyperspace entities are godlike compared to humans... as would be any species of ET who could come here and bio-engineer us from proto-hominids. Omni-poly-en-theistic Discordianism perhaps...

I think the only way one could truly believe in a world devoid of gods would be if you truly imagined that the universe was a purely mechanistic cosmic accident in which humanity is the highest evolved life-form. Of course that idea leaves a lot to be desired in that it answers nothing in terms of where all this came from, how it came to be, why the forces of nature are what they are, and how in hell we could be the only intelligent life in a Universe that they admit it something like 15 billion years old (read: more than enough time for beings to have evolved well past our current state and disappeared a few times over.)

Be well
HF

 

[JacksonMetaller]

I just spend like 20 minutes typing and firefox crashed... ugh.

Anyways thanks for typing that up! There's lots of good info in there. Personally I'd say I lean towards Pantheism more than the others. I don't really see the universe as a conscious being who set itself into motion, but rather a product of inevitability. What I mean is, I tend to take on the belief that things just happen the way they do because it would be impossible for them to happen any other way. I don't believe it would be impossible for nothing to exist (try thinking of that, it's a really hard concept to grasp :? ). So, as an alternative, things exist infinitely and are composed by some basic interaction of fundamental particles. I think all the scientific theories and equations we have don't really exist, but are just ways to bridge the gaps in our understandings. I feel that if you had a person who is infinitely intelligent he could sit down and rationalize the universe without ever making observations or deriving equations and constants, etc. What I mean is that I don't think there's any sort of mystical aspect as to why things happen the way they do. I feel if you had a full understanding of the most basic particle in existence you could rationalize the interactions it would have in forming larger particles, and further rationalize your way up the chain all the way through galaxies and so on.

But I do see this interaction on a large scale as a sort of all encompassing organism which is sustained by a perfect balance of the smaller systems that make it up. But I don't think it did any of that consciously. I think it's just a product of cosmic evolution. I also don't believe in the big bang as the origin of existence (as some mistake it to be). It kind of goes against the way things work everywhere else. Everything else is a balance composed of cycles of death and rebirth. The big bang explains existence as much as my birth explains my life. It doesn't explain where I came from. I think the only logical thing to assume was perhaps that I came from someone else, and that she came from someone else, and so on infinitely.

But that's all just the kind of loopy stuff that goes on in my head

 

[Eliyahu]

garyp88 wrote:

Eliyahu: I am fairly certain that you don't believe your god is flying around in spaceships abducting people, so my question stands. People have these experiences, and they believe them to be real. How do we distinguish between real and delusional?

Ha ha....well actually............I believe "angels" as they are called do fly around in spaceships and abduct people.. although in the nicest way possible....

The way we distinguish between reality and fantasy is to pay attention to things such as sycronicity that cannot be counterfitted.

 

[Jarl Von Hoother]

Dr. Rick Strassman said to one of hs patiants "You can still be athiest until 0.4," (mg/kg)

TAKE MOAR!!!

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I just spend like 20 minutes typing and firefox crashed... ugh.

Anyways thanks for typing that up! There's lots of good info in there. Personally I'd say I lean towards Pantheism more than the others. I don't really see the universe as a conscious being who set itself into motion, but rather a product of inevitability. What I mean is, I tend to take on the belief that things just happen the way they do because it would be impossible for them to happen any other way. I don't believe it would be impossible for nothing to exist (try thinking of that, it's a really hard concept to grasp :? ). So, as an alternative, things exist infinitely and are composed by some basic interaction of fundamental particles. I think all the scientific theories and equations we have don't really exist, but are just ways to bridge the gaps in our understandings. I feel that if you had a person who is infinitely intelligent he could sit down and rationalize the universe without ever making observations or deriving equations and constants, etc. What I mean is that I don't think there's any sort of mystical aspect as to why things happen the way they do. I feel if you had a full understanding of the most basic particle in existence you could rationalize the interactions it would have in forming larger particles, and further rationalize your way up the chain all the way through galaxies and so on.

But I do see this interaction on a large scale as a sort of all encompassing organism which is sustained by a perfect balance of the smaller systems that make it up. But I don't think it did any of that consciously. I think it's just a product of cosmic evolution. I also don't believe in the big bang as the origin of existence (as some mistake it to be). It kind of goes against the way things work everywhere else. Everything else is a balance composed of cycles of death and rebirth. The big bang explains existence as much as my birth explains my life. It doesn't explain where I came from. I think the only logical thing to assume was perhaps that I came from someone else, and that she came from someone else, and so on infinitely.

But that's all just the kind of loopy stuff that goes on in my head

No problem.

It is a deep subject, and this little primer basically scratched the surface of it.

Anyway, I don't find anything loopy about what you said. It is a very rational stance. In lieu of any direct mystical experience, I think it would be the default position. Many have said that pantheism is the major philosophical stance on theism in our time.

I, however, have had mystical experiences and it would be disingenous of me to discount them... or what they have shown me. I have no interest in convincing anyone of the truth of my perspective, though. I feel that people should develop their own conceptions of and relations to... whatever this is.

Of course, despite the fact that I feel no conception of the infinite can ever do it justice, I find that the more mystical, universal consciousness aspects of this thing only present themselves to people who go out of their way to open themselves to such experiences. Therefore, mystics have a mystical worldview due to their having bent over backwards exposing themselves to such things. It is extremely unlikely that random people content with their materialistic worldview would accidentally stumble upon mystical states... and even if they did, they would likely either summarily forget such revelations, or just discount them as aberrations, hallucinations or other such completely chemical perturbations of a somewhat disturbed mind.

Now, I would venture to say that if you go far enough into this stuff... your perspective would likely be altered. My own feelings on the matter are not static, and I often question whether I have imagined things that have shaped my worldview. Of course, that leads me into even shakier ground because in order for me to imagine the über cosmic, fractionally infinite scenes I have been party to... I would have to be something of a divine being myself. Therefore, saying it is all in my mind makes me all the more arrogant.

(see the concurrently running thread Humans are G*d? for more on this train of thought)

I suppose I have always come down on the side that consciousness is the field of existence and that the Universe is more like a giant mind than it is some billiard ball physics demo that just happened to birth consciousness as an evolutionary defense mechanism.

It just makes more sense to me to see the material as a product of consciousness than the other way around. 1) It answers more questions 2) We have nightly evidence of consciousness being able to create very convincing material worlds 3) We have absolutely no evidence of matter of its own accord being able to create minds.

Anyway, nice philosophizing with you.
HF

 

[JacksonMetaller]

Hmmm just curious. By mystical experiences are you talking about drug induced or non drug induced? Honestly psychedelics are what have brought me to my current conclusion. I won't say I'm completely materialistic. All my psychedelic experiences are rather "spiritual." But what I find is that they provide me with personifications and metaphors of reality. So I can't say I exactly believe in hyperspace beings (though I will not pretend that I hold any actual knowledge on the truth of their existence), but the ideas that those beings present me with make a hell of a lot of sense sometimes and lead to more thinking on my part.

I do really like what you said though. And honestly I've found myself contemplating the same thing. There have been times where I've felt myself as being god waking up in a dream. Somehow aware that there is just me and everything I'm looking at is just a projection of my own subconscious. Of course introducing that idea to the public is a sure way to end up in the looney bin, so I take a step back and describe it from a more materialistic view. We're all caught up in a web of intertwined fundamental particles, therefor we're all one. If we're all one we must be god.

But I absolutely agree with what you said in the last part. I've never been one to think there is any sort of absolute reality that is known to man. Though an absolute reality probably exist, everything we experience is complete subjective and to claim the knowledge between reality and fiction seems almost absurd. Our realities are most certainly constructed by us at least to some degree.

 

[Eliyahu]

Hmmm just curious. By mystical experiences are you talking about drug induced or non drug induced? .

Well, specifically psychedelic induced.. I beleive that psychedelics have been put here for a reason and that reson is to awaken us from the material world..

Not everyone will agree with me on this point but I personally think that taking psychedelics is the ONLY way one can effectively and consitently have a mystical expereince.

While meditating on a mountaintop for 10 years without psychedelics may be the path that some people choose to take in order to have a mystical experience and sounds like the moral high road to take for many....it is not likely that meditation will even work for most people.
On the other hand what is likely to fascilitate a mystical experience consitenlty is the ingestion of psychedelics, especially DMT.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Mystical Experiences (w/ & w/o psychedelics)

Personally, I am with Eliyahu in that I don't find that the use of entheogens to achieve spiritual and mystical experiences diminishes the value or integrity of those experiences. There IS a reason why so many shamanistic and mystical traditions the world over embrace these mind altering preparations.

However, I do understand the tendency to want to find other routes to transpersonal states. If you only ever achieved these things while high as a kite, it would be easy to dismiss these things as purely chemical based. (As many of my colleagues here do.)

I don't see the "drugs" as the source of these experience, but rather as an aid, supplement, or catalyst to achieve things that you could reach on your own... but maybe a number of years of hard work down the line. In this way, psychedelics are more like metaphysical "coming attractions" than anything else. They can give you a foretaste of the most flashy and explosive scenes from a film that you can't quite see yet. Of course, the plot is often AWOL, and one is often left more confused than before you saw the sneak preview... but you tend to know if you want to see the film or not. Seeing the film involves doing the hard work, slowing it down, and filling in all the blanks.

I think people who don't have a practice outside their psychedelic use don't realize what those of us who do meditate, do chi kung, do yoga etc. experience when WE do the same amounts of the same substances as them. Hint: It is not the same.

Having journeyed with and guided many people into hyperspace, shared more than enough fungi, spice, and liquid sunshine with my peeps... I can say that those of us who cultivate our inner space without the sacraments get MUCH further and in a much more controllable and useful way than those who don't. Many of my friends believe that what we experience on entheogens is just misfiring neurons, but when I ask them to describe their peak experiences... they are so pale and shallow next to mine that I would also think that it could just be the effects of odd neurotransmitters etc. If your experiences are limited to visual trailing, colorful patterns, odd thought patterns, breathing walls and the occasional detailed hallucination... then you are not having the mystical experiences that others of us here are having. You may feel energy and glimpse a sense of oneness... but that is baby stuff.

It must be stated that I have nearly 40 years of experience with advanced internal arts and could lucid dream regularly as long as I can remember. I have also had a number of really incredible teachers along the way... kung fu masters, yogis, shaman of every sort etc.

To be honest, what most people achieve with psychedelics are things I can do dead sober with a few minutes of meditation or energy work. I can achieve rather remarkable mystical states without any external help whatsoever. I can also lucid dream many times a night... have volitional OOBE's (astral projection), can feel, see, and use chi to greater or lesser extents all the time... and I have come to know that entheogens have not taken me anywhere I couldn't have gone on my own. They just take me there faster, and can push the envelope a bit to expose new facets of the cosmic realms and introduce me to entities I may otherwise not have been able to contact.

I will not engage in a debate about the veracity of my claims here. (we've attempted that relatively fruitless endeavor on a number of other threads already) I have no interest in trying to convince skeptics of my experiences or abilities. Never have. As Bob Marley said "Who feels it knows it, lord." Don't believe me. After all, who am I but some anonymous dude on a forum?

I only say all this to illustrate my point that psychedelics only push you beyond the borders of your current spiritual and mystical level. If you have no mystical experiences outside your entheogen use... than I guarantee you that the ones you do have while on them could be boosted a thousandfold by putting in the hard work and developing your internal skills.

 

[JacksonMetaller]

I couldn't imagine reaching anything as bizarre and strange as a psychedelic state through sober means, but if you say it's possible I guess I'll keep an open mind. Did this stuff happen after taking psychedelics? From some of the people I know who are into this stuff like you, they say the ability came with prolong psychedelic use.

I just want to point out that you don't have to be into all that to get mystical experiences on psychedelics I meditate from time to time but more just to clear my mind than reach any sort of internal realm of conscious (I have terrible patience!). BUT, I have had some VERY mindblowing experiences on psychedelics. Not just trails and patterns, but reaching states of infinity where everything that defines me is poured down a black hole and comes out opposite ended and the drug PROVES to me that there is no difference between black and white, good and evil, but that we are all one caught up in this paradox where everything no matter how far from the point is essentially the same. I've watched the earth create and destroy itself on mushrooms. All the good and bad things would create and destroy, but the world would never change. It was in perfect balance. And it told me there was no right answer, only love. Things that seem bad must exist for things that seem good. Then I saw all the different types of people standing around the edge of the world holding hands to keep it alive.

So yeah, some pretty moving experiences for sure. I'm sure all the meditation would make it easier to get to, but I think that with the right group of people and the right dose it's almost unavoidable. I do have the group of friends that just like to get high. When I trip with them It's just goofy and a good time but nothing incredibly special or life changing. Then I have the few friends who are really into philosophy and consciousness. When I trip with them I don't even have to try to reach these states. The nature of the conversation will automatically lead me there. I may or may not believe in the physical existence of hyperspace beings, but I think to toss these chemicals off as "mis-fired neurons" is a little ignorant. I hate that that stance is hailed as the most rational. I hate when people so easily say "it's just drugs." Whether the experience bears any significance or not, for a substance to have such consistent profound effects on ones brain it has to be acting on a very deep psychological level and I think that in itself is a miracle.

 

[Eliyahu]

I knnow my abilities to percieve energy more directly came from meditating on LSD and Mesc..

I wish I could say that I am some sober meditator but actaully that's not the case here as of yet.

Nice post hyperspace fool BTW

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

JM

I had mystical experiences before I ever tried any drugs. Of course my parents smoked some weed before I was born, and it is possible I was exposed to certain compounds in vitro... but I would say that isn`t the main factor.

I would attribute that more to starting with martial arts at 4 and a half years old, and developing a hyperactive imagination playing old fashioned role playing games. By the time I started puffing weed, I was already pretty comfortable in Wonderland.

The fact that your experiences differ based on the crew you journey with could be attributed to you getting a contact high from their level of mystical awareness. Like I have said... telepathy is no joke... especially not when all the parties are familiar with each other and on entheogens.

Perhaps not. I do believe that someone with no abilities in this field could have staggering cosmic journeys right out of the box... with sufficient dosages. But I still think that if you took that person and trained them for 5 years in advanced meditation and energy working techniques, they would not only be able to go further, retain more, and make it all that much more enveloping and HD... but they would be able to steer and guide the experience.

A meditation practitioner (or regular lucid dreamer) develops a few major mental skills. Awareness, Focus, Intention, Willpower etc. These things can be used to navigate the psychedelic realms. Furthermore, these realms are not all that different than the ones you can reach without psychedelics. Taking a healthy dose of psychs is just like replacing your dirt bike with a rocket.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Consider that any person has things they do not know, or believe. Snozz for example does not know of a total stranger somewhere far away, because he has no knowledge of that person, he has no belief in the existence of that person, but that does not mean he disbelieves in that person or believes that person does not exist.

FOUL

I call foul and accuse you of engaging in semantic misdirection, as your example is a subtle (yet beautiful) diversion.

The equivalent example to the question at hand is not whether or not I disbelieve the existence of some stranger far away, about whom no one has engaged me, and therefore I have had no opportunity to form any opinion/belief, but rather...

Albert for example does not know of a stranger who exists somewhere far away. Snozz comes along and tells Albert that this person exists. Once Snozz makes that statement, Albert has three choices, to believe, disbelieve, or claim that he does not know...there can be no "absence of belief", as he has already been given information that he must accept, reject, or declare to be beyond his ability to know. It is too late for Albert to reject the notion of having been given the information from which his subsequent belief stems, as he has already been informed of the claimed existence of this stranger.

Again, this is what I (and Hyperspace Fool, I believe) was driving at with regards to the fact that anyone entering in this discussion already has too much information to claim a position of "no belief".

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Consider that any person has things they do not know, or believe. Snozz for example does not know of a total stranger somewhere far away, because he has no knowledge of that person, he has no belief in the existence of that person, but that does not mean he disbelieves in that person or believes that person does not exist.

FOUL

I call foul and accuse you of engaging in semantic misdirection, as your example is a subtle (yet beautiful) diversion.

The equivalent example to the question at hand is not whether or not I disbelieve the existence of some stranger far away, about whom no one has engaged me, and therefore I have had no opportunity to form any opinion/belief, but rather...

Albert for example does not know of a stranger who exists somewhere far away. Snozz comes along and tells Albert that this person exists. Once Snozz makes that statement, Albert has three choices, to believe, disbelieve, or claim that he does not know...there can be no "absence of belief", as he has already been given information that he must accept, reject, or declare to be beyond his ability to know. It is too late for Albert to reject the notion of having been given the information from which his subsequent belief stems, as he has already been informed of the claimed existence of this stranger.

Again, this is what I (and Hyperspace Fool, I believe) was driving at with regards to the fact that anyone entering in this discussion already has too much information to claim a position of "no belief".

I am with you 100% Snozz (as the record clearly shows). I too think the "absence of belief" stance is a cop out and not possible among people who are, in fact, talking about the subject. The whole "infant who is unexposed to the idea" thing is not worth exploring IMO as there is no way to find out what they think without speaking to them and thus introducing the concept to them.

I would humbly suggest that there are more than 3 options here, though... The Apatheist position springs immediately to mind, and I think there are probably at least a couple more.

Apatheists are those people who frankly don't give a sh... hoot. They are not willing to take the time to even consider the claim generally, and thus are not accepting, rejecting or declaring it beyond their ability to know.

I have a few friends in this category who admit that they could probably know one way or the other if they tried hard enough, but find the entire thing to be a waste of time and utterly beneath them.

While I find the theism debates fascinating and a heap of fun, I can understand their stance, because there are plenty of subjects that I am certainly apathetic about. One example would be if someone wanted to debate whether or not X-Factor is rigged, or whether so & so was the best Soccer (football) player in the Champion's league... My lack of opinion on these topics comes completely because I couldn't care less what the answer was.

In our world where belief or disbelief in deities seems to have little or no effect on one's success in life, longevity, attractiveness to females etc. etc. It is easy to understand why people might not care. I think that it can affect your life rather profoundly, but you have to be willing to dive extremely deep into this stuff to have that transformative mystical experience, and I don't believe we are punished for not believing or trying to believe, so the incentive to go there is kind of narrow. (in that only a small cross section of the population will actually find it a worthwhile endeavor)

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I would humbly suggest that there are more than 3 options here, though... The Apatheist position springs immediately to mind, and I think there are probably at least a couple more.

Certainly...in my haste to get this down I just mapped out the simple framework that generally gets thrown around here (as I see it):

Theists-------Agnostics-------Atheists.

This also ignores my own position of possibilianism and numerous others...but fit better in the metaphor than a list of all possible positions on the spectrum.

 

[Blackandblue]

This a brilliant thread.

Sadly, no 'strong atheists' have given there perspective yet.

Although I guess you could never know whether anyone was a 'strong atheists', and not just someone who tends towards a non-explanation for what they don't know, and don't have any survival need to know (just a social need, in some cases!).

I have met people IRL who I would guess where strong atheists. If there are any here, please speak up!

 

[URBY]

I would humbly suggest that there are more than 3 options here, though... The Apatheist position springs immediately to mind, and I think there are probably at least a couple more.

Certainly...in my haste to get this down I just mapped out the simple framework that generally gets thrown around here (as I see it):

Theists-------Agnostics-------Atheists.

This also ignores my own position of possibilianism and numerous others...but fit better in the metaphor than a list of all possible positions on the spectrum.

Dont spectra make for great and simple visual representations of often awkward scenarios one might attempt to describe?

Not to be taken literally of course, just easy on the mind to picture.

Your the best snozzleberry!

 

[Garyp88]

I would humbly suggest that there are more than 3 options here, though... The Apatheist position springs immediately to mind, and I think there are probably at least a couple more.

Certainly...in my haste to get this down I just mapped out the simple framework that generally gets thrown around here (as I see it):

Theists-------Agnostics-------Atheists.

This also ignores my own position of possibilianism and numerous others...but fit better in the metaphor than a list of all possible positions on the spectrum.

As HF has already conceded, many people disagree with that way of looking at it and as far as I can tell the words them self back up the people who disagree, since theist/atheist is to do with belief and gnostic/agnostic is to do with knowledge. They are not on the same axis, throwing a position pertaining to knowledge in between two positions pertaining to belief doesn't make sense. Agnostic doesn't tell you anything on it's own, it is generally used as shorthand for agnostic atheist... but agnostic theist is just as valid. An agnostic atheist doesn't have any god beliefs, but doesn't claim to know there is no god either (how many people have any of you seen ever claiming to *know* that there is no god?). An agnostic theist does believe in a god, but doesn't claim to know they are correct. This argument continues to go round and round, and I really don't see how it is particularly useful, so I'll step out of it at this stage. I've said my piece

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As it goes, and I hadn't bothered mentioning this earlier since I don't think it is relevant, I am a fairly strong atheist. Every god proposition that has been given to me seems to collapse with a bit of thought. The bible is full of contradictions and paradoxes, so I have to assume that it wasn't inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent being. Same goes for the Quran, it has less contradictions than the bible and has a mechanism for dealing with them which the bible lacks, but it still has many things which seem to be written from the viewpoint of an ignorant man and not from the viewpoint of an all knowing creator of the universe, so I strongly reject both of these... I am as sure about the non-existence of the Abrahamic god as I am about the non-existence of Santa. I still wouldn't claim certainty though, since really I don't feel certain about anything at all (and that's not just a handy escape route to avoid taking a stance, I just think claiming certainty about anything is naive).

As for "gods" that haven't been proposed to me... well... they fall under the category of the stranger on the other side of the world analogy. I have no idea what they may be, or not be, or any kind of characteristic they may possess. How can I reject or accept anything about a "something" that has never been presented to me and about which I know absolutely nothing.