The Atheist DMT Experience

[Garyp88]

HF -

It seems we have reached some kind of agreement, or at least an agreeable disagreement

It's always interesting going through these things. It seems like most of the time the people involved (myself included) will come out of it with very similar views to what they started with. But it is worthwhile anyway since any time I enter into one of these conversations I am given a little bit more to think about. In this case I haven't been given anything extra to think about in regards to "god", but in terms of how I view language and how I decide which definition of a word I use it has been an interesting exchange

One more small point, you say weak atheism is covered by agnostic. So an agnostic (weak atheist) is someone who doesn't believe in a god but doesn't hold the definite position that there are no gods. What would you call a weak theist? Someone who does hold god beliefs, but doesn't think they are necessarily correct? Would you just call them an agnostic as well? Because this would certainly confuse the situation in my opinion, and would make me more inclined to favour the agnostic/gnostic - theism/atheism model.


Joedirt -

You realize you're not arguing against me at all. You just identified yourself as an agnostic theist, and I have said I am an agnostic atheist. but the term "agnostic" on it's own doesn't tell you anything, it doesn't even tell you what is being discussed. You can be agnostic about any topic (check your own stated "correct" definition for confirmation of that). By identifying as an agnostic theist, and not just a theist, you are using the same model as me. You are a theist, and I am an atheist... but in regards to claimed knowledge, we are both agnostic in our beliefs.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

One more small point, you say weak atheism is covered by agnostic. So an agnostic (weak atheist) is someone who doesn't believe in a god but doesn't hold the definite position that there are no gods. What would you call a weak theist? Someone who does hold god beliefs, but doesn't think they are necessarily correct? Would you just call them an agnostic as well? Because this would certainly confuse the situation in my opinion, and would make me more inclined to favour the agnostic/gnostic - theism/atheism model.

WEAK THEISM should be a band.

If it is not, let's start it.

I purport that most theists are weak. But then, I am a mystic, and I like my theism direct and in your face. My brood are the "extreme sports" version of theologians. EnTHEOgenic Mystics FTW!

PanOmniEntheism is my theological flavor du jour.

 

[Garyp88]

Mysticism is not something I really know anything about, but if this... (from wikipedia)

Mysticism ( pronunciation (help·info); from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, meaning 'an initiate') is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, sometimes including experience of and even communion with a supreme being.

...is what you mean by being a mystic, I think pretty much everyone on this forum (including me) would fall into that category

I think most of us experience states of consciousness and aspects of reality that are pretty far removed from what would be considered "normal human perception". I've certainly communicated with what may well have been a supreme being, I just don't think subjective experience under the influence of powerful psychedelics is enough for me to build a belief around.

 

[Eliyahu]

Any model of conceptualization that fails to accurately explain the human experience is not an adiquate model to depend on 100% for an accurate interpertation of reality...

Isn't religion a model of conceptualization?

It certainly is and quite an incomplete one based on zero evidence.

Yes spiritual belief is a model of conceptualization, my point is that that spiritualism does a much better job of describing the human experience than does science.

Also I am going to have to agree with joe dirt that the debate should be mainly centered on actual veiws and less on semantical combat.

I believe the human beings tendency to label in excess can be an unhealthy one.
Our "labels" solidify an illusionary concept of the world IMO. For example most of us here realize that a tree is a mysterious and mystical thing in many ways, whether you believe in God or not.....

However our label of a tree as a tree confines us into thinking a tree is a mundane inanimate object when in fact it is a thing of unspeakable beauty. The label can be expanded to describe the tree better saying it's a pine tree or a spruce tree, however no matter how many labels you put on a tree in will never convey the infinite beauty and mystery of that tree.

 

[joedirt]

HF -

It seems we have reached some kind of agreement, or at least an agreeable disagreement

It's always interesting going through these things. It seems like most of the time the people involved (myself included) will come out of it with very similar views to what they started with. But it is worthwhile anyway since any time I enter into one of these conversations I am given a little bit more to think about. In this case I haven't been given anything extra to think about in regards to "god", but in terms of how I view language and how I decide which definition of a word I use it has been an interesting exchange

One more small point, you say weak atheism is covered by agnostic. So an agnostic (weak atheist) is someone who doesn't believe in a god but doesn't hold the definite position that there are no gods. What would you call a weak theist? Someone who does hold god beliefs, but doesn't think they are necessarily correct? Would you just call them an agnostic as well? Because this would certainly confuse the situation in my opinion, and would make me more inclined to favour the agnostic/gnostic - theism/atheism model.


Joedirt -

You realize you're not arguing against me at all. You just identified yourself as an agnostic theist, and I have said I am an agnostic atheist. but the term "agnostic" on it's own doesn't tell you anything, it doesn't even tell you what is being discussed. You can be agnostic about any topic (check your own stated "correct" definition for confirmation of that). By identifying as an agnostic theist, and not just a theist, you are using the same model as me. You are a theist, and I am an atheist... but in regards to claimed knowledge, we are both agnostic in our beliefs.

No I'm arguing against the definitions you are using. Your stance I'm not disagreeing with at all.

 

[joedirt]

All this confusion is arising from the point of negation IMHO.

Take this pair of statements.

1) I believe God does not exists
2) I believe God does exist.

vs.

1) I do not believe God exists.
2) I do believe God exists.

Notice the difference? The differences is at the point of negation.
The first pair deal with the negation of God's existence while the second pair deal with the negation of belief.

 

[Eliyahu]

Mysticism is not something I really know anything about, but if this... (from wikipedia)

Mysticism ( pronunciation (help·info); from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, meaning 'an initiate') is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, sometimes including experience of and even communion with a supreme being.

...is what you mean by being a mystic, I think pretty much everyone on this forum (including me) would fall into that category

I think most of us experience states of consciousness and aspects of reality that are pretty far removed from what would be considered "normal human perception". I've certainly communicated with what may well have been a supreme being, I just don't think subjective experience under the influence of powerful psychedelics is enough for me to build a belief around.

I don't understand what gives people so much faith in "sober reality" This world is FILLED with people who have never taken a psycedelic in their life and yet these people are more dellusional than any one of us....

Have you not noticed that psychedelics actually work to shatter dellusion??? Look at most political figures and conservative church people for example...they are bat sh*t crazy!!!!!
and they have never taken a psychedelic and never will....(examples: Sarah Palin, Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson)

The ego structure of humans is so powerful that it just builds delusion after delusion. Look around you at others who do not take psychedelics and tell me again that you trust your sober mind to accurately portray reality to you.


Also you said...

But labels are necessary, life would be an unbelievably tedious thing if we didn't label things. It's easier to say "lets meet at that tree" than to try to explain all the characteristics of that particular part of the intricate cloud of energy in which we find ourselves

They are necessary but the tendency for human beings is to lose themselves n the label to the point where the label is indestinguishable with their identity...No human should label their own identity IMO. Labeling onseself just serves to make that person less of who they really are...infinite.

 

[Garyp88]

I believe the human beings tendency to label in excess can be n unhealthy one.
Our "labels" solidify an illusionary concept of the world IMO. For example most of us here realize that a tree is a mysterious and mystical thing in many ways, whether you believe in God or not.....

However our label of a tree as a tree confines us into thinking a tree is a mundane inanimate object when in fact it is a thing of unspeakable beauty. The label can be expanded to describe the tree better saying it's a pine tree or a spruce tree, however no matter how many labels you put on a tree in will never convey the infinite beauty and mystery of that tree.

I agree with you here. The label "tree" really doesn't capture the reality of it. It also convinces us that things are separate, the tree is separate from the ground and the ground is separate from us and so on, when in reality that is not the case. Everything is connected. And, even looking at it from a purely materialistic viewpoint, it boils down to earth (and the universe) being just a massive cloud of interconnected energy. Even our perception of "solid" is just an illusion. The closer humanity has looked at our surroundings the more we are realising that what we perceive as reality is just a comfortable construct of our consciousness and really isn't an accurate representation of what reality is. I really don't know enough about quantum theory to be able to understand anything more than just having a vague awareness that all is not what it seems, and drugs like DMT certainly seem to back that notion up, lol.

But labels are necessary, life would be an unbelievably tedious thing if we didn't label things. It's easier to say "lets meet at that tree" than to try to explain all the characteristics of that particular part of the intricate cloud of energy in which we find ourselves

 

[jamie]

"You either believe there is a god, don't, or am not sure."

Bit too linear for my liking but w/e floats your boat.

 

[Garyp88]

"You either believe there is a god, don't, or am not sure."

Bit too linear for my liking but w/e floats your boat.

Agreed. And that ignores the fact that humans are really a system of processes, and that these processes are changing and conflicting all the time. People can easily hold conflicting views, or feel they believe something one moment and then feel they believe the opposite the next. A good example is someone who is a manic depressive who one day thinks the world is the most wonderful place and everyone loves them, then the next day thinking the world is a dark pit and everyone hates them.

 

[Eliyahu]

Here is further proof that God exists, also, this video clearly supports my theory God is an Extra-terrestial being who's creation of the multiverse gave rise to an extremely advanced ultra-tech race of quasi-physical beings that in turn created humans...




[YOUTUBE]

 

[anrchy]

Yes spiritual belief is a model of conceptualization, my point is that that spiritualism does a much better job of describing the human experience than does science.

Spiritualism explains the human experience better in what way? I would agree with you if you meant one thing but disagree if you meant another. Could you expand?

jamie wrote:

"You either believe there is a god, don't, or am not sure."

Bit too linear for my liking but w/e floats your boat.


Agreed. And that ignores the fact that humans are really a system of processes, and that these processes are changing and conflicting all the time. People can easily hold conflicting views, or feel they believe something one moment and then feel they believe the opposite the next. A good example is someone who is a manic depressive who one day thinks the world is the most wonderful place and everyone loves them, then the next day thinking the world is a dark pit and everyone hates them.

Increasing the amount of labels one can have does not have any effect on someones ability to change there belief. Saying that someone can be a weak or strong athiest and giving that a label does nothing. All it does is, if everyone has an understanding of the definitions, allows someone to know more precisely where you stand on a certain subject based on a single word rather than multiple sentences explaining what you believe.

Simplifying the labels into broader categories is much more simple, and theres less dissagreement on the labels and more on the beliefs.

The reason people make labels more complicated and branch out is SO YOU CAN FIT IN A GROUP OF PEOPLE YOU DONT DISAGREE WITH.

 

[anrchy]

AND if you were capable of throwing everything into the mix and defining labels for every single circumstance, then EVERY single individual on this ENTIRE planet would have a different label from everyone else...

GUESS WHAT? We already do. it's called names!

 

[Eliyahu]

anrchy wrote

Spiritualism explains the human experience better in what way? I would agree with you if you meant one thing but disagree if you meant another. Could you expand?

I believe one of the ways spiritualism more accurately defines the human experience is by giving us a more realistic view of our true potential as living beings....

While Albert Einstien is an incredible example of a good human...I believe Yeshua the Christ is a better example of someone who has reached the full potential that human being-ness has to offer.

Spirituality tells us we can become like Christ and like Buddha.

Science tells us what about the potential of being human? That we are bags of meat wired with electro impulses? Well, that's inspiring.

 

[Garyp88]

anrchy wrote

Spiritualism explains the human experience better in what way? I would agree with you if you meant one thing but disagree if you meant another. Could you expand?

I believe one of the ways spiritualism more accurately defines the human experience is by giving us a more realistic view of our true potential as living beings....

While Albert Einstien is an incredible example of a good human...I believe Yeshua the Christ is a better example of someone who has reached the full potential that human being-ness has to offer.

Spirituality tells us we can become like Christ and like Buddha.

Science tells us what about the potential of being human? That we are bags of meat wired with electro impulses? Well, that's inspiring.

Science is the study of the material world. We use it to create predictions which allow us to develop technology and medicine (among other things). Why are you making it science versus spiritualism? They deal in different areas. You don't have to choose one or the other.

I'm not sure what you mean about christ reaching the full potential of human being-ness... wasn't he the son of god? Or was he god? Or is that not a distinction you make?

Also, wasn't Christ in favour of old testament law? "Not one jot or tittle.." and all that. Surely there are higher states of being than a state of being which conforms to old testament law.

 

[anrchy]

What true potential?

I agree science has yet to show the future potential of humans, but it is also in its adolescent stage. Comparatively spiritualism is in its infancy stage. Now I am agnostic, but i am extremely spiritual (no label needed please) and have utilized more of my potential due to both. Maybe science helps us achieve, and spiritualism shows us the way.

yet, I dont think spiritualism has actaully shown us our potential, it quite possibly can, but i think we have way more potential then anything has shown us as of yet.

What would you consider the best example that Theism has shown us as far as human potential? Or atleast an example of what you are talking about.

 

[Eliyahu]

anrchy wrote

Spiritualism explains the human experience better in what way? I would agree with you if you meant one thing but disagree if you meant another. Could you expand?

I believe one of the ways spiritualism more accurately defines the human experience is by giving us a more realistic view of our true potential as living beings....

While Albert Einstien is an incredible example of a good human...I believe Yeshua the Christ is a better example of someone who has reached the full potential that human being-ness has to offer.

Spirituality tells us we can become like Christ and like Buddha.

Science tells us what about the potential of being human? That we are bags of meat wired with electro impulses? Well, that's inspiring.

Science is the study of the material world. We use it to create predictions which allow us to develop technology and medicine (among other things). Why are you making it science versus spiritualism? They deal in different areas. You don't have to choose one or the other.

I'm not sure what you mean about christ reaching the full potential of human being-ness... wasn't he the son of god? Or was he god? Or is that not a distinction you make?

Also, wasn't Christ in favour of old testament law? "Not one jot or tittle.." and all that. Surely there are higher states of being than a state of being which conforms to old testament law.

Actually, it was the pharosees who followed old testmant law to the letter. The Idea that Christ is some moralistic judgemental character is not at all correct...your thinking of the GOP jesus I believe...

Christ was a kabbalistic master and a shaman. Not what the church would have you believe...

Aside from that ...I am not trying to say one must choose between this or that, I enjoy science and have faith that it can be improved...

I just believe in it's current state it's not an effectiv model for relating the human experience the way spiritualism can be.

 

[anrchy]

I think they both relate different aspects. They are used for different maybe even opposite effects.

 

[Garyp88]

Actually, it was the pharosees who followed old testmant law to the letter. The Idea that Christ is some moralistic judgemental character is not at all correct...your thinking of the GOP jesus I believe...
.

I was taking a quote from the sermon on the mount, long before there was a GOP.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Of course each translation has a slightly different wording... but he is referring to the Law of the old testament is he not? If you feel like asking him for me and just quoting what he tells you that would probably be the most effective way of answering

 

[Blackandblue]

Ignostic here, on grounds of semantic intermisunderstanability (is that a word? It is now.)

I think it might be more meaningful to study this with the assumption that your metaphysical commitments can be either nothing (like most very young children), or, they can be one of many things, with different degrees of intensity.

So, rather than a sliding 2 dimensional scale with notches for strong and weak and middlish (agnostic), you would simply have a strong belief or a weak belief in X specific thing.

The problem with what we're discussing is that strong and weak aren't that confusing, but 'atheism' IS. Instead we should break a particular persons beliefs into a list of (meta)operant asssumptions for how they view the world, and then they should describe their expeirences.

That way, we can see how small nuanses (sp?) in belief affect the experience!