The Atheist DMT Experience

[Hyperspace Fool]

It could "be all in your head." But if it is, why does that make it any less real? I think it is over simplifying it by assuming that it's not meaningful or "real" just because it occurs within one's own mind. I am proposing that is is only happening in one's own mind, but that it is possible that these internal realms one may experience with the help of psychedelics are just as real as consensus reality.

I assume by calling them "real" you're saying that they exist autonomously, and all I'm proposing is that they may exist internally.

It is basically like I was saying above. You can have a viewpoint that these things are all internal and be coming from a spiritual model, a material model, a rational model... or some other view entirely.

The point is more that if you ascribe to a purely material model of the world, then your idea of inner probably means "just neurons" which is a distinctly un-spiritual stance.

That was my point earlier, my only worldview ISN'T material, and it definitely isn't solely spirituality. I guess this comment brings us back to the point of the thread, I'm an agnostic, and I guess I also look at these experiences agnostically as well. And I understand what you're saying but I think it's kind of over simplifying things a bit. I can't pretend to know anything about spiritual realms because it's TOO subjective to record information properly, as we can see with many diverse beliefs regarding spirituality and psychedelics.

I respect where you're coming from, but don't be so quick to dismiss me purely because I think the experience is internal. Currently, I don't hold any strong belief in spirits, but I also acknowledge that it's a possibility, and I probably wouldn't even consider it as a possibility if it weren't for my psychedelic experiences.

I got you.

This wasn't specifically about you to begin with, and I don't want to make it about you. My comment leaves ample room for people to have a wide range of worldviews, and i will amend it to say that you can even combine or hold more than one worldview... as well as be flirting with a number of worldviews and have yet to make up your mind. You can remain undecided forever.

My point was more about those people that are not agnostic about it, but are died in the wool materialists. Ascribing to a purely materialist, physical model of the Universe is, by definition, the antithesis of the spiritual model. I may have simplified things a tad, but the point basically stands. If you truly 100% (no room for doubt) believe that your consciousness is simply the result of some neurons and neurotransmitters that evolved randomly from unconscious matter over the course of X million years... you are not a spiritual person IMHO.

Furthermore, as much as the materialists like to think that they have the evidence and science to back up their feeling about this... it is fundamentally impossible to prove that you even have neurons, a head, or a body. There is no test to prove you are not dreaming. We regularly (often a number of times a day) prove dreams to be dreams by "waking" from them... but never once in your entire existence have you been able to prove you were not dreaming. We are talking about 50,000 proofs of dreaming vs 0 proofs of not... ignore this and you are abandoning objective reason.

Again, this is not aimed at you... so don't take it personal. I fully accept your agnosticism as an intelligent and rational stance in lieu of overwhelming evidence in either direction. In cases where there IS ample evidence and the decision really is pretty much polar, though (i.e. Romney v Obama), then being undecided is basically equivalent to saying you don't give a sh*t and can't be bothered to actually think about the issue.

Ahhh, the coveted swing voter...

 

[Eliyahu]

 

[URBY]

 

[MySmelf]

If there was a God I think there would be solid evidence for that being. It makes nonsense to me that an all powerful omnipotent creator can exist without ever leaving a single trace. Its illogical at best just plain silly IMO.

This reasoning makes no sense to me. How could you possible show evidence for an "all powerful omnipotent creator", a being that could tweak the entire subatomic structure of the universe in an instant? If such a God exists it could have destroyed and recreated the whole universe one minute ago purposefully making it appear in every detail to have exited all this time without a creator.

IMO such an all powerful being eventually negates its own existence. Its best bet would be to turn itself into a pandeistic being completely losing itself in its own creation.

 

[Eliyahu]

If there was a God I think there would be solid evidence for that being. It makes nonsense to me that an all powerful omnipotent creator can exist without ever leaving a single trace. Its illogical at best just plain silly IMO.

This reasoning makes no sense to me. How could you possibly show evidence for an "all powerful omnipotent creator", a being that could tweak the entire subatomic structure of the universe in an instant? If such a God exists it could have destroyed and recreated the whole universe one minute ago purposefully making it appear in every detail to have existed all this time without a creator.

IMO such an all powerful being eventually negates its own existence. Its best bet would be to turn itself into a pandeistic being completely losing itself in its own creation.

^^^^^^

Bravo!

 

[Guyomech]

Some would say that the entire universe around us, the whole darn thing, is evidence of such a being (or IS that being!)

...But the ability to actually prove such a thing appears to be, by nature, self-contradictory.

 

[olympus mon]

If there was a God I think there would be solid evidence for that being. It makes nonsense to me that an all powerful omnipotent creator can exist without ever leaving a single trace. Its illogical at best just plain silly IMO.

This reasoning makes no sense to me. How could you possible show evidence for an "all powerful omnipotent creator", a being that could tweak the entire subatomic structure of the universe in an instant? If such a God exists it could have destroyed and recreated the whole universe one minute ago purposefully making it appear in every detail to have exited all this time without a creator.

IMO such an all powerful being eventually negates its own existence. Its best bet would be to turn itself into a pandeistic being completely losing itself in its own creation.

Why wouldn't there be evidence of this being? So this God can and does do anything with nothing being impossible since it makes all the rules and creates all. How can something so limitless not be able to even be detected? That's my question. And let's say God does exist exactly as some say it does, what reason would there even be for it to ensure its lack of detection or knowledge of its existence?

Your own words admit that its impossible to show any evidence of God existence...then why would you believe in it? Why does God always get a pass? If anyone put forth a proposal of the existence of something like a gremlin or a unicorn wouldn't you ask for some hard evidence of them to believe they exist?. This is what I don't understand.

 

[Crazyhorse]

Why wouldn't there be evidence of this being? So this God can and does do anything with nothing being impossible since it makes all the rules and creates all. How can something so limitless not be able to even be detected? That's my question. And let's say God does exist exactly as some say it does, what reason would there even be for it to ensure its lack of detection or knowledge of its existence?

Doesn't it really just come down to how you choose to define "God"? If you're talking about the Abrahamic religions' anthropomorphic concept of a bearded guy in the clouds, hiding dinosour bones all over the place just to "test" us, I'd tend to agree with your viewpoint. IME that's just silly. But what if you define the entire universe as "God"? It fits every meaningful qualification for the job I've ever heard, in particular as an all-powerful creator who made up and enforces the rules. It is everywhere at once, we are part of it and it is part of us, in a very literal and scientifically demonstrated way. And it certainly works in mysterious ways. So if that's the case, I'd say there is quite a bit of evidence of "his" existence, if anything really exists at all. OR, what if "God" exists in the form the unified field of consciousness that so many of us have experienced merging with? That makes you and I both similar to individual cells in the body of "God". Or, why can't we use the word "God" as a label for the totality of both those things?

Not claiming to have all the answers, just offering food for thought. Without first settling on some kind of definition of the thing you're denying, how can you say there's no evidence of it?

 

[DeMenTed]

chemicals is god.

consciouss chemicals.

 

[anrchy]

If there was a God I think there would be solid evidence for that being. It makes nonsense to me that an all powerful omnipotent creator can exist without ever leaving a single trace. Its illogical at best just plain silly IMO.

This reasoning makes no sense to me. How could you possible show evidence for an "all powerful omnipotent creator", a being that could tweak the entire subatomic structure of the universe in an instant? If such a God exists it could have destroyed and recreated the whole universe one minute ago purposefully making it appear in every detail to have exited all this time without a creator.

IMO such an all powerful being eventually negates its own existence. Its best bet would be to turn itself into a pandeistic being completely losing itself in its own creation.

Why wouldn't there be evidence of this being? So this God can and does do anything with nothing being impossible since it makes all the rules and creates all. How can something so limitless not be able to even be detected? That's my question. And let's say God does exist exactly as some say it does, what reason would there even be for it to ensure its lack of detection or knowledge of its existence?

Your own words admit that its impossible to show any evidence of God existence...then why would you believe in it? Why does God always get a pass? If anyone put forth a proposal of the existence of something like a gremlin or a unicorn wouldn't you ask for some hard evidence of them to believe they exist?. This is what I don't understand.

Who's to say there isn't evidence of god? Before the first person tried DMT there wasn't evidence of hyperspace, does that mean it didn't exist? Just because we haven't acquired the means of detecting something does not mean it doesn't exist.

Do you believe in love? Can you prove that it exists? Can you prove to a blind man that the color blue exists?

 

[olympus mon]

I understand what your saying but let me ad that there is no evidence that hyperspace exists other than an altered state of a persons perception.

For thsake of argument let's define God as some being that is supernatural.

 

[Crazyhorse]

For the sake of argument let's define God as some being that is supernatural.

Ok then, what is supernatural? Do you just mean something that hasn't been proved by science yet? The big bang hasn't been proven, and there's not even a solid theory for what caused it, so is that supernatural? The word itself would seem to imply something greater than nature... which goes back to suggesting the entire universe again. Since it created and contains all of nature, that means it must be greater than nature, right?

 

[anrchy]

I understand what your saying but let me ad that there is no evidence that hyperspace exists other than an altered state of a persons perception.

For thsake of argument let's define God as some being that is supernatural.

Regardless of what hyperspace is it exists. It is an experience that one can have, see, and hear. Whether its all in your head or an actual place we visit, does that even matter? It exists as an experience. Heaven may very well be an altered state of consciousness.

Besides god is supernatural at this current time, by definition.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Why wouldn't there be evidence of this being? So this God can and does do anything with nothing being impossible since it makes all the rules and creates all. How can something so limitless not be able to even be detected? That's my question. And let's say God does exist exactly as some say it does, what reason would there even be for it to ensure its lack of detection or knowledge of its existence?

Doesn't it really just come down to how you choose to define "God"? If you're talking about the Abrahamic religions' anthropomorphic concept of a bearded guy in the clouds, hiding dinosour bones all over the place just to "test" us, I'd tend to agree with your viewpoint. IME that's just silly. But what if you define the entire universe as "God"? It fits every meaningful qualification for the job I've ever heard, in particular as an all-powerful creator who made up and enforces the rules. It is everywhere at once, we are part of it and it is part of us, in a very literal and scientifically demonstrated way. And it certainly works in mysterious ways. So if that's the case, I'd say there is quite a bit of evidence of "his" existence, if anything really exists at all. OR, what if "God" exists in the form the unified field of consciousness that so many of us have experienced merging with? That makes you and I both similar to individual cells in the body of "God". Or, why can't we use the word "God" as a label for the totality of both those things?

This.
(something a bunch of us have said over & over on this thread in one form or another)

1) Why on Earth would you expect that a divine being that was omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient would "play by your rules?" Dictating how such a being should behave or appear smacks of hubris. Do we play by the rules of e coli bacteria?

2) Why would you think your puny senses would be anywhere near sufficient to detect something utterly transcendent? Especially, if you have not even tried to train your senses to detect transcendental or supernatural things...

3) You ask how it would be possible for such a being to exist and not leave evidence? Well, A) I believe there is ample evidence for those mystics who want to look for it & B) By definition, an all-powerful being would have the power to be imperceptible to somewhat evolved primate who doesn't even believe in their sixth sense.

4) People who complain about the lack of evidence for a deity by and large have never actually looked for such evidence. What you are saying Oly, is that unless the greatest, grand ultimate creative force actively comes directly to you uninvited and for the sole purpose of proving itself to you... it doesn't exist?

I hope you realize how petulant this can come off. No offense, as I think you are an intelligent guy, and many of my most intelligent friends have (or have held) opinions along these lines.

But the fact is, even a cursory glance at the historical record shows that a great number of people have claimed to have the existence of G*d proven... to them. Prophets, saints, mystics, sadhus, shaman and more all have said that you can have this proven for you... but you have to want it, and put in the hard work.

The idea in most traditions is that G*d defaults to a non-interventionist model with humanity because of a thing called free-will. Any overt action on the part of such a deity that was not explicitly called down by the human in question would violate this free-will and force people to believe... thus dictating their actions.

Some people view this as the idea that as G*d's children we are given the space to create, dream, play, learn, fumble and fall. In the end, we are protected from any real danger, and all our fears, pain and suffering is revealed to be but a dream that we created. As children of G*d the ability to create is our birthright and thus, much of what we experience is actually OUR creation, and not that of our creator... except by virtue of its having created us naturally.

So,

5) The basic claim is that G*d can be proven to individuals who go to extraordinary length, desire it passionately, or something along those lines. I don't know why anyone would think that such an honor would be effortless. Having evidence for G*d's existence littering creation would be more absurd than having streets paved with gold in a system where the scarcity of gold made the whole thing run.

In fact, according to the logic of Oly's posts recently, many people throughout history could claim that gold didn't exist in veins in the Earth simply by virtue of never bothering to go to a gold mine. The occasional gold ring or nugget that they saw other people possessing could be written off as products of artifice and not ample proof of the "Earth contains gold" theory. If such a person dug a pit in their back yard of a meter or two and didn't strike gold, could they then extrapolate that gold didn't exist in the ground at all?

Well, the people who complain about lack of evidence for G*d are even more obtuse IMHO because they haven't even bothered to dig that pit, let alone study with the "metallurgists & miners" and put themselves in a position where they could find evidence.

One last thing.

It is inevitable that someone will chime in here that personal anecdotal evidence of G*d is not sufficient proof. There will be some who will not be happy unless G*d is scientifically verified in a laboratory somewhere... and not just hinted at endlessly as is the case now. Well, I preemptively give me typical response:

You can not prove anything exists. You can not prove that laboratories are real. You can not prove that you are alive. You can not prove that the body you seem to inhabit is real. You can not prove that other people exist. You can not prove that history isn't just a memory planted in your head.

6) Why then would it surprise you that you can not prove the existence of a being you clearly don't want to believe in?

You can not disprove "brain in a vat" theory, solipsism, life is a dream, or any of a dozen theories that completely and utterly deflate the materialist proof you so desperately insist on. You could very well be standing as a character in a dream insisting that other characters of varying lucidity prove that the entire scene and all its characters and timelines are existing in the mind of some über being called the Dreamer by the standards of proof you have established within the dream. Meanwhile, the lucid dreamers around you simply know that it is a dream by virtue of having transcended it already.

 

[anrchy]

See, on the other hand you can prove certain things. And if god does exist you CAN prove so, but you would have to know what the evidence is in order to use it.

The part I don't like is when a religion calls for you to believe, in order to be "saved" or what have you. If there is a god, I doubt he cares whether you believe it or not, but in how you live lies the important factors. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

 

[olympus mon]

Hf you are making some huge assumptions about my path that has led me to my current understandings on this subject. You some how assume that I haven't searched for God In my life and that I'm simply choosing out of no where to believe there is no god. You have no idea where I've been or what I've experienced in life to get me to this point so stop assuming.

I've done more work and spent countless hours integrating and contemplating than your giving me credit for and more than anyone I know. How many people sell all their possessions , home, successful business, clothing EVERYTHING to allow myself the uninterrupted time to answer a calling I have heard my whole life with the help of plant teachers and shamans.

So do me this one favor, I could give a shit if you disagree with me, think I have no idea what I'm talking about or generally think I am full of shit but you need to stop assuming you know how little I've done to answer these questions for myself. I didn't just sit around reading books, I didn't attend some retreat weekend or lecture . What i did is I walked the walk and found my own truth and one I will defend. You act as if your the only person that's dine the work your so quick to throw in my face.

Your repeated condescending replys to me don't bother me what does is your arrogance that you know so much about me and what I've done in life because on that subject you are dead wrong.

None if these arguments for the existence of God are anything new or profound. I'll leave all you to it. Have a ball. Its incredibly arrogant that you assume nobody has done the searching or footwork if they came up with different conclusions than you.

 

[Crazyhorse]

None if these arguments for the existence of God are anything new or profound. I'll leave all you to it. Have a ball.

I can understand how you could feel that way, but also think it's kind of a shame, I was hoping for an opportunity to understand your perspective better. I hope that you don't interpret my questions as an attempt to prove you wrong or change your mind. I can just as easily support the athiest POV as any other, my only reason for taking up an opposing stance is because that's how I learn new ways of seeing things, and come to understand other people better. It's kind of hard to find out why someone thinks the things they do by just agreeing with them.

As for me, while I consider myself to be someone on a spiritual path, I follow that path from a very agnostic standpoint. I feel sure there's SOMETHING important going on beyond the easily explainable, but I'm equally sure it's impossible to know for certain exactly what that something is. For me it's the search itself that's important. I tend towards holding ideas and concepts, rather than beliefs. And I love talking with other people about whatever they happen to believe (or why they choose not to believe) because it opens me up to possibilities I might not have considered otherwise.

So, I dunno what my point is really, you've gotta do what you feel. But I'd like to talk about this more sometime.

 

[polytrip]

I have a very close friend who is an atheist, and from what I understand atheists do not believe in a spirit/soul, so it would technically be impossible for an atheist to have a " spiritual " experience. Profound and mystical yes, but to say spiritual would IMO be the wrong term for an atheist, being that atheists believe we are just a skin bag of meat and bones with some chemical reactions going on. In the traditional use of the word spirit or spiritual, it implies that we have a spirit/soul that transcends our physical body. I don't think that really coincides with atheist beliefs.

Why would materialism automatically negate spirituality? Why couldn´t the spirit/soul be the result of neural activity? Materialists certainly don´t deny that they have a mind, a counsciousness, feelings or a form of self-awareness. Is there a difference between a persons spirit or a persons counsciousness, mind, etc? Stating that the spirit is a separate identity from the mind, the counsciousness, etc, eventually would push the spirit out of the realm of anything that we could perceive as being part of ourselves, making the whole concept of spirituality as defined this way kind of pointless. What is this spirit then, if it has nothing to do with my counsciousness, feelings, mind, self awareness, etc? An identity that is separate from all the elements that i define as 'me', yet is the essence of all that i am, that i, as long as i´m alive cannot have any acces to, yet carries the essence of 'me', even when my physical body ceases to exist? That would degrade spirituality to nothing more than an academic sort of discipline. A study of something that i can´t have any acces to during my life, that does not have anything to do with my life, something separate from all that defines me, that has nothing to do with anything of any value (like feelings for instance) in relation to my life and that may not even exist. It would be nothing more than a mysterious, undetectable substance that does not contribute in any way to any attempt to explain the mystery of life. So what´s the whole point of spirituality then?

Claiming though, that the mind, counsciousness, self-awareness, feelings, etc, can not be material or have a material cause, imply´s that one has certain knowledge about the nature of this thing that we call 'me'.

I don´t see how we could be sure of anything though.

 

[DeMenTed]

Hyperspace fool wrote,

People who complain about the lack of evidence for a deity by and large have never actually looked for such evidence. What you are saying Oly, is that unless the greatest, grand ultimate creative force actively comes directly to you uninvited and for the sole purpose of proving itself to you... it doesn't exist?

I hope you realize how petulant this can come off. No offense, as I think you are an intelligent guy, and many of my most intelligent friends have (or have held) opinions along these lines.

But the fact is, even a cursory glance at the historical record shows that a great number of people have claimed to have the existence of G*d proven... to them. Prophets, saints, mystics, sadhus, shaman and more all have said that you can have this proven for you... but you have to want it, and put in the hard work.

These people who claim to have the existance of god, do you mean people like....David Koresh, Jim Jones or David Smith? Or do you mean one of the more believable prophets who lived thousands of years ago? There are still people today who believe that they are god etc.. Theres one nutcase who lives in australia, i forget his name who says he is the second coming and has quite a large following.

Excuse me as i dont mean to insult but all those people are freakin whackjobs!!

God may or may not exist but the likelihood of it is pretty minimal seeing as most of the people associated with god are nutters.

 

[Crazyhorse]

Stating that the spirit is a separate identity from the mind, the counsciousness, etc, eventually would push the spirit out of the realm of anything that we could perceive as being part of ourselves, making the whole concept of spirituality as defined this way kind of pointless.

This is pretty much the Buddhist perspective on it, and why they don't believe in the individual "soul". Under careful observation (through meditation), they find that the self is empty of anything that can be called "soul" or "spirit". The mind is just the mind and houses our very temporary ego, the body is just the body and supports the functioning of the mind, so what can you point to and say "this is my true essence"?

They deny the existance of God for basically the same reason. Some schools believe in gods, plural, but consider them to be mortal representations of aspects of nature and the mind. Sort of like Jungian archetypes. But no big daddy Uber God. Sounds a lot like atheism, doesn't it? And yet, Buddhism is usually considered a spiritual belief, and even called a religion. Go figure.