Why thank you. I enjoy these kinds of conversations, and appreciate having enthusiastic people to fence with on these issues.


I agree with your points on the evils religions have been party to, and especially the concept of Holy Permission. Of course, as I said in the previous post... I am an anti-religion theist. And as you have said yourself here "The problem doesn't come from a personal belief (or disbelief) in deity; it comes from Holy Permission..."

You yourself are making my point that theism or atheism are not the issues with religion. Thus, as I have said previously, the religion v. anti-religion debate is only tangentially connected to the theism v. atheism debate. (see previous post)

Furthermore, even the historical argument about the ills and destructiveness of religion is not waterproof or completely convincing IMHO. Though I do believe religions are comical, repressive, and retrograde forces in the human milieu, this is not something that is a clear fact by any stretch.

1) People would have still killed each other without the religion element because people are (and have been) basically stupid, fearful and violent. Territorialism, xenophobia, and fear of the unknown are generally the root of most of the sick things people have done throughout the ages... even the so-called religious wars. Belief might be useful in driving the masses to slaughter each other, but the root cause is usually the confluence of greed and politics in a small group of puppet masters, who are, themselves, generally not very religious, or are clearly not theistic under their show of religiosity at any rate.


While I like where you are going with this, and there is some usefulness in the dual axis model you propose... the terms you are using here simply already have other accepted definitions.

To wit, Gnosticism is a branch of the theistic religion Christianity. While it is becoming common to use the word in clearly non religious ways, in the context of a theological discussion, it is confusing to use it as you are here.

Furthermore, the spectrum of atheist--agnostic--theist is a central and well accepted concept already. People tend to talk about belonging to one of 3 groups, and the most common usage of the dual or hyphenated terms (agnostic-theist for example) tend to be for people who are on the cusp. I.e. those that lean one way or the other in the theist v. atheist debate, but are not really sure.

I think again here, the term anti-religionist might be more useful than the term atheist. At the very least, we tend to be talking more about Secularism than actual Atheism.


Perhaps as you choose to use these words. But, if you haven't already, you may want to read the wikipedia page on Atheism I linked to earlier. You will see that there are, in fact, a great many people (the majority of people writing on the subject actually) who define atheism as the belief there are no gods.

This is why I said this is the central issue. The semantics of the argument generally are. My point in that part of my post was basically that it doesn't make sense to use the term atheism in the broad and implicit manner as many here are doing. The term becomes meaningless when you loosen the definition up so much as to accommodate agnostics, and a good many theists such as myself.

Atheists tend to use the broad definition when defending themselves from attacks that claim atheism to be a belief system that is equally as unprovable as theism. However those same atheists tend to display the narrow definition elsewhere in the conversation when they describe why they are atheist, why theism is wrong, and what they actually believe.

I think atheists need to sack up and admit that, by and large, they actually do BELIEVE that there is no such thing as G*d... and, additionally, that there are not even such things as gods.

The funny thing is that if I persevere with my talking to my atheist friends, it generally comes out that they are mainly anti-religion and do, in fact, hold some theistic beliefs... if only begrudgingly. For example, many of my science minded atheist buddies believe in extra-terrestrial life. They even believe that such beings may have had contact with early humans and thus spawned the myths and legends of gods. Therefore, ipso facto, they believe in gods. Not white beardy, Jehovah in the clouds, but gods nonetheless.

I will end this by saying that even Citta, who led the atheist drive early on in this thread, frequently mentioned his experiences of "godhead" and "oneness with the universe." I find it hard to imagine that you could even say such things without recognizing that they involve a kind of theism. Certainly not Christian theism. But as I have been saying, religion doesn't have anything to do with theism. The kind of theism that is evoked in Citta's descriptions of his DMT experiences is more along the lines of pantheism... maybe drifting into panentheism even, though most scientists would never admit to that.

The fact is that pantheism dovetails rather well with science, and nearly all of the great names in physics and the other hard sciences have actually been pantheists. Pantheism is often not recognized by the person who believes it because they might be convinced that their disdain for religion and clear disbelief in typical depictions of deity make them an atheist. Pantheism is simply the belief that the Universe is god. Not that it is interested in humanity, or even conscious... just that the Universe is one thing that is united under certain laws.

Of course, this fact often annoys the hell out of a self avowed atheist who comes to realize that they are actually a theist after all.

Take care EH,

HF

Great post as ever!

I usually do not like to get into this discussion (though this was a rare exception) because the devil is in the details, as they say. If you go by strict textbook definitions, the opposites aren't really opposites (Gnostic vs Agnostic) and everyone has a different way of using the same word. It's why I hate being asked if I believe in God. I always have to ask "What do you mean by God?". Do I believe in the bearded white man who lives in the sky and hates gay people? No. Do I believe in the inter-connectivity of love and oneness that we all experience in some point in our lives? Yes, but if that's your definition of God then it's not a very good use of the word, because it's not in line with what that word actually means. It would be like me calling a lazy-boy a love seat. They're both chairs, but they're both so specific that it makes no sense to call one the other. It sounds silly.

To be sure, I'm guilty of the same thing (your point on the definition of Gnostic) and it's a very murky sea that we sail discussing it. But I try to go by textbook definitions when I can, and I adhere to them despite other usages of the word (or try to, at least; I know now that I can't use Gnostic the same way I've been using it, so I will have to purge that from my lexicon). Agnostic means to not know whether or not God is knowable, as opposed to not believing in the existence or nonexistence of God, though the latter definition is much more popular. It may be that I am clinging to the "old way" of using the word when it is no longer relevant. I'm not sure. I will ponder it upon my next cigarette break.


You have given me a LOT to think about, and in truth I thank you, because I always enjoy having my mind changed or at the very least challenged.

Many haven't had a "reality confirming" experience here, it's evident. Improper dosing, improper vaporization, improper method of delivery, etc. I see it all the time on here. I'm sorry that I sound dogmatic, I don't mean to come across that way Honestly..I never thought I'd being speaking in such a way if it wasn't for the experience I had several months ago. I've done hundreds of journeys through smoked, and that one time threw me into the heart of it...I'm no longer on the fence.

And yes, I agree regarding that the "complex biochemistry" aspect of it..IF it were just that..wouldnt make it any less valid. But I think that clearly isnt the case..theres MUCH more to it than that imo. It's truly amazing that over the course of millions of years nature has produced chemicals that mimic key neurotransmitters in the human system, allowing when ingested, to cause "imho" a temporary transcendental experience. I think this is a truly amazing, if not, one of the most amazing partnerships with nature that we have as human beings. None of this makes it any less valid, only adds to the infinite beauty and mystery of it all.

What I was referring to is that some completely reduce the dmt experience to JUST chemistry and/or specific regions of the brain lighting up....that's laughable to me and many here. I have a very sincere tone when I say this... "I"m tellin ya, there is a line you clearly cross when you take a huge dose in one go" I never thought I'd be speaking so absolute...but it is what it is.

And I read your report! Very beautiful descriptive experience!

*The experience I spoke of to you that I had several months ago...well here it is:
My experience And reading through some of the replies in that thread, I know the feeling/s I have are mutual.

-Tat tvam asi

I completely understand this point of view. However, i think the argument has a fundamental flaw. It doesn´t deal with the complex nature of counsiousness in it´s entirety, with the circular dimension of counsiousness, with counsiousness as a complex phenomenon of multiple layers that can sometimes chase it´s own tale like a mad dog.

What if the biochemical action of DMT would not just affect some epiphenomena of counsiousness, like sight? What if the biochemical action of DMT would deeply affect the phenomena that are the biological foundations of counsiousness itself?
What if the things that are the basic building blocks of counsiousness are altered? What if basic concepts like 'reality' itself are altered?

In other words: what if exactly the feeling you describe, the 'this is it' feeling, is a direct result of the biochemical action of DMT, just like colourfull visuals? What if the 'this is it' feeling is the result of how deeply DMT affects the foundational structures of the neurological system that creates concepts such as 'real'?

You can not completely step outside of your own counsciousness. You cannot perceive your own counsiousness, outside of the scope of your own counsiousness itself. So you cannot view the effects of DMT on your own counsiousness, completely unaffected by these effects themselves.

So you cannot judge the effects DMT has on your own counsiousness, without this judgement itself being in some way affected by DMT as well.
So a judgement like 'a biochemical proces could never explain these feelings' could be the result of the same biochemical proces, related to the feelings mentioned.

That´s also why schizophrenic´s often fail to see that they are delusional. The disease not only causes them to have these delusions, but also affects their ability to look at their delusions in a distanced, critical way.

In the end, we know very little about ourselves.

EDIT: Wrong name in the post..but it has been fixed so carry on my wayward son....carry on.
Great post Polytrip



I however don't completely agree with this. There is a state of non dual awareness that is available, apparently to all humans. My contact has been via psychedelics, but I do very much believe it's possible to step outside your own consciousness. My best way of describing this would be as such. During ego death are you still aware? I am. All associations of me/myself/and I, as well as social statues etc are blown away. What remains is a raw sort of awareness. Ego death for sure, but aware non-the-less. Seems to be a state outside of normal consciousness. I have never been unaware on any psychedelic compound.

Of course as you and I both know this all comes down to semantics in some degree, but I do believe it's possible to so remove yourself from the concept of 'you' that one can experience awareness that isn't tied to an ego. I feel as though I've done this...

Peace

One of your assumptions is that consciousness has a biological foundation. There is no evidence for this. Perception and awareness are based in biology, but there is no way to prove that subjective consciousness is the product of biology. The belief that consciousness has a biological foundation is just that – a belief.


If the only thing that led to particular beliefs regarding DMT experiences was a “this is it” feeling, then I might agree with you. But there are DMT experiences, for me at least, that go far beyond just feeling “real”. While under the influence of DMT, I have seen and experienced things that cannot be logically explained as purely the products of my own mind.


This is absolutely true, and the main reason that one should question the nature of their everyday experiences in a manner similar to their questioning of the DMT experience. I can’t say for certain that the DMT realm is real, but I also acknowledge that I can’t say for certain that the “consensus reality” realm is real either. What I can say with absolute certainty is that I’ve had DMT experiences that are as real as my everyday reality. And so I conclude that the DMT realm is as real as the consensus realm. Notice that I don’t claim that either realm is real.


Very true.

Any chance of an example Gibran2?

I would understand if its a "words don't work" type situation, but it is the experiences which lead to an altering of the way in which the subject views reality which interest me greatly.

Cheers.

There are examples, but they are of the “words don’t work” variety.

And what’s the point anyhow?

Those who have had such experiences already understand, and those who haven’t won’t understand until they have such experiences.

Here’s a question to ask those who think DMT experiences are “just” the result of a chemical acting on a very complex neurochemical apparatus:

“What would it take to convince you?”

This question has been asked, and the usual replies involve entities factoring products of large primes, or being shown the future, etc., or being told/shown something about consensus reality that can be corroborated after the experience. But that’s not in the nature of a DMT experience. (At least not mine.)

Even better questions that get closer to the heart of the matter:

“Do you believe that what we call consensus reality is real? If yes, why?”

The answer to the “why” will show how flimsy our certainty regarding an independent physical reality really is. And if there aren’t any solid arguments supporting the reality of our consensus experience, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that there aren’t any solid arguments supporting the reality of the DMT realm.

And I don't think these "this is it" type breakthroughs are achieved by just packing up a large dose and going for it. I think it mostly has to do with a perfect combination of set and setting for that specific user, since each human being varies drastically in his/her thought/feelings biological makeup and tastes in environments.

And when that's achieved, something is facilitated in that user that catapults that user into the face of it...right to the core. I like to think of it as a combination lock where you line up the numbers to open the lock. Each individual varies in "their" combination, and it takes alot of trial and error imho. I've had hundreds of intense breakthroughs over the past couple years, and only "1" of those experiences threw me to the core of it. It's totally impossible to explain...but I will say it DID NOT resemble the dmt experience nor any related effects. It was of a totally different nature. Nothing like DMT.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen to me again...but every factor pre-flight has to be right for the experience to go as far as it did.

Some might reach it sooner, some might take longer to reach it, and some might never reach it at all. But once you do, there is no denying it.

Sorry for the rambles, these are just my thoughts and opinions.

I feel the title of this thread isn't the best. Ill use myself as example. I am a stone called atheist and an even stone colder anti religionist. I've worked with shamans in far away lands and deeply with plant teachers and medicines. I have a skeptical approach to all facets of life and ideas but feel I am keep an open mind. I don't take things at face value as many do and need more evidence to take a stance than simple self evident experiences. I have fooled myself and have been fooled.

The reason I think the title of this thread isn't very good although the content is great is because people tend to attach God to other ideas such as afterlife or even consciousness. I believe there is more going on than chemical reactions in the brain during a dmt experience but do not believe God has any part in it. Because our current level of understanding and science still has not yet been able to concretion nail down where or why consciousness exists doesn't not mean it never will. Therefore just because we don't fully understand consciousness is no excuse to Interject God into the gaps of our understanding.

Mankind has been doing this for millennial. "Since we dont know what it is, IT must be God." That's a foolish lazy way to explain what we can not yet explain. I have always felt that consciousness can continue in some form after human death but again there is still no case or reason for God's and Goddess's.

thanks for the reply Gibran2, i didnt think it would be a wordable answer or experience.

i actaully asked my friend this very question quite recently, he has smoalked a few times but hasnt had THE experience, i was saying how i believe the DMT experience is equally as real/unreal as consensus reality and he laughed, his direct answer was that he new consensus reality was real because when he woke up in the morning he was in it and when he returned from any type of drug related state he would always return to the same place and that place was consensus reality.

He continued by saying he could only achieve the DMT space by taking very powerfull substances, "its not real, your clearly just pickled on massively powerfull drugs which fiddle with the brain and make you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that THIS IS REAL. He likened it schizophrenia, as it has already been pointed out, schizophrenics can completely believe in the reality that they perceive even though most would say that they only believe these things due to being mentally ill.

its is at this point i dont really know how to persist with my argument that it is equally real.

I believe its consciousness all the way down. Heres my view:

The universe is an engine designed to do to things;

1. Preserve complexity. New stages build upon old ones, complex life follows from simple life, and the same with the revolutions in our technologies.

2. Provide a platform for consciousness. Every atom in the universe exhibits properties of life - they are integrated systems with internal differentiation. The higher you go up the chain of complexity, the more consciousness is found in the system.

What you get from this (unless its a totally self-serving argument, which I'm willig to accept!) is that the universe is more or less geared to aiding the development of consciousness within it. So I guess this is what I'm saying I believe - that the universe is a biocentric system with its own conscious development - kinda like a flower grows towards the sun - as the goal. This is realised through the self expression of individual elements of differentiation inside of its network, like humans. The universe comes to self realisation through consciousnesses like us.

You could call it Biocentric Pantheism.

I think we pretty much agree. I think i made my argument needlesly complex by involving biochemistry. The point i wanted to make was just that we´re in a circle we can´t get out of. If someone would want to proof to you that consensus reality is real instead of, say a dream, then he would have the same problem indeed: any evidence could be dreamt up just as well.

The funny thing, why i made this comment in the first place is this: when you look at the DMT experience from an outsiders perspective, you´d be tempted to think that the mind (whether it´s basis is physical or not) can at a certain point experience a state of information overload. Such a state of information overload would result in a radically altered perspective on reality: rational thinking simply becomes impossible when there is too much information, so the mind HAS to shift towards another type of explanatary model. It becomes impossible to make distinctions between perceived 'objects' because it would be like making distinctions between every grain of sand in the sahara desert, so the mind HAS to switch from an 'everything is separate' towards an 'everything is one' paradigm, etc.

When you have experienced a DMT breakthrough for yourself, you would be tempted to say: 'the DMT realm is real, words cannot explain, you have to experience it for yourself'.

But that 'words cannot explain' feeling is also exactly what you would expect a person to have, who just experienced a form of information overload.

The perspective on this is different when you have experienced it for yourself, but the fact remains that you could also say 'i am behaving exactly like a person who just experienced a sort of information overload'.

And you never get out of that ambiguity because every argument could be like that dream wherein somebody convinces you that you are not actually dreaming.

Naturally I concur with Polytrip's whole 'using consciousness to observe consciousness' idea... especially when in the context of recognizing that inability to recognize delusion is not limited to schizophrenics, but part and parcel to all so-called consensual reality.

Poly brings up the whole dream argument, and this is an important thing to keep in mind, despite the fact that many staunch materialists tend to dismiss it offhand. They look at it like solipsism or other philosophical debate points that can not be countered, but smack to them of being ludicrous or impossible. They prefer we keep the debate to things they accept as facts, and not interject things that run counter to their worldview. "Debate me on my subjects, only using terminology I am comfortable with, and addressing things I already assume to be valid."

I for one have had plenty of experiences that justify a very serious consideration of the idea that our mutual waking life is actually a dream. i.e. Dozens of "groundhog day" type false awakening dreams, many of which went on for weeks or years before being revealed as dreams. I have had them where I woke up from one false awakening into another and another 10 or more times in a single morning. Each time something like that happens to you, it makes you more suspicious about reality because you KNOW how easily you can be fooled. There is absolutely nothing about this world that can not be reproduced as well or better even in a dream.

This is especially hard to swallow for people who base their worldview heavily on a learned system of beliefs like science or religion. And while I can hear my science peeps moaning long distance to be lumped in with the religious nutjobs... epistemologically they are not on all that more solid ground in that a science worldview accepts the findings of other people as being valid simply by virtue of the authority of the source. No one actually goes ahead and tries to prove all the information they learn in school or in books to themselves, they take the bulk of it on faith because they believe in things like scientific integrity, the peer review process, and the basic reliability of consensual reality.

Anyway, I am happy to see people like permanomad here who acknowledge that their non-religious, and very un-anthropomorphic conceptions of universal consciousness are actually a form of theism. Biocentric Pantheism is the term he used, and I imagine a lot of people who gravitate towards atheism actually ascribe to a similar belief if they let themselves look at it objectively.

Yes and No.

Plenty of science is verified. In fact ALL hard problems are investigated by other researches. The Higgs Boson is a great recent example.

Beyond that science is verifiable in that others build off the prior work of others. Thus lending more and more evidence that the original work was right.

Take an example. If it was proven tomorrow that evolution never happened, we'd have entire industries that would collapse. Does that seem likely? No. Genetic modifications can and do take place in the laboratory all the time....yet no one has ever 'witnessed' evolution per say, but to argue against it at this point in time would be a fools errand. We have drugs like insulin on the market because 'theories' of evolution have turned out to be right and people have continued to build on Darwins original hypothesis...which at this point in time is science fact IMHO.

For sure I do agree with you that the masses (the people) are largely dogmatic. Oh scientist X say's this is true so they claim it be as though they were the ones making the finding. In that regard yes I do see science as the fastest growing religion in the world.

But the parallels stop there in my humble opinion. Science is for investigating the material world. If there is a super natural world it is outside the scope of science. As soon as the super natural can interact with the material realm in a repeatable manner then it will be an issue that science can explore.

Peace

After having so many experiences with false awakenings, OBE's, and lucid dreaming, I have also seriously considered this. The way we process reality from light bouncing off of whenever is "out there" into the dark, inner recesses of the brain is essentially having an inner, visionary experience- dreaming with our eyes open and agreeing on it with our fellow mankind because of social domestication/teaching at an early age.

What we call "matter" may only be an agreed-upon interpretation of energy, a secondary description of reality, a thought-form, an idea manifested, a collapsed wave-function.

Hey jd!

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I am talking about personally verifiable as objective truth. This is not even possible epistemologically if you yourself had conducted all of the experiments of all branches of science yourself. Epistemology (as the science of what is knowable) rests on Kant in that all you can really know is that you are thinking... read conscious. The material existence of an external reality is simply not verifiable.

Scientists hate this. They cry solipsism, brain in a vat... they decry and argue against the problem of induction. We have discussed these things ourselves here ad infinitum, so instead of doing a recap, I recommend anyone interested just search the forums and check the wikipedia entries on those subjects. The fact is, though, we can not accept even 400 years of scientific evidence as proof of anything because we have a higher proof that our perception of time, space and reality are completely worthless.

Dreaming invalidates science philosophically. Not as something useful inside of this experience... dream or not. It is in all probability an extremely reliable guide as to what is or is not possible... within this dream at any given time. But, dreams are known to change their rule sets, and it is relatively impossible for all but the most astute dreamers to even notice when this happens... because dreams also feed you your memories. So if the dream changes, so too do all your relevant memories about that dream.

If a new item is introduced into a dream scenario, it retroactively inserts itself into one's memory as well. Thus, if you notice a car out your window, despite the fact that this car never existed before, and was created as you became aware of it... you immediately know that it is your car. Artificial memories to back up this idea come up in a rapid sequence. You can recall buying the car. You can recall times you had fun with your bros in the car. That time you got to 3rd bass with some hot chick (who also never actually existed) in that car.

The simple fact is that your external senses, memories, and all the precious data you have acquired about reality are simply not admissible in the court of what is real and knowable. Science is on even more shaky footing vis a vis philosophy and logic than dreaming and many mystical claims. Period. End of story.

Sorry.

I know my science peeps hate this. It makes their blood boil. But the fact of the matter is that the "consensual reality" they spend their time studying and analyzing.... may not be consensual at all, and could only seem to conform to the physical laws they have learned because whoever is directing this dream theater (yourself, a deity, the aliens who have your brain in a vat, the programmers of the matrix) wants them to... for the time being.

Of course, this doesn't in the least suggest we should throw out science, history, social studies or any of the knowledge we have accumulated... on the contrary, even in dreaming, knowing your dream world and paying attention to how it is working are very useful skills. (Especially when you are not lucid enough to transcend the dream and it doesn't seem likely that you are about to wake up from said dream for the time being.)

Science works in this reality at this time in much the same way that the ability to fly works in other dreams for that time period that you are able to do so.

Therefore, all the things you point to to strengthen science's case on being "True" are simply irrelevant from the point of view I was approaching it.

Anyway, buddy... nice to see you.

HF

In truth, we don't need to marginalize it. It certainly matters very little how we choose to compartmentalize the spice experience... because it surely blows all such boxes to smithereens in the first 5 seconds of every journey. I for one am generally content to leave those boxes annihilated.

However, this thread was started to discuss the Atheist DMT experience, and a few of us rather enjoy these kinds of debates... if only because they make you think again about what you actually believe and why you feel inclined to believe it. This is always useful IMO.

Other people claim this is a waste of time... generally if the arguments threaten their belief system too much, or if it really and truly does bore them to discuss this stuff. No matter, no one is forced to read this thread or participate. (Though I still want to hear from my old sparring partner Citta about my deconstruction of the term Atheism earlier.)

We have kind of gotten away from the actual Atheist experience of DMT and gotten into the related topics of Atheism as a belief system, what is actually knowable, and the nature of the DMT experience itself. Still, this is a valid progression. Many people have reported starting off atheist and having DMT change their mind. Many atheists are happy to report their atheism was unchallenged by their experiences with spice. Some are still on the fence. Thus, getting at the roots of the belief that was or wasn't challenged is only natural.

My interest in this at the moment is trying to point out that the experiences which some of the atheists have claimed to have are more challenging to their atheism than they seem to have given them credit. This is because their understanding of Theism is somewhat limited.

You yourself defaulted, as many do, to a Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic conception of G*d. However this is only a tiny branch of Theism, and it is perfectly normal to completely reject the rather comical anthropomorphic deity depicted in the Bible and still fall under the much larger umbrella of Theism.

People who avoid the use of the word god, but substitute the words universe, life, cosmos, infinity etc. into sentences where the word god would also fit... are theists. Theism doesn't require you to understand the exact nature of deity; it doesn't require that your concept of deity care about humanity; it doesn't require that your conception think like humans; it doesn't even require that your ideation of divinity take any action whatsoever in the universe.

Unless you believe everything is pure chaos, and that all that we see is just an extremely rare happy accident... you probably fit under one of the branches of theism. In fact, there are theistic beliefs that cover that situation as well. Discordianism for example... All hail Eris!



At any rate, belief in a Big Bang and a universe that unfolds according to mechanistic laws is a form of theism. In fact, it is also a faith-based belief system. The big questions underlying it are left unanswered and are rarely even taken into consideration by those who take them as gospel. Where did all this matter and energy come from; why was it in a tiny little space; what caused it to inflate; why are these fundamental laws of nature in place and how are they kept there?

A purely mechanical, clockwork universe... with or without the Grand Clockmaker... is a form of theism. It leads philosophically to Newton's religious concept (and that of most Enlightenment thinkers and scientists for that matter including America's founding fathers for the most part) Deism. While Deism usually invokes a Prime Mover or Master Builder who designed the mechanistic universe and let it run... there are plenty of other related theistic concepts where the machine builds itself through trial and error or even stranger concepts.

I guess I have rambled on enough for now. I suspect a number of my rational materialist buddies are chomping at the bit to tear into me for my various blasphemies.

hyperspace fool wrote:




What happened to me was I was a young delinquent who took LSD every weekend then one day I met an angel. That Angel turned out to be Jewish,...for the record i did not force my hallucinations to become Jewish out of some desperate desire to make sense out of my psychedelic experiences.

I was not raised by any religious people and I had no reason to want religion in my life at all. I took LSD to "expand my mind" or something like that. I did not consider god at all. But in fact it was God that considered me. Obviously many people think it's intellectually superior to think of god sort of like it's a Santa Claus type neurosis of some kind.
I would beg to differ.


olympus mon said:




No offense but classifying yourself as a stone cold anything represents a refusal to be open minded to the subject. I mean no disrespect but how could you have an open mind yet be so totally closed to the completely rational idea that a single being created the entire universe?

My title for this thread may have not been the greatest but it reflected my genuine curiosity to know more about what people who claimed to be atheists experienced during a DMT trip.

---

this thread has by far exceeded my expectations for quite colorfully demonstrating the many flaws that I perceive to be inherent in the Atheist way of thinking. I trust that anyone with a reasonable ability to perceive the truth will do so here quite easily.

My gracious thanks to every one for their participation in this thread thus far. I like to think that it makes for a hell of a read no matter what your opinion may be on the matter.

-e