Hey there JVH...

While I have written quite a bit on this thread of late, and the quote you put above is not something I disagree with per se... It isn't from me. I do believe that blurb comes from our friend and OP Eliyahu.

Anyway, just thought I would mention it.

I do not believe in a god, and neither do I believe in existentialism.
My psychedelic drug use has not changed my thoughts: on the contrary, it has boosted and consolidated them.

If we were to do that, we would then have to redefine what the word God meant. As of right now, this is the dictionary definition of God:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

noun

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.


The limitations of this word (and the different ways it is used) is what forces me to define myself as an atheist. Hyperspace Fool wrote about Pantheism, and after doing some research I find myself agreeing with that mentality a lot... except for the phrase "The Universe is God". Using a dictionary definition, I can't claim to believe in God, unless I removed the Christianity out of the 5th example, and even then that word (God) does no justice to describe what a Pantheist actually believes, so the phrase "The Universe is God" becomes utterly meaningless.

I wish someone would come up with a word that was similar to God but distinct enough to not draw imagery of something that I'm not talking about i.e the Judeo-Christian God.

I'd say I'm a pretty hardcore atheist in that I don't necessary exclude the idea of a God-like being, (especially after Hyperspace) but I exclude the idea of a being more powerful than me, you, your neighbor, his dog, etc. Not physically powerful, but on a greater plane of existence. Heaven, maybe, based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Now, to answer the actual question, I have never met anything I'd describe as a "God". Most of my visits to hyperspace have been just that, visits to a different dimension. This dimension has it's own inhabitants, and while I cannot fully describe them, I would equate the feeling to being invited to a highly exclusive party where you are obviously nowhere near the top of the social ladder, but are in no way looked down upon for being lesser. Of course, this invitation always seems to come with the expectation that one leaves in a reasonable period of time. While I wouldn't say I have met God, or spiritual beings, I have met some kind of entities that can both welcome you and can turn you away, but both as an equal.

Sorry that this post seems to break a discussion cycle, but the topic caught my eye and was too enticing to pass up.

Well EH, what I can say in response to this is that the dictionary is not the arbiter of the concept of god(s) but merely a shorthand for the word's more common usages. Philosophy and Theology have literally thousands of voluminous tomes dealing with just what is meant by this word, and it is quite a bit more nuanced than what Merriam Webster has put forth in this particular entry.

Of course, if you looked up the word dimensions in the dictionary, you would find no reference to the 10+ dimensions of string theory or the many worlds interpretation... yet, you would be hard pressed to find a physicist who was unaware of these concepts or thought that the word was ill applied there.

For starters, in any in depth argument over the meaning of a term or the concepts involved in its study I would say that an encyclopedia entry would be a more valid jumping off point. Wikipedia is not authoritative by any stretch of the imagination, but it is quite a bit more useful here than a simple collegiate dictionary entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

This is actually a decent essay/primer, and begins by very clearly stating that the kind of deity which you speak of is perfectly acceptable to refer to as god. Here are two varieties that work rather well IMO...

* the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself;

* the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc.

Notice in this essay that many religions and philosophies the world over use this word in ways which don't trigger your innate repulsive reaction. If Pantheism doesn't quite fit your feelings, Pandeism might... in either case, I prefer a little entheism in that mix personally.

Apropos to this particular thread is the fact that the very term for this class of hallucinogens is entheogen. (within, divinity, creating) Thus, a group of rational minded scientist saw fit to proclaim that drugs like DMT are able to create a connection to, or feeling of deity/ divinity within us.

Something to consider.

Finally, though, if the word gives you the willies, you are perfectly within your rights to use words like Universe, Infinite, Oneness or whatever. If you read enough about the various branches of Theism, you will see that there is an umbrella there for basically every conception or non-conception. Nontheism is even a type of theism, and makes a strong case for the idea that atheism is actually nontheism with a fierce anti-religionist bent.

Be well my friend, nice to toss these ideas around with you.

HF

I am an agnostic, but lean towards theism, possibly due to my upbringing. How ever I was leaning towards atheism before DMT. Over the weekend I shared some spice with friends, one who said that NOTHING would ever convince her that there was a God, to which I asked "even if you had a 'face to face' with such a being?" as I believe I have. Now, having said that, part of me always thinks that it was just the product of taking an incredibly strong drug. This, for me, is where the validity of such experiences comes into question. The fact that it is a naturally occuring substance, found in most living organisms, and the fact that so many people relay very similar experiences leads me to think that I may have come into contact with 'the source' and that this suibstance is here for people like you and me, who feel the need to seek out such things. Never the less, I remain 'agnostic' - because I know the nature of the mind and reality are slippery things, science explains things to a degree, sure, but not enough for my liking, same goes for religion / spirituality.

I really want to give this person more DMT*. I want her to experience it and then come back to me . Another friend of mine was in a heap in tears after her experience, no doubt what she experienced was majestic and divine on an epic scale. I know the feeling. But to put a name to it, to categorise it, does it, and you a dis-service IMO.

*I would also love to give Richard Dawkins a large dose of DMT and see what he has to say...

Taking a really intense substance doesn't really throw any validity outa the basket imho. I've said it before, and it might sound redundant to some..but the fact that nature over the course of aeons evolved such a complexity as plants and their organic synthesis of these seemingly universal compounds to be able to be taken into the nervous system of another being, which in turn allows a temporary release of of mind from body..temporarily transcending everything in the physical....that just throws more eggs in the basket for me in regards to the validity of this molecules purpose and the experience it provides.

It's truly an incredible thing that nature has allowed such a symbiosis of sorts. If all thats possible, then whos to say that coming into contact with the bottom rung of existence isn't possible with this substance? When I say "bottom rung" I'm referring to the this universal awareness that pervades every single thing we know of.

And on the regards of your friend.....give him moreeeee.

And it's not so much the CEVs that solidify my beliefs, but the recurring insight that reverberates through the higher-dose experiences... hence my username.

Great response as always, HF!

After reading your posts and having a very spiritual experience on these wonderful mushrooms AFOAF has, I'm beginning to think the term "atheist" may not best describe my position.

Allow me to elaborate.

When it comes to the "big questions", I have no particular way to lean because I don't feel I have enough evidence. It becomes difficult to say "Oh, I believe God created the Universe" or "The Universe is God" or "The Universe is a small part of God" because I don't feel like I have any evidence for ANY of these things.

The only thing I can say with any amount of certainty, is that I believe everything is one, and that any one thing is connected to everything else. Perhaps there is a specific term for that belief that doesn't evoke an intelligent creator or a religious overtone, but I have yet to find it. Would you happen to know of such a term?

- Electric

The Gaia hypothesis.

Connectivity not just on earth, but all over the universe. Why limit this underlying structure to just earth?

Biocentrism / primacy of consciousness

The Gaia Hypothesis makes sense, but how would I word that? Am I a Gaiaist?

And Tattvasami, I don't hold to either Biocentrism nor Primacy of Consciousness. I'm definitely more of a Primacy of Existence kind of guy.

People who adhere to Lovelock's basic premise tend to go by the term Gaia Hypothesist. While there is a lot to resonate with in that basic conception of the Earth as a single, possibly sentient organism... It is a bit too limited for me, personally.

I find that at every level of organization the systems behave as one thing. The Solar System could certainly be considered a single entity. It is not all that much different than an atom in that respect. But why stop there... the Galaxy certainly fits this bill, as does the Universe and all the Multiverses if you believe in those things.

The point for me is that it is ALL one. Infinite in both directions. This certainly qualifies as a god for me... far more than the extra-terrestrial beings that are called gods, demi-gods and angels in most religious scriptures. (they were created before the Earth, thus they are de facto, ETs)

Even beyond Gaia Theory, there are dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are obviously theistic IMHO. The Morphogenetic Field idea of Rupert Sheldrake comes to mind.

I would say that Gaia Theory is simply one of the better known examples of Holism. Maybe you could call yourself a Holist.

Heheehehe.

It matters very little what term you use. More interesting, perhaps is how your conceptions regarding this subject will continue to evolve... especially as you consume more entheogens.

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





I feel that term falls into the same limitations as Agnostic (dictionary definition specifically) in that it does not answer how one feels about the nature of God. While I appreciate the effort, I'm looking for something a bit more specific (namely, that I do not believe in the traditional concept of God but that I do believe we are all one)



I certainly hope so There's nothing quite as pleasant as having my mind changed.

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

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

1) You are clearly not an atheist.

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

2) Your definition of atheism is not exactly accurate.

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

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

See this post for further clarification and exposition on this matter: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=378808#post378808

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

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

This leads me to


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

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

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

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

This idea is being discussed on this thread at the moment. https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=36112

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I know all the angles.

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

Sorry.

Truthfully most people these days are actually apatheists...