Atheism is predicated on a hypocritical model of reality

I don't find the concept of believing god to be silly. My interest is in investigating the idea beyond the surface arguments of conventional atheism ("We can leave out God as a presupposition because we understand a lot about the cosmos without invoking it") and conventional theism ("God exists because of feelings and experiences I have, what other religious people say, what religious history says, and what religious literature claims."). My point is that neither of these arguments, despite being used constantly, are particularly good in debate, thus my desire for "outside of the box" thinking. This is where DMT, the nature of consciousness, simulation theory, extra terrestrial life and higher dimensional topological substrates come into the picture.

It's important to note that when I talk of DMT as being a source of possible insights into the god debate, I am not at all speaking of the language mutations that occur during trips, I am talking primarily about the topological animations that display during closed-eye experiences (or open-eye experiences in environments with very low lighting). This is something that is frequently ignored in psychedelic discussion, especially since very few people have vaporized DMT which is a very, very different experience from LSD. Much of the visual information of a high-dose DMT experience is very similar to anecdotes of mystical experiences, near-death experiences, alien abduction, as well as the religious/mythological artwork of Islam, Egypt, and South/Central America. Frequently, DMT reports involve contact with aliens or god-like beings, a feeling of dying/being reborn, astral projection, etc., all of which I have first-hand experience with. From my many experiences with the substance—which is a neurotransmitter found in plants as well as a chemical your brain produces—this is as close to the traditional theological definition of God as humans can achieve. Because of this, I can only conclude that the DMT realm is related to what we call god, and was likely part of the early conscious experiences of humans that led to the development of the god meme.

In regards to logic and reason...let us explore what those words mean. A dictionary definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity," while reason is "cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event." This seems to suggest that neither word is about reaching into the ether and pulling out an objective set of axioms from which we can describe reality; rather, it is about using our pre-language insights as a basis for fundamental axioms, despite the fact that primal intuition is about survival, not about objective understanding. A proposition can make sense in terms of survival, but not in terms of accuracy. So what I am saying is that quantum mechanics does not conform to how humans have evolved to understand reality, and even physicists working within the field have said in interviews that they don't understand quantum mechanics, and that it makes no sense. It would appear that no one really "gets it," that logic and reason in their current forms cannot assist us.

Quantum mechanics, of course, is the most fundamental aspect of reality we know of. And if it doesn't even make sense to the people who use it everyday...then we have to open our minds to even the most seemingly "nonsensical" ideas, including the existence of an ultimate agent. The problem is that it is such a grandiose concept that it doesn't open itself up to any known scientific investigation. For that reason, I say, let us then not approach it scientifically or religiously, and instead dive into the mystical, the conscious, the ethereal, and see what we can uncover.

Whenever it comes to the question of God vs. Science for me...

I value both. To me, God is responsible for Science. This can include things like "the big bang" and evolution. Most of my friends are atheists who actually have nothing but bad things to say about religious people (sans yours truly because I don't act like "a typical christian" with regard to how I treat people, threats of eternal damnation, fire and brimstone and all that jazz). We like to engage in these kinds of discussions. The answer I give has always seemed to make sense to people.

My belief in God and an afterlife takes a somewhat scientific approach.

How do we know something exists? It has to be able to be observed and studied.

I have never known death or non-existence. I haven't observed it, and by being alive I cannot observe it. Being alive, going all the way back to when I was just a sperm cell, is all that my being has ever known. For that reason, even contemplating a state of non-existence makes zero sense to me. All I have ever felt was existence.

But the bright side to this is that if I am wrong and death does just mean I cease to exist in all facets...it won't be a bad thing. I won't exist, I won't ever feel the sensation of nothingness, because I won't be alive to experience it.

Just want to make it clear that the only instance where I take any issue with religiosity is when its used as a reason to impose unjust legislation. A religious person with a "live and let live" view who understands that laws need to be decided democratically is totally okay in my book.

For me, it really just boils down to this: When I see some evidence, I might be compelled. Until then I see it as a baseless claim. Things like "the majority of humans have been religious throughout history, surely there must be a reason" isn't really evidence far as I'm concerned - the majority of humans once believed earth was flat, believed in geocentrism etc etc throughout history so going with the pack clearly doesn't automatically make you right, it just means you're parroting someone else without basis. To me that just isn't enough. I've also heard various "we need a creator because X" arguments all of which failed to actually provide a good reason that we actually require a creator for things to be as they are.


I agree with all of this, but it still doesn't compel me to be like "Santa's older brother in the sky with the big white beard dun did it" (to answer in a equally meme-ish fashion).

I think a better way to word it is, our sense of logic is generally based on a Newtonian scale, i.e. the visible world around us. We have not evolved to understand the quanta, so it cannot be understood by appealing to "everyday" logic. And if you watch interviews with physicists, they have a hard time explaining quantum mechanics and will tell you plainly that no one really gets it.