LINK Researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter with psychedelics
Date:
April 23, 2019
Source:
Johns Hopkins Medicine
Summary:
In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.
I can't wait to have this same study done on self-identified agnostics. I want to believe that we will not shift our perspective in as large numbers as atheist but wanting to believe doesn't make it so.
8
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
33 comments (26 - 33)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Yes, the first time you take psychedelics you will see god.
Explaining: You will have a fractal experience that will be overwhelming and with a oneness feeling, this people will call "to see god" It happens with most of people and everyone feels different.
And the theme of this experience can vary.
I knew a person that was tasting fruits at this time and felt the tongue dividing and tasting different tastes and dividing more and tasting more and so on.
I saw a person that were reading ancient books and felt a line of culture and information integrating him with all the humans that are directly or indirectly impacted by those texts.
I heard about people feeling that the whole mankind was one thing evolving and learning as a giant multicorporeal being.
But the experience is always fractal, is your mind looping over the same theme and gives the idea of an infinite and impossible to grasp complexity. If you are a believer or has tendencies for it, you can be convinced on spot. If you are a strong atheist you can understand and even associate this with natural themes.
And a lot of those atheists are "not affiliated with a religion" but still have mystical and religious beliefs.
Pedrohbds
Level 7
June 5, 2020
0
@TheMiddleWay I know what the drug does and I know it is not something spiritual, and i know there is a biochemical explanation. But is wonderful at the same time.
And it is not only the vision, it is all sensations at the same time
@TheMiddleWay An thank you for the articles, very interesting
"There are no mind expanding drugs.The only thing a drug expands is the pocket of the manufacturer or dealer or pusher." Thomas Szasz
Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote Kubla Khan whilst under the influence of smoking opium. Let us not forget that he was a poet and that no amount of smoking opium will turn you into a poet.
Carlos Castaneda became a cult figure and wrote a number of books about his experiences with an old Mexican Indian whom he referred to as Don Juan Matus. He claims it was Don Juan that introduced him to peyote which radically altered his perceptions of the world. However, there seems to be scant evidence that Carlos Castaneda encountered 'God' or that he was a happier and more fulfilled after his experience with peyote.
ASTRALMAX
Level 8
June 5, 2020
0
"In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God,..."
Question: Does that include talking burning bushes and talking serpents? Or does it have be a straight-up encounter with an old guy in a White robe and beard? Ask'en for a friend.
dahermit
Level 7
June 4, 2020
1
Well. It seems to me that atheism not only means not believing in the existence of a deity, buy also the rejection of magical thinking as the explanation of natural phenomena. From that point of view, those tho thirds were too quick to accept magical thinking, and therefore, most likely, not actual atheists in the first place.
Rodatheist
Level 7
June 5, 2020
0
check your definition of atheist. An absence in the belief in god does not rule out magic or unicorns. I like to think most critical thinking atheists are also skeptics. but the word does not rule it out.
@MsDemeanour Atheists are not so because of a narrow definition of a word in a dictionary. Atheism is a world view, and that world view pays a lot more deference to objectivity and to science and to rational thinking, which takes the atheists to reject magical thinking... and unicorns.
@Rodatheist Definitions are so important as we have found here. Perhaps definitions reflect cultures. Where I live it is not particularly cool to believe in a god, but that doesn't stop ignorant people adopting other farcical notions. Conspiracy theories seem to be the new religion in my country. People seem to find comfort in believing in things bigger than themselves, being able to find blame or understanding for the inexplicable and having the camaraderie of like thinkers. Anyway perhaps you can source your definition of atheism that isn't an opinion piece.
"I can't wait to have this same study done on self-identified agnostics. I want to believe that we will not shift our perspective in as large numbers as atheist but wanting to believe doesn't make it so".
What, because they're already middle of the road you think you'll have to worry less about regression to the mean? (See what I did there)
Cyklone
Level 7
June 4, 2020
0
@TheMiddleWay it would be interesting, not just the group data though, but the anecdotal info would also be fascinating.
@TheMiddleWay Your premise is flawed. Atheists don't by definition "unbelieve" any more than agnostics.
Everyone is different in how they experience a mind-altering drug. Some are more susceptible to "life-changing" experiences, while others find them merely recreational. I also noted that the average age of the drug takers in the study was 25, a time of life when people frequently change their beliefs radically.
This was also a self-selected study, which means they have no idea how many atheists took psychodelic drugs and went, "Huh. Neat colors," and that was the end of it. They also have no idea how many "found God" for a year or two and then said, "Man, those drugs messed with my fuckin head."
For the study to have any meaning at all, they also need to research how many self-identified atheists remained atheists and are just as happy. There's no basis for comparison. It's a study of two groups that had similiar experiences, one with and one without drugs. There's NO participation by atheists who remained atheists.
Consider who funded and helped write the study (the Council on Spiritual Practices) and it seems as if they reached a foregone conclusion. There's no indication how they polled for participants. Did they put out an invitation for people who dramatically "found God" to come talk about what happened? That would be stacking the deck in favor of the result they wanted.
In short, all due respect to Johns Hopkins, this study seems like a crock.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1330 members
Mental Health Support
635 members
Recovering Theists
36 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.