Well technically “god did it” is worse than “I don’t know”. Due to the fact that saying you do not know is the person submitting to humility and the truth of it.
This is actually what I am trying to do here…the separating. I’m thinking more in terms of science.
We are beings - can we call - well, let’s call it the alpha and omega, for lack of a better word, the A&O a being? Do you think it is like us?
nat. & bred species? You mean we humans?
Faust
The former is certainly no improvement on the latter. The latter is an improvement, in my book if one says I withhold judgment on it all while at the same time exploring possibilities.
This was my question: A denial to “believe” might also be agnosticism. Why aren’t you an agnostic?
That was my error. For whatever reason, an atheist [does] deny a god’s existence, doesn’t believe.
So no, you’re not an agnostic. An agnostic, in my book, withholds all judgment either way. There is no Yes nor No. They know there can’t be any certainty, any real certainly. Just possibilities.
Now that is Your error. I certainly do have an idea of that. Perhaps it’s also because I do not know the philosophical jargon but I may be wrong.
I’m not sure if I am actually asking you to describe those conditions but I suppose in a sense you may be right if I’m musing about what caused it all. I can, in a sense, understand your need or decision to “see” no god since it’s utterly impossible to know or to describe something which is inconceivable to us, except in human language according to physics and the human heart, et cetera. But I don’t like to throw the baby out with the bathwater even if the baby is invisible to us.
What do you mean by that? You could be saying that there was Something which some might call god.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of … philosophy
In philosophy, a theory of everything or ToE is an ultimate, all-encompassing explanation or description of nature or reality.[1][2][3] Adopting the term from physics, where the search for a theory of everything is ongoing, philosophers have discussed the viability of the concept and analyzed its properties and implications.[1][2][3] Among the questions to be addressed by a philosophical theory of everything are: “Why is reality understandable?” “Why are the laws of nature as they are?” “Why is there anything at all?”[1]
In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind,[5] David Chalmers argues that a theory of everything must explain consciousness, that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical, and that therefore a fundamental theory in physics would not be a theory of everything. A truly final theory, he argues, needs not just physical properties and laws, but phenomenal or protophenomenal properties and psychophysical laws explaining the relationship between physical processes and conscious experience. He concludes that “[o]nce we have a fundamental theory of consciousness to accompany a fundamental theory in physics, we may truly have a theory of everything.” Developing such a theory will not be straightforward, he says, but “it ought to be possible in principle.”
Okay, well I can see that…
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Gees, how little I know. 
plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
I’ll read this. It might help me to comprehend something. Then I’ll probably be back in the woods.
I think that you were about the banana.
How many atheists, or even people in general, do you know that refuse to believe anything because they can’t have answers for everything?
It needs a theory of reality, and not of universe ~ even with consciousness added. whatever one adds and that nought can be taken away [everything exists in some sense, even colour qualia etc], we surely always need that to round up to a whole. if we begin with categorical differences, then naturally that’s a dualism. …don’t get why that isn’t immediate lol [to physicists].
consciousness might yet be a part of physical existence, we would just have to adapt the concept ‘physical’ to refer to all existent entities ~ which would initially include every aspect of consciousness. I say initially because one would also need the categorical difference of ‘mind’ as a function in physics, …can’t see that happening in a hurry.
Or people can just be spiritual without religion tying control around everything…
“A nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said.”
That for me would be more of a psychological problem for those kinds of individual.
My experience is more with those on the other side of the coin. They refuse to question and doubt “anything” or make distinctions because then they might have to sacrifice comfort and security.
Both are fools.
Yeah, they probably would be if either type of person actually existed.
I try to accept reality as it is and not let any subjective interpretation of it up
on my part determine how it should be since that does not actually make it so
Yep. ^
That is like saying, "Everyone could just be scientific. There is no need to have organized science".
Or, “Everyone could just govern themselves. There is no need to have an organized government”.
That is because we are not true individuals. Nature made us social creatures with individual minds.
surreptitious57
How are YOU defining “reality as it is” here? Proven physical facts?
If so, aside from those facts, how do you go about trying to discover more about reality, without some kind of subjective interpretation? Or do you?
No it isn’t because being spiritual is based on subjective feelings and or connection to life and universe. What does government or science have to do with that?
Science is not meant to be or even the same as religion, it isn’t all faith or even supposed to be about it. Government is for order, not dictating peoples subjective thoughts, ideas and beliefs.
Artimas,
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana
Let’s not forget Nazi Germany and the holocaust, among others…
Your words are the ideal but not necessarily the reality.
I’m spiritual, rather than religious… what am I?
Riddle me this
Mags : if you not believe in God then you are atheist even if you dispense with the
label and prefer to describe yourself as something else instead [ such as spiritual ]
mags - I really have no idea what that means. Seriously. I have even looked it up and i still don’t know what it means.
