Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)
40. Ah! Time for philosophical woo...
Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:12 PM
Jan 2013

1. I'm here because I experience myself being here. Whether that's reality or a disembodied mind is irrelevant, because this is reality as it presents itself to me. Engaging in solipsism won't change that, so what would be achieved by wasting time thinking about it?

2. See 1. The world (as I experience it) following understood laws and principles (gravity, biology, chemistry) while showing no sign of metaphysical or supernatural behavior. Again, I see no reason to waste time pondering whether (absent the evidence presented) it is otherwise, since the otherwise, if it exists, has no apparent effect on me.

3. I did not, for the same reason I have never determined absolutely that God/s do not exist. Since I have encountered neither God nor a "higher purpose" having an influence on me or expectation of me, I see no need to investigate the matter, any more that I see the need to investigate whether ugglecks exist.

4. See 3. I also do not need to "ponder" whether gravity exists; I experience it. Academic evidence has also been presented to me that it exists. I may (but do not) choose to ponder HOW it manifests itself, what causes it and how it might change, but then, I'm not a physicist. Why am I obliged to consider IF something higher exists if I do not observe or experience it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't get the difference between that and agnostic NoOneMan Jan 2013 #1
Here's my take. trotsky Jan 2013 #3
Nail, meet hammer. 2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #20
While agnostics may be included in the category, the answer "none" is in response to the cbayer Jan 2013 #4
"So it includes all kinds of people, some of whom are self-identified theists." NoOneMan Jan 2013 #14
Not at all. The statistical breakdown of the group that all themselves nones cbayer Jan 2013 #15
This silliness makes me think we need to eliminate all the boxes NoOneMan Jan 2013 #16
Disagree. This is a fascinating group that is growing rapidly. cbayer Jan 2013 #17
Its about as useful as grouping all blondes together NoOneMan Jan 2013 #18
A lot like lumping all atheists together. Or theists. Or even subgroups within those cbayer Jan 2013 #19
Yes, it is of no use to me whatsoever NoOneMan Jan 2013 #21
See, that's the thing. Not all theists believe in cbayer Jan 2013 #23
Then maybe they aren't "Theists" NoOneMan Jan 2013 #28
You are right, I don't particularly care about the particulars of their belief structure. cbayer Jan 2013 #30
In that case, NoOneMan Jan 2013 #35
You can ask whatever you want in a survey, and I suspect that the "none" category cbayer Jan 2013 #44
I'd prefer not to be grouped with atheists even NoOneMan Jan 2013 #45
On the other hand, when a group becomes to large and heterogenous, it could indicate cbayer Jan 2013 #47
Kinda like political parties? trotsky Jan 2013 #56
Come on tama Jan 2013 #25
Read books, repeat quotations, draw conclusions on the wall. NoOneMan Jan 2013 #32
What use? tama Jan 2013 #33
Why is not thinking about religion "intellectually lazy"? brooklynite Jan 2013 #8
Why is not thinking about relevant matters intellectually lazy? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #12
I've never asked "why am I here"... brooklynite Jan 2013 #22
You just listed a lot of premises NoOneMan Jan 2013 #24
Ah! Time for philosophical woo... brooklynite Jan 2013 #40
So I think you contradicted yourself... NoOneMan Jan 2013 #41
Which tree are you? tama Jan 2013 #31
The Elder NoOneMan Jan 2013 #34
Which Elder? tama Jan 2013 #36
That seems like a trick question NoOneMan Jan 2013 #39
Of course tama Jan 2013 #43
This says I'm a Reed, okasha Jan 2013 #37
Mesquite sounds very admirable tree tama Jan 2013 #42
I'm a birch - the description is not that flattering, but probably quite accurate. cbayer Jan 2013 #46
Birches are beautiful tama Jan 2013 #48
Thank you for that, tama. cbayer Jan 2013 #49
Agnostic seems to be a hedge to me... Politicub Jan 2013 #51
What the hell "cultural baggage" do agnostics have? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #52
None seems to be a new state of being Politicub Jan 2013 #53
Basically, everything... NoOneMan Jan 2013 #54
Probably so. But it does happen. Politicub Jan 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Jan 2013 #58
I am an atheist and a none. longship Jan 2013 #2
You and a rapidly growing number of people. cbayer Jan 2013 #6
Indeed! Let the games begin... longship Jan 2013 #9
I think you represent a growing population, longship. cbayer Jan 2013 #10
I don't care enough to be an atheist. Speck Tater Jan 2013 #5
Agree with you about the labels. cbayer Jan 2013 #7
Why are you forcing a label on someone when you just decried the behavior? trotsky Jan 2013 #11
Do you mean like labeling creationists as "dumbasses" ? cleanhippie Jan 2013 #13
Interesting. okasha Jan 2013 #26
It all comes down to tribalistic teams sometimes, doesn't it? cbayer Jan 2013 #27
Teams, definitely. okasha Jan 2013 #29
Like someone feeling outrage over an issue tama Jan 2013 #38
I think "religously apatheic" would describe me SpartanDem Jan 2013 #55
Even the nones fall into one of the other categories. JoeyT Jan 2013 #50
None does not refer to knowing or not knowing or believing or not believing. cbayer Jan 2013 #59
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»None Means None (Not Athe...»Reply #40