'Atheism' verses 'Theism' verses 'Not-knowing'

[Dontaskme]

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.
and
Probably better not to think about it too much, let it go, for it deserves it's freedom.

No one knows this.

[Iwannaplato]

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.
and
Probably better not to think about it too much, let it go, for it deserves it's freedom.

No one knows this.

No one has a funny way of showing that.

[Dontaskme]

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.
and
Probably better not to think about it too much, let it go, for it deserves it's freedom.

No one knows this.

No one has a funny way of showing that.

The known is not known, without making it known, therefore the not known is the only known there is.

What's showing is what's looking.

[Iwannaplato]

No one knows this.

No one has a funny way of showing that.

The known is not known, without making it known, therefore the not known is the only known there is.

What's showing is what's looking.

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.

[Dontaskme]

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.

Echoes of eternity.

Nothing knows itself.

The known is not known, without making it known, therefore the not known is the only known there is.

Wait for the echo.

[Iwannaplato]

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.

Echoes of eternity.

Nothing knows itself.

The known is not known, without making it known, therefore the not known is the only known there is.

Wait for the echo.

Perhaps that kind of formulation gives you solace.

[Dontaskme]

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.

Echoes of eternity.

Nothing knows itself.

The known is not known, without making it known, therefore the not known is the only known there is.

Wait for the echo.

Perhaps that kind of formulation gives you solace.

My personal understanding is there is an apparent sense of 'I AM' which to me, is felt as a neutrality.
Nothing to gain, nothing to lose.

My body is functioning all by itself, smoothly and effortlessly, and the grass grows all by itself.
Everything is ok/okay, a self-sustaining phenomena.

My understanding of death, is there is no death, how could there be death, if there was such a thing as death, there would be no life.
My understanding is that there is only infinite aliveness, I am living testimony of infinite aliveness, which is birthless, deathless.

I intuit this because I Am this. I intuited this as a very young child around the age of 7/8 when I had a random spontaneous epithany that I was here because I've always been here, and never not here.

I understand that I cannot be anything other than the vast infinite space in which every image appears, disappears, and reappears for eternity.

The separate individual, (Illusory) does not want to die. It doesn't know it does not die, because it was never born. Until it does.

[Iwannaplato]

My body is functioning all by itself, smoothly and effortlessly, and the grass grows all by itself.

As usual:

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.

But then...
Plants have to struggle like everyone else. It's easier to see with trees, the competition and incursions of other life forms are at a level more accessible to us. And then some of their struggles are completely visible, like a tree that begins life on a glacial rocks and has to send roots around that rock down into not so near soil. These struggles have energy costs and the research into plant intelligence and cognition is bursting. Our old they are not like us prejudice is falling, yes slowly, just as the one with other animals than us fell.

My body does not function all by itself. Yes, I don't need to consciously release insulin after eating something, but my organism depends on work. My well being depends in part on the touch of others and the company of others. My body needs food, shelter, love, clothes, clean water and more. Admittedly my temperment would be better suited to a tribal arrangment more connected directly to nature, but even then efforts are made and my body is not an island. People do less well when they are isolated, and die younger. And work has often sucked.

It's not either or for me. Connected and separated. Individual and something that could be called spirt that is participating with all.

The only thing less helpful than a truth is a partial truth claiming to be all encompassing.

Can one live the truths one lecture others about?

Not knowing, whether it is the consciousness of everything, or that of one person, needs to decide if it actually believes what it is spouting. Because if the great not knowing actually believes the truths or 'truths' it is casting out in this thread, then it would not be making post after post filled with truths. Nor would it assume so much about the world and lifeforms in it. Since there is no problem there would be no need to add to the flotsam of truths.

[Dontaskme]

My body is functioning all by itself, smoothly and effortlessly, and the grass grows all by itself.

As usual:

I dunno, but often there is a lot of telling people what is the truth by people who are unknowing.

But then...
Plants have to struggle like everyone else. It's easier to see with trees, the competition and incursions of other life forms are at a level more accessible to us. And then some of their struggles are completely visible, like a tree that begins life on a glacial rocks and has to send roots around that rock down into not so near soil. These struggles have energy costs and the research into plant intelligence and cognition is bursting. Our old they are not like us prejudice is falling, yes slowly, just as the one with other animals than us fell.

My body does not function all by itself. Yes, I don't need to consciously release insulin after eating something, but my organism depends on work. My well being depends in part on the touch of others and the company of others. My body needs food, shelter, love, clothes, clean water and more. Admittedly my temperment would be better suited to a tribal arrangment more connected directly to nature, but even then efforts are made and my body is not an island. People do less well when they are isolated, and die younger. And work has often sucked.

It's not either or for me. Connected and separated. Individual and something that could be called spirt that is participating with all.

The only thing less helpful than a truth is a partial truth claiming to be all encompassing.

Can one live the truths one lecture others about?

Not knowing, whether it is the consciousness of everything, or that of one person, needs to decide if it actually believes what it is spouting. Because if the great not knowing actually believes the truths or 'truths' it is casting out in this thread, then it would not be making post after post filled with truths. Nor would it assume so much about the world and lifeforms in it. Since there is no problem there would be no need to add to the flotsam of truths.

Doing is done, no doer thereof.

There's just what's happening, and no thing is making what's happening happen, and no thing can make what's happening unhappen.
And even if something did happen to unhappen then that too will be what's happening.

Thanks for your story. That too is what's happening, a person called Iwannaplato engaging in a discussion with dontaskme. Talking about what they know to be their truths to one and other.

There are only Y(our) truths.

''Life is totally taking care of everything. Who I am, who everyone is - is life. We can all relax, and let life do all the work.''

It's just a matter of understanding what's really going on here.


'' You have never "done" anything. Because the mind has conceived itself to be an individual it conceives itself as the "thinker" and also the "actor" or "doer." Yet it is not anyone. The mind is not a thing or an entity but a process, the thinking process. It is simply a process that is happening automatically, in the same way the heart is beating automatically. ''

[Dontaskme]

They can both be right if reality/experience is attuned to the person. Still, people might want to share their experience with others, especially if they think their experience might offer better options. However, it may only be 'better' for themselves, so it's probably best to live and let live.

Exactly, well said Lace.

Finally someone who understands what is being discussed here.

Concepts and words by themselves are neutral. In the service of ignorance they divide. In the service of love and intelligence they heal and unite.

Unknowing makes sense, and I'm comfortable with that. I prefer it over manufacturing something which I become a servant to maintain. I like to continually explore potential and I don't need to 'know' in order to feel fulfilled.

Sweet!

[Agent Smith]

Can we eat a fork with a fork?

[Eccentricity]

I found a post by Mike Roberts from Philpapers that perfectly explains what i think on this matter, "Theism is asserting that one has belief in a deity. Atheism is not asserting this belief. Gnosticism is asserting knowledge and agnosticism is not asserting knowledge. With these definitions agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive, in fact most atheists are agnostic atheists as they will tell you that they don't believe but not that they know there isn't a deity. Most self described agnostics agree that they are agnostic atheists according to these definitions. I've tended to find, among non-philosophers anyway, that the ratio of gnostic theists to agnostic theists is much greater than the ratio of gnostic atheists to agnostic atheists."

I'm someone that believes in the possibility of god, however I'm more inclined to believe that he doesn't exist. Even if God did exist i doubt he would be how he is commonly depicted, of which is human like in appearance and mind. At the core of 'Atheism', 'Theism' and 'Not-knowing' is the same thing, belief. Belief in God not existing, belief in God's existence, and belief in not knowing if God exists. Humans can't escape belief since it is connected to consciousness, the question is if they can or cannot believe something came from nothing. I created an argument on this concept of something coming from nothing. Tell me what you think of it:

My existence does not make sense logically because of 2 undeniable truths contradicting one another.

Truth 1 - Something CANNOT come from nothing and nothing CANNOT come from something

Truth 2 - Myself and everything around me DOES exist

I and everything around me DOES exist that means something HAS TO OF BEEN in existence forever, if not there would be a point before something when there was nothing (This would violate Truth 1).

- If something has existed forever then that means nothing CANNOT exist
○ This means it is just a concept created by us to be the opposite of something
○ Nothing is just the absence of something but not everything as things CANNOT be created or destroyed but only converted and changed or merged with other things
- If something existed forever than it would be beyond time since it would have no beginning nor end. No from point A to point B.

- Change is possible by things enacting on one another, cause and effect - this NEEDS time to exist to be possible for movement, without time space is still
○ If this is the case without time there can be no change however it is undeniable that THERE IS change

This creates 2 new undeniable truths that contradict one another.

Truth 3 - Something HAS existed forever

Truth 4 - Change DOES exist

If something HAS existed forever time CANNOT exist that means change CANNOT exist (This would violate Truth 4).

- However since change DOES exist that means time DOES exist and if that is so then something CANNOT of existed forever

In conclusion, that means a paradox has been created.
- Where Truth 1 and Truth 2 prove something HAS existed forever
- While Truth 3 and Truth 4 prove something CANNOT of existed forever

This means that a logical fallacy is present somewhere, whereby a truth thought to be undeniable is in actuality incorrect. There are a few possible falsehoods in the logic with this argument that could be the cause of this paradox, such as:

- Time not being linear (A to B)
○ Time could thought to be linear because we can only perceive it in a linear way
- Something could exist and change outside of time and space
○ Like another dimension beyond 4D which is the limit of human perception
- Nothing could exist and something could be created from nothing
- Myself and everything around me actually might not exist
- A God or transcendent force could exist

Overall, this paradox where logic cannot explain why I exist is disturbing. There are hypothesis on how I can resolve the paradox however they cannot be proven, so it leaves me still unknowing on how I can exist.