Why don’t you believe in God?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe one day there will be convincing evidence.

That's the day I will be rationally justified in believing it.

I'm not holding my breath, though

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IYO. What I have is fact.

Facts are demonstrable.
What you have are mere beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Facts are demonstrable.
What you have are mere beliefs.

Yeah, all I do is based on what I see. So I can see through my eyes that your worldview is irrelevant in some sense to me.

In fact I can see that you are useless, worthless, meaningless and not in contact with reality.
And further I can back that up using science for its tools and methods. In fact for measuring that you are useless you are off the scale on my scientific instrument for measuring that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, all I do is based on what I see. So I can see through my eyes that your worldview is irrelevant in some sense to me.

In fact I can see that you are useless, worthless, meaningless and not in contact with reality.
And further I can back that up using science for its tools and methods. In fact for measuring that you are useless you are off the scale on my scientific instrument for measuring that.

None of this drivel has anything to do with the post you are responding to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of this drivel has anything to do with the post you are responding to.

Yeah, you can clearly see as see through your wide open eyes drivel. In fact there is the scientifc physical theory of drivel, right?

And not that you are doing something which is not science and can't be demostrated using science.

 

[Jimmy]

"Learned" in what sense?

And incidentally, where, do you say, we're going?

Learned as in found out. We’re all coming right back here to live out the same exact life.

 

[Jimmy]

It is because of my inability to believe anything that is indistinguishable from sheer fantasy.

So that’s a yes?

 

[Jimmy]

I was raised C of E. My initial assessments on God and religion generally were done by 10 year old me, and the inconsistency of adults between claimed belief and action was part of it, as was the fact that there were various beliefs of what the Christian God actually wanted (nevermind other religions).

I'm 49 now, so my thought processes have moved on. But yes, it's fair to say at the time I initially moved away from religion, the actions of others were informative to me.

So after that, you never took the time to search for a God using your own process? I don’t know if I asked you this already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, you can clearly see as see through your wide open eyes drivel. In fact there is the scientifc physical theory of drivel, right?

And not that you are doing something which is not science and can't be demostrated using science.

More random word salad.

If you can't manage to respond within context of posts, then why even hit the reply button?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So that’s a yes?

If you think science is always required to distinguish an idea or claim from sheer fantasy, sure.

I wouldn't though.


For example.... Consider the following claim:

I was watching Friends on the TV last night. Suddenly the picture froze and Jenifer Anniston crawled out of the TV screen, performed a strip act, had sex with me and then crawled back into the TV screen. After that the picture unfroze and the episode continued.


Do you require "science" to distinguish that claim from sheer fantasy?

 

[Jimmy]

Facts are demonstrable.
What you have are mere beliefs.

Beliefs in your world, facts in mine. we see the world differently is all, no big deal

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Beliefs in your world, facts in mine. we see the world differently is all, no big deal

Sorry, no.

Facts are facts. You don't get to redefine what words mean.

If something can be a "fact" to you and "not a fact" to another, then one of you is necessarily incorrect. Or both are wrong.
A thing is either a fact or it isn't.

A circle is not a square.
If a shape is a circle to you and a square to another, at least one of you is incorrect.

Facts are facts and they are not subject to the whims of subjective opinion.

 

[Jimmy]

Sorry, no.

Facts are facts. You don't get to redefine what words mean.

If something can be a "fact" to you and "not a fact" to another, then one of you is necessarily incorrect. Or both are wrong.
A thing is either a fact or it isn't.

A circle is not a square.
If a shape is a circle to you and a square to another, at least one of you is incorrect.

Facts are facts and they are not subject to the whims of subjective opinion.

Like I said we see life differently

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More random word salad.

If you can't manage to respond within context of posts, then why even hit the reply button?

Well, the context for the universe as such is if there are only facts versus sheer fantasy. Because what you claim facts, you in effect do that in regards to the context of the universe as such.
But my claim is that there are at least facts, pure fantasy and subjective mental states, that are not pure fantasy.
That is where it always ends, when we do humans in and as parts of the universe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So after that, you never took the time to search for a God using your own process? I don’t know if I asked you this already.

I did. Mostly it was just some research, reading the bible, etc. But I had very close friends at Uni who were religious, and they were good people (if wildly different to one another) so I gave it a real shot then, attending church and some study groups, etc.

They were truly good people, but I could see nothing of God in either them, nor their religions.

 

[Jimmy]

I did. Mostly it was just some research, reading the bible, etc. But I had very close friends at Uni who were religious, and they were good people (if wildly different to one another) so I gave it a real shot then, attending church and some study groups, etc.

They were truly good people, but I could see nothing of God in either them, not their religions.

I meant your own process, not using already established religions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I meant your own process, not using already established religions.

There are no own processes in the end, since you are also a product of the culture you are in. You can give it a personal spin, but the idea of God is cultural in effect in this day and age.

 

[Jimmy]

There are no own processes in the end, since you are also a product of the culture you are in. You can give it a personal spin, but the idea of God is cultural in effect in this day and age.

The idea of god yes but the methods of getting answers no.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't believe in a personal god. Mine is more a universal spirit that makes things run. Humans don't seem to be a favored creation, so I don't think there is a personal deity. Disclaimer: My opinion only.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The idea of god yes but the methods of getting answers no.

Well, I do it differently than you as far as I can tell. But I was taught to look in the books and not just rely on my own thoughts.