Why don’t you believe in God?

[Jimmy]

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.

A universal spirit that makes things run sounds like God to me.

 

[Jimmy]

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.

Nothing greater than your own mind

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing greater than your own mind

Yeah, in your understanding. In mine that is context driven and in some contexts the greatest is not my mind to me.

 

[Pogo]

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

Not unless you want to communicate effectively with others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not unless you want to communicate effectively with others.

Well, for example for faith I found in one dictionary 5 defintions. The same is the case for religion or science as there is not only one.
For at least some words the different defintions are in effect a family of resemblance and not some strong objective orderliness.

So I can in effect observe that different words can mean different things to different people and can figure that out if I ask or sometimes based on how the words are used.

 

[Pogo]

Well, for example for faith I found in one dictionary 5 defintions. The same is the case for religion or science as there is not only one.
For at least some words the different defintions are in effect a family of resemblance and not some strong objective orderliness.

So I can in effect observe that different words can mean different things to different people and can figure that out if I ask or sometimes based on how the words are used.

My point, effective communication requires mutual agreement on definitions.
That there are many definitions for many words is granted it is finding that mutually understood word/concept/idea that is tricky.

 

[Jimmy]

Not unless you want to communicate effectively with others.

Nah

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My point, effective communication requires mutual agreement on definitions.
That there are many definitions for many words is granted it is finding that mutually understood word/concept/idea that is tricky.

No, not really. I can understand different defintions and understand for some contexts that there are different defintions in play.

 

[Pogo]

Nah

then why are you here?

 

[PureX]

My point, effective communication requires mutual agreement on definitions.
That there are many definitions for many words is granted it is finding that mutually understood word/concept/idea that is tricky.

The problem is that in defending one's bias, we will too often refuse to acknowledge any definition that threatens that bias. Even when one is being given a logical reason for using that specific definition.

I have run into this countless times on this site. I do not blindly accept whatever the dictionary says a word 'means' because the dictionary simply reports our common use AND ABUSE of words. And this is not logical or specific enough for the kinds of conversations that go on here. So I try and use words carefully and explain what I mean by them and the logic behind it. But all too often this is just completely ignored because it contradicts someone else's bias. And instead of having a reasoned discussion, all they want to do is defend their bias by any means they can think of, and "owning the words" is one of the ways they come up with.

 

[Jimmy]

then why are you here?

To communicate effectively

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

More like some form of non-religious sprituality?
Just doesn't resonate for me. Near as I could tell, religion has some utility for some people. And of them, for some it's a 'good' motivator, as in it encourages them to be more mindful and moral. For many others, not so much.
And for those it does encourage to be moral, there are discrepancies between what they see as right, and what I see as right, in certain situations, but I can at least respect them having a position and worldview, and then holding to it where it's not necessarily the easiest path.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why do I mostly not believe in God? Because such seems an explanation too far for me - that is, what I see as to life, the universe, and everything, could be explained without recourse to a God or gods. And being such, it doesn't make much sense to create a version of such an entity (that probably doesn't exist) - given we already have so many projections already as to such - and why would I choose one existing version over another? Plus, doing so tends to come along with all sorts of other issues - like promoting some objective morality or explaining various behaviours, when there are more natural explanations for these. And not so easy to argue one's corner when 'God says so!' is in the other.

 

[Jimmy]

More like some form of non-religious sprituality?
Just doesn't resonate for me. Near as I could tell, religion has some utility for some people. And of them, for some it's a 'good' motivator, as in it encourages them to be more mindful and moral. For many others, not so much.
And for those it does encourage to be moral, there are discrepancies between what they see as right, and what I see as right, in certain situations, but I can at least respect them having a position and worldview, and then holding to it where it's not necessarily the easiest path.

No, using your own brain to think about spiritual possibilities.

 

[Jimmy]

Why do I mostly not believe in God? Because such seems an explanation too far for me - that is, what I see as to life, the universe, and everything, could be explained without recourse to a God or gods. And being such, it doesn't make much sense to create a version of such an entity (that probably doesn't exist) - given we already have so many projections already as to such - and why would I choose one existing version over another? Plus, doing so tends to come along with all sorts of other issues - like promoting some objective morality or explaining various behaviours, when there are more natural explanations for these. And not so easy to argue one's corner when 'God says so!' is in the other.

Have you ever tried to use your own brain to think of spiritual possibilities instead of religions and gods that are already there?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Have you ever tried to use your own brain to think of spiritual possibilities instead of religions and gods that are already there?

No. Because I have better things to do, and I do note the trouble it tends to cause for so many others.

 

[F1fan]

No, using your own brain to think about spiritual possibilities.

Brains that are skilled thinkers won't believe in ideas unless thay have sufficient evidence. Brains that lack this skill may be gullible and suceptible to belief in false ideas.

I'm sure you have seen posts by skilled thinkers who reject claims of some "spirits" exsiting, including gods, angels, demons, etc. Why are these claims rejected? Lack of evidence.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

I value science and believe that it is essential and beneficial for learning about the physical world, but I doubt that scientific research will ever be able to logically prove the existence of deities or anything else supernatural. In fact, I don't believe that modern science (or religious dogma, or religious texts like the Bible and the Quran) will ever be able to rationally explain or logically debunk the genuine supernatural phenomena that occur in the physical world.

Maybe science will catch on someday, but I'm not holding my breath. Honestly, I'm not sure if deities exist because I've never seen any conclusive evidence that has convinced me or felt the presence of one in my life, even when I was a devout Christian for 30 years or during the 40 years I genuinely believed in the biblical God. So I don't believe that there is sufficient empirical evidence for any deity. This lack of empirical evidence prevents me from believing in deities. And while I practice Wicca and Druidry, I acknowledge that I lack the empirical evidence or any other alleged evidence that deities actually exist.

Having said that, I think it's possible that they could exist while acknowledging that I can't prove or refute their existence. I've always been fascinated with spirituality and beliefs in the supernatural, but I'm not willing to state that I am fully confident, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the biblical God or any other deities actually exist. I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't be in all places at once or explore all of space and time. I don't think that I can honestly establish whether there is only one God, if there are other deities, or if there aren't any deities at all. Therefore, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Not sure what C of E is, guessing it's Church of England? (don't know, but maybe you can help) I do understand your reaction, however, although I personally went along with my family in religion until I went away from home to college and from then on kept searching, not figuring anything out except maybe what other religions thought about things, and then after many years of wondering and thinking finally prayed and yes, got my answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Has God revealed themselves to you?

First of all, I believe there is only one true Almighty God. Therefore I cannot agree with your question.