Why don’t you believe in God?

[Jimmy]

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.

Well, at least you’re keeping an open mind while so many people seem to close the door

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like I said we see life differently

Yes. You live in a universe where the word "fact" actually means "opinion".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You are again completely besides the point that was being made.
Context. It matters.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, for example for faith I found in one dictionary 5 defintions.

Yes. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
Haven't you learned back in the day how dictionary and language works?

Some words are more obvious in double meaning then others.

For example "light".

It can mean bright as in "not dark".
It can also mean "not heavy" as in mass.



See this is why context matters.

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.

No, the definition of words is not dependend on "what they mean to different people". They depend on context.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are again completely besides the point that was being made.
Context. It matters.

Well, in general for all of the context it is about sicence, the universe and facts. That is what we debate over all of these threads.
Now for non-facts are the only pure fantasy or something more than both non-facts and non-pure fantasy.

It is now many years ago that I learned that everything for the "Big Bang" is connected up until now and that there are no unrelated processes in the universe as such.

Facts are demonstrable.
What you have are mere beliefs.

So to get it back to mere beliefs and pure fantasy versus facts the only thing going on or is that a 3rd category?
Are there any defintion of religion that covers that or is it all just science versus religion?

And yes, as a skeptic it is simple.
Are there more going on in the universe than science/facts and religion/mere beliefs?
And yes, it is a derail of sorts, but it is always relevant to ask since you understand the universe as such.

 

[viole]

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

Nope. it would be like killing a fly with a nuclear device. It is actually very simple.

i don’t believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose (C. Darrow).

Since they have the same exact evidence, and it is sort of silly for me to believe the latter, it follows that it would be equally silly for me to believe the former. Why on earth should I do that?

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
Haven't you learned back in the day how dictionary and language works?

Some words are more obvious in double meaning then others.

For example "light".

It can mean bright as in "not dark".
It can also mean "not heavy" as in mass.



See this is why context matters.


No, the definition of words is not dependend on "what they mean to different people". They depend on context.

Like your answer.

Definition of FAITH

allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty; fidelity to one's promises; sincerity of intentions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

b
(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust

The fun part is that for 2 contradiction versions of what science is and both sides are convinced of being individually right, faith applies to at least one of them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, in general for all of the context it is about sicence, the universe and facts. That is what we debate over all of these threads.
Now for non-facts are the only pure fantasy or something more than both non-facts and non-pure fantasy.

It is now many years ago that I learned that everything for the "Big Bang" is connected up until now and that there are no unrelated processes in the universe as such.


So to get it back to mere beliefs and pure fantasy versus facts the only thing going on or is that a 3rd category?
Are there any defintion of religion that covers that or is it all just science versus religion?

And yes, as a skeptic it is simple.
Are there more going on in the universe than science/facts and religion/mere beliefs?
And yes, it is a derail of sorts, but it is always relevant to ask since you understand the universe as such.

For me right now, the knowledge of God as the Creator of heaven and earth is a fact. (It doesn't used to be, but that's not everyone's experience, yes, it's personal but shared by some others. Thanks.)
Oh, before I go, some "great minds" like Einstein and Hawking tried figuring unseen things out kind of more or less but there's a lot of dark stuff that human minds still can't figure out. And -- I doubt they ever will.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. it would be like killing a fly with a nuclear device. It is actually very simple.

i don’t believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose (C. Darrow).

Since they have the same exact evidence, and it is sort of silly for me to believe the latter, it follows that it would be equally silly for me to believe the former. Why on earth should I do that?

ciao

- viole

Is that what C. Darrow really said? Would that be Clarence Darrow?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For me right now, the knowledge of God as the Creator of heaven and earth is a fact. (It doesn't used to be, but that's not everyone's experience, yes, it's personal but shared by some others. Thanks.)
Oh, before I go, some "great minds" like Einstein and Hawking tried figuring unseen things out kind of more or less but there's a lot of dark stuff that human minds still can't figure out. And -- I doubt they ever will.

Yeah, but that is not the only way to use words like knowledge and fact.
The problem being that I can do the same to you. I have the knowledge as a fact that we will both go to Hell.

Now you will deny that I have that knowledge and it is not a fact. The problem being that it also apply to you and your clain´m, if you understanding objective and subjective.

So stop claim knowledge and fact when they work differrently.
I accept that you have a faith different than me and will as such leave it at that.

 

[viole]

Is that what C. Darrow really said? Would that be Clarence Darrow?

Yes. Unfortunately.

ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Is that what C. Darrow really said? Would that be Clarence Darrow?

I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.​

Speech in Toronto (1930); as quoted in "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996) by James A. Haught​

Variant: I believe that religion is the belief in future life and in God. I don’t believe in either. I don’t believe in God as I don’t believe in Mother Goose.​

As quoted in Jesus: Myth Or Reality? (2006) by Ian Curtis​

Clarence Darrow - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

 

[Jimmy]

Nope. it would be like killing a fly with a nuclear device. It is actually very simple.

i don’t believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose (C. Darrow).

Since they have the same exact evidence, and it is sort of silly for me to believe the latter, it follows that it would be equally silly for me to believe the former. Why on earth should I do that?

ciao

- viole

And daddy goose?

 

[Jimmy]

Nope. it would be like killing a fly with a nuclear device. It is actually very simple.

i don’t believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose (C. Darrow).

Since they have the same exact evidence, and it is sort of silly for me to believe the latter, it follows that it would be equally silly for me to believe the former. Why on earth should I do that?

ciao

- viole

Have you ever sought out God on your own terms without using religions that are already there before completely closing the door?

 

[McBell]

... 2 contradiction versions of what science is ...

What are these two contradiction versions of science?

 

[viole]

And daddy goose?

And God the Mother?,

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are these two contradiction versions of science?

E.g. whether science is based on induction or not.
There are other ones.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Unfortunately.

ciao

- viole

Yes, kind of a sad statement.

 

[Yerda]

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

Don't have any good reason to. That's it, really.

 

[viole]

Yes, kind of a sad statement.

Not sad. Unfortuntely, becuse I wish I could have claimed that for myself, Without the need to quote.
it is the quintessential reason for not believing in God. Or Mother Goose. Or Jesus. Or the great Juju. Or Bigfoot. And so on.

For the simple reson that all those beings have the exact same evidence, plausibility and necessity. None. And it is therefore irrational to believe one nd not the other. Which allows us to conclude that it is rational to equally disbelieve them all.

ciao

- viole