Why don’t you believe in God?

[Jimmy]

Change it to....
"....inability to believe in anything that can’t be detected by science?"
Then yes.
Explanations aren't necessary, eg, I can't explain
the origin of gravity, but I can detect it. So I believe
that gravity exists....complicated though it is.

I’m curious. Is there any other things besides gravity that science can’t fully explain that you still believe exists? Probably stuff like black holes, dark matter and infinity huh?

 

[Jimmy]

Not rationally.

I feel ya

 

[ChristineM]

All "semantics" (I'll bet).

I don't think so, more like experience and understanding

 

[Jimmy]

I don't think so, more like experience and understanding

My experience and understanding has told me otherwise.

 

[ChristineM]

My experience and understanding has told me otherwise.

You are entitled to your opinion, thought in my view blind belief in something is not rational. Particularly when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jimmy]

You are entitled to your opinion, thought in my view blind belief in something is not rational. Particularly when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

In my view, “blind belief” is very rational and belief in other things that explain how we got here and where we’re going is not rational. I put blind belief in quotes because I don’t blindly believe anything. I know.

 

[Jimmy]

Not rationally.

IYO

 

[Jimmy]

Wait, how can rational minds KNOW something exists when there is no evidence? That's absurd.

I suggest you adjust your opinion.

IYO

 

[ChristineM]

In my view, “blind belief” is very rational and belief in other things that explain how we got here and where we’re going is not rational. I put blind belief in quotes because I don’t blindly believe anything. I know.

As do i but i generally have evidence to back up my knowledge, without evidence what you have is opinion.

 

[Quester]

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

No (and I've brought this up in here before), if you look at religious history, monotheism never existed until the mid-1300s BC when Akhenaton took polytheism, threw it out the window, and said "the Sun" was GOD. I call this proto-monotheism. The next jump was to the Zoroastrians, then the Hebrews during the exile, and it's come all the way to today.

Just like polytheism was a major screw-up regarding what the people HAD to believe, monotheism just took over the game and polytheism, henotheism, monolatry were all given up.

 

[Vinayaka]

Ok

I'll pick a couple. Sky-Daddy, anthropomorphised, or wrathful versions makes no sense to me, whereas loving, or 'just being' ones do. So I do and I don't believe in 'God'. It's not a simple question.

 

[Jimmy]

As do i but i generally have evidence to back up my knowledge, without evidence what you have is opinion.

IYO. What I have is fact.

 

[Jimmy]

No (and I've brought this up in here before), if you look at religious history, monotheism never existed until the mid-1300s BC when Akhenaton took polytheism, threw it out the window, and said "the Sun" was GOD. I call this proto-monotheism. The next jump was to the Zoroastrians, then the Hebrews during the exile, and it's come all the way to today.

Just like polytheism was a major screw-up regarding what the people HAD to believe, monotheism just took over the game and polytheism, henotheism, monolatry were all given up.

Sounds like a yes to me.

 

[Jimmy]

I'll pick a couple. Sky-Daddy, anthropomorphised, or wrathful versions makes no sense to me, whereas loving, or 'just being' ones do. So I do and I don't believe in 'God'. It's not a simple question.

Hopefully it will get simpler for you.

 

[ChristineM]

IYO. What I have is fact.

In that case you will be able to present it for the thread to read

 

[Quester]

Sounds like a yes to me.

Actually, had any variant NOT begun historically, we'd more than likely still be polytheistic today.

 

[Jimmy]

Actually, had any variant NOT begun historically, we'd more than likely still be polytheistic today.

Yeah, and we could all still be one celled organisms too.

 

[Jimmy]

In that case you will be able to present it for the thread to read

We have different definitions of the word fact.

 

[Quester]

Yeah, and we could all still be one celled organisms too.

No - one is biological and the other psychological.

 

[Jimmy]

No - one is biological and the other psychological.

The word could leaves open a lot of different scenarios doesn’t it?