Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Shadow Wolf]

I have no idea how we get to magic from any of this. Maybe the Poster will elucidate for us.

True story, I was taught angels helped the English defeat the Danes in many battles against the Great Heathen Army. Except for several battles that really mattered it seemed. York was lost to the Danes, Winchester was sacked, Danelaw throughout East Anglia and Mercia, martyrs were made, truces broken, and visions of a united England nearly killed off and snuffed oit before it even got started.

 

[SkepticThinker]

True story, I was taught angels helped the English defeat the Danes in many battles against the Great Heathen Army. Except for several battles that really mattered it seemed. York was lost to the Danes, Winchester was sacked, Danelaw throughout East Anglia and Mercia, martyrs were made, truces broken, and visions of a united England nearly killed off and snuffed oit before it even got started.

Oh wow. I'm .... speechless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh wow. I'm .... speechless.

That, and more, was all a part of my Christian homeschooling, that sort of thing that people think makes people really smart and excel academically (It doesn't; you'll have stellar rote memory ability and nothing more).

 

[Balthazzar]

Faith is an abstraction, and like all abstractions, has no substance. And think about the phrase "evidence of things not seen." Evidence is what *IS* seen, what is evident. Faith sidesteps evidence and substance and goes directly to belief.



I think it's the believers who have trouble understanding what faith is. It is one of two methods for coming to beliefs, the one that doesn't use evidence. Thus, we have can hold both justified and unjustified beliefs. Faith is the latter. If you believe something is true and came to that belief without applying valid reasoning to evidence (justified belief), whatever other method you used, the belief is unjustified, making it a faith-based belief.

I would say that if one has a different understanding of what faith is and what its place is in epistemology, that it he that doesn't have a correct definition of faith. Notice that I am not referring to a different word with the same spelling and pronunciation, which means justified belief, as in faith borne of experience - faith in a wife, or in a car starting, or any other justified belief based on experience and evidence. The beliefs are justified if they include the idea that what is expected might not be the case - the wife might be cheating, and the car not start next time, but the belief that such things are the case is not based only in the will to believe.

Religion glorifies faith and where helpful, demeans reason for good reason - its dicta can only be believed by faith. And we see poetry like the scripture you cited from Hebrews. And we see it attempt to make faith more substantial than just a hope believed, it has substance and evidence we are told, even though it has neither - a kind of unwitting not to empiricism and the idea that substance and evidence can make beliefs sound.

With humanism, it's the other way around. Reason is the virtue and faith the logical error (non sequitur).

I was just watching the January 6th committee. Over and over we see the conflict between those who required evidence to believe that the election was stolen such as Barr, Cippolone, and Herschmann, and those who didn't, who kept insisting they had it and promising to provide it such as Giuliani, Powell, and Flynn, but couldn't and thus never did. One group was willing to believe by faith, the other comprised empiricists.

I guess that Giuliani, Powell, and Flynn were referring to the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen, which, of course, meant no substance or evidence at all. These two groups nicely represent and contrast the traditions of religion and empiricism. Faith was hardly a virtue there, was it? Nor did it serve the January 6th insurrectionists, whose only "evidence" was Trump's word. They had faith in him.

Theories in process of becoming. or efforts to find cures to diseases, etc. People have hope for these, the evidence is in the finding of. They've not been evidenced, the efforts being made are hopeful, there's substance in the hopes. The efforts to cure the diseases are showing progress, then one day - a cure is found. The efforts were not in vain, nor their hopes. Thier faith evidenced in the realization and satisfaction of their hope to hind a cure - That's faith and faith is strengthened through the substance of progress.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, I mean that falsified evidence is usually fraudulent

OK, that's what I thought you meant. The reason I don't like the phrase is because the evidence is now evidence of fraud. The Piltdown man was not evidence of what the fraudster was hoping it would be understood as, but evidence of fraud. What's been falsified is the fraudulent claim, not the evidence, which now supports a different conclusion. That's why I say that statements are falsified, not evidence.

Theories in process of becoming. or efforts to find cures to diseases, etc. People have hope for these, the evidence is in the finding of. They've not been evidenced, the efforts being made are hopeful, there's substance in the hopes. The efforts to cure the diseases are showing progress, then one day - a cure is found. The efforts were not in vain, nor their hopes. Thier faith evidenced in the realization and satisfaction of their hope to hind a cure - That's faith and faith is strengthened through the substance of progress.

I don't call that faith as in unjustified belief. You're describing the other meaning of faith I referred to - justified belief, or the belief that science is capable of discovering cures to diseases, analogous to faith in one's wife and car. Also, hope and belief are different. Like many others, I have an pessimistic prognosis for America, and I outlined my argument in emails in a discussion group. One guy said that as bad as things appear, he remains optimistic. No, like me he remains hopeful, but not optimistic, which is the belief that things will work out well. Consider a baseball game, and it's 7-0 in favor of the home team after eight innings. I not only hope they'll win as I did before the game started, but now I'm optimistic that they will win, because experience tells me that their chances are slim. Now, the opponents score 14 runs in the top of the ninth, and it's 14-7 against going into the bottom of the ninth. I'm still hopeful, but my optimism has turned to pessimism. What I believe will happen has changed, but not what I hope for.

I think you're doing something similar here with hope and faith. Faith is a belief and is not the same as hope. I might hope to go to heaven if there is one, but without faith, I have no reason to *believe* I will. For that, one needs faith, or unjustified belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay so some sees me in socks many people see in socks. Its so important they write it down. What causes people later who don't like socks to believe I wore them? 1 witness, 10, 2000?

I'm not sure what your point is. I think this ties into believing other unseen things. Your statement about chairs and socks might be untrue, but is believable for the reasons given, and can be confirmed empirically if it's important to do so. I think this is where this analogy departs from religious faith, which is very different from what we've been discussing in that unlike your chair and socks claim, religious claims are extraordinary claims, cannot be confirmed empirically, and are important for one to be correct about, since the choice will determine much of one's world view and might consume considerable resources such as Sunday mornings forever, tithes, or a vow of chastity and/or poverty.

Your definition of reality pretty much just destroyed the entire realm of culture and social science.

He had said, "For something to be real it must be objectively real, exist in the world external to the self, nature, objective reality, the realm of the physical sciences." I don't see why you made your comment.

My definition of nature, existence, real, and reality are all intertwined. To exist means to be real, reality being the collection of real things, that is, objects and processes that occupy space, traverse successive instants of time, and are able to affect the other real things around them and be affected by them. Another name for reality is nature. Everything real is a part of nature. Anything that can affect any aspect of nature is itself a part of nature and is real and exists. What doesn't meet these criteria cannot be said to be real or exist.

I will however submit a great many millions of lives were people testify that they know [God].

What do you think that that is evidence of? That a god is real and that they know it? To me, it's evidence that a great many millions of people say such things after having some kind of conscious experience. I don't accept that they understand their experience properly. I can't say that I know they're wrong, just that that is much more likely, for two reasons. One, I have all of the same sensory apparatus and neural circuitry they do, and two, I've had that experience, came to a god conclusion conclusion, and then later, following the acquisition of additional evidence, reinterpreted that experience. It's what is usually called a spiritual experience, but I consider it a misunderstanding of what that experience signifies when one invokes spirits to account for it.

 

[Truth in love]

Yes. Lots of kids even play with magnet-based toys.

CERN. Can I play with CERN?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

CERN. Can I play with CERN?

Considering it's an extremely expensive piece of equipment that requires great technical knowledge to use, no. It's nothing at all comparable to an Etch-a-Sketch.

 

[Truth in love]

I'm not sure what your point is. I think this ties into believing other unseen things. Your statement about chairs and socks might be untrue, but is believable for the reasons given, and can be confirmed empirically if it's important to do so. I think this is where this analogy departs from religious faith, which is very different from what we've been discussing in that unlike your chair and socks claim, religious claims are extraordinary claims, cannot be confirmed empirically, and are important for one to be correct about, since the choice will determine much of one's world view and might consume considerable resources such as Sunday mornings forever, tithes, or a vow of chastity and/or poverty.



He had said, "For something to be real it must be objectively real, exist in the world external to the self, nature, objective reality, the realm of the physical sciences." I don't see why you made your comment.

My definition of nature, existence, real, and reality are all intertwined. To exist means to be real, reality being the collection of real things, that is, objects and processes that occupy space, traverse successive instants of time, and are able to affect the other real things around them and be affected by them. Another name for reality is nature. Everything real is a part of nature. Anything that can affect any aspect of nature is itself a part of nature and is real and exists. What doesn't meet these criteria cannot be said to be real or exist.



What do you think that that is evidence of? That a god is real and that they know it? To me, it's evidence that a great many millions of people say such things after having some kind of conscious experience. I don't accept that they understand their experience properly. I can't say that I know they're wrong, just that that is much more likely, for two reasons. One, I have all of the same sensory apparatus and neural circuitry they do, and two, I've had that experience, came to a god conclusion conclusion, and then later, following the acquisition of additional evidence, reinterpreted that experience. It's what is usually called a spiritual experience, but I consider it a misunderstanding of what that experience signifies when one invokes spirits to account for it.

What is empirically testable today is not testable tomorrow. Tomorrow you can't get a witness to what I did today. Events of the past wither you feel them to be likely or unlikely would leave us looking for witnesses who saw things or other evidence. Why is a given persons or millions witness of what they have seen and heard invalided if you don't like it?

Many experiences can some equivocated others really cannot. If I wake up in the morning while camping and find many large cat prints around the camp the only logical conclusion is that a large cat was in the camp. Now its not 100% impossible for it to be a fraud, but its a pretty big stretch. Now I did not see the cat, but I can see clear marks from its being there.

Those who claim to actually see God are fairly rare. But accounts of small miracles from rapid healing, to being found when lost etc. are abundant. Sure there may be a few that are 100% frauds, but having listened to many people over many years I don't dismiss this long list of witnesses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is empirically testable today is not testable tomorrow.

The Laws of Nature do not change in such a way.

 

[Sheldon]

Interesting, he spelled it wrong but you got it right. I did a Google search and found this:

Cokeville Elementary School hostage crisis - Wikipedia
A bomb did not go off and they are trying to attribute it to angels. I am thinking that it was more likely he may have had a friend help him set it up. Cutting a couple of wires could easily be unnoticed by the perpetrator.

At any rate an event happened that we do not fully understand. "I don't know why" is never evidence.

Like all miracles, it is an appeal to mystery, nothing more.

 

[Sheldon]

Those who claim to actually see God are fairly rare. But accounts of small miracles from rapid healing, to being found when lost etc. are abundant.

Those are unevidenced claims. A miracle is simply something you can't explain, so then assume it required divine intervention, look it up in any dictionary if you don't believe me. Once you can explain something it is no longer a miracle, by definition.

 

[ppp]

What is empirically testable today is not testable tomorrow.

Then how did the radiologist know that I cracked the bone in my left elbow when I was a kid? I didn't tell her.

 

[Sheldon]

Theories in process of becoming. or efforts to find cures to diseases, etc. People have hope for these, the evidence is in the finding of. They've not been evidenced, the efforts being made are hopeful, there's substance in the hopes. The efforts to cure the diseases are showing progress, then one day - a cure is found. The efforts were not in vain, nor their hopes. Thier faith evidenced in the realization and satisfaction of their hope to hind a cure - That's faith and faith is strengthened through the substance of progress.

Great, when theistic faith finds the evidence for any deity, then you be sure to post it here and let me know. In the mean time I must remain dubious. Faith someone will one day cure a disease isn't evidence they can cure it, and we know for an objective fact that medical science can cure diseases, we have no objective evidence any deity is even possible.

 

[ppp]

Theories in process of becoming. or efforts to find cures to diseases, etc. People have hope for these, the evidence is in the finding of. They've not been evidenced, the efforts being made are hopeful, there's substance in the hopes. The efforts to cure the diseases are showing progress, then one day - a cure is found. The efforts were not in vain, nor their hopes. Thier faith evidenced in the realization and satisfaction of their hope to hind a cure - That's faith and faith is strengthened through the substance of progress.

We have evidence of diseases and we have evidence of cures. When are you going to supply any comparable evidence of your god?

 

[Sheldon]

Truth in love said: ↑
What is empirically testable today is not testable tomorrow.

Then how did the radiologist know that I cracked the bone in my left elbow when I was a kid? I didn't tell her.

Also you wouldn't need any witnesses, your medical records would remain objective empirical evidence, not just one day after but for as long as they existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think someone may be a bit resentful about empirical evidence.

 

[ppp]

Also you wouldn't need any witnesses, your medical records would remain objective empirical evidence, not just one day after but for as long as they existed.

Absolutely. My body wouldn't even have to exist anymore.

 

[Sheldon]

Absolutely. My body wouldn't even have to exist anymore.

True, and for as long as it did exist we could empirically test the claim you'd broken a bone with a new x ray. Most importantly these are fairly ordinary claims, since we know it is objectively possible to break bones, but no one has ever demonstrated any objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible.

 

[Balthazzar]

OK, that's what I thought you meant. The reason I don't like the phrase is because the evidence is now evidence of fraud. The Piltdown man was not evidence of what the fraudster was hoping it would be understood as, but evidence of fraud. What's been falsified is the fraudulent claim, not the evidence, which now supports a different conclusion. That's why I say that statements are falsified, not evidence.



I don't call that faith as in unjustified belief. You're describing the other meaning of faith I referred to - justified belief, or the belief that science is capable of discovering cures to diseases, analogous to faith in one's wife and car. Also, hope and belief are different. Like many others, I have an pessimistic prognosis for America, and I outlined my argument in emails in a discussion group. One guy said that as bad as things appear, he remains optimistic. No, like me he remains hopeful, but not optimistic, which is the belief that things will work out well. Consider a baseball game, and it's 7-0 in favor of the home team after eight innings. I not only hope they'll win as I did before the game started, but now I'm optimistic that they will win, because experience tells me that their chances are slim. Now, the opponents score 14 runs in the top of the ninth, and it's 14-7 against going into the bottom of the ninth. I'm still hopeful, but my optimism has turned to pessimism. What I believe will happen has changed, but not what I hope for.

I think you're doing something similar here with hope and faith. Faith is a belief and is not the same as hope. I might hope to go to heaven if there is one, but without faith, I have no reason to *believe* I will. For that, one needs faith, or unjustified belief.

I was simply showing how, with an illustration, the Bible defines "faith". I likewise had suggested, some have mis-applied the term and it would seem the misapplied use has been used to stereotype those who use it correctly, as defined in the Bible, per the illustration utilized by me. It makes more sense in that application - no matter what we place our faith in. It requires substance either way to help substantiate it in a person's life.