Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Truth in love]

What you said is not relevant to me Truth in love.

How is it not?

 

[Truth in love]

We

We don't prove real world things mentally. We model things mentally, then demonstrate the accuracies and inaccuracies of that model with practical controlled tests.

Agreed. We start with the mental the belief and test it out. This is the same method I used in my pursuit of religious knowledge.

 

[Truth in love]

A simple "Hello, I am here" would be enough.

Many many people report such events on a pretty regular basis.

 

[Qwin]

I see that you are still stuck on "missing links". I can only think of one that was falsified. I can think of another that was never accepted. The vast majority of our hominid ancestors and relatives are still in existence, at least as legitimate transitional forms.

Yep. But "transitional forms" are hopeful dreams of those who still cling to Darwin's beard, whoops no, I mean cling to Evolution.

 

[Qwin]

Your use of "unfalsifiable" was incorrect. And unfalsifiable belief is an irrational one.

According to the English language I was correct. In that light, I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and infringe on your language, whatever that may be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to deny it like atheists, because they don't want it to be true. That is why I don't really need to convince atheists to believe God is real.

So you're telling people that you don't believe that they don't believe in god(s)? That essentially, atheists are just lying? Is that right? Where do you get off doing that?

 

[Truth in love]

I'd have to see the specific words that you are calling hostility. I've not seen everything written to you, but I haven't seen anything I would call hostile in what I have read. The reason I ask is because my experience with theists in these discussions is that they're quick to emotional responses and tend to think in terms of their persecution. I don't say that this is you, but I also don't know what you are calling hostile, and can't say that I would agree with your illustrative examples until I see them.

I used to refer to the three stages of apologist decompensation. First, the apologist is friendly and has a message to share. Critical thinkers will identify errors of fact and logical fallacies. The apologist begins by fielding these, but eventually goes into the "that's just your opinion" and "you didn't see it happen" and "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" kind of defensive mode. His demeanor and words change. These comments are subjected to the same critical analysis, and the apologist becomes emotional. He's frustrated and somewhere between angry and offended.

Why does this happen with the apologists, but not those posting to him? I think it's because the theist believes the atheist is immoral and doing things he shouldn't be doing. He's militant. He hates God. Decent people don't behave like this. He knows, because decent people are in church, and this never happens there. He's not used to seeing what he perceives as impudence. He's not used to seeing what he considers holy disrespected, which is how he perceives dissent in this arena, and eventually, the frustration and emotional content appears. He takes it personally, and he dislikes and disapproves of the skeptic. The reverse doesn't happen. If the critical thinker injects a little editorializing, it will be to condemn certain posting etiquette, like repeating points already rebutted and not counter-rebutted, or the folly of criticizing science the believer doesn't understand, or citing Christian scripture as authoritative to a non-Christian. But this never becomes more emotional or angry than that, and certainly doesn't rise to the level of hostility. Dismissive perhaps, but it's not angry, and in my estimation, not hostile, although you might disagree.



Belief is one of those words with different meanings that lead to equivocation errors. I use the word belief to mean anything one considers true whether because of good evidence or faith, but some people use the word only to mean the latter, as when they say, "I don't believe. I know." What Barker is saying is that truth doesn't require faith to be believed, where for him, like me, true means demonstrably correct.

I just read these words: "and, as you say, beliefs are an acceptance of something without proof." That's a different definition for truth than mine, and the two should not be conflated as equivalent.



This illustrates the equivocation problem - equating empiric belief with faith-based belief. We learn science empirically, and for the experienced critical thinker, there is no choice in what to believe. Something is believable because is evidently correct according to his epistemology, and nothing else is, including insufficiently evidenced religious claims. For the faith-based thinker, there is a choice what to believe, because his beliefs aren't tethered to evidence. They don't need empiric support to be believable to him. Pick a god and believe it exists. Pick whatever doctrine you like and believe it but no other.

Yeah I get people projecting crud onto me all the time. It's not helpful. Occasionally kind of funny. Last week I was called daft in one of the more recent ad hominem attacks. Many seem to confuse my not agreeing with them with a failure to be educated or informed. (about as logical as the theist assuming that everyone deep down believes the exact same way they do). I know a lot of decent atheist. I'm not bothered by atheism. Now the lies about what the preacher said, the cold dismissing of any and all hard done to theist, and trying to deny people their rights to believe crowd I have some serious issue with, but the core right of belief must extend to atheist too.

I cannot prove to you the existent of the moon. Sure we can dig up a good stack of papers on the topic, but if you choose to not believe what they say the evidence is not helpful. I could take you outside and show it to you and you could clam that it is a fraud an illusion etc.

Systems tend to have types of evidence that they like and to diminish others. Thus what is 100% proven in one persons mind is not even remotely addressed to another. A great deal of reality cannot be proven. I'm sitting in a chair, I'm wearing socks. This is every bit as true as the ocean having salt in it, but I don't have the ability to fully prove it. But even if I had video, still photos and notarized statements from a million witnesses you could choose to disbelieve that I wear socks.

So thus my pointing out that theism and atheism are a lot more alike then they tend to admit.

 

[Truth in love]

Trust science to do what, though?
There aren't too many who see science as the answer to all things, in my experience.
And anyone suggesting they hold no beliefs is delusional or a straw man.

I agree, the dismissing of belief entirely is unhelpful.
"Trust the science " was used a ton in the last few years to end debate and discussion around Covid 19. I think it is also used to dismiss any answer that don't come out of the ivory tower of favored science. In short it kills the actual process.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to deny it like atheists, because they don't want it to be true. That is why I don't really need to convince atheists to believe God is real.

And no doubt you will take this to the grave with you, even as many will point out this is incorrect. So, how about giving others the respect as to what they believe much the same as you might expect? Can't do that - then don't expect any respect in return? Of course you have never, ever considered you might be wrong. So why all the different religious beliefs?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many many people report such events on a pretty regular basis.

Many people also report alien abductions on a regular basis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yep. But "transitional forms" are hopeful dreams of those who still cling to Darwin's beard, whoops no, I mean cling to Evolution.

No, it's actually creationists clinging to 50 year-old debunked talking points who are stuck on "hopeful dreams" of evolution being false.
CC200: Transitional fossils
Transitional features - Understanding Evolution
Transitional Fossils
Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah I get people projecting crud onto me all the time. It's not helpful. Occasionally kind of funny. Last week I was called daft in one of the more recent ad hominem attacks. Many seem to confuse my not agreeing with them with a failure to be educated or informed. (about as logical as the theist assuming that everyone deep down believes the exact same way they do). I know a lot of decent atheist. I'm not bothered by atheism. Now the lies about what the preacher said, the cold dismissing of any and all hard done to theist, and trying to deny people their rights to believe crowd I have some serious issue with, but the core right of belief must extend to atheist too.

I cannot prove to you the existent of the moon. Sure we can dig up a good stack of papers on the topic, but if you choose to not believe what they say the evidence is not helpful. I could take you outside and show it to you and you could clam that it is a fraud an illusion etc.

Systems tend to have types of evidence that they like and to diminish others. Thus what is 100% proven in one persons mind is not even remotely addressed to another. A great deal of reality cannot be proven. I'm sitting in a chair, I'm wearing socks. This is every bit as true as the ocean having salt in it, but I don't have the ability to fully prove it. But even if I had video, still photos and notarized statements from a million witnesses you could choose to disbelieve that I wear socks.

So thus my pointing out that theism and atheism are a lot more alike then they tend to admit.

Nonsense. There is plenty of objective, testable and verifiable data you could show anyone to demonstrate that the moon exists.
All anybody is asking is for people to do with the same with God claims; if you want others to believe them as well.

 

[ppp]

Agreed. We start with the mental the belief and test it out. This is the same method I used in my pursuit of religious knowledge.

Nah. I am building a set of foldable stairs to my attack. I am doing a lot of proofs of concept before investing in the overall effort. I am not starting with the belief that any given POC will work, merely that it is a feasible path. From past experience I know it is likely that I will have to make modifications. You are claiming belief that something is true where there is only belief that a given approach is the first thing to try. You never get past the mental model stage. You have no tests because you have no reality to compare those mental models too. Until you do, you are in no ways using the same method.

 

[ppp]

????

What?

 

[firedragon]

How is it not?

Because I didn't make any claim that you are responding to. You should read the post I replied to. The OP.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Granted some things are easier to observe. I can't slap a super collider up in back yard, but does that make any discovery in Cern any less real?

No, because again this is something we can demonstrate, especially outside of our own body. It's not anecdotal, it isn't personal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to deny it like atheists, because they don't want it to be true.

That sounds a lot like what I would say in reverse. Belief in gods is rooted in the hope that they exist, that consciousness doesn't end with death, that somebody powerful is in control that loves you and watches over you, that we will visit the deceased again, who are well and waiting for us.

But you are correct that if it were up to me, there would be no gods interfering in our lives, and that I was not immortal. I understand that that doesn't change reality, but it is a statement that I would prefer that nothing existed that could and would send conscious agents to eternal torment, or, that if existence became unbearable, that there was a way out, especially if the deity decided to torture you after death.

I agree, evidence is an object, and I also agree that latterly the interpretation of that evidence can be according to whatever rules a hypothesis has for said object.

Evidence is what is evident to the senses. The rules for the interpretation of evidence are difficult at times, but not arbitrary.

Have you seen the diagram of a WWII bomber with a red spot everywhere an airplane returned from battle with a bullet hole? The military decided that those were the areas of airplanes most likely to be hit, and thus chose to reinforce them. This was a misinterpretation of the evidence. You can probably discern why:

Spoiler: answer

The areas needing reinforcement were the ones with no holes. These were the places in which if an airplane was hit, it didn't come home

So, yes, there may be many interpretations of what evidence signifies, but at most one of two mutually exclusive interpretations is correct.

Objects, or evidence, can be falsified inasmuch: missing links have been constructed, which are objects, but they are falsified objects, or falsified evidence. Therefore evidence can be falsified, so in that sense, I also agree with you. Falsified evidence firstly means: evidence that is false, and secondly that some manipulation has made it false. Next, as you stated, there can be an interpretation of that evidence, and which I've already mentioned above, and you have also mentioned in great detail, and with you I concur. Therefore, someone wanting to be presented with falsified evidence, wants to be presented with false evidence.

You seem to be using the word falsified differently than its use in the philosophy of science. I've explained how evidence cannot be true or false. When you say falsified evidence, you seem to mean fraudulent evidence, like the Piltdown man: "some manipulation has made it false".

I cannot prove to you the existence of the moon.

You can to me, although you don't need to. By prove, I mean using the courtroom standard of beyond a reasonable. And really, somebody who wants to argue with you about whether the moon exists or not isn't worth your time or energy. There needs to be more overlap in how you both process information. On Facebook recently, I was asked what evidence I had that Trump was guilty of crimes. Why even answer? This person and I didn't have enough common ground to discuss the issue, or he wouldn't have asked.

what is 100% proven in one persons mind is not even remotely addressed to another.

Yes, but that doesn't make the process of determining what's true about the world subjective. Certitude is not a proxy for correctness. And here's the part that many theists call arrogant and bristle at: there is a method to determining correct ideas and to know that they are correct, one most people have never mastered, and most of those don't know exists or what it can do. When an experienced critical thinker is confident that he is correct, it doesn't matter how sure a person that simply can't generate or identify sound arguments is that his contradictory opinion is correct. Nobody exemplifies this better than Einstein, who, when asked by a student what he would have done if Sir Arthur Eddington's famous 1919 gravitational lensing experiment, which confirmed relativity, had instead disproved it, answered, "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct." To somebody unaware that a person can be correct and know it, this is hubris, arrogance.

A great deal of reality cannot be proven. I'm sitting in a chair, I'm wearing socks.

You can prove that to any observer that can see you.

even if I had video, still photos and notarized statements from a million witnesses you could choose to disbelieve that I wear socks.

That would be a faith-based belief. A belief based in reason and prior experience is that you might be in a chair and wearing socks, and probably are telling the truth, since most people sit in chairs and wear socks often where there are chairs and socks are worn, and not something people normally have a reason to lie about. I would say that it is over 99% certain that if you make that claim, it is accurate. If you're thinking of extrapolating that to metaphysical beliefs, such as claiming that one is experiencing a god, now you are talking about something that is outside of experience. We know people sit in chairs and wear socks, but we don't know that gods exist, or that if they do, that human beings can perceive them.

 

[Sheldon]

Un-falsifiable means it can't be falsified, but falsifiable means it can be falsified.

Unfalsifiable means there is no way to falsify something even were it to be false. It does not just mean it can't be falsified, plenty of falsifiable ideas can't be falsified, because they're correct.

Yep, what you say is true. And...?

I don't understand your question, your definition seemed inaccurate, so I was minded to offer a definition. Glad you agree it's correct.

 

[ppp]

Have you seen the diagram of a WWII bomber with a red spot everywhere an airplane returned from battle with a bullet hole? The military decided that those were the areas of airplanes most likely to be hit, and thus chose to reinforce them. This was a misinterpretation of the evidence. You can probably discern why:

Lolol! Did they really do that?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Many many people report such events on a pretty regular basis.

Not so many. More people win the lottery.