• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do atheists believe in magnetism?

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I think that we're all on the same page, and I know that you understand what this word means, but for the sake of clarity and at the risk of seeming to be a bit of a pedant and a quibberdick (humor intentional), I would change "can be shown to be wrong" to something that indicates that all one need do to call something falsifiable is to imagine a finding that would falsify the statement. Suppose evolutionary theory is incorrect. I've commented on what would happen if the theory were falsified. We'd need to posit a deceptive intelligent designer to account for the old evidence in the light of the falsifying find, some superhuman force that tried to make us think evolution had transpired naturalistically, but perhaps made a mistake that was found revealing the deception. Now imagine that that same scenario is the case, but no mistake was made by the aliens to be discovered, so there is no falsification possible.

Yet the theory's narrative remains falsifiable even though it can never be shown to be wrong, but one can imagine a finding that would falsify it, like a dog naturally giving birth to a cat. It's enough that I can conceive of a falsifying find to call something falsifiable, not that if it is wrong that that will necessarily be demonstrable.
Yes, agreed. As usual, you've said it better than I can! :)

Thanks. I'm obviously a fan, and suspect that you are as well. It's remarkable how citable the show is - how many scenes are relevant to discussion, and how many lines are quotable, if not quonable.
Oh I'm a fan alright. Like you, I tend to quote it a lot. When I run into someone who has never seen it, I don't trust them lol.
If you ask anyone who hangs around me, I'm always saying how there is a Seinfeld episode or scene for any situation you're ever going to find yourself in life. I don't care what it is, there is always a Seinfeld reference to be made. And a very relevant one, at that. Love it!
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
So, magnetism has been evidenced with substance?

It's effects can be observed, objectively tested.

magnetism | Definition, Examples, Physics, & Facts

"Basic to magnetism are magnetic fields and their effects on matter, as, for instance, the deflection of moving charges and torques on other magnetic objects. Evidence for the presence of a magnetic field is the magnetic force on charges moving in that field; the force is at right angles to both the field and the velocity of the charge. This force deflects the particles without changing their speed."

 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
It's effects can be observed, objectively tested.

magnetism | Definition, Examples, Physics, & Facts

"Basic to magnetism are magnetic fields and their effects on matter, as, for instance, the deflection of moving charges and torques on other magnetic objects. Evidence for the presence of a magnetic field is the magnetic force on charges moving in that field; the force is at right angles to both the field and the velocity of the charge. This force deflects the particles without changing their speed."

Yes - you must have missed the point of my posting as I did - The above is not in question. What was being alluded to is the correct definition of faith, which some in the secular world have difficulty grasping, and very likely due to the mis applied text referring to it in scripture by the religious variants of society. Faith requires both substance and evidence before it can be considered faith. That was my point, and given my attraction to science, astronomy, physics, and quantum physics, I'd suggest you've misplaced your contention towards my postings.
 

Qwin

Member
Qwin said:
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:
View attachment 64470
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.

Qwin said:
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".

Yes, I mean that falsified evidence is usually fraudulent, but undoubtedly, not always. The Philosophy of Science... After glancing at Aristotle, I wondered at the hype, so that I don't trust philosophies. imho, they're limited, in that their ideas, at face-value, seem credible, but long term they proceed abysmally. Mind you, religions usually begin well, and here we are. btw, your in-depth analysis' are impressive. Thx for taking the time!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, I mean that falsified evidence is usually fraudulent, but undoubtedly, not always. The Philosophy of Science... After glancing at Aristotle, I wondered at the hype, so that I don't trust philosophies. imho, they're limited, in that their ideas, at face-value, seem credible, but long term they proceed abysmally. Mind you, religions usually begin well, and here we are. btw, your in-depth analysis' are impressive. Thx for taking the time!

You appear to be rather confused here. "Falsifiable" and "falsified" are two very very different words. Falsifiable evidence is far more reliable than unfalsifiable evidence. If the former is wrong it can be shown to be wrong. If the latter is wrong it cannot be shown to be wrong. That is why unfalsifiable evidence is of no value. There is no way to determine if it is true or not.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
What was being alluded to is the correct definition of faith, which some in the secular world have difficulty grasping, and very likely due to the mis applied text referring to it in scripture by the religious variants of society. Faith requires both substance and evidence before it can be considered faith. That was my point, and given my attraction to science, astronomy, physics, and quantum physics, I'd suggest you've misplaced your contention towards my postings.

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. That's how the dictionary defines it anyway, it's a s good a starting point as any. Scripture is wildly open to subjective interpretation, so obviously different people will have different opinions. As an atheist I don't particularly care, as I don't see faith (however defined) as a reliable way to evaluate whether a claim or believe is valid. Though I trust some methods more than others, I think complete trust might risk bias. Rather trust in a method should be proportional to objective results.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Me too, I would change
Premium Member
There can be many reasons for that. But probably the most popular reason is that they don't like the message of the one and only true God, therefore they replace it with something else.
Probably more likely, as for many other things, that religions tend to form locally and hence come into conflict with all the other belief systems when such reaches them. Given that communications between peoples was rather different long ago. And they tend to prefer their version, given that it often favours them over others. So why would one be more likely to be true over another?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yes, I mean that falsified evidence is usually fraudulent, but undoubtedly, not always. The Philosophy of Science... After glancing at Aristotle, I wondered at the hype, so that I don't trust philosophies. imho, they're limited, in that their ideas, at face-value, seem credible, but long term they proceed abysmally. Mind you, religions usually begin well, and here we are. btw, your in-depth analysis' are impressive. Thx for taking the time!
I still don't know what you're talking about.
Falsified evidence? Fraudulent? Are you referring to forgeries?

What's Aristotle got to do with modern day scientific methodology, or forgeries?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Reason why I don't believe that is, if atheists would not really be in denial, they would not have any reason to fight against "imaginery God" like they often seem to do. Christians remind them of the truth that they don't like, which then causes hate and reason to fight against Christianity. If this is not true, why else the hate and the fight?

You can argue whether God is real or not. But Christianity and religion certainly are. So it might just be that some atheists argue against the impact of Christianity on them given that they don't think the key premise of the religion is valid.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. That's how the dictionary defines it anyway, it's a s good a starting point as any. Scripture is wildly open to subjective interpretation, so obviously different people will have different opinions.
Naturally, and typically based on comprehension ability, much like anything else requiring thought and understanding. Physics, for example deal with the tangible aspects of life, whereas quantum physics deal more with aspects that have, in times past, been left to religious and philosophical thought. There has been quite a lot of head butting between the quantum side and the strict physical, objective, tangible, and seemingly more reliable, tried and true side of physics. Quantum physics is a relatively new field on the scene. Religion, not so much - If I listened to a 1st grader attempting to teach me how a fuel induction system on a tesla hybrid motor functions, my comprehension of its functions would very likely be extremely limited, but then the same might be true for someone who specializes in the repair and function of tesla hybrid motors. What I'm suggesting is, if you don't put in the time and effort to study a certain thing, you'll likely always remain ignorant to whatever it is in question. Faith, or rather the concept of, science, substance, evidence, understanding, etc. although not solely academic, a certain amount of understanding must be applied in order to comprehend the true nature of.
 
Last edited:

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
No, because again this is something we can demonstrate, especially outside of our own body. It's not anecdotal, it isn't personal.
Can I go and see it, touch it, conduct my own experiments with it?


The irony here is that many things deemed to be science are less testable than many religious things.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
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.



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:

View attachment 64470

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.



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".



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.



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.



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



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.


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

Luke mentions that "3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:" Now as an observer I think he would be hard pressed to state his case any more clearly for Christ resurrection. However a great many do not believe the witness. So even having a witness or a great many does not mean others believe the evidence.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Not so many. More people win the lottery.

Not sure who you hang out with, but lottery winner are a few dozen a year give or take? I've personally listened to hundreds of people who heard, felt thought etc. very out of the normal that was helpful to them. And that's just in the last few years.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
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.

But as far as I can tell, and as far as anyone so far has been able to tell me, the ONLY way in which gods and other supernatural entities are known to exist is as concepts /things imagined in individual brains.

And they're defined in imaginary terms ─ for example omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, infinite &c.

There's no description that I've found appropriate to a real god, so that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not. Thus there's no objective standard of truth by which we could distinguish a 'true god' from a 'false god' ─ with the result that there are tens of thousands of different versions of God and gods at present, let alone through history.

So to settle this issue, give me a satisfactory definition of a real God, one with objective existence, such that we can determine whether any real suspect is God or not, and follow it with a satisfactory demonstration of that real God.

And then I'll do the same with magnetism

Deal?

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

2. Actually there are some pretty interesting events that support the conclusion that there is a God that go well beyond a persons brain. I cite the Cokevillie events as one such example.

I don't have a testable way to poke and proud the almighty. I will however submit a great many millions of lives were people testify that they know.
 
Top