Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Truth in love]

History is not filled with events that defy explanation. Most of those stories are likely exaggerations. There are also many stories of miracles in Islam and Hinduism. Does this suggest that Islam is the true newer version of Christianity? Or are they probable anecdotal stories where facts were added.

There are no instances of a communication from a God. People hearing voices in not proof of a God. When someone says God spoke to them and there are terroristes going to fly into both WTC tomorrow by hi-jacking planes the day before 9/11 or a Sars virus manufactured in China will be created next month and result in a 2 year lockdown, then you have a start. You would still need to show this person somehow didn't have a way to gain knowledge of the event.

In the early 1900s there were millions of Hindu in India who swore Sai-Baba was performing healing surgery, levitating and creating gold balls. Of course they were the same magic tricks done in India for centuries. He never took his healing surgeries to a childrens hospital and actually cured a child. That is a trick using chicken guts. But it was verification of supernatural powers for millions of people.

It does not warrant further investigation.

So nothing is worth learning. Well they say non are so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So nothing is worth learning. Well they say non are so blind as those who refuse to see.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Segev Moran]

So if I set up an experiment with an electromagnetic, but a cable is bad and you don't see the evidence is the theory wrong?

Not necessarily wrong, but not a theory.
A theory in science is not considered a theory without evidence.
If you can't measure, it is not a theory but rather a thesis.
When you present evidence and experiments that prove and support your thesis, it can become a theory (there are many more factors of course).

 

[Qwin]

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.

That makes sense and expands my assertion, as have similarly illuminating posts, but none change my initial assertion.

 

[Qwin]

Really? How would you test religious beliefs properly? What scientific idea do you think can't be tested?

10 Questions That Science Can't Answer Yet

I put a link here, but no sign of it... Oh, the mysteries of websites are beyond me. Wait, the 10 questions... blah is the link. Wonderful.

Hope this helps.

1. Why Do We Dream?
2. How Can We Eliminate Cancer?
3. What Happens When You Die?
4. Are We Alone in the Universe?
5. Where Does Consciousness Come From?
6. How Many Species Are on Earth?
7. Is Reality Real?
8. How Did Life Begin?
9. Is Time Travel Possible?
10. Is the Universe Truly Infinite
11. God < my addition ^^

 

[Sheldon]

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

What does "deemed to be science" mean? Who decides this, and how? care to list a few of these, offers some credible scientific citation?

The real irony of course is your whole premise is whataboutism, you can't demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity, attacking science won't change that, even if your claims were remotely true, though they seem to misconceive science and its methods tbh.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

That wasn't written by Luke, the name is fictional, like Mathew Mark and John, they were made up and assigned to those gospels centuries later. The gospels are anonymous, and entirely hearsay, since beyond the crucifixion, there is no historical evidence to support them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

10 Questions That Science Can't Answer Yet

I put a link here, but no sign of it... Oh, the mysteries of websites are beyond me. Wait, the 10 questions... blah is the link. Wonderful.

Hope this helps.

1. Why Do We Dream?
2. How Can We Eliminate Cancer?
3. What Happens When You Die?
4. Are We Alone in the Universe?
5. Where Does Consciousness Come From?
6. How Many Species Are on Earth?
7. Is Reality Real?
8. How Did Life Begin?
9. Is Time Travel Possible?
10. Is the Universe Truly Infinite
11. God < my addition ^^

Sorry but most of those can be and have been tested. Not having an answer yet does not mean that the concepts can't be tested.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

How do you think this evidences a deity exactly? Miracles are claims not evidence, an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. They are simply appeals to mystery. Not having a natural or scientific explanation for something doesn't remotely evidence anything supernatural, or any deity, that is a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

What are the "Cokeville events?"

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry but most of those can be and have been tested. Not having an answer yet does not mean that the concepts can't be tested.

I know, some theists seem to be under the impression that science claims to have answered everything? Where on earth would they have got such a bizarre notion?

 

[Sheldon]

So nothing is worth learning. Well they say non are so blind as those who refuse to see.

That's not remotely what @joelr said, he game an expansive and detailed response, and you have resorted to a hand waving dismissal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know, some theists seem to be under the impression that science claims to have answered everything? Where on earth would they have got such a bizarre notion?

That of course comes from their belief system and very bad logic. They believe that their God knows everything, so to "prove that God wrong" you need to know as much or more than God. That is bad logic where one is assuming that one's beliefs are true. One does not need to know more than God to show that parts of the Bible are false. In fact showing that parts of the Bible are false only tells us that it does not appear to be "God's word" and unsupported claim that only comes from . . . the Bible. Just a tad bit circular in one's reasoning when one uses the Bible and only the Bible to support the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are the "Cokeville events?"

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.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Ahh, I see. Thanks for filling me in again.

"All the hostages escaped, though 79 were later hospitalized with burns and injuries, the majority of which were severe.[3][2]"

That's supposed to be the work of angels? How'd we jump to that conclusion? Why couldn't the angels just fly them all out of there without getting burnt at all?

Maybe the guy just wasn't good at making bombs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahh, I see. Thanks for filling me in again.

"All the hostages escaped, though 79 were later hospitalized with burns and injuries, the majority of which were severe.[3][2]"

That's supposed to be the work of angels? How'd we jump to that conclusion? Why couldn't the angels just fly them all out of there without getting burnt at all?

Maybe the guy just wasn't good at making bombs.

That could be true too. Perhaps his wife was the saboteur. There are all sorts of possible answers. "Magic" appears to be the least likely explanation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That could be true too. Perhaps his wife was the saboteur. There are all sorts of possible answers. "Magic" appears to be the least likely explanation.

Yeah, maybe she just didn't really feel like dying that day.



Oh, I read a bit further down and found this:

"When the bomb detonated, the majority of the explosive force was channeled through loose ceiling tiles into the roof, and open windows acting as vents. This significantly mitigated the explosive power of the bomb.[5]

"You could see that the roof tiles had been lifted out of their brackets. –– I don't think that they were planning—or David was planning on the ceiling tiles in the school. Because in the bus, everything was solid in the school bus. There was no give in the school bus. Well, with the window being open, with the ceiling tiles being able to lift up and down, I think that absorbed a lot of the explosion of the gasoline bottle."

— Rich Haskell, Certified Bomb Technician Rich Haskell on the 1986 Bombing of Cokeville Elementary School, WyoHistory.org"


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

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can I go and see it, touch it, conduct my own experiments with it?

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

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

When I was a kid, my grandfather used to somehow attach a magnet on the bottom of an action figure or something, then he put another magnet under the table where I couldn't see and he'd make the little figure dance all around the table. I used to think he was a magician.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, magnetism has been evidenced with substance? That is the hope for most new ideals and theories in process - to be substantiated with evidence, which is how faith is defined in the book of James. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

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.

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.

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.