Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Balthazzar]

Not at all. You produced a sentence that stated your position and a sentence quoting some guy that agreed with you. Nothing else. Your post and it's contents (and the lack of any support) are the evidence of my statement.

If you disagree then point to something additional from you post.

No, I agree ... The bald assertion guy made bald assertions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You define faith differently than the bible- you define God differently than I do.

I was hoping that you would clarify whether the biblical definition is yours as well, if you find my definition incorrect, where and how. How is faith different from unjustified belief for you?

The term God seems to offend you.

What people have done with that word is off-putting, but my reason for avoiding it is the one I gave you: I am not a theist and don't want to be confused for one, which is pretty much guaranteed when one refers to God. I'm proud to be a humanist. I'm proud to have substituted reason for faith. I'm extremely grateful to have learned critical thinking. It's kept me out of religion. It's helped me avoid the mistakes others make regarding whether elections have been stolen, which people have believed without evidence leading some to commit violent crimes. It's helped me reject the antivax arguments, which are contradicted by the facts. It's protected me from conservative indoctrination media. It's allowed me to avoid the false beliefs that those who are willing to believe by faith believe. And I am proud of that accomplishment. So, God is not a word I'm going to use to refer to any aspect of reality before I need to invoke a sentient, volitional agent capable of creating universes.

God is all that was, all that is, and all that will ever be.

I get that. But you also call yourself Christian. I still don't really have a sense for what you believe. What is a Christian panentheist who defines God the way I define reality? And I'm pretty sure that I never will (see below).

God is all that was, all that is, and all that will ever be. This use of the term solidifies the definition of, implying that the definition of God is unchanging. Even the Hebrew scriptures allude to this. "I am that I am" .

Did you really want the definition of God to be invariant rather than God Himself?

I also don't see the scripture you cited as saying anything at all. Where are you going? I'm going where I'm going. What is truth? The quality true things possess.

Nor do I find any value in referring to the universe being unchanging. The laws of physics may be invariant, but everything else - the objects in the universe like you and me - are continuously changing. Knowledge is that which helps us anticipate how thing will behave under various circumstances.

You use the term universe. I use the term God, which is the term utilized long before the term "universe" became a term of replacement.

But I'm pretty sure that we have different beliefs, not merely the same beliefs described using different words. Hopefully, you have a clear idea of my beliefs on the matter by now. As I said, I still don't know what you believe, and don't expect that to change no matter how many words we exchange. I've had this discussion with several theists on this site, and I still don't have a clear idea of what any of them believe. Moreover, I suspect that they don't either.

 

[Balthazzar]

We call it hope and perseverance.
.



Definition of faith

1a: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTYlost faith in the company's president
b(1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentionsacted in good faith
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof; clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Definition of FAITH

Then you presume my idea of faith differs from your own, or acknowledge that others view it differently than we do? I agree with your assessment of my use of the term, as does the definition you provided. I guess we're in agreement. Go figure ..

 

[Balthazzar]

I was hoping that you would clarify whether the biblical definition is yours as well, if you find my definition incorrect, where and how. How is faith different from unjustified belief for you?

.



What people have done with that word is off-putting, but my reason for avoiding it is the one I gave you: I am not a theist and don't want to be confused for one, which is pretty much guaranteed when one refers to God. I'm proud to be a humanist. I'm proud to have substituted reason for faith. I'm extremely grateful to have learned critical thinking. It's kept me out of religion. It's helped me avoid the mistakes others make regarding whether elections have been stolen, which people have believed without evidence leading some to commit violent crimes. It's helped me reject the antivax arguments, which are contradicted by the facts. It's protected me from conservative indoctrination media. It's allowed me to avoid the false beliefs that those who are willing to believe by faith believe. And I am proud of that accomplishment. So, God is not a word I'm going to use to refer to any aspect of reality before I need to invoke a sentient, volitional agent capable of creating universes.



I get that. But you also call yourself Christian. I still don't really have a sense for what you believe. What is a Christian panentheist who defines God the way I define reality? And I'm pretty sure that I never will (see below).



Did you really want the definition of God to be invariant rather than God Himself?

I also don't see the scripture you cited as saying anything at all. Where are you going? I'm going where I'm going. What is truth? The quality true things possess.

Nor do I find any value in referring to the universe being unchanging. The laws of physics may be invariant, but everything else - the objects in the universe like you and me - are continuously changing. Knowledge is that which helps us anticipate how thing will behave under various circumstances.



But I'm pretty sure that we have different beliefs, not merely the same beliefs described using different words. Hopefully, you have a clear idea of my beliefs on the matter by now. As I said, I still don't know what you believe, and don't expect that to change no matter how many words we exchange. I've had this discussion with several theists on this site, and I still don't have a clear idea of what any of them believe. Moreover, I suspect that they don't either.

The articulation of thought via words - speech - or other forms of expression, whether creative, poetic, direct, or otherwise is how the Logos or word of God is defined. This is why I hold true to my roots. It's not much different than using the terms knot to describe a large fold of dollar bills. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The point is as it was suggested already. Interchangeable terms meaning the same thing. Given we live in a prediminatly theistic world, I choose to use the tried and true, if only to better relate to those who understand them, if not to better articulate and express the intent of the usage.

 

[SkepticThinker]

[
Then you presume my idea of faith differs from your own, or acknowledge that others view it differently than we do? I agree with your assessment of my use of the term, as does the definition you provided. I guess we're in agreement. Go figure ...

The way you've tried to define faith here (as hope or perseverance) is different from the generally accepted definitions of faith. As I've pointed out.

Now you're saying we agree. Okay.

 

[Balthazzar]

The way you've tried to define faith here (as hope or perseverance) is different from the generally accepted definitions of faith. As I've pointed out.

Now you're saying we agree. Okay.

That's what I've been pointing out also, hence my comments about the misisplaced stereotypical assertions placed on me based on exactly what you just stated.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's what I've been pointing out also, hence my comments about the misisplaced stereotypical assertions placed on me based on exactly what you just stated.

Misplaced stereotypical assertions? Sorry, what?
Your example of something you thought involves "faith" didn't really involve faith at all, as most of us recognize and use the word. Rather, what you were talking about was actually what we call "hope."
Where does the stereotyping come in, exactly?

 

[Truth in love]

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

What I'm doing today and what I do tomorrow might be rather different. Historical events are hard to test. Yet they are real.

 

[Truth in love]

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.

Okay and yet people accept the this thing they cant touch see taste smell etc. as science??? How very odd.

 

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon To keep in line with the theme of the thread - I'll utilize the use of electrons, protons, and neutrons as a way to illustrate the concept of God - a nucleus. One Nucleus existing within even larger bodies of, encapsulating the entirety of everything - its as if we are similar, if not the same as. The atomic structure of a quartz crystal may differ from the atomic structure of other carbon based things like diamonds and people, but the basics remain the same - protons, neutrons, and electrons forming cells (a nucleus) then interacting with other cells. That's life and it's God and it's us and everything else too. Beyond these, I couldn't comment as I know of nothing else.

Your analogous comparison simply assumes an extant deity though, yet again? Unevidenced assumption isn't very compelling, since one could believe literally anything using this, nor does your analogy have any real explanatory powers of what you perceive a deity to be or why? You are simply pointing at things and saying that's god. This might mean something to you, but it is arbitrary, and others simply won't understand what you're talking about. If everything is god, then ipso facto god is everything, well then the deity part is redundant, as I already know what everything means.

 

[1213]

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?

Christianity was local "religion" in Israel, I don't live there and still got it. I think that shows something.

But, about what is more likely true, it depends on what is compared. For example Quran says that people should believe Jesus. I think that makes Bible and Jesus more likely true than false.

 

[Truth in love]

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.

Some scares are left, but what percentage of events in your life that did occur can someone today show? 1% 1/100th of 1%?

 

[Balthazzar]

Misplaced stereotypical assertions? Sorry, what?
Your example of something you thought involves "faith" didn't really involve faith at all, as most of us recognize and use the word. Rather, what you were talking about was actually what we call "hope."
Where does the stereotyping come in, exactly?

Yup, as do we in context of how scriptures define it. Others would use the term confidence. "I have confidence that Mr or Mrs so and so will be able to understand a basic premise." for example.

People who use the term faith or God are ofen categorized as thinking like others who use those terms, generally speaking. That's a stereotype. The misapplication is: not everyone who use those terms see them or define them the same way.

 

[Sheldon]

What is the universe and how is it defined?

Look it up, I'm not your personal English teacher.

How do you think I view God?

I have no idea, your claims are sweeping subjective and meaningless, did you not read my post?

I gave the definition of panentheism, as defined and as I understand the universe. Are you attributing your own stereotype about how you think God should be or how you think God is viewed by others to my views?

I'm an atheist, that should be sufficient evidence for you to see how ludicrous a claim this is. The person holding the belief has the burden to accurately define and evidence it, you have done neither, you are simply making a sweeping subjective claim.

I told you how I view God as a panentheist I gave accepted definitions of panentheism. I presume you are familiar with the objective universe. I gave illustrations in scientific terms and I made no claim, aside from what's evident in life, as to any other aspect of how God "might" be.

Do you mean Pantheism? If so I already know what the word means. I also know you're a pantheist (if that is what you meant?) I just have no idea why you think the universe is evidence of a deity. Publicly asserting your pantheistic belief is a claim, clearly.

Your comprehension level seems to be on par with a child diagnosed with adhd. An honest observation.

Petty ad hominem in fact, grow up.

Either that. or you're being contrary for sake of being contrary.

You do know what debate means don't you? Even assuming you have inexplicably come to a debate forum, with no intention of engaging in debate, you surely can't imagine every is obliged to agree with your beliefs?

Either way, you seem to be an adolescent unfamiliar with the subject you both disagree with and support, or just being a child stirring up trouble without thought to how old it makes you appear to me.

Try stamping your foot, and see if that help this tantrum, then when you have something beyond childish ad hominem get back to me.

I could resort to elementary level terms if you like.

I'd need to see some evidence your posts are capable of even that level first. Now did you want to just exchange insults, or have you any interest in debate?

 

[Balthazzar]

Your analogous comparison simply assumes an extant deity though, yet again? Unevidenced assumption isn't very compelling, since one could believe literally anything using this, nor does your analogy have any real explanatory powers of what you perceive a deity to be or why? You are simply pointing at things and saying that's god. This might mean something to you, but it is arbitrary, and others simply won't understand what you're talking about. If everything is god, then ipso facto god is everything, well then the deity part is redundant, as I already know what everything means.

Again, I question your understanding of the universe as well as how we came to be in it. I'm an evolutionist by the way.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes - we call this faith

Words can have different meanings, if you Google the definition of faith you will get two definitions, the first or primary definition is very different to the second, which defines religious faith as it is broadly accepted or understood.

As @It Aint Necessarily So pointed out to you, faith that your car will start, is trust or confidence based on objective evidence, which is not how religious faith is defined. Again a cursory look at a dictionary will demonstrate this to be the case.

 

[Balthazzar]

Look it up, I'm not your personal English teacher.



I have no idea, your claims are sweeping subjective and meaningless, did you not read my post?



I'm an atheist, that should be sufficient evidence for you to see how ludicrous a claim this is. The person holding the belief has the burden to accurately define and evidence it, you have done neither, you are simply making a sweeping subjective claim.



Do you mean Pantheism? If so I already know what the word means. I also know you're a pantheist (if that is what you meant?) I just have no idea why you think the universe is evidence of a deity. Publicly asserting your pantheistic belief is a claim, clearly.



Petty ad hominem in fact, grow up.



You do know what debate means don't you? Even assuming you have inexplicably come to a debate forum, with no intention of engaging in debate, you surely can't imagine every is obliged to agree with your beliefs?



Try stamping your foot, and see if that help this tantrum, then when you have something beyond childish ad hominem get back to me.



I'd need to see some evidence your posts are capable of even that level first. Now did you want to just exchange insults, or have you any interest in debate?

I should be thankful for that first statement, but that would be ahem a childish thing to say, so I'll simply insinuate it came to mind and confess.

I'm a panentheist. All in God is what it means, root words in conjunction. Pantheism would mean: All God, which is very similar. The difference may be in the inclusion being about an understanding being necessary to claim the in part. All is God evident to our ilk, but the understanding that all are in God also helps to braoden the thought, particularly futuristically speaking. New additions already in, just not yet manifest as.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay and yet people accept the this thing they cant touch see taste smell etc. as science??? How very odd.

You can see it any time you want:
CERN - Google Search

The work that is done there will be published in scientific journals that you can read.


If you want to do work there, you'll need to spend some time obtaining some scientific credentials.

Nothing odd about it.

 

[Sheldon]

Yup, as do we in context of how scriptures define it. Others would use the term confidence. "I have confidence that Mr or Mrs so and so will be able to understand a basic premise." for example.

People who use the term faith or God are ofen categorized as thinking like others who use those terms, generally speaking. That's a stereotype. The misapplication is: not everyone who use those terms see them or define them the same way.

Which is why we create and use dictionaries as reference tools to determine how most people understand words, your definition of religious faith is at odds with this.

Religious faith is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Whereas the primary definition in a non-religious context is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something. So those are two varying definitions of the same word.

 

[Balthazzar]

Words can have different meanings, if you Google the definition of faith you will get two definitions, the first or primary definition is very different to the second, which defines religious faith as it is broadly accepted or understood.

.

As @It Aint Necessarily So pointed out to you, faith that your car will start, is trust or confidence based on objective evidence, which is not how religious faith is defined. Again a cursory look at a dictionary will demonstrate this to be the case.

A reading of the scriptures might do the same, given the comprehension ability of the one reading is up to par.