Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Balthazzar]

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.

They are likely both very relevant scripturally speaking and likewise by necessity in uncertain times.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

We came to be in it by our parents having sex obviously, unless you mean how the human species came to be in it, in which case we evolved, as have all living things. What is it you're claiming I don't understand about the universe, and what bearing has it on the topic?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Well, if you're going to make up your own definitions of words, then yeah, people aren't going to know what you're talking about.

I don't see how the Biblical definition of the word faith is any different from the way I use the word in religious discussions, from the definitions provided in my last post.
Faith is unjustified belief. Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have evidence. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence.
And since anything can apparently be believed on faith, I don't see how it can be a reliable pathway to truth.

Now you've introduced another word that basically just means "trust." So why not just use the word trust?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which concept?

Evidence. In the sciences it is made clearer, but to even have evidence one must have a testable idea. Otherwise you do not have evidence you have an ad hoc explanation and those are worthless.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

So what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support the existence of a deity, simply asserting everything is god, and god is everything doesn't really explain why god is necessary at all, or what a deity is, or what objective evidence supports an extant deity.

Again one could use this rationale to claim anything, the universe is magic, and magic the universe. It doesn't seem to have any evidence or explanatory powers?

 

[Sheldon]

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

Well the dictionary simply reflects what most people understand the word faith to mean, I doubt one could say that of the bible, though readers of the bible would be a large demographic, so how closely they match would depend on whether there was any consensus from those who read the bible, or just wildly differing subjective interpretations.

 

[Truth in love]

I don't think so. I think it clearly distinguishes the world external to the self, which is the same thing as objective reality (which I'd say was the most usual meaning of 'reality'), from the personal life of the mind, which can have as many subjective 'realities' as it cares to imagine.

Without such a distinction, there's no objective definition of truth, for example. I use what's called the "correspondence" definition of truth ─ that truth is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. Nor is there a satisfactory definition of "fact" ─ in my view a fact is an accurate statement about some or other state of affairs or relationship in objective reality.
Refreshing my memory about Cokeville, I've just reread the >Wikipedia page<, and neither in memory nor from the Wikipedia page do I find anything that goes beyond lucky to miraculous. What did you have in mind?
How then do you address the point that the only way God is known to exist is as an idea?

1. The Social sciences are not about hard facts like this is a rock. There are a lot of patterns and trends. multi casual issues etc. One can't put the complexities of the interactions of biology culture and psychology into a small box. In order to function in that realm we have to get comfortable with some things being a bit fuzzy. So for example nearly all abusers were abused, but a great many abused persons don't become abusers, yet some do. Its still science, but its not a predictable as a chemistry set.

2. Cokeville is an interesting story. A few details:
1. The alarm system was malfunctioning many times leading up to the events. Outcome was that the kids got some extra practice in emergency drills.
2. The Bomb should have leveled much of the school It did not.
3. Many children all reported the same basic event of seeing other people in the room.

Now one can debate some of the finer details, but this event does not fit our understanding of physics. The children experienced something that is not explained by normal stress responses and imagination. Its a long way from proof positive of all people believe, but it does suggest that we accept that don't have it all figured out.

3. God is not just an idea. Sure I do think about God, I also think about math. Is math just an idea? Is Iron just an idea? In order to engage with the more complex areas of science I need training and I need special equipment. In order to have a better understanding of God we often need some training and differently some experience./ Kind of like an old radio needing to be tuned in. The radio single is there, however if our receiver is turned off, out of tune or there is too much interference we will miss it. This is a detail that I think is often misunderstood. God is willing and able to communicate, but if we are not listening or have added too much interference into our lives we will miss it. It does not mean that the signal is absent. Given the variable nature of the receivers it is hard to measure the consistently with which a signal is received.

 

[Truth in love]

If God is omnipresent and omni-whatever direct communication would be available to all.

It is.

However how well turned is the receiver?

Old radio's used to take some work to get set just right to pick up the signal. If there is inference, poor tuning, broken parts, lack of power etc. the person does not hear the message, that does not mean the message is not being sent.

I've seen many times in people's live that addiction, anger, lust and depression can all make it harder to hear. The more in-tune we get the easier it is.

Our willingness and ability to tune in various person to person, but this does not mean the broadcast is any less real.

 

[Balthazzar]

We came to be in it by our parents having sex obviously, unless you mean how the human species came to be in it, in which case we evolved, as have all living things. What is it you're claiming I don't understand about the universe, and what bearing has it on the topic?

Apparently none - but then how am I suppose to know why you resist the very basic premise of my points?

I almost hate to bite at your method, but I will if only for the eyes of onlookers. The universe as it was, as it is, and as it will be is the panentheistic view and how panentheism defines God. We are the universe, as individual aspects of, as are our children, as well as those yet to be. The same is true for all things. All in God .

 

[Sheldon]

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

Are you saying research into particle physics isn't science? Or shouldn't be accepted as science? Why would you think that?

 

[Balthazzar]

So what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support the existence of a deity, simply asserting everything is god, and god is everything doesn't really explain why god is necessary at all, or what a deity is, or what objective evidence supports an extant deity.

Again one could use this rationale to claim anything, the universe is magic, and magic the universe. It doesn't seem to have any evidence or explanatory powers?

God is and we are, as part of the body, as God is defined by panentheism. As I've already stated more than once - Some use the term universe, while others utilize both universe and God interchangeably - as the same thing - depending on audience being spoken to.

 

[Truth in love]

As I explained, first, I don't believe that such people have the ability to detect a deity undetectable to those who become atheists.

Secondly, the claim is extraordinary, a one-off. To be believed, the empiricist needs evidence that points to a conscious, volitional agent that created the universe. Others don't. Their opinions about reality won't be the same as mine. They will admit any number of beliefs into their worldview that the empiricist would reject.

Third, I have the same experience that they are having, which I too once interpreted as a deity. I think I explained here the evidence that convinced me that I had been mistaken. I still get that feeling at times, but I understand it differently. It's a mental state characterized by a sense of awe and mystery, connection, and gratitude, and correlated with the release of oxytocin in the brain: Effects of oxytocin administration on spirituality and emotional responses to meditation

Fourth, there's the fact that the reports of a deity don't resemble one another. There's a test to determine if others are seeing things invisible to you or either lying or mistaken - consensus or lack thereof. Maybe you're red-green colorblind, and one day it occurs to you that maybe you're being pranked. So, you prepare a collection of what you are told are red and green socks which are numbered so that you can tell which are allegedly green and which are red. Then you separate people and have them name the colors they see. You'll discover very quickly what is the case regarding these colors. Theists don't pass the sock test.

As you can see, I am trying to understand the reports of others in terms of what I know about reality including what I know about people, and to translate their words to mean something that conforms to that understanding. Another poster, a zealous Christian, and I were recently discussing what born again means when we discussing his and my definitions of Christian. He said that he defines Christian in terms of being born again, meaning a believer who is filled with the Spirit and is saved. I told him that for me, a Christian was anybody that believed the core doctrine of Christianity like he does, and that when someone say that they are born again, it doesn't mean to me what it does to him. I translate his words according to my worldview, in which claiming to be born again means having accepted the core doctrine of Christianity, but none of the rest, and that we essentially used the same definition once I removed the supernatural aspects of his definition.

Don't we all do that? Aren't you doing that now - trying to understand my words through the lens of your worldview? Some believers, maybe you, would be trying to understand me in terms of Satan and rebellion, some as I don't pray properly, or any other conclusion that assumes that a god exists that I just haven't found.



I don't think that most theists are frauds, just mistaken. As I said, I reject their conclusions because of the method they use to arrive at them. In my worldview, knowledge about reality comes from valid reasoning applied to the evidence of the senses to arrive at sound, demonstrably correct conclusions. Nothing else should be called knowledge, truth, or correct, including religious beliefs, which are believed by faith, not evidence. The believer will often point to the world or a holy book and say that that is his evidence for God, but it is not that when scrutinized critically.

Well I can't force you to believe, but I stand by the many experiences of many people as evidence. The rules for evidence in math are different from sociology.

One point that I think worth making. Its not that God can't be detected by an atheist. In many cases its a lack of tuning in or a lack of seeing what the evidence means. There's an older volcano movie where this geologists point out that the temperature of the lake change by several degrees. This gets dismissed as "its a warm day" These evidence was there, but not understood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. The Social sciences are not about hard facts like this is a rock. There are a lot of patterns and trends. multi casual issues etc. One can't put the complexities of the interactions of biology culture and psychology into a small box. In order to function in that realm we have to get comfortable with some things being a bit fuzzy. So for example nearly all abusers were abused, but a great many abused persons don't become abusers, yet some do. Its still science, but its not a predictable as a chemistry set.

2. Cokeville is an interesting story. A few details:
1. The alarm system was malfunctioning many times leading up to the events. Outcome was that the kids got some extra practice in emergency drills.
2. The Bomb should have leveled much of the school It did not.

No, not "should have" . Not even close. It could have killed everyone in that room. Unless you are claiming that it was an old fashioned one room schoolhouse.

3. Many children all reported the same basic event of seeing other people in the room.

Citation needed and that is still pretty much a "so what". By the way, wild Christian sources are not reliable sources for that sort of claim.

Now one can debate some of the finer details, but this event does not fit our understanding of physics. The children experienced something that is not explained by normal stress responses and imagination. Its a long way from proof positive of all people believe, but it does suggest that we accept that don't have it all figured out.

Did they? From what I have seen they reacted no differently from others in that situation. Once again, citation needed.

3. God is not just an idea. Sure I do think about God, I also think about math. Is math just an idea? Is Iron just an idea? In order to engage with the more complex areas of science I need training and I need special equipment. In order to have a better understanding of God we often need some training and differently some experience./ Kind of like an old radio needing to be tuned in. The radio single is there, however if our receiver is turned off, out of tune or there is too much interference we will miss it. This is a detail that I think is often misunderstood. God is willing and able to communicate, but if we are not listening or have added too much interference into our lives we will miss it. It does not mean that the signal is absent. Given the variable nature of the receivers it is hard to measure the consistently with which a signal is received.

Yes, math is just an idea. It is a vey useful tool but it is not a physical object. By the way,, no one seems to have any special training when it comes to the "understanding of God". All that appears to have happened in the instance of Cokeville is that a bomb did not explode. Homemade bombs are notoriously undependable. That one did not explode properly when push came to shove is not that surprising. That sort of bomb is rather difficult to make so that it goes off properly. The perpetrator made one that worked. But that only demonstrated that properly built they can work. When you see people, who are not under stress, try to repeat this sort of explosion, and it is rather difficult to say the least, you would not be surprised when one did not go off properly. I could probably provide a video of some people trying to reproduce this sort of explosion. They were mimicking the military not this instance, but since the concept is the same it would apply.

 

[Sheldon]

Apparently none - but then how am I suppose to know why you resist the very basic premise of my points?

Have I not been clear that your bare assertions lack any supporting objective evidence, and have no explanatory powers to accurately (Hell, remotely) define a deity in any cogent way?

The universe as it was, as it is, and as it will be is the panentheistic view and how panentheism defines God. We are the universe, as individual aspects of, as are our children, as well as those yet to be. The same is true for all things. All in God .

Why do you think re-asserting your belief will help evidence it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is and we are, as part of the body, as God is defined by panentheism. As I've already stated more than once - Some use the term universe, while others utilize both universe and God interchangeably - as the same thing - depending on audience being spoken to.

This is a rather poor definition of "God". By this definition God need not even be sentient.

How is your definition different from saying that there is no God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I can't force you to believe, but I stand by the many experiences of many people as evidence. The rules for evidence in math are different from sociology.

One point that I think worth making. Its not that God can't be detected by an atheist. In many cases its a lack of tuning in or a lack of seeing what the evidence means. There's an older volcano movie where this geologists point out that the temperature of the lake change by several degrees. This gets dismissed as "its a warm day" These evidence was there, but not understood.

LOL How convenient.

Ask yourself this: For anything else that is known to exist anywhere in the world, would you ever say such a thing? I mean, do we find ourselves saying "the existence of elephants can't be detected by those who don't believe in elephants? They just aren't "tuned in" correctly." Of course not, because that's ludicrous. If you can detect it, then anyone else should be able to as well. You don't have any special powers that others don't have. You're a mere mortal, like the rest of us. Notice how it's only when we get to God claims that we hear people making such assertions. I think the reason is rather obvious - God claims are completely lacking in verifiable evidence. That response is just the religionists way of attempting to explain the complete lack of evidence for their claims.

 

[Sheldon]

I stand by the many experiences of many people as evidence.

Even atheists, or do you imagine they don't experience reality?

Its not that God can't be detected by an atheist. In many cases its a lack of tuning in or a lack of seeing what the evidence means.

That's a not true Scotsman fallacy, textbook.

 

[Sheldon]

This is a rather poor definition of "God". By this definition God need not even be sentient.

How is your definition different from saying that there is no God?

Exactly, if one defines everything as god, then the word god has no meaning, it becomes redundant. I'd be less dubious if when pressed to accurately define god, or evidence it, he had something beyond repetition of the belief, and to just look around, and that everything is evidence.

 

[Balthazzar]

Well the dictionary simply reflects what most people understand the word faith to mean, I doubt one could say that of the bible, though readers of the bible would be a large demographic, so how closely they match would depend on whether there was any consensus from those who read the bible, or just wildly differing subjective interpretations.

Both. This seems to be a common thing in life, where the comprehension of a thing is either misapplied, misused, or misunderstood. Language is like that. "There not going too the party. There going over too that one place their told about by they're dad". For example of how language can be misused and applied.

I'm not exempt from missing this mark, but I do try not to "sin" this way.

In other words" I try not to misapply or misuse language in this manner.

 

[Balthazzar]

This is a rather poor definition of "God". By this definition God need not even be sentient.

How is your definition different from saying that there is no God?

That would be like saying nothing exist, which would be a bit of an oxymoron wouldn't it?