Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Balthazzar]

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?



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

Was your first point a question or statement? The wording was as if a statement but the punctuation as if a question. Would you be more bare in your intent please? I mean, can you illuminate the thought with more articulated and evident wording? Will you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, it would not. Now you are begging the question. You are assuming that your beliefs are right.

The problem is that with you poor definition of God there would be no difference between a universe with a God and one without one.

There is no evidence for a God that anyone has posted here. No one here has posted that even shows any evidence that a God is needed in our universe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Religions have a tendency to spread, just like all knowledge, but that hardly testifies to the truth of such, just as the numbers game does neither too - the numbers believing any particular thing. I'm sure many do feel some comfort in knowing that some form of religion is believed by the majority but if one looked into the future perhaps and saw so many European nations mainly without religions being that present would this apply? Given that this seems to be the trend.

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.

Not really, especially if they had much in common anyway, and given that Christianity probably didn't just appear without much coming from previous beliefs.

 

[ppp]

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

Was scares supposed to be traces?

I don't know. Probably more than that. Structured societies keeps records like crazy. And then there's all the people that know me.

But the point remains that even if it were less than 0.1% your claim that "What is empirically testable today is not testable tomorrow." Is just plain wrong. Both technically and in spirit.

 

[ppp]

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

Well, stop doing that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

You will choose the language you prefer. Can you see the problems created by the way you have been using it on this thread? As best I can tell, nobody is clear on what you believe. Two of us have said so explicitly, and another has said "there would be no difference between a universe with a God and one without one." I said something similar, which is why I asked why you equate God and universe. I didn't understand your answer there, either - something about the words once being synonymous, and just now, to resonate with theists.

That's all fine. I don't need for you to have clear ideas about God or to present them clearly, although I was hoping you did and could. As I indicated, that is usually the case when dealing with any theist who doesn't have the old man in the sky kind of god in mind. As soon as it deviates from that, the descriptions become much less clear. They also move closer to where the humanist is. I'm still not sure how your worldview differs from mine. If we go by your words, not at all. You just have a different name for the universe than I do, but haven't described any qualities that aren't part of the scientific view what the universe is. You've never said that your god was conscious or does anything.

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

You were referring to CERN. We know that the Higgs boson exists because of detectible effects it produces which are not directly sensible, but are sensible to the detectors used, which generate something detectable to the senses, like test for Covid-19. We don't see the virus (or smell, taste or hear it), but we see the strip which detects virus. We also know the Higgs boson exists because it was prophesied before it was detected, and appeared at the energy prophesied and with the charge and spin characteristics prophesied. Unlike biblical prophecy, these prophecies are specific. One can't just find anything and say that this is what the prophecies must have been about.

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" The evidence was there, but not understood.

Of course, that's how I define the theistic experience - a lack of understanding what their mental state means. I've said as much explicitly when I described my own experience as a reinterpreting of a misunderstood psychological state.

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.

You're probably not surprised that I reject this analogy as apt. What you call tuning to the God frequency to receive a message is what I would call letting down one's critical thinking defenses. Remember, I've been a Christian, and then not one. What changed was not my sensory apparatus or brain, but how I decide what is true about the world. If anything was broken (turned off, actually), it was my faculty of reason when I chose to suspend disbelief.

 

[Balthazzar]

No, it would not. Now you are begging the question. You are assuming that your beliefs are right.

The problem is that with you poor definition of God there would be no difference between a universe with a God and one without one.

There is no evidence for a God that anyone has posted here. No one here has posted that even shows any evidence that a God is needed in our universe.

That's the point - I can only post from my perspective, from my point of reference. Some assume no God or gods, which from where I stand would assume no us or anything.

 

[Balthazzar]

Well, stop doing that.

Oh, so you're suggesting I'm making bald assertions? In thar case I assert this is how discussions and debates go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the point - I can only post from my perspective, from my point of reference. Some assume no God or gods, which from where I stand would assume no us or anything.

Sorry but this is approaching nihilism. In a face to face debate that can warrant a slap across the face. A reaction is a denial of nihilsim.

My point is that there are ways of properly testing what one believes. One than can transition from mere belief, which is all that you have and you seem to assume that is all that others have, to actual knowledge. Remember, your flaws are not necessarily the flaws of others.

 

[Balthazzar]

Sorry but this is approaching nihilism. In a face to face debate that can warrant a slap across the face. A reaction is a denial of nihilsim.

My point is that there are ways of properly testing what one believes. One than can transition from mere belief, which is all that you have and you seem to assume that is all that others have, to actual knowledge. Remember, your flaws are not necessarily the flaws of others.

I operate under an objective reality model of observation and a relative field theorem, utilizing my subjective mind and how that subjective mind perceives objective reality.

I am no doubt flawed in many ways, but I see no relevance to my thoughts and your assessment of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I operate under an objective reality model of observation and a relative field theorem, utilizing my subjective mind and how that subjective mind perceives objective reality.

I am no doubt flawed in many ways, but I see no relevance to my thoughts and your assessment of them.

I doubt if you even understand the word salad that you just posted.

 

[Balthazzar]

I doubt if you even understand the word salad that you just posted.

Did it sound that tasty? Hmm, I admittedly enjoy the word and articulating thoughts into tasty little tide bit plates of "word salad."

I could explain if you like ... about my previous post. Not so much the word salad enjoyment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did it sound that tasty? Hmm, I admittedly enjoy the word and articulating thoughts into tasty little tide bit plates of "word salad."

I could explain if you like ... about my previous post. Not so much the word salad enjoyment.

Too late.

 

[F1fan]

Some assume no God or gods, which from where I stand would assume no us or anything.

Yet we can verify there is an "us" and "anything" via our senses, so no need to assume. Not so with any of the 5000 or so gods. So why would anyone assume any of them exist? Why would anyone do that?

 

[F1fan]

I operate under an objective reality model of observation and a relative field theorem, utilizing my subjective mind and how that subjective mind perceives objective reality.

Then you would not assume any gods exist given there is no objective basis for any of these thousands of concepts. None correspond to anything in reality.

I am no doubt flawed in many ways, but I see no relevance to my thoughts and your assessment of them.

You seem guilty of over-estimating your objectivity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rote memory has got to be good for something though, right?

Bible knowledge and Jeopardy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Because it exist. It's really there. I've seen lots of documentaries that show video images of it. And because I'm not such a hardened skeptic I let my brain fall out I accept this as actually existing, especially all the years and studies later.

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

But the Laws of Nature do not change.

 

[Balthazzar]

Then you would not assume any gods exist given there is no objective basis for any of these thousands of concepts. None correspond to anything in reality.


You seem guilty of over-estimating your objectivity.

I assume you, me, George, among others exist. I assume the universe exists and everything it contains. That's my theological concept of God, our origins, our Supreme authority of which we must consider as living breathing children of.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
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.

Oranges, since we're offering irrelevant non sequiturs?

This seems to be a common thing in life, where the comprehension of a thing is either misapplied, misused, or misunderstood.

What is?

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.

Is like what? Also it's clearly to not too, and clearly they're not there, so you're either trolling or illiterate, now which do you want me to believe is the case, come on?

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

I prefer peaches to prunes.

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

'kay, if you say so....

 

[Sheldon]

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

No, and do you seriously not know what a straw man fallacy is?

Magic is everything, the universe is magic, magic and the universe are the same, the universe is something you don't understand, that's why you don't understand magic.

Woo woo..."A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudo scientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations."