Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Sheldon]

I assume you, me, George, among others exist. I assume the universe exists and everything it contains.

That's why your rationale falls down straight away, because you don't know the difference between objective facts, and assumption.

That's my theological concept of God, our origins, our Supreme authority of which we must consider as living breathing children of.

To be clear, that is a string of unevidenced assumptions. Your posts have demonstrated your inability to show otherwise.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
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?

Was your first point a question or statement?

The wording was as if a statement but the punctuation as if a question.

Sorry was that 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?

Can I have that in English?

THAT'S A QUESTION, in case you can't see the question mark.

 

[Sheldon]

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

He is also assuming anyone who doesn't accept his subjective unevidenced claims, is missing the "evidence", which is a pretty obvious no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

That's the point - I can only post from my perspective, from my point of reference.

Which is why posters who understand the difference, are calling you on making entirely subjective claims.

Some assume no God or gods,

Some may, but this is not what atheism means, or what the atheists posting here have claimed, so more sophistry from you.

which from where I stand would assume no us or anything.

Are you any closer to seeing the difference between subjective and objective?

Sorry that was cruel, clearly your posts suggest not. Would it help if I posted the dictionary definition of those words?

 

[blü 2]

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.

I don't argue with what you say. I simply don't see how it leads to the idea of a real, not-imaginary, not-purely-conceptual god.

And what will it tell us when we have perfect Turing machines, which we're closing in on at a formidable rate?

The brain after all is a physical object, an extremely complex one that works by biochemistry and bioelectricity and our thoughts and concepts and imaginings and language and memory and everything else there are brain states and sequences of brain states.

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.

The major influence of the drills was how the bombers took advantage of them in assembling the pupils and the staff in the one room. They were not a significant factor in ameliorating the effects of the explosion.

2. The Bomb should have leveled much of the school It did not.

That was due to the incompetence of the bombers. Only the top part of the bomb (the gasoline) was accurately wired; the lower part, although built in, was unconnected and didn't explode. Indeed, it was the female bomber's incompetence that caused the explosion at all. Far more important was that as the children had grown more and more restless, all the windows had been opened, so that the explosion when it came was importantly far less contained.

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

Did they? What does "other people" mean here?

The problem with claiming divine intervention for what was good fortune is the question why a divinity would choose that particular event to intervene miraculously while sitting on [his] hands while (for example, since in human terms they're blameless) little children die of accident or disease or deliberate act every day.

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.

Then [he] exists in objective reality and you can not only describe [him] as you can describe any other real thing but you can also show [him] to me, as you can show me any other real thing, either directly or via instruments.

And I invite you to do so, since I'd be genuinely interested, and a great many other people would be too.

Sure I do think about God, I also think about math. Is math just an idea?

Maths is purely conceptual, yes. You won't find an uninstantiated 2 running around in the wild, for example. You can't even count anything unless you impose a human judgment ─ [WHAT TO COUNT] and [WHAT FIELD] to count it in. How many [GEESE] in the [BARN]? How many [SURNAMES STARTING WITH O] of [PEOPLE IN OREGON]? How many [PHOTONS] in the [UNIVERSE]?

Is Iron just an idea?

Iron is found in the world external to the self, has objective existence, is real.

In order to have a better understanding of God we often need some training and differently some experience.

The first question in pursuit of understanding of God is that clear definition of a real God, the entity we're looking for in the world external to the self. If that can't be done, and as far as I can find it's never been done, then we have no alternative but to start by acknowledging that 'God' is a name and status designation for any one of a huge menagerie of imaginary beings, no?

 

[Sheldon]

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

I disagree, since posts other than yours, manage to debate without resorting exclusively to bald assertions. Oh and if you want evidence for this just re-read this thread.

 

[Sheldon]

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'm guessing the irony is lost on you again? Would it help if someone pointed out that objective reality has nothing to do with how any individual "operates"?

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat? You know what fact and objective mean right?

 

[Sheldon]

I see no relevance to my thoughts and your assessment of them.

Now this is the first claim you have made, that I am inclined to accept as valid.

 

[Balthazzar]

Oranges, since we're offering irrelevant non sequiturs?



What is?



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 prefer peaches to prunes.



'kay, if you say so....

Peaches, but mangos are no less sweet to the tongue.

 

[Ostronomos]

When the highest caliber logic is applied to God atheism no longer stands up to scrutiny.

 

[Sheldon]

I assume you, me, George, among others exist. I assume the universe exists and everything it contains.

You are missing basic comprehension if you think this requires assumption, since it can all be objectively evidenced.

That's my theological concept of God, our origins, our Supreme authority of which we must consider as living breathing children of.

Oh, back to unevidenced woo woo.

 

[Sheldon]

Peaches, but mangos are no less sweet to the tongue.

It seems you have no cogent response, yet again.

 

[Sheldon]

When the highest caliber logic is applied to God atheism no longer stands up to scrutiny.

It's calibre not claiber (sic), and that aside this vapid platitude was pretty funny. It seems you don't even know what logic or atheism mean, prima facie, or I have missed the irony here?

 

[Balthazzar]

I disagree, since posts other than yours, manage to debate without resorting exclusively to bald assertions. Oh and if you want evidence for this just re-read this thread.

OK, I'll switch it up a bit. Have it your way.

 

[Balthazzar]

You are missing basic comprehension if you think this requires assumption, since it can all be objectively evidenced.



Oh, back to unevidenced woo woo.

Yeah, and God isn't relevant, right?

 

[Balthazzar]

It seems you have no cogent response, yet again.

You prefer peaches - I prefer peaches, but as I stated "Mangos are no less sweet to the tongue." Clear evidence would be in your statement ... If you're being honest, otherwise what's the point of asserting an accusation that doesn't validly apply?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When the highest caliber logic is applied to God atheism no longer stands up to scrutiny.

And how would you know this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's calibre not claiber (sic), and that aside this vapid platitude was pretty funny. It seems you don't even know what logic or atheism mean, prima facie, or I have missed the irony here?

Tsk, tsk. The real Sheldon would have disagreed with you. He had it spelled correctly:

Caliber - Wikipedia

And as a perfect example of Muphry's law you messed up when you incorrectly copied his term.

And everything else in your post was correct of course.

 

[Sheldon]

OK, I'll switch it up a bit. Have it your way.

Ok, I'll pretend you offered a cogent answer there, and pretend I'm enthralled.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, and God isn't relevant, right?

Which god? What objective evidence can you demonstrate it exists? What objective evidence can you demonstrate it is "relevant" as you put it, to anything? Given you might be able to answer either of the first two questions, as thus far you demonstrably can't.