Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[ppp]

I'm sorry did you say something?

He said you think you're right merely because you think it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry did you say something?

I would love to help you to understand those basic concepts and how to apply them. You should be interested too. Right now anyone can refute your arguments with a laugh and a handwave.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm sorry did you say something?

I believe so, here it is again:

Subduction Zone said: ↑
The logic you have presented here has been of a very low caliber, a slight improvement over that would not prove anything.

And you do not appear to have evidence for God. I don't think that you understand the concept.

Any clearer?

 

[joelr]

I never said that to you. You were the one bringing up supernatural. I 'never' use that word myself anyway


I never said that to you either

Your words -

"You want evidence the Supernatural does not exist, hence no interest in Spirituality"

I never said I didn't have any interest in spirituality. I said the word is vague and has many meanings. You added "hence" and the supposition.

 

[joelr]

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

Where do you think I got the information I'm explaining to you? I say this from an educated position. The sate of the supernatural is not "further investigation is needed" as if there are possibilities that need further study. It's all complete crank. You can still learn, you can study new sources. But so far there isn't a shred of credible good evidence.

 

[stvdv]

Your words -

"You want evidence the Supernatural does not exist, hence no interest in Spirituality"

Yes, and I stand by that. Just check the context and how I explained it all. Omitting the context, gives false impressions

 

[stvdv]

I never said I didn't have any interest in spirituality. I said the word is vague and has many meanings. You added "hence" and the supposition

You actually said something totally different, which made me reply the way you did

Confusion can be easily solved though:
1) Do you want to live a Spiritual life?

 

[joelr]

What is empirically testable today is not testable tomorrow. Tomorrow you can't get a witness to what I did today. Events of the past wither you feel them to be likely or unlikely would leave us looking for witnesses who saw things or other evidence. Why is a given persons or millions witness of what they have seen and heard invalided if you don't like it?

Many experiences can some equivocated others really cannot. If I wake up in the morning while camping and find many large cat prints around the camp the only logical conclusion is that a large cat was in the camp. Now its not 100% impossible for it to be a fraud, but its a pretty big stretch. Now I did not see the cat, but I can see clear marks from its being there.

Those who claim to actually see God are fairly rare. But accounts of small miracles from rapid healing, to being found when lost etc. are abundant. Sure there may be a few that are 100% frauds, but having listened to many people over many years I don't dismiss this long list of witnesses.

There are probabilities with illness. Even serious cancer may have a 90% mortality rate, even 100%. But the 100% can still mean 1 out of every 1 million will recover. With 90% that leaves ~10 people who recover every 100 times. Most of the time people don't make it in those cases and once in a while they do. That is actually expected? Those are the probabilities.
Rabies has a 100% mortality rate but a few people over the decades have survived. So when people survive they feel like it's a miracle. It's very presumptuous, like so many others died from the same disease but God picked them to live? And they say "wow I was in the hospital for weeks and had several complicated surgeries and all kinds of procedures and medicine, but God saved me". Uh, I think the doctors saved you?

As for getting lost, somewhere between 120 and 140 people typically die at national parks each year, not counting suicides, so it's highly probable that once in a while a ranger will stumble on someone lost. But what about the other 140? That fits perfectly into what is probable. A few will be found. They will consider it a miracle. It's bound to happen that a few will be found. How is it a miracle is a person is found in the woods? A miracle would be if all 140 people lost were recovered, every year no matter what.

I had a friend Glenn move to NYC, I think it was the Village. One week later I went downtown to stay overnight with my GF. We parked got the room and were going into another building for something and I was like "Hey Glenn". He was coming out of the building. He came up from the village to apply at a paralegal job. Seemed funny but only later did I realize how weird it was. I had no idea he was getting into paralegal or going downtown. My GF didn't know him and I hadn't told him I was going. After seeing NYC several more times I realized how crazy it is and how unlikely it is to run into someone. Everyone is moving so fast.

 

[joelr]

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.

How tuned is your reciever?

 

[joelr]

You actually said something totally different, which made me reply the way you did

Confusion can be easily solved though:
1) Do you want to live a Spiritual life?

That creates confusion. You have to explain what you mean by the word spiritual.

 

[stvdv]

You actually said something totally different, which made me reply the way you did

Confusion can be easily solved though:
1) Do you want to live a Spiritual life?

That creates confusion. You have to explain what you mean by the word spiritual.

Spiritual practices:
1) Self Effort: Purify thoughts, words and deeds
2) Be critical to your own mistakes and flaws
3) Don't criticize other's Spiritual Path
4) Do not belittle other's (non) Faith or Feelings
5) Do not belittle other's Spiritual experiences

Do (not do) unto others what you (not) want them to do unto you without hurting or harming them

You can not always oblige, but you can always speak obligingly

 

[PearlSeeker]

However how well turned is the receiver?

Most people are well tuned. If we can easily communicate with each other then how much more would God be able to do so.

7“[g]Ask, and it will be given to you; [h]seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9Or what person is there among you [j]who, when his son asks for a loaf of bread, [k]will give him a stone? 10Or [l]if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11So if you, despite being [m]evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! (Mt 7)

So what do I get when I ask: Hello, anybody there?

 

[Truth in love]

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.



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.



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.



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.

So in short if an expert in a field observes evidence and reports on that evidence its science only if there is a fancy gadget involved, but if the experience involves God its not science. Thus we have no actual reality based distinction just personal bias for the high horse on which so many sit to condemn those the disagree with. Seems pretty clear cut to me. You'll pardon my critical thinking skills not buying this as being a valid determination of reality or science.

 

[Truth in love]

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.

But the Laws of Nature do not change.

No its claimed to be there. I cannot go and see, touch, taste etc. the Higgs. Its an act the faith no different from a person believing the Bible or other sacred text or experience.

 

[Truth in love]

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

The kids reported there being others in the room. The Bomb should have all gone off and leveled the room. These events don't fit our understanding of science or facts. The open mind asks what explains it. That can take a person down many different roads, but I think the honest acceptance that some things don't fit what we know via science is important.

I don't have an explanation as to why some divine interventions are more common in some setting vs. others. The simple fact that we have well documented events that violate some of our rules was the whole point in bringing this event up.

God is not an imaginary being. I've spent a good portion of my life trying to study and understand God. I spent years being very unsure. I've seen the evidence. Time and time again. Back to the radio bit, having tuned in many times and heard many programs I cannot pretend that its fake or imagined. No I'm not an expert in all things radio, but I've seen far more evidence for God than I have for Russia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The kids reported there being others in the room. The Bomb should have all gone off and leveled the room. These events don't fit our understanding of science or facts. The open mind asks what explains it. That can take a person down many different roads, but I think the honest acceptance that some things don't fit what we know via science is important.

I don't have an explanation as to why some divine interventions are more common in some setting vs. others. The simple fact that we have well documented events that violate some of our rules was the whole point in bringing this event up.

God is not an imaginary being. I've spent a good portion of my life trying to study and understand God. I spent years being very unsure. I've seen the evidence. Time and time again. Back to the radio bit, having tuned in many times and heard many programs I cannot pretend that its fake or imagined. No I'm not an expert in all things radio, but I've seen far more evidence for God than I have for Russia.

No, there is no "the bomb should have gone off". Homemade explosives are highly unreliable. This one relied on a complex reaction that could have gone wrong in several ways That it did not go off is not evidence for angles or a god since bombs of that sort failing on their own happens quite often. And that is ignoring the chance of deliberate sabotage of someone involved in making such a device. If I was going to be in that room I would probably snip a wire or two when I had the chance if my partner was making a bomb. I would not want to die for a psychotic cause. The wife could have easily made the bomb inoperable herself.

So we have three possible answers:

The husband was incompetent and did not make his second bomb correctly. I would say that that is the most likely explanation.

A second explanation is that his wife did not want to die and snipped a couple of wires when she had the chance. That is quite likely too. Wifey might seem to go along with him, but when it comes to suicide and mass murder at the same time she may not have agreed.

And the third explanation is "magic". Magical being intervened and saved everyone. That does not explain all of the times that there were no magical saviors in countless similar cases involving guns. Oh wait, angels can defuse bombs, but guns are too tricky.

Sorry but option three appears to be totally unwarranted.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So in short if an expert in a field observes evidence and reports on that evidence its science only if there is a fancy gadget involved, but if the experience involves God its not science.

It's empiricism whenever evidence is used and properly interpreted whether any gadgets are involved or not, and faith when it is not. If an experience included evidence that was best understood as indicating a god exists, concluding that would be science as well. Feeling like a god is present is not good evidence for a god.

Thus we have no actual reality based distinction just personal bias for the high horse on which so many sit to condemn those the disagree with.

Disagree again. We do have a reality-based distinction - evidence. We have evidence for the Higgs boson, but not for deities.

You'll pardon my critical thinking skills not buying this as being a valid determination of reality or science.

That's fine. You don't need to agree. I understand why you don't. You process information differently, and so, come to different conclusions using the same evidence. Like all empiricists, I don't consider any statement correct unless it is demonstrably correct.

And I understand why that frustrates believers. They consider their methods of deciding what's true about the world to be valid, and those of the skeptic too rigid. But no sound, evidenced argument ends, "therefore God." That conclusion can only be reached with faith, where side-stepping evidence is not just permitted, but pretty much defines what faith is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No its claimed to be there. I cannot go and see, touch, taste etc. the Higgs. Its an act the faith no different from a person believing the Bible or other sacred text or experience.

It really exists. There has been much research done on it.
The Bible, on the other hand, offers claims that are impossible to verify, historically impossible and just didn't happen. Like all those people coming back to life in the Gospels. The very fact the Romans didn't record this tells us it probably just didn't happen.

 

[Sheldon]

I cannot go and see, touch, taste etc. the Higgs. Its an act the faith no different from a person believing the Bible or other sacred text or experience.

What are your qualifications in theoretical physics?

I'm pretty sure this idea doesn't involve unfalsifiable woo woo superstition for a start.

 

[Sheldon]

The kids reported there being others in the room. The Bomb should have all gone off and leveled the room. These events don't fit our understanding of science or facts.

Since miracles are defined as events that are not explicable by natural or scientific laws, this isn't telling us much, the same would be true of mermaids and unicorns.

The open mind asks what explains it. That can take a person down many different roads, but I think the honest acceptance that some things don't fit what we know via science is important.

You're no asking what explains it with an open mind, you're leaping to unevidenced assumption because you claim science can't explain it, YET....

I don't have an explanation as to why some divine interventions are more common in some setting vs. others. The simple fact that we have well documented events that violate some of our rules was the whole point in bringing this event up.

There is no objective evidence for any divine intervention, only precisely this kind of appeal to mystery. These events are often not "well documented" at all, and they don't violate scientific laws, at best we simply don't understand what has happened, but that was true of all scientific facts once, and the superstitious labelled them as supernatural because of that, it seems they don't learn.

God is not an imaginary being. I've spent a good portion of my life trying to study and understand God. I spent years being very unsure. I've seen the evidence.

Can you demonstrate any, beyond this bare unevidenced subjective claim I mean?

I've seen far more evidence for God than I have for Russia.

Russia exists as an objective fact, so I don't think evidence means what you think it does?