Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Truth in love]

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.



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



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.

I’m seeing no meaningful difference. It’s personal preference in how someone wishes to describe an event.

 

[Truth in love]

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.

Its claims that people choose to believe or not.

Why would one letter not mentioning some details mean the details are invalid? If I wrote a fairly long letter on geology and made no mention of of the moon is that evidence that there is no moon? Or is it that it’s well understood and just not the focus of my letter?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

When valid reasoning is applied to god claims, agnostic atheism is what results. There is no other position possible without faith, which always produces a logical fallacy: non sequitur, or, the faith-based belief doesn't follow from what preceded it. The best thinking says to not believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support, and the evidence for God is about the same as for resurrection - words.

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.

You are incorrect about the Higgs boson. No faith is required to know that it exists. It has been measured. But you are correct about believing holy books requiring faith. Somehow, you can't see how this applies to you. Substitute God for Higgs: 'I cannot go and see, touch, taste etc. God. Its an act the faith no different from a person believing the Bible or other sacred text or experience.'

The fact that the existence of the Higgs boson and its physical characteristics were accurately prophesied should be meaningful evidence to you as well. Thales predicted an eclipse. He claimed to understand celestial motions well enough to do that. Then an eclipse occurred when he said it would. Does that mean anything different to you than had he been wrong like the people predicting the end of the world on a specific date? It should.

I’m seeing no meaningful difference. It’s personal preference in how someone wishes to describe an event.

But I do, and so do the other people you are disagreeing with in this thread. Only one has evidence, the Higgs boson, and the evidence is compelling. Perhaps for you it's just a matter of preference how you frame problems and process evidence, but if so, you're missing out on the power of sound thinking. It generates demonstrably correct conclusions. Other ways of processing evidence cannot do this. They are not equal.

Incidentally, the Heaven's Gate people had just as much evidence for their beliefs as you do, and were as certain of their understanding as you are. Do you think they made it to their comet?

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

If you understood what evidence is and how to derive sound conclusions from it, you wouldn't make such a statement. And if you understood your audience better, you would understand how such a comment is received. I assure you that every humanist would say it's the other way around, and more emphatically: 'I have compelling evidence Russia exists but have none for gods.' Why do you suppose that is?

 

[ppp]

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.

No. If you have no falsifiable, repeatable methodology that can make accurate, novel and measurable predictions it's not science. The first person to experiment with willow bark to see if it helped headaches was doing science. no fancy gadgets required.

 

[Truth in love]

When valid reasoning is applied to god claims, agnostic atheism is what results. There is no other position possible without faith, which always produces a logical fallacy: non sequitur, or, the faith-based belief doesn't follow from what preceded it. The best thinking says to not believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support, and the evidence for God is about the same as for resurrection - words.



You are incorrect about the Higgs boson. No faith is required to know that it exists. It has been measured. But you are correct about believing holy books requiring faith. Somehow, you can't see how this applies to you. Substitute God for Higgs: 'I cannot go and see, touch, taste etc. God. Its an act the faith no different from a person believing the Bible or other sacred text or experience.'

The fact that the existence of the Higgs boson and its physical characteristics were accurately prophesied should be meaningful evidence to you as well. Thales predicted an eclipse. He claimed to understand celestial motions well enough to do that. Then an eclipse occurred when he said it would. Does that mean anything different to you than had he been wrong like the people predicting the end of the world on a specific date? It should.



But I do, and so do the other people you are disagreeing with in this thread. Only one has evidence, the Higgs boson, and the evidence is compelling. Perhaps for you it's just a matter of preference how you frame problems and process evidence, but if so, you're missing out on the power of sound thinking. It generates demonstrably correct conclusions. Other ways of processing evidence cannot do this. They are not equal.

Incidentally, the Heaven's Gate people had just as much evidence for their beliefs as you do, and were as certain of their understanding as you are. Do you think they made it to their comet?



If you understood what evidence is and how to derive sound conclusions from it, you wouldn't make such a statement. And if you understood your audience better, you would understand how such a comment is received. I assure you that every humanist would say it's the other way around, and more emphatically: 'I have compelling evidence Russia exists but have none for gods.' Why do you suppose that is?

my thinking is quite sound thanks. You are insisting that the Higgs has evidence when all I have is the words of others who make claims about unlikely events.

it is exactly the same as religious people making clams about unlikely events that I can’t see for myself.

 

[ppp]

my thinking is quite sound thanks. You are insisting that the Higgs has evidence when all I have is the words of others who make claims about unlikely events.

So, don't believe it. What's the big deal?

BTW, by your own admission, you have no idea how likely or unlikely the Higgs Boson is.

it is exactly the same as religious people making clams about unlikely events that I can’t see for myself.

You can see it for yourself.

 

[blü 2]

The kids reported there being others in the room.

I can't find a record of that. What did they say these 'others' were?

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

Yes they do ─ as I said, the bomber(s) incompetently wired the bomb so that only the top part, the gasoline, was connected. They failed to connect the explosives below. And all the windows were open so importantly the explosion was not kept confined to the room.

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 can be persuaded by good evidence, but I don't see any mystery here.

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.

If your radio analogy represented an objective phenomenon, we could all reproduce it. But if it only reflects an individual mental state, then there's no objective phenomenon to be reproduced, no?

 

[joelr]

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

Ok that's something to work with. No, that is not my definition of spirituality. I don't know what purifying thoughts and deeds means.
I agree we should be critical of our flaws.
The rest is just about not being a D to other people. That is one of the general tenants of secular humanism. So I don't need spirituality for that.

However there is a time to discuss those things you mention and a religious debates forum is the place. I am here for epistemology so it's important to challenge beliefs and look for empirical evidence. If I held false beliefs I would want someone to challenge them and put questions that make me think about the position and apply rational and skeptical questions to them.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Why would you think an experience involves 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.

Well solve the problem by demonstrating any God actually exists.

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.

You have contempt for science due to social biases, so that is something you can remedy if you decide to accept facts, objectivity, and reason.

 

[stvdv]

What you call tuning to the God frequency to receive a message is what I would call letting down one's critical thinking defenses

FYI:
Tuning in to the Divine (God) does not imply to not use discrimination, common sense and other given faculties

 

[stvdv]

What you call tuning to the God frequency to receive a message is what I would call letting down one's critical thinking defenses

I call it smart, to use all the good God given faculties

Including:
Listen to God
Use discrimination
Use common sense
Use reasoning
etc

All have their use

If you never used "listen to God" faculty then you can't speak on it, it's just hearsay, not personal experience.

Even Science doesn't tell "rely on hearsay"

 

[stvdv]

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.

I agree with that

 

[Sheldon]

FYI:
Tuning in to the Divine (God) does not imply to not use discrimination, common sense and other given faculties

Except the results vary to innumerable religions and deities, which suggests the method is not reliable. If a scientific test did that it would be discarded, and the conclusions rejected as unreliable.

 

[Sheldon]

I call it smart, to use all the good God given faculties

Including:
Listen to God
Use discrimination
Use common sense
Use reasoning
etc

All have their use

If you never used "listen to God" faculty then you can't speak on it, it's just hearsay, not personal experience.

Even Science doesn't tell "rely on hearsay"

You do know you just a used a begging the question fallacy don't you? You can argue that a deity exists by making assumptions about that deity, and "listen to god" is an assumption made a priori that there is a deity to listen. Also if this method were reliable, people wouldn't get wildly different results, yet they do, and whenever this point is made, the defence religious apologists seem to have are no true Scotsman fallacies.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Some people may assume this, but atheism per se does not, as it simply a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. The second claim makes no sense, and appears to be just another unevidenced subjective opinion.

 

[Balthazzar]

Some people may assume this, but atheism per se does not, as it simply a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. The second claim makes no sense, and appears to be just another unevidenced subjective opinion.

Are an atheist?

 

[KWED]

A common sentiment from atheists is that they won’t believe in things that can’t be shown.

We cannot see it, we can’t touch it. In the case of electromagnetic devices it is not always there. Yet one can observe its effects being inline with a given theory.

So is it believed in?

So, you are asking if atheists believe in things that can be repeatedly demonstrated and verified under controlled conditions.

Erm, I think that's probably a "yes".

 

[KWED]

A common sentiment from atheists is that they won’t believe in things that can’t be shown.

We cannot see it, we can’t touch it. In the case of electromagnetic devices it is not always there. Yet one can observe its effects being inline with a given theory.

So is it believed in?

I see your "magnetism analogy" and raise you a "theory of evolution analogy".

If "theories are just theories, not fact", how about jumping off a cliff to disprove the theory of gravity?

 

[KWED]

What is different?
When set conditions are met an electromagnet exerts an invisible power to impact life as we know it. This is widely accepted, but God communicating or helping man is not???

It is not "undetectable" or "unmeasurable".

Can you present your physical, repeatable, quantifiable demonstration of god communicating with man?

 

[KWED]

What sort of "iron fillings" do you suggest we use to demonstrate this divine communication?

Ah, iron fillings. The golden age of dentistry!