Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[KWED]

I'm fine with the Higgs, I also remember when its existence was hotly debated.

Do you remember any physicists insisting that it must exist because they have felt its existence?

I can't see the Higgs. I can see records of experiments people claim to conduct, I can listen to experts, but I don't have the ability to build my own CERN like device and find it myself.

There is a thing called "deferring to expertise" (not to be confused with "appeal to authority", which apologists often seem to do). We all do it all the time, because of hard corroborative experience. We know the physics and chemistry and biology behind our phones and computers and cars and bridges and planes and antibiotics, etc, etc work - because those things work, every time we use them. We don't need to believe they work. There is no faith involved. But you don't demand to see all the research every time you log on to the internet, or get on a plane or take medication, do you?

On the flip Side God does offer us the ability to know for ourselves.

But what does this "knowledge" show? What are the practical, real-world implications? How do you demonstrate this "knowledge" to a sceptic? And why is it apparently so subjective? Why is it only accessible by some people, and why is it so often different or contradictory?

 

[KWED]

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.

If god is going to intervene in worldly events, then why didn't he just sort out the hostage-takers mental state before they decided to bomb the school, thus avoiding years of trauma and some serious burns for dozens of children, plus the costly damage to a vital public facility?

As is so often the case, invoking the supernatural merely requires even more explanation than it supposedly provides.

 

[KWED]

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.

A common one is "If you sincerely ask god to show himself to you, he will".
But how can one sincerely ask god anything if you don't already believe god exists?

 

[KWED]

The details varied some, in at least one case the kid identified a deceased family member as having been there with them.

Trauma-induced hallucination is a better explanation than a ghost.

You won't see what you are trying to no see.

Made me think of the old saying about religion is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there - and finding it.

The Radio works, however if you don't tune in you won't hear the program.

Listening to static and thinking it is Mozart might work for you, but no one else can hear it.

 

[KWED]

2. I've shown that many don't apply the same rules to God that they do to particles. They exert great faith in one set of untested assumptions while rejecting others.

No you haven't. You have merely shown that you don't understand how science or the concept of evidence work.

 

[KWED]

By the affects and results from utilizing the principles associated with meditation, breathing techniques, etc. Likely through vitals such as heart rate and blood pressure. If I'm not mistaken, the principles associated with meditative practices are utilized to help us both mentally,/emotionally and physically. Meditation has synergistic affects, as in whole being from what I understand.

Heart rate and blood pressure are physiological, not emotional.

 

[KWED]

That one is pretty well established, on the other hand many other theories are far less well tested or testable, yet for many are enshrined as though there is no limit to them.

Ironically, the theory of evolution has a far greater body of physical evidence supporting it than gravitational theory.
So, which one do you doubt most?

 

[KWED]

I said invisible.

Atheists do not reject the idea of god because he is "invisible".

Can you change a dog into a horse?

Depends.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm fine with the Higgs, I also remember when its existence was hotly debated.

So what happened in between the idea being hotly debated within the particle physics community and it being resolved? Nothing? They just all stopped wondering if the Higgs boson would be found where predicted for no reason?

And how did you get "fine with Higgs?"

I can't see the Higgs. I can see records of experiments people claim to conduct, I can listen to experts, but I don't have the ability to build my own CERN like device and find it myself.

You demonstrate that you have difficulty interpreting evidence. The evidence available to you is robust even if you can't build a collider or see a Higgs boson with the naked eye. What you are convincing others of is not that you have a good argument, but that you can't interpret the evidence properly. You're ignoring how many people expected this experiment to reveal the Higgs boson, and how much money was spent in pursuit. What did they know that you're overlooking and unaware of? You're ignoring the consensus of the opinions of experts. What do they all know that makes that the case? You're ignoring the tremendous success of science and the scientific method. Finding the boson would be just the latest success of the method.

If you can't conclude that the existence of the Higgs boson has been confirmed from just that, then you aren't considering the evidence that is available to you without even knowing what a boson is, what a collider is, nor what the following means to know that the existence of the particle has been firmly established:

I frequently wonder with apologists whether they know the actual effect that they are having, or whether they would care if they did. Would it matter to you to know that you make it seem less likely that you have interpreted what you call evidence of God properly when you demonstrate how you evaluate evidence? I don't ever get an answer to this question, so I don't expect one here either, but I would love one apologist to answer candidly. "Yes, I don't believe I am, but if I were hurting my case, I'd want to know that so I can modify my apologetics accordingly," or, "I don't believe that, but even were it the case, so what? God sees what I'm doing, that I'm trying to bring people over to Christianity, and that's what matters, not results," or some other sign of self-reflection. How about being the first? Would it matter to you to know that you were actually helping convince people that they are correct and you are wrong if that were the case? Because if it doesn't, why try to show you what your actual effect is?

On the flip Side God does offer us the ability to know for ourselves.

Why would a skeptic believe that you know any more about gods or have more experience of them than he does? He know the limits of what is knowable about gods - nothing, even if they exist, even if the believer don't know that, even if he is 100% certain that he understands his psychological experience correctly?

You won't see what you are trying to not see.

That describes the faith-based thinker with a confirmation bias, the people who can't see contradictions in scripture, for example.

I've shown that many don't apply the same rules to God that they do to particles. They exert great faith in one set of untested assumptions while rejecting others.

No, you haven't. You've shown that you don't know what the rules are for evidence, or what faith is.

Great and millions upon millions report having help from God. Do you accept this data?

Sure, but not that they are correct. Why? That they believe it is not an extraordinary claim. That they are correct is.

 

[KWED]

Great and millions upon millions report having help from God. Do you accept this data?

I accept that they believe they had help from god.

To stick with the bulb circuit analogy - it would be like people sending experimental results who don't even have the necessary equipment.

If you want to claim that god interferes in people's lives, you first have to demonstrate that said god exists.
Then you would need to devise an experiment that could repeatable and quantifiably measure the help that god gives people. Mere unsupported anecdote is not sufficient.

Do you accept every claim made about every version of god, or just the ones by people who believe in your version?

 

[KWED]

Why would you make such a baseless assumption?

Because of you complete inability to understand basic scientific principles.
Foe example, insisting that anecdotes about the supernatural is "evidence" in the same way as observations of a light bulb illuminating or not when power is suppled and turned off.

 

[Balthazzar]

Heart rate and blood pressure are physiological, not emotional.

Correct, emotional would also be a mental element to humans. You can measure brain waves and areas of the brain, the activity going on, I mean. A person's emotional state can be observed by both physical and via brain activity. Meditation helps, it can be verified and validated by these methods.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I said invisible. Can you change a dog into a horse?

It's not invisible. We just can't see it with our naked eye. But we can see it with lenses that are able to see electromagnetic waves that we cannot.
And, no, it's not even entirely invisible to our naked eye. Such as the Aurora Borealis. This is a magnetic phenomenon from the Earth's magnetic field interacting with solar particles that bombard the Earth.

 

[KWED]

Correct, emotional would also be a mental element to humans. You can measure brain waves and areas of the brain, the activity going on, I mean. A person's emotional state can be observed by both physical and via brain activity. Meditation helps, it can be verified and validated by these methods.

Yes, if we spent enough time comparing measurements of electro-chemical activity in the brain with the subjects' account of how they feel under different conditions, we could start to build a "scientific" picture of what emotions are, but there would always be the subjective element that cannot be controlled for, so the results would only be an estimation.

 

[Sheldon]

Listening to static and thinking it is Mozart might work for you, but no one else can hear it.

I was thinking in a similar vein, if you "tune yourself" to believe something, that's what you will end up believing.

 

[Sheldon]

Can you change a dog into a horse?

How big is the dog? Can I use a saddle?

 

[F1fan]

A common one is "If you sincerely ask god to show himself to you, he will".
But how can one sincerely ask god anything if you don't already believe god exists?

And if a God did exist as claimed in this scenario it would know a sincere seeker from a follower seeking dogma to follow. The true seekers, like many atheists, would be contacted by such a God. A God would want to reach out to people of integrity, not let them flounder in doubt and then rejection of the idea of God.

Those who assert their version of God exists, and it can be known through certain experiences, don't seem like people terribly grounded and humble by a real interaction with a divine light. They act more like bullies who are trying to make up for some deficiency in their life experiences. There is a serious correlation between very fervent and arrogant believers and a lack of a coherent message showing spiritual depth.

 

[blü 2]

The details varied some, in at least one case the kid identified a deceased family member as having been there with them.

Ahm, is that your best shot here?

You won't see what you are trying to no see.

If I might respectfully note, that's a cheap put-down. I'm trying to observe anything observable you can show me.

Let's look closer at the Radio. Does it actually impart data, let's say remote information about reality, facts you wouldn't otherwise know? Which horse to back in the Belmont Stakes, when to avoid the local supermarket? Does it convey information at all, or does it simply convey emotional states that are agreeable?

 

[PearlSeeker]

The Radio works, however if you don't tune in you won't hear the program.

As I said:

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?

 

[Sheldon]

And if a God did exist as claimed in this scenario it would know a sincere seeker from a follower seeking dogma to follow. The true seekers, like many atheists, would be contacted by such a God. A God would want to reach out to people of integrity, not let them flounder in doubt and then rejection of the idea of God.

Those who assert their version of God exists, and it can be known through certain experiences, don't seem like people terribly grounded and humble by a real interaction with a divine light. They act more like bullies who are trying to make up for some deficiency in their life experiences. There is a serious correlation between very fervent and arrogant believers and a lack of a coherent message showing spiritual depth.

Good post, it's also worth pointing out that humans first evolved roughly 200k years ago, how much suffering, disease and predations occurred before that for hundreds of millions of years I wouldn't like to contemplate, or nearly all of that 200k years, where humans lived suffered and died, mostly in childbirth, or from any slight infection, imagined and worshipped all manner of false deities and idols according to monotheistic religions, and all while we are led to believe a deity sat on its hands and did nothing. Then roughly 2k years ago, said enough is enough, it's time to intervene with a personal appearance, in an epoch that stands out for it's ignorance and superstition.

So important was this occurrence that not one word was written about it until decades afterward, and not one shred of objective evidence was offered for the claims.

We are offered the wildest most extraordinary and fantastic of claims, and offered the lowest bar of "evidence" imaginable in support of it.

IN stark contrast if one wants to understand all the objective evidence we currently understand for magnetism all one need do is Google it. Though again, and in stark contrast, no one is threatening an eternity of torture to anyone who denies those facts, no consequences at all, except basement as to why magnets are left in mid air clinging to your fridge in defiance of gravity. Unless they deny gravity as well of course, it is "just" a scientific theory, like evolution after all.