Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Truth in love]

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?

"every one" no. But I do talk a tons of people and find many of their stories to be credible.

Let's say I take a walk in the woods and I find an unlikely creature like an albino moose. I see it I know that it is there. Others come out looking for it, and while stomping about making tons of noise. They don't see it. Is my sighting invalid?

 

[Truth in love]

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.

Right. Well for what its worth I have a bachelor's and masters in social science. So I'm going to decline to accept your baseless criticism of my understanding of the basics of science.

 

[F1fan]

"every one" no. But I do talk a tons of people and find many of their stories to be credible.

Yet we don't find your claims and beliefs credible. You have views that reject the conclusions of experts in science, and offer no rational basis for that behavior. If you are actually a mental health professional you would know how a person's credibility AS a person is crucial to how they are respected and trusted by others. You sabotage your credibility by admitting to views that are heavily biased against science, fact, and reason.

Let's say I take a walk in the woods and I find an unlikely creature like an albino moose. I see it I know that it is there. Others come out looking for it, and while stomping about making tons of noise. They don't see it. Is my sighting invalid?

Bad analogy. Moose actually exist as a fact. Albinos actually exist as a fact. Albino moose are plausible. You are insisting you see flying pink unicorns.

Plus, as I noted, since you express views that reject science, fact, and reason your credibility is in question, so did you see an albino moose or just see a light colored moose that you decided was an albino? We doubt your thinking, and as a witness.

Right. Well for what its worth I have a bachelor's and masters in social science. So I'm going to decline to accept your baseless criticism of my understanding of the basics of science.

But you are getting basic science wrong due to religious bias. Students can get degrees with a below C average.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've been asking for some time for someone to demonstrate macro level evolution.

It's going on all around you. Just keep looking. For the degree of evolution you're looking for, it may take 100's of thousands to millions of years, but like I said, it's happening now before you, in your very home.

Your comment is analogous to asking for a demonstration of an orbit of Pluto. Get a telescope. You can see it orbiting now. It should be complete in about 248 years.

It would seem that you have not learned what science actually is.

You're the one who equated God with a magnetic field, wondering what the difference was. If you understood science, you wouldn't have asked that. You've received several answers explaining the difference to you. Do you know what those answers said?

The true skeptic never invests in learning so they wind up not knowing.

These are the kinds of comments that erode away your credibility. How could you possibly think such a thing?

And the insults are back. Why? Why do I have to agree with you or I don't understand evidence?

Sorry that you're offended, but no offense intended - just carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered criticism. You don't understand evidence. If you were my student and gave answers like these, you'd receive low marks. You're in the same boat as the guy who can solve a calculus problem, is told he doesn't understand the subject matter, bristles and is offended ("the insults are back"), and then asks the professor, "Why do I have to agree with you or I don't understand calculus?"

Did you not see what followed this first sentence? It seems you stopped reading at that point:

"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."​

Why didn't that elicit a response from you, such as, "Oh yeah, I hadn't considered that evidence" or "that's not evidence because ..."

That wasn't all you disregarded. You failed to address much that was written to you, such as, "And how did you get "fine with Higgs?"" and "Why would a skeptic believe that you know any more about gods or have more experience of them than he does?"

"You also ignored, "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"

I understand that you want your thinking respected, but when you share it, it's flawed, and ignoring most of what's written to you doesn't help your case, either. Since you don't care to have any input into what others conclude in these matters, I'll just tell you what seems most likely to me:

• You never got fine with Higgs through any process of learning or understanding. You either aren't fine with it, or, unlike with "macroevolution," you simply decided to accept the science this time unquestioningly. I would have hoped your answer would have been that you read about the discoveries, understood what you read, and became fine with Higgs that way, but I didn't expect that to be the case, and thought I'd give you the chance to indicate otherwise if that were the case.

• Regarding why a skeptic should think that you (or anybody else) knows any more about gods than he does, you have no answer. If you had, you would have been glad to post it. But having no answer, anything you wrote would underscore that, and you preferred that the question just go away.

• Regarding whether you would care if you were wrong, my answer is no, you wouldn't and don't. How do I know? Because you would have addressed this matter had you cared. You wouldn't want to be mistake for somebody who was just as happy being wrong as correct. I can't even imagine anybody writing that to me and not addressing it.

How did I do? You're always free to speak for yourself if you have any corrections or additions.

 

[Sheldon]

"every one" no. But I do talk a tons of people and find many of their stories to be credible.

Great, now offer some credible objective evidence to support why?

Let's say I take a walk in the woods and I find an unlikely creature like an albino moose. I see it I know that it is there. Others come out looking for it, and while stomping about making tons of noise. They don't see it. Is my sighting invalid?

We know such species exist, and we know albinos are possible, so you're making a false equivalence. A better analogy would be a flying talking Moose, that could perform magic. Also you didn't see it, you read in a book, that someone (we don't know who) wrote about 2000 years ago, and claimed that they spoke to someone (we don't who) who allegedly claimed to see this decades earlier.

How credible is it now?

 

[ppp]

So If I'm willing to believe in it and dedicate a large portion of my life to the study of it I could maybe some day see it myself. Sounds a lot like what believers keep saying. Try it out spend some time, ask God.

I have never told you to ask a boson anything.

 

[Sheldon]

I have never told you to ask a boson anything.

Is it because you lack faith brother?

 

[Truth in love]

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.

That horse coming anytime soon?

 

[F1fan]

It's going on all around you. Just keep looking. For the degree of evolution you're looking for, it may take 100's of thousands to millions of years, but like I said, it's happening now before you, in your very home.

Your comment is analogous to asking for a demonstration of an orbit of Pluto. Get a telescope. You can see it orbiting now. It should be complete in about 248 years.

Science deniers are doing well to follow in the footsteps of Veruca Salt "But daddy, I want the evidence NOWWW!!!"

 

[Truth in love]

Ahm, is that your best shot here?
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?

I'm not putting you down. As requested I shared evidence and your dismissing it.

Information at times yes. I don't share specifics in settings like this, but I've had some very clear very information over the years on events that had not yet happened. Some of them quite improbable.

Other times its more a a general feeling.

 

[Truth in love]

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?

He can answer at His discretion.

As for the tuning. I'll invite you to review a few of the basics that are widely accepted.

1. Put God first.
2. No Idols
3. No misusing God's name
4. No lying
5. No adultery/sexual sin
6. Respecting parents
7. Observe the Sabbath as a Holy day
8. No murdering
9. No stealing
10. No coveting

Now there is more that we are asked to do, but these are some of the basics. Just as you would be required to scrub in to be in the OR we should try to make ourselves clean.

Higher laws call us to not be angry with our neighbor, not to look on women in lust, to give to the poor etc.

How clean is clean enough is a very not agreed upon concept.

I would suggest that our mindset matters.
Do we really want an answer?
Are we willing to listen to What Gods says our are we just looking for an excuse to dismiss Him?

I can't speak for all, but if God is willing to answer me with all my flaws I would hold that you can be included too if you are willing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That horse coming anytime soon?

Yes. I have showed you where magnetics are not invisible. And while I haven't seen CERN, I have seen the Northern Lights.

 

[Sheldon]

That horse coming anytime soon?

Ironically the horse is one of the most complete fossil records we have, spanning 55 million years of evolution. They did evolve from a "dog like" ancestor, but obviously creationists have again been unable to grasp the simplest scientific concepts, and misrepresented this as horses evolving from dogs, but dogs are derivations of wolves, and are different breeds, not species.

"The fossil record extends back to a dog-like ancestor some 55 million years ago, which gave rise to the first horse-like species 55 to 42 million years ago in the genus Eohippus. The first equid fossil was found in the gypsum quarries in Montmartre, Paris in the 1820s."

So are you saying science has got this wrong? What exactly are your qualifications to deny a global scientific consensus spanning 162+ years?

A fake museum with risible models of dinosaurs being ridden by children, that wouldn't evolve until hundreds of millions of years later?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Now there is more that we are asked to do, but these are some of the basics.

Says who?

 

[Sheldon]

I'll invite you to review a few of the basics that are widely accepted.

1. Put God first.
2. No Idols
3. No misusing God's name
4. No lying
5. No adultery/sexual sin
6. Respecting parents
7. Observe the Sabbath as a Holy day
8. No murdering
9. No stealing
10. No coveting

I can probably Google the rule of Quidditch, and get a broad consensus they're right, this doesn't make magic or Harry Potter real.

 

[ppp]

I can probably Google the rule of Quidditch, and get a broad consensus they're right, this doesn't make magic or Harry Potter real.

I have and play the game Tak from the Kingkiller Chronicles. It's a beautiful game.

Surprisingly, the book is still fiction.

 

[blü 2]

I'm not putting you down. As requested I shared evidence and your dismissing it.

An unidentified youngster may have said they thought a dead relative was in the room? Who was the youngster and what exactly were their words and when and where were they spoken and with what degree of confidence was any such assertion made and could the words have been the result of adult comment at the time or later and who was the alleged dead relative ─ and so on. Extraordinary claim require extraordinary demonstration, as you know, so we need all the details before we can assess the credibility of the story.

Information at times yes. I don't share specifics in settings like this, but I've had some very clear very information over the years on events that had not yet happened. Some of them quite improbable.

Unfortunately if you don't put a clear statement on a reliable record well in advance, your subsequent assertion that a particular claim came true will be greeted with honest skepticism, no?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would seem that you have not learned what science actually is. God's around. You may not like it, you may really wish otherwise, but facts are not subject to your opinion or approval.

What do you think science is? What is your understanding of what a fact is?

 

[Ostronomos]

I believe so, here it is again:



Any clearer?

Atheism, according to my impeccable logic, is an affront to super-intelligence.

 

[Ostronomos]

Atheists are like blind wanderers who are bent on evil or more commonly, ignorance.

God is a fact. Not an obvious fact. But the highest truths correspond to the utmost reality.

God, being abstract and existing outside of space, time and object, is as real as maths (which is more real than matter). For instance, in my supreme logic I wrote, "Reality is Reduced to Axioms".