Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Dan From Smithville]

They are not the same, but the process of hearing an idea, believing that there is something there, trying things out and then knowing something you did not before is the same in both situations.

It isn't really the same. Ideas based on physical phenomena require evidence for testing and verification that what has been learned is valid. What I believe about the Bible, for instance, is often just on faith without any way to test it.

There is no scientific paper claiming a belief in organ transplants based on faith that they could be true. There is no paper on nuclear energy that started off as a belief without any prior evidence. Even in highly theoretical aspects of science require some sort of evidence and reasoning behind the hypotheses. If science were to stray down the path of applying faith in anything as a foundation, then it would lose any explanatory value that it has.

 

[ppp]

Well those who don’t look won’t find.

That statement is both foolish and willfully arrogant.
That statement is foolish in that we find things we are not looking for all the time. Even your fellow theists claim such in their conversion stories. Finding what one is not looking for is a trivially common occurrence. History is so replete with such occurrences that we have a word for it. Serendipity..

That statement is willfully arrogant in that most of the atheists to whom you are speaking spent a great deal of time and energy on looking; both academically and through willing practical immersion in various faiths. The day I realized that I was an atheist, my second thought was that with the pervasive belief in assorted aspects of the spiritual that I must be missing something. And with that thought I resolved to find the true path. And for a little over decade I searched. And unless you are a very unusual theist, I searched with far more determination, consideration, sincerity, and more of a will in one day than you ever exerted in a decade.

Those who have found may not be able to force others to believe (or bother trying), but we know.

What is it with god believers and force? Why do y'all jump so readily to the exertion of force. How about just demonstrating that you are capable of knowing what you claim to know?

.

 

[F1fan]

Well those who don’t look won’t find.

To objective minds without prejudices don't see anything, yet they are condemned.

Oddly the Christian sees what the Muslim doesn't, and Muslim sees what the Christian doesn't. And what does it mean to see? To adopt one's cultural heritage of religion. So to challenge others to look isn't honest at face value, as it's only a metaphor for cultural experience. A person growing up in a Hindu experience isn't looking for what Christians see.

Those who have found may not be able to force others to believe (or bother trying), but we know.

You know what you learned by growing up in your religious culture. But a person from a different religious culture won't agree with you, nor you agree with them. Atheists are just like theists of other traditions, but have no religious tradition themselves.

 

[Truth in love]

It isn't really the same. Ideas based on physical phenomena require evidence for testing and verification that what has been learned is valid. What I believe about the Bible, for instance, is often just on faith without any way to test it.

There is no scientific paper claiming a belief in organ transplants based on faith that they could be true. There is no paper on nuclear energy that started off as a belief without any prior evidence. Even in highly theoretical aspects of science require some sort of evidence and reasoning behind the hypotheses. If science were to stray down the path of applying faith in anything as a foundation, then it would lose any explanatory value that it has.

I think they are very much the same. You would not spend your time playing with a magnet, building a wing or trying to make a space station unless you believed it would be worth it.

after putting in the work we come away with a conclusion.

We are a fair ways off from proving many parts of the Bible, but we do have a good deal of historical evidence for many of the events.

faith preceded the actions to discover and invent.

 

[Truth in love]

That statement is both foolish and willfully arrogant.
That statement is foolish in that we find things we are not looking for all the time. Even your fellow theists claim such in their conversion stories. Finding what one is not looking for is a trivially common occurrence. History is so replete with such occurrences that we have a word for it. Serendipity..

That statement is willfully arrogant in that most of the atheists to whom you are speaking spent a great deal of time and energy on looking; both academically and through willing practical immersion in various faiths. The day I realized that I was an atheist, my second thought was that with the pervasive belief in assorted aspects of the spiritual that I must be missing something. And with that thought I resolved to find the true path. And for a little over decade I searched. And unless you are a very unusual theist, I searched with far more determination, consideration, sincerity, and more of a will in one day than you ever exerted in a decade.


What is it with god believers and force? Why do y'all jump so readily to the exertion of force. How about just demonstrating that you are capable of knowing what you claim to know?

.

Personal attacks???

kind of tired or it. I’m not wasting more of my time.

 

[Truth in love]

To objective minds without prejudices don't see anything, yet they are condemned.

Oddly the Christian sees what the Muslim doesn't, and Muslim sees what the Christian doesn't. And what does it mean to see? To adopt one's cultural heritage of religion. So to challenge others to look isn't honest at face value, as it's only a metaphor for cultural experience. A person growing up in a Hindu experience isn't looking for what Christians see.


You know what you learned by growing up in your religious culture. But a person from a different religious culture won't agree with you, nor you agree with them. Atheists are just like theists of other traditions, but have no religious tradition themselves.

I disagree. I’ve seen many times here in the past few weeks avowed atheist who have traditions and beliefs. They don’t label them religious, but they are views and ways of looking at stuff. Label aside I see no difference between their beliefs and religious ones.

 

[F1fan]

I disagree. I’ve seen many times here in the past few weeks avowed atheist who have traditions and beliefs.

Sure, they might be lifelong Steelers fans. But no atheist will have a religious tradition. Don't mistake this to mean they didn't have experience with religion growing up, as many atheists have, and this is one reason they are atheists today.

They don’t label them religious, but they are views and ways of looking at stuff. Label aside I see no difference between their beliefs and religious ones.

The Steelers actually exist. No gods are known to to exist, so it's like being a fan of a football team with no players, just a stadium where people gather to imagine what a team would do if it existed and actually played.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think they are very much the same. You would not spend your time playing with a magnet, building a wing or trying to make a space station unless you believed it would be worth it.

after putting in the work we come away with a conclusion.

We are a fair ways off from proving many parts of the Bible, but we do have a good deal of historical evidence for many of the events.

faith preceded the actions to discover and invent.

I think you are wrong. Magnets, wings, and space stations are all examples of physical contrivances that have a history of the validation of the principles associated with each. In each case, there was some observable aspect or aspects involved. If it were the same as faith-based thinking than any belief would have to be legitimately considered including anything a person could come up with. I'm not arguing against faith. It would be rather silly of me to do that considering how I value it. But claiming the testable and the untestable are on the same level playing field would be an equally silly thing for me to support as well.

You are using the word faith rather broadly to include things that are not normally defined as faith-based. As I have pointed out.

That science does not employ faith isn't evidence it is designed to be against faith or faith-based understanding. It is to eliminate the influence of what cannot be demonstrated as an explanation for what is observed. That way we do not have gremlins as an answer to mechanical failures or bad omens guiding the design of experiments. It insures that anyone, regardless of their personal belief, can examine the results in the context of what is testable and come to the same conclusions or reject them for equally valid and testable reasons. Often, it is the case that the scientists that are coming to these conclusions have personal religious/faith beliefs of their own. Would you feel the same if science included claims based on Islam, Hinduism, or Voodoo? Those are beliefs on faith too.

 

[Truth in love]

Sure, they might be lifelong Steelers fans. But no atheist will have a religious tradition. Don't mistake this to mean they didn't have experience with religion growing up, as many atheists have, and this is one reason they are atheists today.


The Steelers actually exist. No gods are known to to exist, so it's like being a fan of a football team with no players, just a stadium where people gather to imagine what a team would do if it existed and actually played.

I’m not talking about growing up in a church. The fanatical assumptions of anything uttered by a person who claims to be a a scientist being right on the other hand is disturbing.
I’ve had more ad hominem attacks form atheist in the last few weeks then I typically get in months to a year in other places of discussion.

my crime. Asking questions and asking for evidence. One or two even labeled me a heretic. It’s been fascinating, but in the end disappointing that so few can have an adult discussion with someone who does not agree with their point of view. The exact wording is a tad different from some religious groups, but the sacred cows that can’t be questioned the insulting those who do etc those behaviors are lock step with the stereotypical fundamentalist.

Science is supposed to be about evidence questions and learning, but over and over I hear “shut up believe what we tell you”. This is not the only place I’ve run into this. It’s quite the irony coming from a religious tradition that encourages asking and find out for ourselves to have the champions of evidence telling me to shut up and just believe what I’m told.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not talking about growing up in a church. The fanatical assumptions of anything uttered by a person who claims to be a a scientist being right on the other hand is disturbing.
I’ve had more ad hominem attacks form atheist in the last few weeks then I typically get in months to a year in other places of discussion.

my crime. Asking questions and asking for evidence. One or two even labeled me a heretic. It’s been fascinating, but in the end disappointing that so few can have an adult discussion with someone who does not agree with their point of view. The exact wording is a tad different from some religious groups, but the sacred cows that can’t be questioned the insulting those who do etc those behaviors are lock step with the stereotypical fundamentalist.

Science is supposed to be about evidence questions and learning, but over and over I hear “shut up believe what we tell you”. This is not the only place I’ve run into this. It’s quite the irony coming from a religious tradition that encourages asking and find out for ourselves to have the champions of evidence telling me to shut up and just believe what I’m told.

I must have missed this on the thread. Can you point to some specific examples where you were told to "shut up and accept scientific explanations without question"? That is not a valid approach to science, learning or reasoning.

 

[ppp]

Personal attacks???

kind of tired or it. I’m not wasting more of my time.

Every time you are called on that cheeky stereotyping you killdeer off. Yea, melodrama.

 

[Truth in love]

I think you are wrong. Magnets, wings, and space stations are all examples of physical contrivances that have a history of the validation of the principles associated with each. In each case, there was some observable aspect or aspects involved. If it were the same as faith-based thinking than any belief would have to be legitimately considered including anything a person could come up with. I'm not arguing against faith. It would be rather silly of me to do that considering how I value it. But claiming the testable and the untestable are on the same level playing field would be an equally silly thing for me to support as well.

You are using the word faith rather broadly to include things that are not normally defined as faith-based. As I have pointed out.

That science does not employ faith isn't evidence it is designed to be against faith or faith-based understanding. It is to eliminate the influence of what cannot be demonstrated as an explanation for what is observed. That way we do not have gremlins as an answer to mechanical failures or bad omens guiding the design of experiments. It insures that anyone, regardless of their personal belief, can examine the results in the context of what is testable and come to the same conclusions or reject them for equally valid and testable reasons. Often, it is the case that the scientists that are coming to these conclusions have personal religious/faith beliefs of their own. Would you feel the same if science included claims based on Islam, Hindu, or Voodoo? Those are beliefs on faith too.

I’ve observed for years the falsifying of evidence, really bad research, and people insisting that the untouchable, unrepeatable and untestable is science.

I have the deepest respect for the scientific method, but the cult of scienism is scary. I stand by my core assertion that a person believes before they try.

Can religious ideals be tested as easily as a car tire? No, but growing up being asked to look, test and know for myself I will say that we can test things ourselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ve observed for years the falsifying of evidence, really bad research, and people insisting that the untouchable, unrepeatable and untestable is science.

I have the deepest respect for the scientific method, but the cult of scienism is scary. I stand by my core assertion that a person believes before they try.

Can religious ideals be tested as easily as a car tire? No, but growing up being asked to look, test and know for myself I will say that we can test things ourselves.

Anything specific that you would be able to share. I know that pseudoscience exists and have seen it, but that isn't usually the product of scientists, though a few have fallen into that. I don't know of any scientists in my career that have supported the idea that the untestable (believed views) is science.

I don't know about this cult you talk about.

When you say believe, do you mean without any evidence or reason or do you roll in existing knowledge in that as well? There is a difference between believing in something with no evidence and believing in something based on prior work and existing knowledge of phenomena.

I have subjective views, but I cannot verify them with absolute certainty even to myself and I believe them.

 

[F1fan]

I’m not talking about growing up in a church. The fanatical assumptions of anything uttered by a person who claims to be a a scientist being right on the other hand is disturbing.

That's why scientists have credentials from universities, and not just crackpots who spout off irrational nonsense. These scientists have earned credibility and respect, and educated people trust their expertise.
Do you have a problem with expertise?

I’ve had more ad hominem attacks form atheist in the last few weeks then I typically get in months to a year in other places of discussion.

What have you been saying that gets that sort of reaction?

my crime. Asking questions and asking for evidence.

Above it sounds like you are prejudiced against science and scientists.

Science is supposed to be about evidence questions and learning, but over and over I hear “shut up believe what we tell you”.

Then get your science right and you won't have any criticism. We see many theists have contempt for science because science doesn't back up religious concepts. The mature and balanced theist will accept this fact, not get in trouble making bad accusations and mischaracterizing science.

This is not the only place I’ve run into this. It’s quite the irony coming from a religious tradition that encourages asking and find out for ourselves to have the champions of evidence telling me to shut up and just believe what I’m told.

The dilemma for theists is that evidence doesn't back them up, it backs science. So no wonder you discover that fact everywhere you go. Get science right, adjust your religion to facts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I’ve observed for years the falsifying of evidence, really bad research, and people insisting that the untouchable, unrepeatable and untestable is science.

I have the deepest respect for the scientific method, but the cult of scienism is scary. I stand by my core assertion that a person believes before they try.

Can religious ideals be tested as easily as a car tire? No, but growing up being asked to look, test and know for myself I will say that we can test things ourselves.

I've seen some wonky research myself, some containing things I know are not true. But that's why we have peer review. Sure there is pressure to get published, but much of that goes nowhere. Some does, but that doesn't mean there is a cult of scientism. We can even put a name on it in many cases like Phillip Morris or the NFL.
I have given you multiple ways to confirm magnetics. You can't see that much of what an MRI machine does, but you can see the results of how it uses magnetics to capture detailed images of inside our body.
All you've suggested for god is subjective.

but in the end disappointing that so few can have an adult discussion with someone who does not agree with their point of view

That's not a problem I have.

Well those who don’t look won’t find.

But my mom still calls me even when I don't want to talk to her. She still talks directly to me, as she does all her kids and grandkids.
Myself, over the past couple years, I have been honestly open and receptive. But Jehovah has not spoken, has not given me any tugs, any messages, any reason to consider going back. Nothing. If anything I began to become more curious about my Celtic ancestors over this period of time. More curious to go to the Buddhist temple here just to ask questions and have a face to face discussion. But from Jehovah there has been nothing. He didn't even try to step in when I went to a UU church. He really doesn't seem to be messaging me, even if it's to clear up the abuse I suffered at the hands of his Church and assert that's not who he is.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Things are happening all the time. Much of it is very personal.

yeah it sucks if you feel like God does not hear you and help, but then again many people do feel heard, are helped and keep point to God as the one helping.

Yes. It's called confirmation bias, apophenia, synchronicity... Nothing certain and indistinguishable from absence of (a personal) God. No audible words or an indisputable visual appearance.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Yes and no.

The knowledge of magnetism is based on past experience with magnets. I've seen magnets work. I've done minor experimentation to my satisfaction so this past experience become part of my knowledge. The more and different types of actual experience I've had increases my knowledge about them.

My belief is that they will continue to behave in the exact manner they have in the past. I don't actually know that they will until after they have actually done so.

So my understanding of magnets is based on both knowledge and belief.
Some beliefs have no basis in knowledge. They are beliefs you've created yourself or they are beliefs you've adopted from someone else because they were somehow able to convince you of them.

A belief is never guaranteed to be true but is more likely to be true based on the actual knowledge you have supporting your belief. The less actual knowledge/experience you have to support your believe, the less likely it is to be true.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes and no.

The knowledge of magnetism is based on past experience with magnets. I've seen magnets work. I've done minor experimentation to my satisfaction so this past experience become part of my knowledge. The more and different types of actual experience I've had increases my knowledge about them.

My belief is that they will continue to behave in the exact manner they have in the past. I don't actually know that they will until after they have actually done so.

So my understanding of magnets is based on both knowledge and belief.
Some beliefs have no basis in knowledge. They are beliefs you've created yourself or they are beliefs you've adopted from someone else because they were somehow able to convince you of them.

A belief is never guaranteed to be true but is more likely to be true based on the actual knowledge you have supporting your belief. The less actual knowledge/experience you have to support your believe, the less likely it is to be true.

Ooooo!!! You may understand then when I say Magneto is one of the most frighteningly powerful villains ever. He can't do anything and everything, but destroying any planet with an iron core should be child's play to him. But not only that, if his power were to endlessly grow there is a potential to bring down the entirety of the Cosmos upon itself and explode it back out at the last second.

 

[Nakosis]

Ooooo!!! You may understand then when I say Magneto is one of the most frighteningly powerful villains ever. He can't do anything and everything, but destroying any planet with an iron core should be child's play to him. But not only that, if his power were to endlessly grow there is a potential to bring down the entirety of the Cosmos upon itself and explode it back out at the last second.

Yes, fiction is fun.

 

[Polymath257]

Does that apply to all forms of science?

Many sciences do not yet have complete mathematical descriptions. But they all rely on testable hypotheses and observation as the core methodology.

But you asked specifically about magnetism. And that is easily demonstrable, repeatable, is clear to even an initial skeptic, and does, in fact, have a good mathematical description.