Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Truth in love]

That's easy. It's the so-called seekers fault. His effort was defective. It's always that way. Everything good is God, everything bad Satan and man. Why does man have to work the fields rather than live in paradise? man failed. Why did the earth need near sterilization by flood. Man failed. Why do we speak different languages? Man failed. Why is there leukemia? God works in mysterious ways, but whatever the answer, it's good. Why didn't a particular man find this deity? He failed. He didn't look hard enough. His faith was inferior. God is good and is waiting for you to just open your heart and reach out (translation: cease thinking critically, skip the evidence part, and just believe).



See above.



No you don't. You just believe with insufficient evidence. If you want critical thinkers to believe anything including god claims, you don't need to force anything. All you need to do is present compelling evidence. If you can't do that, then you are guessing, not knowing.

And here's a difference between us: if you could inject a god belief into my head without my consent, you would, and you would worsen my life in so doing. I might have to start threads "proving" that God is real and that atheism is really a religion, and becoming offended and frustrated when I was disagreed with, calling it an ad hom attack. That doesn't sound like fun at all.

You would think that you were saving my soul and making me a better person, because you've been told so and that's how you think. But what you miss is that religion has nothing to offer those content without it, and as we see on this forum, it is damaging to many. Your changes in me would have me reading the Bible, praying, spending Sundays in church, and tithing - none of which are in my interest or of any value to me now.

By contrast, I understand that extinguishing the god belief from you would do you harm, and wouldn't do so if I could. Yet I'm just as sure that my humanistic worldview is superior to the one you offer as you are in reverse, but you'd have needed to acquire it decades ago to benefit from it. You would have needed to adapt to the possibility of a godless universe, and I know how difficult that is, how difficult it was for me some forty years ago. But I did, and have reaped the benefit since. Some things need to be done in the first half of life to be valuable or maximally valuable, when we are better able to adapt and when so many decision lie ahead that would benefit from a better way of making decisions. Travel fits into this category. See the world before you retire, when the education will inform future decisions, as was the case with me. Expatriation from America upon retirement was a good decision based in seeing the world, a world my untraveled family back in the States never saw and is still afraid of.

And this is the same - humanism versus Abrahamic theism. If I had just come over to the former now in retirement, what value would it have? I've already made the important choices for my life - career, marriage, pastimes and hobbies, diet and exercise, how to interact with people, how to evaluate character (seeing a fish on somebody's business card does not say to me what it does t a believer about trustworthiness or integrity). I'd have probably would not have been able to retire for at least another ten years had I been tithing to the church all those decades, and stopping doing that at this age would have little impact on the rest of my life.

So, just as there is nothing in your way for me, there is nothing in my way for you, and neither of us ought to be giving life advice to the other.

Your missing the entire point here. When the wright brothers flew a plane they did something and they had actual knowledge. Can they prove it it to others far away and hundreds of years in the future? No they can't. Sure they can tell friends, write descriptions and even offer their recipe to let others try it, but they can't prove it across space and time. Would you now argue that they did not fly? That they did not have knowledge that man could fly in a heaver than aircraft?

 

[Truth in love]

Agreed. Like all skeptics, I understand it. It's mythology. Some people believe it. As you say, not everyone pays attention or understands.



No, the atheist doesn't expect gods to jump through hoops, and really, what does that even mean with a tri-omni deity that can allegedly create universes with thought alone? Once again, it's framed as man's failure. He expects too much from this god that doesn't jump through hoops, obviously an unreasonable desire and one that won't be fulfilled because of the arrogance of asking for anything from this deity and expecting a reasonable or loving response.

The skeptic expects all of these gods to remain indistinguishable from the nonexistent as they always have. Nothing nonexistent jumps through hoops, so nothing indistinguishable from the nonexistent will, either.



But you do. You expect the critical thinker to find your god. That's not possible if it can only be belied in by faith. This is the crux of the difference - the theist will believe by faith and the humanist will not. Naturally, that difference will lead to huge differences in belief sets between the two. They have different ways of processing information and deciding what's true. When you refer to trying harder or seeking harder or opening your heart, what you mean is to let down one's epistemological defenses and start believing without criteria for belief.



This is typical from a believer. Imagine the same type of language coming from the humanist. You can't. It doesn't happen. Nobody here is writing to you using emotional hyperbole. I'm not. Nobody is calling you fanatical or calling your way of thinking disturbing. The humanist just dispassionately points out the errors in fact and reasoning. How many times do we see religious apologists get to this stage? About 80% of the time. Along with the countless hours and dollars that would have been lost as a theist, this is something I was spared thanks to my transition out of theism.



You're projecting. That's your preacher, not empiricists. That's the very embodiment of faith - shut up and believe.



Have a cookie. It's your "cult" is the threat right now, threatening freedoms.

I'll keep it short I'm not projecting, I reporting my experience. You've descended into personal attacks and determining what my preacher says. Really? You reject that I can have an experience and that it gives me knowledge, but you know what my "preacher" says????

 

[Truth in love]

There have been many accidental discoveries, where someone wasn't looking, but still found something important.

But let's look at the flip side. Suppose someone *does* look. Are they guaranteed to find? or do they have to believe *before* they can find?

So, I don't have to believe in magnets to find out the existence and basic properties of magnets. The evidence itself is convincing once someone decides to investigate.

Are you claiming that the same is true about deities and the supernatural?

Or, do you have to believe *first* and then any skepticism is enough to eliminate any possible observation? Because, if this is the case, you are simply saying people are subject to confirmation bias. And that is not a reliable way to discover the truth.

I might also suggest that if you can't convince a skeptical person who is honestly looking, then you don't have knowledge of anything other than your own psychology.

Belief precedes action. I would not lift a finger to flip a light switch or make a sandwich if I did not believe the action would yield a positive result. Any willful action comes after belief.

Taking your argument a skeptic would not ever swim, drive, or read. Because each of those tasks takes effort in something they don't have fully proven to them before they put in any effort.

 

[Polymath257]

There is a great poem about the blind men and the elephant that goes into people having different experiences.

And there is another where the seven blind men are actually looking at different things. Who's to say which is correct?

There is a lot of confusion and disagreement no two ways about it.
We also find some consistencies like the Golden rule, a belief in a life after death and being judged for our actions. These are not quite universal, but fairly close.

The Golden rule (and other similar statements) has little to do with religion at all. Even some monkeys follow it.

Life after death is common, but the details seem to be heavily disputed. Is it only for brave warriors? Or a place of grey and dust? or a magnificent paradise?

Again, no agreement suggests that it is made up and not an aspect of reality.

The reality of a fraud or liar does not eliminate a honest person. Errors are quite common in both religion and science, people make mistakes. I would not take the fact that some people error as a indications that there is nothing good or true in an entire field.

Yes, mistakes are made. Science has a mechanism for finding and fixing them. Religion only has faith, which is clearly often wrong.

So, give *one* thing that is 'true' in the field of religion that can be verified and cannot easily be seen any other way.

 

[Polymath257]

Belief precedes action. I would not lift a finger to flip a light switch or make a sandwich if I did not believe the action would yield a positive result. Any willful action comes after belief.

No, *curiosity* precedes action. Belief isn't required, other than the thought that there might be something to discover.

Taking your argument a skeptic would not ever swim, drive, or read. Because each of those tasks takes effort in something they don't have fully proven to them before they put in any effort.

They don't have to believe the conclusion before starting. They merely need curiosity to start looking. Whether the search is worthwhile depends on what the curiosity discovers.

 

[Truth in love]

We know moose exist and we know that albinos exist for most mammalian species. While I might have some skepticism about your siting, I would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, at least temporarily.

On the other hand, if you claimed to see a manticore, I would say that you are either lying or, more likely, that your eyes deceived you. if you said that you talked with this manitcore, I would be likely to say that you hallucinated or are flat-out lying.

If you claimed that gnomes invited you into their den, where they fed you, sang songs, and had a wonderful party, and that they gave you advice for the coming year, I would suggest that you see a professional.

Well on the bright side I am that professional. And I've people for many years with a wide range of delusions and hallucinations. I've also talked with many people about their spiritual encounters. There are patterns that fit delusions vs spiritual things. Much like your okay with me seeing a moose but not a manticore.

I don't insist that a person believe me. But I do suggest that people see for themselves.

 

[Truth in love]

This is all rather vague and without detail to discuss informatively

I take it you reject biological evolution, climate change and concerns about unabated human population growth, but I have no idea why or what others have said to you about it.

I did not keep a file of every insult and dismissive comment. I'm interest in unblocked the half a dozen+ folks here who opted to not have an adult conversation and dig it all up.

But yes given the 80+ Billion people the earth can support and the rapidly falling birth rates I don't accept the "science" that looks like chicken little running around saying we are over crowded.

 

[Polymath257]

Well on the bright side I am that professional. And I've people for many years with a wide range of delusions and hallucinations. I've also talked with many people about their spiritual encounters. There are patterns that fit delusions vs spiritual things. Much like your okay with me seeing a moose but not a manticore.

I don't insist that a person believe me. But I do suggest that people see for themselves.

And when they see for themselves and don't find what you claim? Or, even more, find it to be even more extreme than claiming that you saw a manticore?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your missing the entire point here. When the wright brothers flew a plane they did something and they had actual knowledge. Can they prove it it to others far away and hundreds of years in the future? No they can't. Sure they can tell friends, write descriptions and even offer their recipe to let others try it, but they can't prove it across space and time. Would you now argue that they did not fly? That they did not have knowledge that man could fly in a heaver than aircraft?

I can't tell what this is in response to. You quoted several paragraphs of text, none of which I can connect to this comment. My comment to you was about my belief that you would insert a god belief into any unbeliever including me if you had the power, since you would consider that a gift of inestimable value, but that I wouldn't do the same to you and make a humanist out of you, since I recognize that that would harmful to you, and it's something that needs to be done earlier in life to be of significant benefit, like quitting smoking.

But let's address what you wrote. Are you asking me if I believe the Wright brothers had knowledge of how to build and fly an airplane, or whether they could prove they had such knowledge hundreds of years in the future? Are you thinking that this is analogous to your claim of knowledge of gods, that if I believe that the Wright brothers knew how to fly that I should believe that you have knowledge of gods?

If so, yes, I believe that the Wright brothers flew an airplane because of the good evidence for it, and no, I don't believe that you are experiencing a deity, because of the poor evidence for deities and the good evidence for people misinterpreting spiritual mental states as evidence of a deity. I guess you object. You want your understanding of such experiences respected, but your claim is unconvincing.

I'll keep it short I'm not projecting, I reporting my experience.

You are not merely reporting it, you are also interpreting your experience. I have had the same experience and understood it the same way once. Now I understand it differently. Same experience, different interpretations.

You interpret what I believe exists only in your mind as representing something that exists elsewhere as well. That's projecting, as when a liar sees other people as liars. If a person claims that people are lying too much, and without evidence, you're talking to a liar projecting his own mendacious mental state onto others.

You've descended into personal attacks and determining what my preacher says

Personal attacks? No. A personal attack is when I call you a liar. I said that I thought you were mistaken. If you're offended by being disagreed with, that's on you.

And it's a common motif with the faith-based thinker on a mixed forum like this. This complain is one way - believer to unbeliever. Who complains of being attacked, theists or humanists? Who resents being disagreed with, theists or humanists? Look at this discussion between us now. We disagree with one another, but just you is miffed. The believer is quick to have an emotional response - to take offense, call his collocutor militant, or play the persecution card.

You reject that I can have an experience and that it gives me knowledge, but you know what my "preacher" says????

I reject your interpretation of your experience, and you are too literal regarding "your preacher." I'm not literally referring to any single person including your pastor. Change it to a pastor if you prefer, or a priest or minister.

You had written, "Science is supposed to be about evidence questions and learning, but over and over I hear “shut up believe what we tell you," to which I responded, "That's your preacher, not empiricists. That's the very embodiment of faith - shut up and believe." It represents every preacher and every Sunday school teacher and every parent who teaches Abrahamic doctrine and tells others that they need to accept the doctrine on faith, and to those who ask questions skeptically to stop listening to the devil and just believe.

That doesn't happen in science, but it is typical of teaching Christian doctrine. And you're offended again and responding emotionally. I found your comment about science derogatory, but not of me, so I didn't take it personally, nor respond emotionally to you about it, because why would I?

I suspect that you're used to a different culture for these types of discussions, one where there is little dissent, and where challenging ideas is framed as impertinence if not rebellion against God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did not keep a file of every insult and dismissive comment. I'm interest in unblocked the half a dozen+ folks here who opted to not have an adult conversation and dig it all up.

But yes given the 80+ Billion people the earth can support and the rapidly falling birth rates I don't accept the "science" that looks like chicken little running around saying we are over crowded.

Where do you get 80+ billion people as the carrying capacity of the Earth?

 

[Sheldon]

You seem to have a conviction that the real world is all there is.

By definition anything that is not real doesn't exist?

real
noun

1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Exist
verb

1. have objective reality or being.

The two words are synonymous.

 

[Sheldon]

Your missing the entire point here. When the wright brothers flew a plane they did something and they had actual knowledge. Can they prove it it to others far away and hundreds of years in the future? No they can't.

Of course they can, not only are the designs and the aerodynamics mathematically correct, they can be replicated, and the flight is repeatable. Though it's odd how apologists always make this error, and offer things we know are possible, as somehow synonymous with unevidenced claims for magic that we have no evidence are possible at all, even that contradict known scientific facts. The claims are not even remotely comparable either, as flight and the science behind it do not require anything supernatural or the violation of any scientific or natural laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

How to make a non into a believer in magnetism...
Put fingers between to rare-earth magnets.
Brem together.
A come to Jesus moment will follow.

 

[Sheldon]

Belief precedes action. I would not lift a finger to flip a light switch or make a sandwich if I did not believe the action would yield a positive result. Any willful action comes after belief.

Taking your argument a skeptic would not ever swim, drive, or read. Because each of those tasks takes effort in something they don't have fully proven to them before they put in any effort.

Those tasks are all known to be possible, even before we do them. The first person ever to swim might not have believed it possible but swam out of necessity. It also seems to be instinctive in babies, when put in water they always swim, even though they couldn't believe this was possible before hand.

"Most human babies demonstrate an innate swimming or diving reflex from birth until the age of approximately six months, which are part of a wider range of primitive reflexes found in infants and babies, but not children, adolescents and adults."
Link
Citations

We grow up seeing evidence that light switches turn on lights, and that cars are driven by people. just as we are taught to read. So all poor analogies really.

 

[Sheldon]

But yes given the 80+ Billion people the earth can support

That's bs for a start.

and the rapidly falling birth rates

The birth rate is relative to life expectancy. The global human population is increasing exponentially?

I don't accept the "science" that looks like chicken little running around saying we are over crowded.

How about the simplest of maths, we have an exponentially increasing population, on a planet with finite resources, if that goes unresolved it can only end in disaster.

According to Joel E. Cohen, head of the Laboratory of Populations at the Rockefeller University and Columbia University in New York City. After the invention of agriculture between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago, when there were between 1 million and 10 million individuals on Earth, it took 1,500 years for the human population to double. By the 16th century, the time needed for the population to double dropped to 300 years. And by the turn of the 19th century, it took a mere 130 years. From 1930 to 1974, the Earth's population doubled again, in just 44 years.

 

[Sheldon]

Where do you get 80+ billion people as the carrying capacity of the Earth?

We have been causing irreversible damage to ecosystems and biodiversity for decades, and there's only a tenth of that right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not keep a file of every insult and dismissive comment. I'm interest in unblocked the half a dozen+ folks here who opted to not have an adult conversation and dig it all up.

But yes given the 80+ Billion people the earth can support and the rapidly falling birth rates I don't accept the "science" that looks like chicken little running around saying we are over crowded.

That is quite the claim. How exactly would it do that?

And here is a simple question for you, by mass what percentage of the earth's mammals are either humans or animals grown as food? What percentage of that is humans alone? Just an educated guess first. I did not know until I saw the figures myself so this is not a "gotcha" question where I make fun of you not knowing something. Just give me your best guess. That is all that I am asking for.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Magnetism can be shown.

 

[Willamena]

I believe in magnetism in a young girl's heart
How the music can free her whenever it starts
And it's magnetic if the music is groovy
And it makes you free happy like an old time movie

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We have been causing irreversible damage to ecosystems and biodiversity for decades, and there's only a tenth of that right now.

The estimates I have seen for the Earth's carrying capacity for the human population is around 10 billion. Which isn't that far away. This is based on the availability of arable land, agricultural practices, diet and other facts. All I know of the 80 billion number is that it seems pulled out of the air and a fact by belief rather than on any evidence.