Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So nothing is worth learning. Well they say non are so blind as those who refuse to see.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do atheists believe in magnetism?
- Thread starter Truth in love
- Start date
So nothing is worth learning. Well they say non are so blind as those who refuse to see.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How did you reach that conclusion?
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily wrong, but not a theory.
A theory in science is not considered a theory without evidence.
If you can't measure, it is not a theory but rather a thesis.
When you present evidence and experiments that prove and support your thesis, it can become a theory (there are many more factors of course).
Qwin
Member
That makes sense and expands my assertion, as have similarly illuminating posts, but none change my initial assertion.
Qwin
Member
10 Questions That Science Can't Answer Yet
I put a link here, but no sign of it... Oh, the mysteries of websites are beyond me. Wait, the 10 questions... blah is the link. Wonderful.
Hope this helps.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
What does "deemed to be science" mean? Who decides this, and how? care to list a few of these, offers some credible scientific citation?
The real irony of course is your whole premise is whataboutism, you can't demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity, attacking science won't change that, even if your claims were remotely true, though they seem to misconceive science and its methods tbh.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That wasn't written by Luke, the name is fictional, like Mathew Mark and John, they were made up and assigned to those gospels centuries later. The gospels are anonymous, and entirely hearsay, since beyond the crucifixion, there is no historical evidence to support them.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry but most of those can be and have been tested. Not having an answer yet does not mean that the concepts can't be tested.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
How do you think this evidences a deity exactly? Miracles are claims not evidence, an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. They are simply appeals to mystery. Not having a natural or scientific explanation for something doesn't remotely evidence anything supernatural, or any deity, that is a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What are the "Cokeville events?"
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I know, some theists seem to be under the impression that science claims to have answered everything? Where on earth would they have got such a bizarre notion?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That of course comes from their belief system and very bad logic. They believe that their God knows everything, so to "prove that God wrong" you need to know as much or more than God. That is bad logic where one is assuming that one's beliefs are true. One does not need to know more than God to show that parts of the Bible are false. In fact showing that parts of the Bible are false only tells us that it does not appear to be "God's word" and unsupported claim that only comes from . . . the Bible. Just a tad bit circular in one's reasoning when one uses the Bible and only the Bible to support the Bible.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Interesting, he spelled it wrong but you got it right. I did a Google search and found this:
Cokeville Elementary School hostage crisis - Wikipedia
A bomb did not go off and they are trying to attribute it to angels. I am thinking that it was more likely he may have had a friend help him set it up. Cutting a couple of wires could easily be unnoticed by the perpetrator.
At any rate an event happened that we do not fully understand. "I don't know why" is never evidence.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Ahh, I see. Thanks for filling me in again.
"All the hostages escaped, though 79 were later hospitalized with burns and injuries, the majority of which were severe.[3][2]"
That's supposed to be the work of angels? How'd we jump to that conclusion? Why couldn't the angels just fly them all out of there without getting burnt at all?
Maybe the guy just wasn't good at making bombs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That could be true too. Perhaps his wife was the saboteur. There are all sorts of possible answers. "Magic" appears to be the least likely explanation.Ahh, I see. Thanks for filling me in again.
"All the hostages escaped, though 79 were later hospitalized with burns and injuries, the majority of which were severe.[3][2]"
That's supposed to be the work of angels? How'd we jump to that conclusion? Why couldn't the angels just fly them all out of there without getting burnt at all?
Maybe the guy just wasn't good at making bombs.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yeah, maybe she just didn't really feel like dying that day.
Oh, I read a bit further down and found this:
"When the bomb detonated, the majority of the explosive force was channeled through loose ceiling tiles into the roof, and open windows acting as vents. This significantly mitigated the explosive power of the bomb.[5]
"You could see that the roof tiles had been lifted out of their brackets. –– I don't think that they were planning—or David was planning on the ceiling tiles in the school. Because in the bus, everything was solid in the school bus. There was no give in the school bus. Well, with the window being open, with the ceiling tiles being able to lift up and down, I think that absorbed a lot of the explosion of the gasoline bottle."
— Rich Haskell, Certified Bomb Technician Rich Haskell on the 1986 Bombing of Cokeville Elementary School, WyoHistory.org"
I have no idea how we get to magic from any of this. Maybe the Poster will elucidate for us.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Yes. Lots of kids even play with magnet-based toys.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
When I was a kid, my grandfather used to somehow attach a magnet on the bottom of an action figure or something, then he put another magnet under the table where I couldn't see and he'd make the little figure dance all around the table. I used to think he was a magician.
Faith is an abstraction, and like all abstractions, has no substance. And think about the phrase "evidence of things not seen." Evidence is what *IS* seen, what is evident. Faith sidesteps evidence and substance and goes directly to belief.
I think it's the believers who have trouble understanding what faith is. It is one of two methods for coming to beliefs, the one that doesn't use evidence. Thus, we have can hold both justified and unjustified beliefs. Faith is the latter. If you believe something is true and came to that belief without applying valid reasoning to evidence (justified belief), whatever other method you used, the belief is unjustified, making it a faith-based belief.
I would say that if one has a different understanding of what faith is and what its place is in epistemology, that it he that doesn't have a correct definition of faith. Notice that I am not referring to a different word with the same spelling and pronunciation, which means justified belief, as in faith borne of experience - faith in a wife, or in a car starting, or any other justified belief based on experience and evidence. The beliefs are justified if they include the idea that what is expected might not be the case - the wife might be cheating, and the car not start next time, but the belief that such things are the case is not based only in the will to believe.
Religion glorifies faith and where helpful, demeans reason for good reason - its dicta can only be believed by faith. And we see poetry like the scripture you cited from Hebrews. And we see it attempt to make faith more substantial than just a hope believed, it has substance and evidence we are told, even though it has neither - a kind of unwitting not to empiricism and the idea that substance and evidence can make beliefs sound.
With humanism, it's the other way around. Reason is the virtue and faith the logical error (non sequitur).
I was just watching the January 6th committee. Over and over we see the conflict between those who required evidence to believe that the election was stolen such as Barr, Cippolone, and Herschmann, and those who didn't, who kept insisting they had it and promising to provide it such as Giuliani, Powell, and Flynn, but couldn't and thus never did. One group was willing to believe by faith, the other comprised empiricists.
I guess that Giuliani, Powell, and Flynn were referring to the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen, which, of course, meant no substance or evidence at all. These two groups nicely represent and contrast the traditions of religion and empiricism. Faith was hardly a virtue there, was it? Nor did it serve the January 6th insurrectionists, whose only "evidence" was Trump's word. They had faith in him.