Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[ChristineM]

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?

First off, atheism is disbelief on gods, not magentism. And your premise is wrong, it is not disbelief in things that cannot be shown but things that can't be evidenced.

There is falsifiable evidence that magnetism exists,it can be accurately measured.and used for all sorts of practical applications, after all, you used yoir computing device to post this thread.

Is there falsifiable evidence for gods existence?

Of course if such evidence should turn up then it will destroy atheism at a stroke. But so far, despite thousands of years and literally billions of people making the claim of gods existence no falsifiable evidence has neen forthcoming.

 

[blü 2]

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?

Ah, like Saint Paul's false analogy to link the (real) wind with the (imaginary) 'things unseen' he was selling.

The thing about magnetism is that many of its effects can be demonstrated without instruments, its presence demonstrated by its interaction with instruments, and its consistent behavior in accordance with the theories of physics that deal with it.

You don't even need instruments to demonstrate the reality of the wind. If your having to pull your scarf over your face, or if your sheets billowing on the line (the modern dryer gets in the way of the story, but not the experiment) don't convince you, just get a source of smoke and watch it move in the air.

The 'things unseen' are not known to exist in any form other than as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

The magnetism and the wind are examinable aspects of the world external to the self, thus have objective existence and can be perceived in very much the same way by any onlooker who has the right equipment.

I'm not sure that 'believe in' is the right phrase, but I assert the objective reality of the wind and of magnetism. Anyone doubting can be given a satisfactory demonstration of them.

No such thing is true of Paul's 'unseen things'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Does it not have evidence?

 

[exchemist]

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?

Your posts betrays confusion on two points: first a lack of understanding of science and second a confusion of science with atheism.

The key points are that, as you say, we can observe the effects of magnetism and, crucially, we can predict what we should expect to observe from it.

Science relies on reproducible observation of nature (i.e. observation that give the same result, regardless of who observes and where). Its theories are predictive: in the case of magnetism we can predict how much magnetism is generated by a given electric current, what direction it points in, how strong it will be at a given distance from the wire, and so on. This allows us to design a wide variety of electrical machines, e.g. the electric motors we rely on so much in modern life.

So magnetism can be shown to be real, even though you can't see it directly with your own eyes. The same is true of other ideas in science, e.g. molecules. They are too small to see, but we have lots of evidence that they exist.

None of this applies to religious ideas. There are no reproducible observations that are predicted by religion. So religion belongs in a different category of ideas from natural science.

Please note, this has nothing to do with atheism. Plenty of scientists are religious believers or religious sympathisers.

Some atheists are physicalists. In other words, those that consider the only reality there is consists of the scientifically observable world of nature. That is a different matter.

 

[exchemist]

What is different?
When set conditions are met an electromagnet exerts an invisible power to impact life as we know it. This is widely accepted, but God communicating or helping man is not???

But where is the reproducible evidence of God doing either of these things?

 

[SalixIncendium]

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?

No. I don't believe in air, gravity, or thoughts either.

 

[stvdv]

Or more likely, atheists have indeed experienced what you believe to be God

Very unlikely they have experienced what I have

but are not convinced that your explanation for that experience is justified.

That's true.

That was my whole point. Only after one experiences "God" for themselves people can be convinced about a "God" experience.
(same with any experience...useless to listen to others telling you how bananas taste, or how fantastic sex is. You only 'know' after you have eaten it yourself, right?)

I met a person who wanted to share his experiences with a Saint, but I said "no, please don't share, I want to be blanc when meeting this Saint AND have my own experiences". Took a couple of years, Saints test you, before sharing Spiritual Truth, but at least now I know

 

[blü 2]

God communicating and helping man is a fact. But Atheists have never experienced this, hence their "lack of belief". It's as simple as that

I can't blame them, because I also find it hard to trust and belief people and God.

After I finished my engineer degree, I decided "Engineer study took me 5 years, so God study is of course not as easy, hence I decided to dedicate 10 years of my life to it; so for almost '24/7' I immersed myself in Spiritual life".

By His Grace He provided me with many proofs during these 10 years, so now I know. But not all have the time or dedication to do this.

I didn't get my proof by demanding proof without doing the prescribed needed sadhana (spiritual practices). It was really hard work, but also fun, and I am grateful for this opportunity I got and took

How can I, as an onlooker, distinguish that from your wishing up the answer you wished for?

How does the God you found differ from the version of God normal in your culture?

 

[stvdv]

How can I, as an onlooker, distinguish that from your wishing up the answer you wished for?

There is only 1 way, and that is to dive deep into Spiritual life yourself if you want to secure jewels

Do NOT believe my experiences

Reading experiences can be useful to develop a desire to "dive deep yourself" in Spiritual life, but reading will not grant you the jewels IME

How does the God you found differ from the version of God normal in your culture?

Views on God differ. That, for me is not the point though, I didn't care about what others experienced, the moment I decided I want to experience myself

All that counts, is to get my own experiences.

And when asked, my main response will be "Do not believe me nor my experiences, go for your own experiences, if of course you are interested to have them". I just followed the instructions of my Master, and I succeeded. Others can do something similar, and they will succeed too, if they put in all they've got and follow proper Spiritual instructions

I never try to convince others to believe me. The opposite even, do not believe me, if you want to know for yourself

 

[Sheldon]

There are a lot of approaches suggested in various belief systems.

sometimes something simple like mediation, prayer or reading sacred texts and observing how you feel.

That's an entirely subjective test though, getting wildly different results though, unlike testing for magnetism, where the test result would be identical and objective regardless of when or where it was performed, or by whom.

A Muslim will get the same result from testing magnetism as a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or atheist. That isn't true of meditation or prayer.

 

[Sheldon]

It does when the conditions are the same. If you have many different sets of conditions you will get different results.

What conditions, be specific, otherwise this is just another subjective claim.

 

[blü 2]

There is only 1 way, and that is to dive deep into Spiritual life yourself if you want to secure jewels

Do NOT believe my experiences

Reading experiences can be useful to develop a desire to "dive deep yourself" in Spiritual life, but reading will not grant you the jewels IME


Views on God differ. That, for me is not the point though, I didn't care about what others experienced, the moment I decided I want to experience myself

All that counts, is to get my own experiences.

And when asked, my main response will be "Do not believe me nor my experiences, go for your own experiences, if of course you are interested to have them". I just followed the instructions of my Master, and I succeeded. Others can do something similar, and they will succeed too, if they put in all they've got and follow proper Spiritual instructions

I never try to convince others to believe me. The opposite even, do not believe me, if you want to know for yourself

Thanks for your fair and civil answer.

I did >try to send the system an enquiry< a long time back but all I got was nothing.

 

[Sheldon]

Belief occurred before we made the device to see stuff. If we did not think there was more to see we would not have put in the effort to look.

An individual scientists may believe something might be the case, even though they cannot yet demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for, in order to pursue a line of research, but they'd be a poor scientist if they believed it had the same validity as scientific facts established with an irrefutable weight of objective evidence. Their reputation would likely be ruined if they let their suspicion bias their research in any way, as they would inevitably be found out when other scientists attempted to replicate their work.

What I find odd is the often hostile attitude towards things people believe while accepting many things that we can’t see, hear etc.

Not seeing something literally with your eyes, does not mean it can be objectively evidenced, you seem to be conflating subjective religious belief with scientific facts because what is studied is no necessarily visible to the naked eye, but they are obviously different in that as with your example of magnetism it's effects can be objectively evidenced. Muslims Christians Hindus Sikhs or atheists will all get the same identical results from testing magnetism, unlike the subjective religious beliefs they hold, or do not.

 

[ppp]

That was my whole point. Only after one experiences "God" for themselves people can be convinced about a "God" experience.

You position is that your explanations for your experiences are true because you say that they are true. And that no one who has had your experience could possibly disagree with you.

Pfui.

 

[Sheldon]

So when the 9-11 hijackers flew planes into buildings because they were doing God's will, do you think that is a satisfactory and successful test that the god of Abraham really exists?

I mean these 19 guys died for God, so they must have been completely convinced. For me to be convinced to that degree God would have to appear personally.

I'd have to say I would be dubious even then, as I know mental illness and delusions are objectively possible, whereas I have no such objective evidence any deity is. FWIW if I was completely convinced a deity existed and wanted me to commit murder, let alone indiscriminate mass murder, I'd tell it to **** off.

So should we assume these guys had excellent evidence that the rest of us don't? How do you explain these men doing God's will? Does it convince you?

Excellent question, as the only differences I can see beyond the resulting deity and belief, are entirely subjective. The method, at least as it has been tacitly described here seems the same. Having done this for many years I can almost feel this building towards a no true Scotsman, or special pleading fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Some Scientists' dispute Gravity exists.

Some "scientists" believe in astrology, that doesn't make astrology science, this is called an appeal to authority fallacy.

Scientific facts don't adhere to, nor are they influenced by purely subjective opinions just because they belong to someone who is a scientist, indeed the term can be fairly wildly abused as well. For example creationists often cite the opinion of scientists on evolution, even though they have absolutely no qualifications in the field of biology or evolution. It's a well worked piece of propaganda. What an individual "scientist" may believe or think is irrelevant, unless they can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support it.

 

[Sheldon]

God communicating and helping man is a fact. But Atheists have never experienced this, hence their "lack of belief". It's as simple as that

That's not a fact, it is a subjective claim, you have simply said fact in it.

I decided to dedicate 10 years of my life to it; so for almost '24/7' I immersed myself in Spiritual life". By His Grace He provided me with many proofs during these 10 years, so now I know. But not all have the time or dedication to do this.

Another subjective claim, can you demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence for it?

 

[Sheldon]

Very unlikely they have experienced what I have

How are you measuring the likelihood of that?

Only after one experiences "God" for themselves people can be convinced about a "God" experience.

Though tellingly it doesn't matter which deity or religion, as this seems to work for many of them. Also this is the very definition of a purely subjective claim, it borders on a no true Scotsman fallacy as well. At least to a neutral observer anyway.

 

[Sheldon]

There is only 1 way, and that is to dive deep into Spiritual life yourself if you want to secure jewels

This sounds to me like making myself suggestible, introducing bias right from the start, and of course since this clearly works for entirely different religions and deities that doesn't suggest this method is objectively reliable, but rather a solid way to reinforce an a priori belief. When you "dived deep" into this how sceptical were you? How did you objectively and critically scrutinise the belief and what you imagined the experiences were conforming?

In short how would you falsify this method? Only often when people claim to have tried this, but arrive at a different conclusion, either a different deity entirely or no deity at all, these tend to be waved away with either special pleading fallacies or no true Scotsman fallacies?

 

[firedragon]

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?

Err. Honestly, I have not heard an atheist say that. If you mean that atheists ask for empirical evidence, that is true but empiricism does not always mean what you can see with your eyes physically. If an effect of electromagnetic waves can be detected, that is empirical evidence.

Please clarify if you meant something else. I am interested in this topic.