How many GODS do you have?

[Mike Cl]

But, but ... it is because we have grown old ;-)  The world has stayed the same, we have moved on.  In the Stone Age, nothing ever changed, and life expectancy was 30-40 years.

I have changed ... improved actually, over the last 4 years.  I measure progress individually, no socially.

Once upon a time ... an AI couldn't have handled this problem, only a human can

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvXqosqkls

I got to do a little participating in space projects.  Not as much as I wanted, like when I sent that ion engine design to the Johnson White House in 1967.  I was 11.  Got a letter back in thanks.  Don't think that would happen today.

I was with my grandparents quite a bit in my teens and therefore, interacted with their friends quite a bit.  I noted what I thought was a normal aging thought process; they were more conservative than I was.  Well, except for my grandfather, who stayed 'liberal' to the end.  So, I became a little curious how I would age.  Now that I've reached that age, I find I'm quite a bit like my grandfather--growing more liberal as I grow old.  I do realize that nothing stays as it is--all things change.  But I must admit, this current trend (or trends) in this country has caught me by surprise.  But I don't chalk up these changes as normal.  My normal was a flawed, but workable, country; one willing to fix wrongs in a way good republics do.  Now I see the Republic slipping away, and while that is change, it is not a good one nor one that has to happen.  But as part of the 99%, there is little to nothing I can do about it.  I can only hope to keep my own emotions on an even keel and try not to go into a depression about it.

[Baruch]

Yeah, the big changes in life can be downers.  Birth, early adulthood, marriage, children, jobs, loss of jobs, loss of children, loss of marriage, second childhood and finally death.  That is a big reason why there is religion.  Buddhism/Hinduism has very good traditional answers to these problems.

So I suspect ... you were idealist/optimist to begin with, and are becoming more so?  No wonder you are unhappy.  You are like a Benjamin Button internally.  Too bad your body isn't also getting younger ;-))  Yes, I think the normal thing (in most of the 16 Meyer-Briggs types) is to start out idealist/optimist if your childhood wasn't too shitty.  Then as you accumulate all those life changing events, getting kneed in the groin, you move to a more cynical/pessimist view.  That is where I am rhetorically.  But really, outside the Internet, as a Radical Centrist .. I am moving toward a indifferent/neutral POV.  I find "don't worry, be happy" to be wrong in both directions.

[Mike Cl]

Yeah, the big changes in life can be downers.  Birth, early adulthood, marriage, children, jobs, loss of jobs, loss of children, loss of marriage, second childhood and finally death.  That is a big reason why there is religion.  Buddhism/Hinduism has very good traditional answers to these problems.

So I suspect ... you were idealist/optimist to begin with, and are becoming more so?  No wonder you are unhappy.  You are like a Benjamin Button internally.  Too bad your body isn't also getting younger ;-))  Yes, I think the normal thing (in most of the 16 Meyer-Briggs types) is to start out idealist/optimist if your childhood wasn't too shitty.  Then as you accumulate all those life changing events, getting kneed in the groin, you move to a more cynical/pessimist view.  That is where I am rhetorically.  But really, outside the Internet, as a Radical Centrist .. I am moving toward a indifferent/neutral POV.  I find "don't worry, be happy" to be wrong in both directions.

I suppose I was an optimist from the beginning--I guess.  What I remember most from my childhood to early adulthood was my rather steep emotional retardation.  What I mean was I was so shy and withdrawn that a 'wall flower' would be an extreme extrovert.  It took awhile for it to sink in that all people have flaws and fears.  It was the Army that put me on that road in earnest.  In the Army you either stood up for yourself or you got run over--again and again.  But I did actually always think the future would be better--both personally and in society.  As I studied history more and more, I came to realize that change does not happen on a smooth slope, either up or down, but in stutter steps up or down.  It seems this country is now in one of those phases of two steps back, and it does not feel all that good. 

My childhood deep insecurities forced me to do, when I entered the 'real' world was to become confident in my abilities and feelings or become paralyzed with fear and inaction.  I now have fully embraced the realization that wherever I am, I have me, myself and I with me and we all get along very well.  I don't really need others to 'fulfill' my life---but I find I do want others of my choosing to be in my life.  So, as I age, I enjoy life.  I'm still optimistic.  And I see that this society is not what it says it is.  At one time I thought this country really was the the land of the land of the brave, of freedom and aspired to have all partake.  We are not that--but could be.  We are now the land of the corporation and sound bites.  That can change, but I don't think I'll live to see it.  But, still, in my personal life I do embrace the 'don't worry be happy' ideal; I am still optimistic.

[Baruch]

Yeah, childhood is bad enough.  But being a geek or handicapped ... is worse.  I had a stammer until I was 16, and wore glasses in 1-2 grade.  And a total geek until after I got married (at 30 years old).  My EQ continues to go up.  My IQ is in slow decline.  Not so good for technical now, only good for liberal arts ... sigh.

[Simon Moon]

Sure Mike.

And all this come from someone who can not even bring evidence on any of the 10 Atheists beliefs which I did point out in previous posts.


Alleluiah

OK, let's do this again, maybe some small bit of it might stick in your muddled brain, but I have no real hope of that.


1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.


1) You are the one making the claim that there is some sort of afterlife, you have the burden of proof. Those of us that do not believe your claim are not required to prove there is no afterlife. This is what is known as the null hypothesis.

Personally, I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. My position is, that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof to convince me that there is an afterlife, therefore, you have not provided warrant for me to believe your claim.

2) All evidence points to consciousness being a product of the physical brain. Please point to one demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable example of consciousness existing absent a physical brain.

3) Besides a bunch of anecdotal accounts of people claiming they lived previous lives, proved some demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence to support your claim. Multiple anecdotal accounts do not add up good evidence.

4) The vast majority of physicists, the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the universe, have not discovered any evidence for a universe creating god. All evidence points to purely natural processes in the expansion of the universe. Please, by all means, publish your findings that point to a god being necessary, and win your Noble prize, and change humanity.

5) I never stated anything like this. I completely agree that many people, who I know for a fact are not religious, call themselves spiritual. The real problem is, the word 'spiritual' is such a incoherent term. Everyone that I've ever heard describe themself as spiritual, has a different definition for the word. I've actually been described as spiritual by friends and family, because of the awe and beauty I see in the universe, my love for art and music. LATE EDIT How could I forget my almost 2 decade Yoga practice, and regular meditation, as another reason I am called spiritual by friends and family.

6) This is a minority position held by atheists, they are called 'mythicists'. I have no problem with the idea that there was a historical Jesus. After all, Yeshua was a pretty common name back then, as were plenty of itinerant Messianic  preachers in Jerusalem in those days. The problem for believers is, even if a historical Jesus/Yeshua existed, does not offer a single bit of evidence for any of the supernatural claims surrounding him.

7) Not my claim. But the problem is, you and your ilk have not been able to prove your case. It is not up to us to prove that all NDE's are lies or hallucination, it is up to you to prove that they are legitimate. It is not our problem that your evidence is weak.

8) You may need to define your term "progress of the consciousness".  but, if you are using standard definitions, it is entirely possible that biological evolution has lead to advancing our consciousness. After all, it is evolution that is responsible for our more advanced consciousness as compared to chimps.

9) Of course physical science it the real McCoy. It is the single most reliable method ever conceived for examining the universe. Every demonstrable advancement in humanity ever, has come about via science. The computer you are working on, the car you drive, your 80 year lifespan, the smart phone in your pocket, etc, etc, etc....

10) If you are referring to the capability and power of humans to concentrate, to be determined and purposeful in their training, to have extreme focus, etc, in order to become proficient in a martial to enable them to break concrete slabs, I have no problem with that.

If you are referring to some other, 'force' being produced by the mind, that is something beyond the physical force of their hands, then you will have to provide demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim. 

So, the bottom line is, you do not understand that is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to support your case. It is not our fault that you and your ilk have completely failed to meet your burden of proof.

I am opened to being convinced of your claims, but not without you providing a case that meets my requirements. It is not my fault that you are gullible.

[Mr.Obvious]

If I can not win an argument that may mean that my argument is a fail and the opposition is probably correct.
From here any intelligent person would understand that he-she would be better to change and learn.

And what if you don't understand that you are not even close to making, let alone winning an argument? Exactly because you are so invested in it, blinding yourself from the validity of the input of others, that might challenge your worldview and false sense of success?
What, Arik, if you are indeed not an intelligent person?

[Mike Cl]

And what if you don't understand that you are not even close to making, let alone winning an argument? Exactly because you are so invested in it, blinding yourself from the validity of the input of others, that might challenge your worldview and false sense of success?
What, Arik, if you are indeed not an intelligent person?

Indeed, he is not an intelligent person.  It's easy to see when all he does is repost his old posts with not a single change or thought of a change.

[Unbeliever]

"Hokahey, today is a good day to die!" - Lakota chief Crazyhorse

I thought it was Worf who said that...:-P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdnXKSV8ZSA

[Arik]

OK, let's do this again, maybe some small bit of it might stick in your muddled brain, but I have no real hope of that.


1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.


1) You are the one making the claim that there is some sort of afterlife, you have the burden of proof. Those of us that do not believe your claim are not required to prove there is no afterlife. This is what is known as the null hypothesis.

Personally, I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. My position is, that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof to convince me that there is an afterlife, therefore, you have not provided warrant for me to believe your claim.

2) All evidence points to consciousness being a product of the physical brain. Please point to one demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable example of consciousness existing absent a physical brain.

3) Besides a bunch of anecdotal accounts of people claiming they lived previous lives, proved some demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence to support your claim. Multiple anecdotal accounts do not add up good evidence.

4) The vast majority of physicists, the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the universe, have not discovered any evidence for a universe creating god. All evidence points to purely natural processes in the expansion of the universe. Please, by all means, publish your findings that point to a god being necessary, and win your Noble prize, and change humanity.

5) I never stated anything like this. I completely agree that many people, who I know for a fact are not religious, call themselves spiritual. The real problem is, the word 'spiritual' is such a incoherent term. Everyone that I've ever heard describe themself as spiritual, has a different definition for the word. I've actually been described as spiritual by friends and family, because of the awe and beauty I see in the universe, my love for art and music. LATE EDIT How could I forget my almost 2 decade Yoga practice, and regular meditation, as another reason I am called spiritual by friends and family.

6) This is a minority position held by atheists, they are called 'mythicists'. I have no problem with the idea that there was a historical Jesus. After all, Yeshua was a pretty common name back then, as were plenty of itinerant Messianic  preachers in Jerusalem in those days. The problem for believers is, even if a historical Jesus/Yeshua existed, does not offer a single bit of evidence for any of the supernatural claims surrounding him.

7) Not my claim. But the problem is, you and your ilk have not been able to prove your case. It is not up to us to prove that all NDE's are lies or hallucination, it is up to you to prove that they are legitimate. It is not our problem that your evidence is weak.

8) You may need to define your term "progress of the consciousness".  but, if you are using standard definitions, it is entirely possible that biological evolution has lead to advancing our consciousness. After all, it is evolution that is responsible for our more advanced consciousness as compared to chimps.

9) Of course physical science it the real McCoy. It is the single most reliable method ever conceived for examining the universe. Every demonstrable advancement in humanity ever, has come about via science. The computer you are working on, the car you drive, your 80 year lifespan, the smart phone in your pocket, etc, etc, etc....

10) If you are referring to the capability and power of humans to concentrate, to be determined and purposeful in their training, to have extreme focus, etc, in order to become proficient in a martial to enable them to break concrete slabs, I have no problem with that.

If you are referring to some other, 'force' being produced by the mind, that is something beyond the physical force of their hands, then you will have to provide demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim. 

So, the bottom line is, you do not understand that is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to support your case. It is not our fault that you and your ilk have completely failed to meet your burden of proof.

I am opened to being convinced of your claims, but not without you providing a case that meets my requirements. It is not my fault that you are gullible.

Why are you shifting the burden of proof on me?


These 10 points are statements coming from Atheists.
Maybe not all from you in particular but surely coming from Atheists in general so are the Atheists those who have to bring evidence not me.
I didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.

I simply said time and time again that it is my believe that God exist.
Can't you see the difference between stating something and instead  saying that my belief is such and such?

Stating need evidence while saying that my believe is this does not so it is up to Atheists to bring evidence because most of them state things and make claims.


Thanks anyway for your answer to those 10 points in which you say that in some of them you never made those claims.
Unfortunately the rest carry no evidence of whatsoever.

[Simon Moon]

Why are you shifting the burden of proof on me?

Because this is logic 101. You are the one making the claims, the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the one MAKING THE CLAIMS.

I am not making any claims, I am responding to your claims.

Just like in a court of law. It is not up to the defense to prove their client innocent, it is up to the prosecutors to prove the accused is guilty.

So, we are not passing the burden of proof to you, you are saddled with the burden of proof by the fact that you are making the claims.

The default position, is not, to believe claims until they are proven false, the default position is to not accept the claim until it is proven true.

These 10 points are statements coming from Atheists.

Yes, some atheists make these statements. But here's the thing you seem unable to grasp, the vast majority of atheists don't make these statements as claims of absolute truth or with absolute certainty. They make them as being their disbelief, based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support the claims. A disbelief in a claim does not require a burden of proof.

Maybe not all from you in particular but surely coming from Atheists in general so are the Atheists those who have to bring evidence not me.

If an atheist makes the claim, they do have the burden of proof. But I don't think you are understanding the what most atheists are actually saying.

If you claim that there is an afterlife, for example, and an atheist replies, "I don't believe you, please provide me with demonstrable evidence", the atheist does not have a burden of proof.

I didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.

Then why are you here?

One of my main motivations in life, is to believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false things as possible. If you have good, rational, and evidence based reasons for your god beliefs, I want to know. And BS on NDE's carrying good evidence. If you actually believe that there is clear evidence for NDE's, you have a very low bar for what you consider evidence, or you just don't understand what actually constitutes good evidence.

I simply said time and time again that it is my believe that God exist.

And the majority of atheists want to know why you have that belief. We all understand that many people believe gods exist, it is the "why" that is the important question.

[Baruch]

Why are you shifting the burden of proof on me?


These 10 points are statements coming from Atheists.
Maybe not all from you in particular but surely coming from Atheists in general so are the Atheists those who have to bring evidence not me.
I didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.

I simply said time and time again that it is my believe that God exist.
Can't you see the difference between stating something and instead  saying that my belief is such and such?

Stating need evidence while saying that my believe is this does not so it is up to Atheists to bring evidence because most of them state things and make claims.


Thanks anyway for your answer to those 10 points in which you say that in some of them you never made those claims.
Unfortunately the rest carry no evidence of whatsoever.

But existence doesn't exist.  That concept is a human category applied over an ineffable reality.  Bad enough dealing with the temporal.  Impossible with the eternal.  So no, G-d doesn't exist ... in the sense that the predicate, "exist" doesn't apply to G-d.  It only partly applies to people (as demi-gods).

Logic 101?  Really?  Casual application of logic is like removing your own appendix.

All men are squids
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is a squid

Logic is helpless except in constrained sandboxes (like digital electronics).  Correct answers colors beyond the sandbox ... what if Socrates is a relative of Squidward?

Yes, there is shifting of burden of proof.  But in these categories (outside of maths) there is no proof.  Like trying to count how many wings a squid has.  That is rhetoric, not logic.  Rhetoric is adversarial.  It isn't interested in discovering true things, just establishing victory over your victim's semantic corpse.  There is empirical demonstration.  But if I categorize birds as dinosaurs, and you ask me, are there dinosaurs today, then I will demonstrate that there are.  But if not, then not.  That is how slippery axioms are.  Euclid got away with a partially correct plane geometry, because points and lines and circles really are pretty simple (but deep also).  Euclid wasn't corrected until 2300 years later by Hilbert (what is a good proof today, can be shown to be inadequate later).

[Hydra009]

If I can not win an argument that may mean that my argument is a fail and the opposition is probably correct.

This "if" of yours does not exist.

As soon as you come up with real evidence I will be more than prepared to admit my failing.

For the upteenth time, the burden of proof is on you, pal.  Until you learn that basic fact, you'll always be relegated to the kiddie table with other charlatans, quacks, and morons.

[Baruch]

This "if" of yours does not exist.
For the upteenth time, the burden of proof is on you, pal.  Until you learn that basic fact, you'll always be relegated to the kiddie table with other charlatans, quacks, and morons.

Rhetoric ... knife fight for people who don't even have knives.

[Unbeliever]

I didn't come in this forum to teach religion and to tell you that God exist for sure and all other points in discussion except the NDEs which carry clear evidence.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for NDE's, but then there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for Bigfoot, so should I believe in the existence of Bigfoot? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for flying saucers, so should I believe in flying saucers? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for ghosts and goblins, vampires and spontaneous human combustion, and the Lock Ness monster. So should I believe in all those things?

Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, hence it doesn't count as evidence.

[Simon Moon]

How do you presume that I am not prepared to change and learn also considering that most of the Atheist beliefs are based on guessing and guessing only?

The tell tale sign that you are not prepared to change your mind, is that you believe, until such time your beliefs are proved wrong. This is the exact opposite method for critical thinking. The best method is, to disbelieve claims until such times they are supported by demonstrable evidence.

Your method, if you wanted to stay consistent, and intellectually honest, would be to believe (as Unbeliever already stated) in the existence of: bigfoot, alien craft, ghosts, goblins, vampires, Loch Ness monster, etc, etc, etc. After all, those things have not been proven to not exist, right?

Since when Atheists ever came up with real evidence about the 10 points that I did show in previous posts?

Just to beat e dead horse, we do not require evidence to disbelieve your claims.

Atheists are always quick to say that anything void of evidence is nothing but at the same time they keep on popping up with arguments void of any evidence so how I suppose to learn from it?

All my existential beliefs are held due to evidence to support them. If there is insufficient evidence to support any claim, I will disbelieve said claim.

We do not need to provide evidence for the nonexistence of gods. Those that claim that gods exist, have the burden of proof.

As soon as you come up with real evidence I will be more than prepared to admit my failing.

No you won't. Again, anyone that is waiting for evidence to prove their unsupported beliefs are wrong, has irrational beliefs.

The rational method is to withhold belief, until such time, there is evidence to support the claim.

As philosopher David Hume has said:

“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”…and should “always reject the greater miracle.”