How many GODS do you have?

[Unbeliever]

The best method is, to disbelieve claims until such times they are supported by demonstrable evidence.

I suspect many theists are afraid of "demonstrable evidence" because it has the word "demon" in it.

[Baruch]

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.

Doesn't count for evidence in a court of law.  Makes for good TV though.

@Simon Moon ... I like David Hume too.  Much better man than Roussea or Voltaire.

[Unbeliever]

Doesn't count for evidence in a court of law.  Makes for good TV though.

What is eyewitness testimony but anecdotal evidence? It's finally becoming apparent that it can't be relied upon.

[Baruch]

What is eyewitness testimony but anecdotal evidence? It's finally becoming apparent that it can't be relied upon.

Correct, which is why most court cases should be thrown out.  If eyewitness evidence is unreliable, how much more so dubious "circumstantial evidence" gathered by politically elected DAs?  If you left your fingerprint behind ... you are a moron and should get the Chair.

[Arik]

Correct, which is why most court cases should be thrown out.  If eyewitness evidence is unreliable, how much more so dubious "circumstantial evidence" gathered by politically elected DAs?  If you left your fingerprint behind ... you are a moron and should get the Chair.

Because of personal experience I know that the court system (at least here in Australia) work in a very stupid way.

Many years ago when I was living in Sydney on weekend I was driving a taxi.
One night when I did pick up 3 women I had a lot of trouble when i found out that these 3 women were totally drunk and abusing me.
After they spit on my face I did stop the car and ask them to get out.
Instead of getting out they abuse me even more before they got out.
I thought that the thing end there but no.

After sometime the base ask me to contact Redfern police station.
When I got there I was charged for assaulting those 3 women.

I had to go to court and I lost the case.
The police and the judge thought that the witness of 3 people is better that the one of a sole person so the number rather than the truth win.

NDEs are not anecdotal evidence as according the dictionary anecdotal evidence come from an individual witness.

In the NDEs case the witness come from a group of people that were present there (doctors, nurses and other people) so it is wrong to call anecdotal in the first place.
Real evidence is evidence according to the truth regardless on how many people witness the truth.

In other word the truth is such if it is truth even if 100 people witness against a single person but this doesn't go well with people such as Atheists that confuse the term anecdotal with something build up in their fantasy world.   

[Arik]

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

Fail again SM.

Most Atheists in most cases make the claim well before a theists say such and such thing that is why I did come up with those 10 points.
Some religious people come here and say that God exist so I do understand your point in saying that they got the burden of proof but that is not my case.
Why should I have the burden of proof when except the NDEs case I did not make any claims?
Since most Atheists made those claims they got the burden of proof which again and again is not coming.


Beside this burden of proof drama I just point out just one of your so called evidence when on point 4 you say...........

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.

Here you talk about ALL EVIDENCE but since when this so called solid evidence is real evidence?
A study that point out to something can NOT be called evidence.
You see how confused you are?
You are confusing real evidence with guessing because guessing it is and then you have the audacity to say that I talk BS.

[Baruch]

Actually, that is why originally, the materialists supported "steady state" cosmology.  The "big bang" idea created too many problems for them, particularly when after 1965 it was proven correct.  But since we have infinite universes with infinite dimensions (its a cult among physics profs) ... the "big bang" is easier for these people to accept.  Like an oyster secreting nacre over a sand grain, making a pearl.

Not that I know what creation "ex nihilo" is, but I don't think it is any stranger than "cosmic inflation" or any other "saving appearances/rube goldberg" the academics come up with.  For me, creation isn't an issue, since I don't accept the past or future, only the present.  And at present, I am.

[Arik]

Actually, that is why originally, the materialists supported "steady state" cosmology.  The "big bang" idea created too many problems for them, particularly when after 1965 it was proven correct.  But since we have infinite universes with infinite dimensions (its a cult among physics profs) ... the "big bang" is easier for these people to accept.  Like an oyster secreting nacre over a sand grain, making a pearl.

Not that I know what creation "ex nihilo" is, but I don't think it is any stranger than "cosmic inflation" or any other "saving appearances/rube goldberg" the academics come up with.  For me, creation isn't an issue, since I don't accept the past or future, only the present.  And at present, I am.

One little question for you Baruch.

You say that you do not believe in the past right?
Where according to you the consciousness that you got is coming from?

[Baruch]

One little question for you Baruch.

You say that you do not believe in the past right?
Where according to you the consciousness that you got is coming from?

I know that part of Buddhist polemic (one of several) is to claim cause/effect and then use that to demolish ordinary metaphysics.  Usually ending up with radical discontinuity, which nullifies the notion of "self" (aka something with ongoing existence: pudgala/atman).  I don't need to assume cause/effect as part of some rhetorical gambit.

Cause/effect is a rather primitive meme in ordinary metaphysics (materialist pool table reality).  I just cut to the chase.  There is only the Present, axiomatically.  And not being a Buddhist, I don't need to draw the conclusion that there is no "self".  The question of ongoing existence is moot in my mind.  I am satisfied with "personalism" over "impersonalism".

So as most of us know, the mind is like a layer cake.  The consciousness is the icing on the cake, the body of the cake is the unconscious.  We call the boundary between those, the sub-conscious.  That is a model simply describing something.  The body of the cake doesn't cause the icing, the icing doesn't cause the body of the cake.  They are distinct but connected.

So "where does the consciousness come from" is a moot question.  Same as "where does the unconsciousness come from".  "Come from" implies cause/effect, which I simply choose to treat as moot.  They simply are, in the Present.  The sense of time passing, the sense of cause/effect .. are from psychology.  Secondary considerations.

We know that in local physics, the equations don't care which direction time is running.  That is what one would expect from a locally a-temporal system (aka eternal).  And the experimenter/observer changes the situation by interacting with it.  We make time and space relevant (demi-gods).

There are many important insights from Buddhism however or from Yoga ... they are introspective psychology.  But that means they are subjective.  Being an immaterialist, the question of "how does the brain create thought" is irrelevant to me.

[Arik]

I know that part of Buddhist polemic (one of several) is to claim cause/effect and then use that to demolish ordinary metaphysics.  Usually ending up with radical discontinuity, which nullifies the notion of "self" (aka something with ongoing existence: pudgala/atman).  I don't need to assume cause/effect as part of some rhetorical gambit.

Cause/effect is a rather primitive meme in ordinary metaphysics (materialist pool table reality).  I just cut to the chase.  There is only the Present, axiomatically.  And not being a Buddhist, I don't need to draw the conclusion that there is no "self".  The question of ongoing existence is moot in my mind.  I am satisfied with "personalism" over "impersonalism".

So as most of us know, the mind is like a layer cake.  The consciousness is the icing on the cake, the body of the cake is the unconscious.  We call the boundary between those, the sub-conscious.  That is a model simply describing something.  The body of the cake doesn't cause the icing, the icing doesn't cause the body of the cake.  They are distinct but connected.

So "where does the consciousness come from" is a moot question.  Same as "where does the unconsciousness come from".  "Come from" implies cause/effect, which I simply choose to treat as moot.  They simply are, in the Present.  The sense of time passing, the sense of cause/effect .. are from psychology.  Secondary considerations.

We know that in local physics, the equations don't care which direction time is running.  That is what one would expect from a locally a-temporal system (aka eternal).  And the experimenter/observer changes the situation by interacting with it.  We make time and space relevant (demi-gods).

There are many important insights from Buddhism however or from Yoga ... they are introspective psychology.  But that means they are subjective.  Being an immaterialist, the question of "how does the brain create thought" is irrelevant to me.

Descartes say........... “I think therefore I am.”
Yogic philosophy say......... “When I stop thinking, then I really am!”

I may be wrong Baruch but it seem to me that you think that the mind or conscious mind is able to understand what is outside its limits.

Is a fact that when we do not know something we look within.
Within our subconsciousness mind and if we are able to get the knowledge that means that it is the subconsciousness mind that provide that knowledge and the conscious mind is secondary rather then the icing cake.

The ideas come from within and all the conscious mind can do is to try to understand and remember that.
Nothing else nothing more.

Sub stand like below not inferior like a subordinate.
A submarine stay below the water that doesn't mean that it is inferior to anything.
Our subconscious mind is the real ice cake because that is the place where all knowledge come from so when the conscious mind stop making us believe that we know everything or there is no need for anything else then the real cake of subconscious mind is able to take over and let us be aware of the real knowledge.

[Cavebear]

I know that part of Buddhist polemic (one of several) is to claim cause/effect and then use that to demolish ordinary metaphysics.  Usually ending up with radical discontinuity, which nullifies the notion of "self" (aka something with ongoing existence: pudgala/atman).  I don't need to assume cause/effect as part of some rhetorical gambit.

Cause/effect is a rather primitive meme in ordinary metaphysics (materialist pool table reality).  I just cut to the chase.  There is only the Present, axiomatically.  And not being a Buddhist, I don't need to draw the conclusion that there is no "self".  The question of ongoing existence is moot in my mind.  I am satisfied with "personalism" over "impersonalism".

So as most of us know, the mind is like a layer cake.  The consciousness is the icing on the cake, the body of the cake is the unconscious.  We call the boundary between those, the sub-conscious.  That is a model simply describing something.  The body of the cake doesn't cause the icing, the icing doesn't cause the body of the cake.  They are distinct but connected.

So "where does the consciousness come from" is a moot question.  Same as "where does the unconsciousness come from".  "Come from" implies cause/effect, which I simply choose to treat as moot.  They simply are, in the Present.  The sense of time passing, the sense of cause/effect .. are from psychology.  Secondary considerations.

We know that in local physics, the equations don't care which direction time is running.  That is what one would expect from a locally a-temporal system (aka eternal).  And the experimenter/observer changes the situation by interacting with it.  We make time and space relevant (demi-gods).

There are many important insights from Buddhism however or from Yoga ... they are introspective psychology.  But that means they are subjective.  Being an immaterialist, the question of "how does the brain create thought" is irrelevant to me.

Go dude!

[Baruch]

Descartes say........... “I think therefore I am.”
Yogic philosophy say......... “When I stop thinking, then I really am!”

A superior observation!

I may be wrong Baruch but it seem to me that you think that the mind or conscious mind is able to understand what is outside its limits.

You are wrong about my view.  Like understands like.  Consciousness understands consciousness.  It can never understand unconsciousness.  Thus consciousness cannot be the be all/end all of enlightenment.

Is a fact that when we do not know something we look within.
Within our subconsciousness mind and if we are able to get the knowledge that means that it is the subconsciousness mind that provide that knowledge and the conscious mind is secondary rather then the icing cake.

I presented a simpler model.  And you are assuming a hierarchy that I didn't address.

The ideas come from within and all the conscious mind can do is to try to understand and remember that.
Nothing else nothing more.

I agree.

Sub stand like below not inferior like a subordinate.
A submarine stay below the water that doesn't mean that it is inferior to anything.
Our subconscious mind is the real ice cake because that is the place where all knowledge come from so when the conscious mind stop making us believe that we know everything or there is no need for anything else then the real cake of subconscious mind is able to take over and let us be aware of the real knowledge.

Let me analogize back to you ... the subconscious is like the "cambium" of thought.  The "cambium" being the living part of the tree trunk, between the bark and the wood.  The unconscious is like the wood, historical.  The conscious is like the bark, superficial.  It is all bark and no bite ;-)

[Cavebear]

Descartes say........... “I think therefore I am.”
Yogic philosophy say......... “When I stop thinking, then I really am!”

I may be wrong Baruch but it seem to me that you think that the mind or conscious mind is able to understand what is outside its limits.

Is a fact that when we do not know something we look within.
Within our subconsciousness mind and if we are able to get the knowledge that means that it is the subconsciousness mind that provide that knowledge and the conscious mind is secondary rather then the icing cake.

The ideas come from within and all the conscious mind can do is to try to understand and remember that.
Nothing else nothing more.

Sub stand like below not inferior like a subordinate.
A submarine stay below the water that doesn't mean that it is inferior to anything.
Our subconscious mind is the real ice cake because that is the place where all knowledge come from so when the conscious mind stop making us believe that we know everything or there is no need for anything else then the real cake of subconscious mind is able to take over and let us be aware of the real knowledge.

I disagree.  I think that we find the subjects we study in our conscious minds.  We observe something and wonder "why" and go study it.  My subconscious mind is where the dreams of the night reside and those are not rational.  They are combinations of past offices, old problems, weird streets, etc. 

I know my dreams well.  Never has one provided any useful information.  That may not be true for everyone. 

Some people have nightmares.  I don't have those unless you think walking down old streets are nightmares.  My subconscious may be rather calm...

[Baruch]

I disagree.  I think that we find the subjects we study in our conscious minds.  We observe something and wonder "why" and go study it.  My subconscious mind is where the dreams of the night reside and those are not rational.  They are combinations of past offices, old problems, weird streets, etc. 

I know my dreams well.  Never has one provided any useful information.  That may not be true for everyone. 

Some people have nightmares.  I don't have those unless you think walking down old streets are nightmares.  My subconscious may be rather calm...

The relationship between the unconscious and conscious is dialectical, not hierarchical.  Thus thesis (conscious/unconscious) meets antithesis (unconscious/conscious) producing synthesis (subconscious).  We get content from below and from above, and output in both directions also.

[Arik]

You are wrong about my view.  Like understands like.  Consciousness understands consciousness.  It can never understand unconsciousness.  Thus consciousness cannot be the be all/end all of enlightenment.

I simply put it in a different way Baruch.

The conscious mind is all about what our external mind is aware of while the unconscious mind it is all it is so far hidden to our external conscious mind.
In this way I avoid all philosophical mumbo-jumbo of intellectual extravaganza.

I presented a simpler model.  And you are assuming a hierarchy that I didn't address.

Sorry about that.

Let me analogize back to you ... the subconscious is like the "cambium" of thought.  The "cambium" being the living part of the tree trunk, between the bark and the wood.  The unconscious is like the wood, historical.  The conscious is like the bark, superficial.  It is all bark and no bite ;-)

I stand on my previous understand about external conscious mind and subconscious.
To me it is a lot more simple way to explain how it all work.