cosmic consciousness

356 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

(responding to Grinseed)

@ Grinseed

I know you don't need defending, but I am only pointing out the obvious. Especially the first item. Can't believe he missed it.

Alain: "You talk about uranium but you do not explain why uranium release energy while most other minerals do not."

Yes he did. Notice the bold text below.

Grinseed: "Uranium, an unstable element, isn't waiting to express hidden consciousness, Right now, it constantly emits radioactivity and does so in terms of half-lifes measured in thousands and hundreds of thousands of years."

Alain: "There is indeed a different type of science that deal with what is not physical."

Then it is not science. It is a religious belief system posing as pseudoscience. Nothing more than woo woo.

Alain: "The science of Evolution has NOT already shown who and what we are."

And what objective hard empirical evidence do you have to back this presupposed assumption?

Alain: "I leave the job to administer justice to the best judge there is around anywhere."

And what objective hard empirical evidence do you have to back this presupposed assumption?

And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it ain't evidence. The Four Razors apply.

NDEs are not proven facts. Why don't you do some actual research into this phenomena done by actual scientists and not Religious ABsolutists who are trying to perform the reverse of the Scientific Method. Do you know what a pilot cetrifuge is? See the attached image. Pilots becoming unconciousness during tests in these centrifuge have reported seeing the SAME EXACT hallucinations as persons who suffer from an NDE. Hmm...

NDEs are nothing more than a hallucination the brain suffers when it is under overwhelming distress of both the body's shutdown, then oxygen deprivation. Oxygen deprivation is the same thing those pilot's suffered in those centrifuges.

Do some real true actual scienctific research my uninformed child.

"Searching for true knowledge is what it means to be human instead of a religious robot being force fed data. It is more important how to think rather than to be told what to think. There is no shame in being self-taught, searching for true knowledge and learning. The only shame is not searching in the first place." — Arakish

And I suggest you search into true scientific web sites such as universities. Stay away from those woo woo pseudoscience sites.

rmfr

P.S. — If wondering what the Four Razors are:

Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.

Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.

EDIT: Damn! Forgot the image again!

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Alain's picture
1) No Arak.

1) No Arak.
Grin does not explain why uranium release energy while most other minerals do not.
All Grin say is that uranium is an unstable element and constantly emits radioactivity and does so in terms of half-life measured in thousands and hundreds of thousands of years..........

Grin say that uranium release radioactivity which is not what I did asked him.
I already knew that uranium release energy or radioactivity.
What I did asked him was why uranium does release energy while other minerals do not or why uranium is an unstable element while other minerals are not.
What cause uranium to be unstable and why other minerals are not unstable?

2) Arak........Then it is not science. It is a religious belief system posing as pseudoscience. Nothing more than woo woo......

Consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with religion and the study and the improving of the well being of our consciousness has also nothing to do with religion.
A science that deal with this issue therefore can not be called pseudoscience.

3) Alain: "The science of Evolution has NOT already shown who and what we are."

Arak..........And what objective hard empirical evidence do you have to back this presupposed assumption?

As already explained consciousness is something abstract therefore physical science is NOT equipped to deal with this subject.
All she can do is deal with the physical part of evolution not with the conscious part.

4) Alain: "I leave the job to administer justice to the best judge there is around anywhere."

Arak...........And what objective hard empirical evidence do you have to back this presupposed assumption?

NDEs already shown who is the best judge around.

5) Arak............Oxygen deprivation is the same thing those pilot's suffered in those centrifuges...........

Hallucinations are easily forgotten while real NDEs are not.
Even after years and years people who had a real NDE remember clearly that experience.
That does not apply to an hallucination.

6) Arak.................Searching for true knowledge is what it means to be human instead of a religious robot being force fed data........

All good Arak but just a question for you.
How do you do this search?

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

"How do you do this search?"

Since I am a scientist and work as a scientist, my job allows me to access scientific peer-reviewed research papers/journals most persons would have to pay a hefty fee to access. You can start with Wikipedia. However, do not fully trust everything on the page. Instead look in the sections of “See also,” “Notes,” “References,” “Further reading,” “Bibliography,” and/or “External links.” Especially look for the links that actually references science papers and/or university web sites.

You can also use Bing (I never used Google) to do some searches. Just look for web sites that are university web sites and/or truly scientific web sites.

You can also try arXiv. They have boatloads of scientific peer-reviewed research papers/journals. Most are free for download in PDF format. There are others but can't remember them. I ain't on MY computer at home right now. Won't be back until tomorrow.

rmfr

Alain's picture
Don't take me wrong Arak.

Don't take me wrong Arak.
I do believe in the science that you are talking about (physical science) and I always try to learn more but at the same time I also try to learn from the other science that is not physical.
The science that you reckon is not science.
Here I am talking about that science that explain and improve our consciousness which consciousness is not something physical and therefore a physical approach wouldn't work.

arakish's picture
But physical science can

But physical science can study consciousness and does. SPECT and PET.

rmfr

Alain's picture
I already explained that

I already explained that physical science can in a way see certain reactions related to our consciousness such as the intensity or the spectrum of this consciousness but as far as improving the awareness in it nil.
Zero.
The reason is that it is up to the individual to improve the consciousness.
Nobody else will.
A method or system is there and that is not something physical.

arakish's picture
However, consciousness is

However, consciousness is still ultimately a PHYSICAL phenomenon. It arises due to the interaction of neurons and neurotransmitters which are PHYSICAL.

Think Critically about it.

rmfr

Alain's picture
Let me put it in a different

Let me put it in a different way Arak.

You go inside a vehicle in order to go from point A to point B.
The car could not go anywhere without a driver and the driver could not get anywhere unless there is a vehicle.
So the two need each other in order to move, right?
Our body need a consciousness and the consciousness need a body-brain so the two are now able to do something in this material dimension.
Obviously once the consciousness enter the body at birth we can see a parallelism among the two that is why we may say that consciousness is a physical phenomenon but in reality is not because the two don't have to be stuck together for ever and beside they are two different entities.
While the body-brain is made of matter the consciousness is not.
She is an abstract entity and the thousand of NDEs already show us that consciousness can live outside the or a body.

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

Our body need a consciousness and the consciousness need a body-brain so the two are now able to do something in this material dimension.
Obviously once the consciousness enter the body at birth we can see a parallelism among the two that is why we may say that consciousness is a physical phenomenon but in reality is not because the two don't have to be stuck together for ever and beside they are two different entities.
While the body-brain is made of matter the consciousness is not.
She is an abstract entity and the thousand of NDEs already show us that consciousness can live outside the or a body.

You are still so deluded. Did you do it to yourself?

And your car and driver analogy is the most moronic analogy I have ever heard/read.

Our body need a consciousness and the consciousness need a body-brain so the two are now able to do something in this material dimension.

At least yu got this correct.

Obviously once the consciousness enter the body at birth we can see a parallelism among the two that is why we may say that consciousness is a physical phenomenon but in reality is not because the two don't have to be stuck together for ever and beside they are two different entities.

What? The consciousness enters the body at birth? Are you serious?

The consciousness develops as the fetus develops. Once there is a brain and spinal cord in the fetus, that is when the consciousness begins to develop. There ain't no magic mumbo jumbo spirit that puts the consciousness into the body at birth.

While the body-brain is made of matter the consciousness is not.

Yes it is. Consciousness is completely PHYSICAL. If it was not, then we would need no brain or nervous system to have consciousness.

She is an abstract entity and the thousand of NDEs already show us that consciousness can live outside the or a body.

She who?

And once again, NDEs are nothing more than hallucinatory dreams. Research them. Do not use those pseudoscience web sites that spew poopoo just like the religious sites.

I am beginning to sense that you have read some material that seemed to be "scientific" and just decided to believe it. And in doing so, you are mentally retarding yourself so you cannot think critically, use logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought.

You've mentioned doctors writing reports. Do yourself a favor and check how religious they are. Medical Doctors who are true medical scientists say the same thing about NDEs. They are nothing more than hallucinatory dreams caused by oxygen deprivation.

And even Cognostic admits to having OBEs. However, even those are nothing more than dreams that still occur INSIDE the brain/mind when a certain meditative state is reached. Even I have done such. And still can. However, it all still occurs INSIDE the brain/mind and only appears to be outside/out of.

There is no such thing as true OBEs. There have been tests where the person doing the OBE is to read text on a piece of paper, and failed miserably. EVERY TIME. And things seen in the OBE that just happen to match up, are just the brain/mind way of formulating what it might see and just happens to get lucky.

Consciousness DOES NOT/CANNOT exist outside the brain. What you are believing in is no more real than voodoo. And all of it is woo woo.

rmfr

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

When I was a child, in high school, still chasing tyrannosaurs out of my backyard, I was looking into this stuff. Then as written in 1st Corinthians 13:11 "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things." And I also no longer think as child. Even though I was in the US Navy before going into college, the extra six months I spent in Advanced Boot Camp, I learned you had to think critically, use logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought. Thus, when I did get into college, I already had a heads up on the weenie babies fresh out of high school. Of course, before I even went into the military, I also had a heads up there since me dad was a USAF veteran. I even remember being in North Dakota, where my eldest sister was born, when Kennedy was assassinated. I did not know what this actually meant until I got into First Grade three years later. You see, I was what is called an outlier. Even at 3 years of age, my mind processed everything like a computer. As me dad later told me when I asked why I could not believe in any religion, "Your brain and mind thinks like a computer. If it is not logical or rational, it does not compute."

Everything you have posted is NOT logical NOR is it rational. Thus, I can never compute. Perhaps you need to go to a university where they teach you how to think critically, use logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought.

rmfr

Alain's picture
1) You guys keep on telling

1) You guys keep on telling that the NDEs are not real but at the same time you can not produce any contradiction that make any sense.

Here we got people that once dead (real death established by real doctors) they can see what happen to their body from above.
They can see (not with the eyes that are now in the dead body but with their consciousness) what people do and think and they can even see inside rooms within the hospital that they never be in.
After this once inside their body they can describe what they saw to the astonishment of the present.
How can you explain this Arak other than their consciousness left their body?

2) You say............The consciousness develops as the fetus develops. Once there is a brain and spinal cord in the fetus, that is when the consciousness begins to develop. There ain't no magic mumbo jumbo spirit that puts the consciousness into the body at birth...........

That is your belief Arak but the reality is quite different.
There are people that at a very young age are already expert in a particular field.
Where you think they got all this experience and knowledge beside how on earth can a brain that is made of matter can develop something abstract such as a consciousness?
I am afraid Arak that all your studies came to a screeching stop when they try to go outside the physical arena and into what is not physical.

3) You say.................Consciousness is completely PHYSICAL. If it was not, then we would need no brain or nervous system to have consciousness.........

This is a total disaster Arak.
It would be like to say that a driver is made of iron like the vehicle that he-she drive.
A brain is what allow the consciousness to manifest within the physical reality as a vehicle is what allow a driver to travel.
As a driver get out his vehicle when the vehicle can not run anymore also the consciousness get out a dead body at the end of this physical life.

4) You say........... Medical Doctors who are true medical scientists say the same thing about NDEs.........

What about Eben Alexander?
He is more that a simple doctor.
HE IS A NEUROSURGEON.
Before his NDE is was not a believer.
After his NDE is now a strong believer.
He believe that the brain does not create consciousness and that consciousness survives bodily death.
How come Arak?

Why you keep on deny the evidence Arak?

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

"You guys keep on telling that the NDEs are not real but at the same time you can not produce any contradiction that make any sense."

Ever heard this statement?

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

Do you know what it means?

That is Latin for “he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Only in your case, it is, “Then prove NDEs do not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion they cannot win. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.

Everything you have posted about NDEs being real is entirely subjective with absolutely NO OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Here is actually where your burden of proof lies. You are claim there is a supernatural force which allows our consciousness to separate from our physical bodies. We Atheists are simply saying, “We do not believe you. Show us the evidence.” Thus, the burden of proof is on you. Show me objective hard empiricl evidence of the mind/consciousness can exist outside of our physical bodies.

The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL books books written about NDEs, even those from a neurosurgeon, are nothing more than 100% hearsay.

Until you can present any objective hard empirical evidence to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak.

Summation: It is you who is making a preposterous claim, thus it is you who must provide evidence. Remember the Four Razor's.

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.

Until you provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, I shall continue to say, “I do not believe you. Show me the evidence. Otherwise, NDEs do not exist except as a hallucinatory delusion suffered inside the brain due to oxygen deprivation.” If you think I am wrong, then prove it. The onus probandi is not mine to prove I do not believe you.

rmfr

Alain's picture
Evidence is there Arak.

Evidence is there Arak.

Witnesses saw the bloke dead.
These witnesses once the bloke came back to life heard the bloke describe what was happening while his dead body lie down in the casualty room with doctors and nurses try to revive him.
If this is not evidence what on earth it is?
How can a dead man can see what happen to his body unless his consciousness left his body?

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

But the evidence is not OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. It is all SUBJECTIVE. Subjective evidence is not allowed in the court of science. After the accident that killed my wife and daughters, I supposedly died five times in the first two days at the hospital. Yet, I am still alive. Thus, NEAR death is not death. Just because the doctors said I was dead five times proves they can be completely WRONG about what constitutes "DEAD."

As far as I am concerned, nobody is dead until there has been no brain activity for at least 5400 seconds. In my case above, I was never dead for more than 300 seconds.

As said, until you provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back up your preposterous claims, I am going to deny your claims.

Again, the Four Razors:

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.

rmfr

Alain's picture
1) I am afraid Arak that your

1) I am afraid Arak that your belief in a brain dead in 5400 second go against science which say that a brain is dead in less than 5 minutes after the oxygen supply disappears and 5 minutes is about 300 seconds not anywhere near your 5400 seconds but we can even go up to 10 minutes according to other reports which again would be 600 seconds.

2) But let me see your point about EMPIRICAL evidence.
Empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments.
NDEs if you notice have an s at the end which means that are many.
Many people went through these experiences and the majority point to the same thing so also in this case we may say that they are MULTIPLE.
So there are multiple people multiple doctors, nurses, hospitals and multiple witnesses that were there to experience these NDEs.
Doctors are also scientists which job is also to observe and come to conclusions.
I have no idea what happen with your accident and with the doctors that look after you.
What I know is that science contradict your belief.

3) Once again you point to your four Razors.
If you do then why you claim that there is no God, that the brain give birth to the consciousness and that when the body die also the consciousness die?

Where are your FOUR RAZORS that suppose to produce evidence for your claims?
WHERE Arak?

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

Remember. You are the one making the preposterous claims. I said this in another post, but rewrite it.

The Burden of Proof
======================

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

Since you do not know what the above says, it is Latin for, “He who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” In your case, shifting the burden is just as deplorable as lying.

And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about.. Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove <whatever> does not exist.”

Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.

Here is actually where the burden of proof lies. You Religious Absolutists claim there is a supernatural super-being who has ultimate-power, ultimate-knowledge, and ultimate goodness (NOT!). We Atheists are simply saying, “We do not believe you. Show us the evidence.” Thus, the burden of proof is on you Religious Absolutists.

I do not have to prove why I do not believe your preposterous claims. The onus is on you to convince me otherwise. Thus, it is you MUST supply the OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Otherwise, Hitchens's Razor, followed by Arakish's Razor.

The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, I have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof. — synthesized by RMF Runyan

Furthermore, EVERY account of ALL NDEs is 100% hearsay. Thus, I do not have to believe in any of them. Just because ANY doctor, religious or not, puts these accounts into a report he writes gives NONE of the accounts ANY validity. Thus, Hitchens's Razor, followed by Arakish's Razor.

Until you Religious Absolutists can present any OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed. — RMF Runyan

For you Religious Absolutists, including you Alain, since you seem to not know what these words mean:
Preposterous = completely contrary to nature, reason, evidence; absurd; senseless; utterly foolish.
Summarily = in a prompt or direct manner; immediately; straightaway; without notice.
Dismissed = to discard; to put off or away; put aside; to reject.

The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If you are going to claim that scientists are lying, doctors are being paid off, there is a global conspiracy against religion, etc., the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak. And, even that is questionable.

For a primer (and web portal) about the Scientific Method, use this Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Specifically, see the sections of “See also,” “Notes,” “References,” “Further reading,” “Bibliography,” and/or “External links.”

And here is a good short argument I found at Atheist Republic: “There is no evidence that God does not exist.”

This argument is often offered as a last line of defense in religious debates, and the person posing it might feel very clever coming up with it. However, the premise of the argument is both flawed and ridiculous. The failure to disprove something does not constitute proof of its existence. The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, especially in cases where the claims are unsupported or unfalsifiable. With no enduring evidence that a God exists, there is simply no reason to believe in a deity, even if it is not possible to irrefutably disprove his existence. Many thought experiments have been created to show the absurdity of these claims, such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Carl Sagan’s “The Dragon in My Garage,” Russell’s Teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of which are absurd claims without evidence and yet impossible to disprove. Familiarizing yourself with these thought experiments can give you a clear picture of exactly why the burden of proof should always be on the person making a claim. — from Atheist Republic

And for my example of an absurd claim that NO PERSON CAN DISPROVE (not even you, Alain):

I have an invisible, yet intangible, female elfin Goddess named Lysantra Erisa Tinathis Yeraheshmiël living with me. She even has her own room in my house. She has some beautifully wonderful ideas as to what we should do with the Religious Absolutists. Only I can see and hear her. For some reason that she will not disclose to me, she will only become visible and tangible for me. No one else. Now prove Lysantra does not exist.

You are Religious Absolutists and believe in a deity that wants to be found, wants us to find it, and this deity is capable of literally anything. It should not be a problem for this deity of yours to provide evidence that would convince me of its existence. Yet this deity of yours is so weak and powerless, it cannot supply even hypothetical evidence of its own existence.

As said, you need to attend a university where they will teach you critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought. And I ask everyone who reads THIS POST to post whether they think Alain needs to attend university to learn these mental capabilities.

rmfr

Alain's picture
1) If you do not believe that

1) If you do not believe that NDEs point to God then we should get a total independent board of people to examine these NDEs to see who is right and who is wrong.
I am sure that after examine the facts these jury will agree with me.
Any more arguing among ourselves is now futile.

2) As I already thought you keep on avoiding to give evidence about your claims that there is no God, that the brain give birth to the consciousness and that when the body die also the consciousness die so your famous Razor system turned into a total shambles-hotchpotch.
Here we got a rule for you that is ok. not to give evidence and one rule for me that I must give evidence even when I already give one.

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

As said, you have blinded yourself with your bullshit Religious Absolutism you cannot even see where you completely, totally, utterly, and absolutely WRONG!

Now let's dissect your bullshit. Damn this going to stink.

Alain: "If you do not believe that NDEs point to God then we should get a total independent board of people to examine these NDEs to see who is right and who is wrong."

Bullshit! Because you would choose a jury of dim-witted nut jobs, while I would get a jury of actual, true scientists.

Alain: "I am sure that after examine the facts these jury will agree with me."

Only if it is the dim-witted nut jobs that you would choose.

Alain: "Any more arguing among ourselves is now futile."

Nope. Resistence is futile. Because you refuse to back up your claims with OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Remember, until you can back up your claim, I am under NO obligation to accept your absurd, perposterous, incongruous, illogical, and excessively irrational claims.

Alain: "As I already thought you keep on avoiding to give evidence about your claims that there is no God, that the brain give birth to the consciousness and that when the body die also the consciousness die so your famous Razor system turned into a total shambles-hotchpotch."

It is not up to me to prove my disbelief. The burden is on you to prove your claim. You have not done so.

Alain: "Here we got a rule for you that is ok not to give evidence and one rule for me that I must give evidence even when I already give one."

And here is the rule:

The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Just because I say, "I do not believe you. Prove it," does not mean I have to prove your claims are false.

When I say I do not believe your claims, the burden is now YOURS to prove yourself correct.

Until you can get through your childish mind, you are going to forever be disappointed.

Go back to school and quit skipping classes.

rmfr

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
"The burden of proof shall

"The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything."

I do prefer Popper's ideas: conjecture and refutation. To progress in science you often have to make a conjectures, which are formed from incomplete or outright absent information. It is then the job of those around you, and ideally yourself as well, to attempt to refute and falsify your claims. It is a very Darwinist method of progression: Produce lots of theoretical offsprings, let the environment kill off the least fit ones, and build on the ones that survive.

I don't think the concept of the burden of proof comes from science. It may come from the court system, from discourse, or wherever people like to debate. Given how easily evidence and information can be framed to support any hypothesis, it becomes almost self-defeating to ask the scientist that makes a claim to also evidence it, while everyone else just watches him. Its also rather boring, some of the best research occurs when somebody makes a claim, and everyone else goes off to disprove it. For example, Tulving in his paper on Episodic Memory, just randomly and without evidence stated that animals don't have such memories.

You can be a good atheist, fold your arms, and say where's the proof; or you can be a good scientist, and find ways to refute it.

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

"It is then the job of those around you, and ideally yourself as well, to attempt to refute and falsify your claims."

No, it is the job of the claimant to prove their claim.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
Perhaps you can put your own

Perhaps you can put your own words to the test by proving your own claim?

Meanwhile, here's a simple refutation just for comparison's sake. Evidence is circumstantial: a claim may be true and all evidence for it be absent; it may be out of technological reach; or it may even be out of creative reach (we just haven't thought of a clever enough way to find the evidence. To pretend a claim is false until evidence is provided is a presumptuous stance, granted it may be a stance you're willing to take, but it remains presumptuous nonetheless.

Contradictions, on the other hand, are inherently problematic for claims. As such, finding evidence that contradicts and refutes a claim, is a sure way to dispose of it. The claimant then has to either modify the claim or discard it.

arakish's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

And you still do not have mental capabilities for any understanding.

"To pretend a claim is false until evidence is provided is a presumptuous stance"

And the only presumptuousness is yours.

Arakish"s Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

"To pretend a claim is false until evidence is provided is a presumptuous stance"

I agree, and that is why my position is that I remain to be convinced. I do not claim a god does not exist, I just withhold my belief until it is satisfied. I require more proof, preferably in the form of empirical proof.

John, why are you tap-dancing around the "proof" concept? Is it because you know that there is no proof of a god, and are attempting to redefine "proof"?

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
The issue with your position

The issue with your position (of needing to be convinced) is that it makes all proofs subjective to your unique thresholds. You need to, at the very least, state what your thresholds are. Is there a minimum quantity or quality of proof that needs to be present before you are convinced, and if so, what are they? Perhaps nothing I can present will convince you, or perhaps anything I present will. So decide beforehand what your threshold is, as well as your reasons why. In other words, demonstrate you are in fact convincible.

Its worth noting the subtle difference between being curious and being convinced. For example, I rarely care to be convinced about anything. I just find topics such as NDEs fascinating, and I'd like to know what we know on the subjects, and what are the theories promoted to explain it, be they psychological or spiritual. If my mind is swayed in the process of learning the opposing arguments great. But I still take an active role in the seeking of information, I don't sit in an idle position waiting for others to convince me.

arakish's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

Breezy: "The issue with your position (of needing to be convinced) is that it makes all proofs subjective to your unique thresholds. You need to, at the very least, state what your thresholds are. Is there a minimum quantity or quality of proof that needs to be present before you are convinced, and if so, what are they? Perhaps nothing I can present will convince you, or perhaps anything I present will. So decide beforehand what your threshold is, as well as your reasons why. In other words, demonstrate you are in fact convincible."

And I thought I was PERFECTLY clear about this. But then again, you are someone who is supposedly going to college for his Master's, yet is incapable of understanding what is meant by OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. What more of a threshold do you need?

Otherwise, apply the Four Razors:

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.

Breezy: "Its worth noting the subtle difference between being curious and being convinced. For example, I rarely care to be convinced about anything. I just find topics such as NDEs fascinating, and I'd like to know what we know on the subjects, and what are the theories promoted to explain it, be they psychological or spiritual. If my mind is swayed in the process of learning the opposing arguments great. But I still take an active role in the seeking of information, I don't sit in an idle position waiting for others to convince me."

However, you seem to be convinced by just being curious in something. And since you are a Religious Absolutist, you are only need "spiritual" to be convinced of it. I have followed you diatribes both past and present. The only thing I see in you is a mentally self-retarded megalomaniacal psychotic sociopath just like all other Religious Absolutists. However, you are here doing nothing more than practicing to be worst of all: a Religious Absolutist Apologist. You are trying to follow in the footsteps of Billy Craig.

rmfr

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I mean, notice the adjective

I mean, notice the adjective hard that you inserted into that phrase. It makes the whole of empirical evidence subjective your threshold of hard, bringing us back to square one.

And just to demonstrate, if we treat God as a theory, one its basic hypothesis is that He created the world. That hypothesis is rejected, first and foremost, if the world doesn't exist. So the existence of a world in the first place, is an observation consistent with the "God Theory." In other words, it is objective empirical evidence in its favor.

However, if that's not good enough. or if you look at the specifics of how the world was created and attempt to find refutations there (created by means other than God), then you've proven my point. Not only do you have a threshold for empirical evidence that is good enough, but it also shows that falsification is better than the burden of proof, and you will default to refutations whenever any proof is presented.

arakish's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

"HARD" as opposed to the wishy-washy bullshit you Religious Absolutists will accept, including you evidently.

Hard – I go out and collect water and gas samples of a thermal pool in Yellowstone. Then use machines to test the samples, taking out my bias as a human.

Soft – The stupid bullshit some doctors will write about concerning NDEs.

I suppose you believe all the pseudoscience out there on the WWW.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

"But I still take an active role in the seeking of information, I don't sit in an idle position waiting for others to convince me."

Then what is your opinion on Pegasus? Personally, I have never given it any serious consideration because horses don't fly.

But I do wish to know more. How large must it's wings be in relation to it's mass? Are the wings feathered or leathery like a bat? Are there any albino flying horses? Do males have bigger wings? What do they eat? Do horse farts assist in their flying? Takeoff? Does Pegasus defecate while taking off, like pigeons do? Can they roost in trees?

You must have sought out that information, you said you take an active role.

As far as thresholds, they are incredibly high. The subject must manifest itself in reality.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I have no interest in the

I have no interest in the existence of Pegasus, which still is an active position. Contrast that with waiting for someone else to make me interested, or to convince me of its existence.

David Killens's picture
Is it possible that Pegasus'

Is it possible that Pegasus' poop is square, like the Wombat?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.