And in your religion you believe in any one of the following:

Soul
Afterlife
God

Please admit you have a belief, that is without evidence*.

So how many people do we have here who freely admit they consciously ignore their brain as it cries out constantly for evidence for these beliefs?

* If you feel there is evidence for these things, please take it up in another thread, and be patient someone will be along to hand your ass to you shortly.

Soul, yes but it IS the persons life. It dies w/ body.

Afterlife, sorta. Believe in a coming resurrection and heaven, but till then most of mankind will be dead dead.

God Yes.

i am not religious but i do believe in the soul and god

i have no evidence for the afterlife which is why i do not believe in it; but i wouldn't be surprised if i end up their one day.

i am not religious but i do believe in the soul and god

i have no evidence for the afterlife which is why i do not believe in it; but i wouldn't be surprised if i end up their one day.

...are you claiming you have evidence for the soul and god?

* If you feel there is evidence for these things, please take it up in another thread, and be patient someone will be along to hand your ass to you shortly.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there is no scientific evidence that there are any of those 3 things. There also isn't any evidence to support that there are not any of those 3 things.

You can of course experience the astral realm outside of your physical body(astral projection) if you are willing to put in years of work.


For everyone else, I choose to let them believe whatever they want to believe. Whatever makes them more secure about life.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there is no scientific evidence that there are any of those 3 things. There also isn't any evidence to support that there are not any of those 3 things.

Scientific evidence is always subject to interpretation. Some will say that they can prove it scientifically but in someones else eyes it does not.

For example, the fossil record may prove to some that the flood actually happened and the Bible record coincides with science. But others may say that it supports evolution. Its all about how you interpret the facts.

My apologies to OP for getting off track.

Scientific evidence is always subject to interpretation. Some will say that they can prove it scientifically but in someones else eyes it does not.

For example, the fossil record may prove to some that the flood actually happened and the Bible record coincides with science. But others may say that it supports evolution. Its all about how you interpret the facts.

My apologies to OP for getting off track.

I agree with you, but there still isn't any evidence leaning either direction.

In order to prove there is or isn't a god you have to have the same qualities as god(omnipotence mostly), in order to prove/disprove the afterlife you have to not be here anymore. The word "soul' is open to a lot of interpretation, for example you could consider the soul just the essence of a person's personality, what makes them them, or you could consider it the part of the person that survives after death, and that leads back to proving/disproving the afterlife.

...are you claiming you have evidence for the soul and god?

i am; but i will adhere to the requests of the OP

^^Make your own thread about it

The word "soul' is open to a lot of interpretation, for example you could consider the soul just the essence of a person's personality, what makes them them, or you could consider it the part of the person that survives after death, and that leads back to proving/disproving the afterlife.

According to my research into the Bible a soul is a persons being, it dies with the person because it is the person. It cannot be separated from the body. It can be described as a persons mind. Without the mind, the life the body cannot live and vice versa. Scriptures and proof in another thread on request.

i don't believe in the Christian concept of a soul, after life or god. i believe that everything is made up of the same life force, an once you "die" that life force will continue, into eternity for all i know.

so if you want to call that life force, which "created" everything an "controls" everything god, so be it. but i wont. like wise if you want to confuse this force with a soul an a afterlife, so be it. what ever helps you sleep at night.

The evidence of my own experience is quite good enough for me, but it proves nothing in any legalistic or scientific sense--both of which have nothing to do with spiritual truth, anyway.

The age of belief--that is, the Age of Pisces--is dead, or dying--we are into the Age of Aquarius--the age of gnosis--direct unitive knowledge of spirit--that is, the Ground of all being, the Tao, Brahman, the Atman, whatever insufficient label one wishes to use--which is the end purpose and meaning of life.

To me, one who demands proof of this is like unto a blind man demanding proof that light exists. Verily is it written, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Arms and Benpari are the only ones who responded who completely admit they have no objective evidence for any of those three things.

It is only been a day, I really want to see how many of you find it too hard to admit you believe in something that has no evidence.

I think it would be even harder to admit it to yourselves.

I really want to see how many of you find it too hard to admit you believe in something that has no evidence.

Your goal seems unobtainable. For you can never know whether someone has read this thread, come to the conclusion their beliefs have no evidence and then decided to abstain from admitting so, or if, on the contrary, they haven't read the thread, simply can't be bothered to post or believe their beliefs have evidence.

Of course no one has proof

But all the signs I've seen point to my reasoning. As I'm sure is true with everyone else in this thread or else we wouldn't believe it.

I am not religious. It can be said that I believe in all three of those things, although my definitions may not be the same as someone else's.

Of course I have my reasons for believing in these things, but I do not believe that I know my beliefs are truth. In the end I believe what I do because I believe it is reasonable.

Is it a crime to believe in things we may not know are true? If so, it is one we all commit. How can you know someones brain is "consciously crying out" for anything at all?

Is consciousness actually necessary for the natural process of reasoning? I think that it isn't. I think that naturally, humans reach conclusions through reasoning without being conscious of any logic at all. Often people reach sound conclusions and are unable to justify how. Logic is how we ought to think if objective truth is our goal, but the everyday world is very little concerned with objective truth. Logic is the science of the justification of conclusions reached by natural reasoning.

Just because we cannot explain to you why our beliefs are reasonable and make sense in our own minds, doesn't necessarily mean that they are not reasonable conclusions.

And your opinion has very little to do with anything.

Just because we cannot explain to you why our beliefs are reasonable and make sense in our own minds, doesn't necessarily mean that they are not reasonable conclusions.

Then Son of Sam reached a reasonable conclusion that he was the sword of Michael as was told to him by his dog?

That is to say, YOU find it a reasonable conclusion?

Then Son of Sam reached a reasonable conclusion that he was the sword of Michael as was told to him by his dog?

That is to say, YOU find it a reasonable conclusion?

I never said anything about Son of Sam, or how justified his conclusions were. I am saying that just because someone may not be able to explain the logic behind their conclusion does not necessarily mean that their conclusion is not reasonable.

Do you find the Son of Sam's conclusion to be objectively unreasonable? Surely the Son himself must have thought it to be quite reasonable.

Isn't reason subjective anyways? How can we say anything is objectively reasonable or unreasonable at all? What one person finds reasonable is not going to be what another does. So what does it matter if I think God, whatever that means to me, is a reasonable conclusion where you do not?

And in your religion you believe in any one of the following:

Soul
Afterlife
God

Please admit you have a belief, that is without evidence*.

So how many people do we have here who freely admit they consciously ignore their brain as it cries out constantly for evidence for these beliefs?

[

I'll put my hand up:D I have a belief that 'it's all good' and not one shred of evidence! Seriously BP it depends on what you define as soul, afterlife, and God. Of course we all want concrete evidence for our intuitions, why else be here? why are you here?

I'll put my hand up:D I have a belief that 'it's all good' and not one shred of evidence! Seriously BP it depends on what you define as soul, afterlife, and God. Of course we all want concrete evidence for our intuitions, why else be here? why are you here?

hes here to disprove everybody else as opposed to proving himself.

im sure other people can see that

The age of belief--that is, the Age of Pisces--is dead, or dying--we are into the Age of Aquarius--the age of gnosis--direct unitive knowledge of spirit--that is, the Ground of all being, the Tao, Brahman, the Atman, whatever insufficient label one wishes to use--which is the end purpose and meaning of life.



Hebrews 8:10-11

Hebrews 8:10-11

So do the jews have an understanding that time is cyclical?

Are these ages similar to the yugas of the vedas?

I was under the influence that the vedas were the only civilization still around that has this knowledge.

Is there somewhere i can see a summary of these "ages"?

Hey broke, can you provide me some evidence that there is no evidence for any of those three things?

Hey broke, can you provide me some evidence that there is no evidence for any of those three things?
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."


Obbe much as I do not always see eye to eye with the OP, posts like yours^ are frustrating. Why bother?

"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."


Obbe much as I do not always see eye to eye with the OP, posts like yours^ are frustrating. Why bother?

Broke is asserting that there is no evidence for those three things in his OP. He has the burden of proving this.

He is stating that there is no evidence as a fact. He is stating that he knows the truth, and that truth is that there is no evidence for God, soul, or afterlife (whatever he happens means by those words). Why should he not have to back up this claim?

Broke is asserting that there is no evidence for those three things in his OP. He has the burden of proving this.

He is stating that there is no evidence as a fact. He is stating that he knows the truth, and that truth is that there is no evidence for God, soul, or afterlife (whatever he happens means by those words). Why should he not have to back up this claim?

Similarly when you justify your opinion it is not acceptable to justify yourself by what you are not ad what you dont believe.

The truth is something which occurs in reality all the time, something with a degree of truth is something that occurs in reality some of the time, these cannot be defined by what they are not only by what they are.

So some* people should be careful to assert what they believe and the ontology behind it, rather than asserting what they dont believe and the ontology for it i.e. nonconstructive argument against others opinions.

You can of course experience the astral realm outside of your physical body(astral projection) if you are willing to put in years of work.

"Of course"? Who the fuck says that's true?

Broke is asserting that there is no evidence for those three things in his OP. He has the burden of proving this.

Fucking moron.

"Provide evidence for my OBVIOUS lack thereof."

This is a new intellectual low for you.

------------

I do observe that the following three assertions lack any empirical evidence whatsoever...

Soul
Afterlife
God

------------

If any of you honestly feel you have empirical evidence for those three things, don't bother posting it here, contact NASA, The Pope, and your local newstation, b/c you are about to become the most famous person on the planet, and should prepare yourself for your Nobel award winning speech.

I do observe that the following three assertions lack any empirical evidence whatsoever...

Soul
Afterlife
God

Close. You are still asserting that the three defiantly lack any evidence, something you cannot prove. Try:

"I do not observe any evidence for these three assertions..."

If any of you honestly feel you have empirical evidence for those three things, don't bother posting it here, contact NASA, The Pope, and your local newstation, b/c you are about to become the most famous person on the planet, and should prepare yourself for your Nobel award winning speech.

I never said that there defiantly is evidence. You claim that there defiantly is none, though.

....

I do not have to provide proof for anothers lack of empirical evidence. There is no burden of proof for me to do so.

I do not have to provide proof for anothers lack of empirical evidence. There is no burden of proof for me to do so.

I am not asking you to provide proof of another's lack of evidence for their own claims.

I am asking you to provide proof for this claim, the one you made in this very thread, right here:

...you have a belief, that is without evidence

That was the first claim made in this thread. You claimed that there is no evidence for those three things, before anyone even had the CHANCE to claim those three things existed.

Of course, if you are too concerned with your thread being derailed from the original debate, why don't we pick it up where we left off (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10785222&postcount=17)?

In my religion i believe in the following:

Soul
Afterlife
God

i admit i have a belief, that is without evidence.

i would like to note that honestly, i cannot believe in these things whole heartedly, and at the same time cannot stop believing even when i don't want to.

In my religion i believe in the following:

Soul
Afterlife
God

i admit i have a belief, that is without evidence.

i would like to note that honestly, i cannot believe in these things whole heartedly, and at the same time cannot stop believing even when i don't want to.

Then are you suggesting the comfort of a higher being is an addiction you can't wean off of?

In my religion i believe in the following:

Soul
Afterlife
God

i admit i have a belief, that is without evidence.

i would like to note that honestly, i cannot believe in these things whole heartedly, and at the same time cannot stop believing even when i don't want to.

I completely respect everything you just said there.

Good luck with your faith, friend.

....

I do not have to provide proof for anothers lack of empirical evidence. There is no burden of proof for me to do so.

I state the obvious lack of evidence. There is no burden. Nothing you are going to say, will make a burden.

Once again you are quite wrong, and there is nothing you can do to be right on this.

Deal with it, cunt.

I do not have to provide proof for anothers lack of empirical evidence. There is no burden of proof for me to do so.

Why not?

Why not?

There is no empirical way I have ever heard of, seen, read about, etc. to test ANY of those things, which is what must be done to have empirical evidence for those things.

Until a method is found to test any of those things empricaly, there can be no empirical evidence.

-------

Have a method? Have you heard of one? Anything?

No?

Then how can either of you argue otherwise?

There is no empirical way I have ever heard of, seen, read about, etc. to test ANY of those things, which is what must be done to have empirical evidence for those things.

Until a method is found to test any of those things empricaly, there can be no empirical evidence.

-------

Have a method? Have you heard of one? Anything?

No?

Then how can either of you argue otherwise?

Oh, okay.

To me, one who demands proof of this is like unto a blind man demanding proof that light exists. Verily is it written, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

LOL, he tries to be all poetic and wise, ends up making about as much sense as a balloon with wings.

...

"I am not aware of empirical methods of testing these things" =/= "there is no evidence for these things".

= "I am not aware of any evidence".

Thats all I was trying to say.

That said, lets continue this debate broke.

What does it matter if I think God, whatever that means to me, is a reasonable conclusion where you do not?

"I am not aware of empirical methods of testing these things" =/= "there is no evidence for these things"

NO......that was the first part of my quote. Let me introduce you to the rest...

Until a method is found to test any of those things empricaly, there can be no empirical evidence.

There exists no such method to test this in science.

HENCE there CAN BE NO empirical evidence for God, Soul, or an Afterlife.

--------

That said, lets continue this debate broke.

What does it matter if I think God, whatever that means to me, is a reasonable conclusion where you do not?.

I just want to see how many people realize that they hold beliefs that have no evidence, and how many delude themselves.

Beyond that......it doesn't really matter what fantasy a person has, so long as they do not try to pawn it off as anything more valid than fiction.

Until a method is found to test any of those things empricaly, there can be no empirical evidence.

And you are completely sure no method has been found?

Sure you are. :rolleyes:

I just want to see how many people realize that they hold beliefs that have no evidence, and how many delude themselves.

Like hare said: your goal seems unobtainable.

Beyond that......it doesn't really matter what fantasy a person has, so long as they do not try to pawn it off as anything more valid than fiction.

I think you're a hypocrite.

And you are completely sure no method has been found?
The method does not exist.

Has it ever existed? Perhaps, perhaps not. Will it ever again? Who knows.

Fact is..........The method does not exist.

---------

I never suggested there couldn't be a method or that there could not be evidence, or that a method and evidence never existed in the past and is lost now. I simply pointed out the FACT that such a method DOES NOT EXIST.

None of your Obbepuke is going to change that fact.

----------

Now, I am off to find some of your threads......to see how well they hold up against your own beliefs.

Now, I am off to find some of your threads......to see how well they hold up against your own beliefs.

Let's see how you misinterpret them this time.

Let's see how you misinterpret them this time.

The interpretation is easy, much like your ENTIRE belief structure, and your unique form of 'argumentation'.

You are such a simple bitch.

You are such a simple bitch.

You're the one who bitches about moans about everything.

You're the one who bitches about moans about everything.

I love it when children say "I know you are but what am I".

I find it so endearing.......except when they are teenagers. Then I consider the person either devolopmentally disabled, retarded, or just pathetic.

I am still undecided on which of the three applies to you Obbe.

See? Bitch, bitch, bitch. This is worthwhile to you? Getting angry is fun?

Whatever you like. :)

What are you trying to accomplish here, BP?

Bitch troll just wants to bitch.

the soul is reason, perfect reason

there's nothing to believe in

Bitch troll just wants to bitch.

I am not angry, a troll, or bitching. I am just killing some time, trying to clean Obbeshit off of my thread.

The stuff sticks to everything except facts, it seems.

What are you trying to accomplish here, BP?

:confused:

:confused:

Trying to clean Obbeshit off of my thread.

Or about the thread itself?

I was just curious if anyone would answer honestly, and a few have, and I respect them for it.

Then are you suggesting the comfort of a higher being is an addiction you can't wean off of?

i wouldnt catagorize it as an addiction but to me its another part of my life that i can never be sure of anything about, and can't ignore. really hard to explain even to myself... i think i have schitzophrenia.

and thank you brokeprophet i wish you well too. every day i am trying to set aside doubts and just be faithful.

You must have doubt in order to have faith.

If you honestly think you have a mental illness, I would not compound that problem with religion (which imo would be more of the same).

Personally I would like to see you live without theism, I think you would find it more satisfying, but good luck all the same.

And in your religion you believe in any one of the following:

Soul
Afterlife
God

Please admit you have a belief, that is without evidence*.

So how many people do we have here who freely admit they consciously ignore their brain as it cries out constantly for evidence for these beliefs?

* If you feel there is evidence for these things, please take it up in another thread, and be patient someone will be along to hand your ass to you shortly.

Like AM, my personal experience is enough evidence for me, but I will gladly admit I have no way to prove it to you. It's not like I can grab God's hand and introduce you to Him or anything like that. Same as I can't take you to the other side with me. Same as I can't project my soul into the physical plane as an object in and of itself...I would say that for me, personally, the world around me is evidence of God. The sensation I have when I think of the time before my birth and thinking of my death and beyond is proof of another realm we visit. And that the effect I have on the world is evidence of my soul...but like before, that's my experience and how I understand it. You are not obligated to even consider my view as valid as I have no way of sharing my personal experience with you as I have lived it. By the way, my brain doesn't cry for evidence of these beliefs; my personal experiences complete my brain's criteria for evidence. They don't complete your criteria, however, so you are correct in that I have no objective evidence. However, I am a subject, so subjective evidence is enough for me. :)

Short form: We see things differently.

We see things differently.

I think this is the only conclusion you'll be able to reach with this thread, broke.

I think this is the only conclusion you'll be able to reach with this thread, broke.

Why? Can't it work the other way as well?

Why? Can't it work the other way as well?

He is never going to find out about people who never bothered to reply to the thread, if someone was lying, etc.

He is never going to find out about people who never bothered to reply to the thread, if someone was lying, etc.

Why not?