<<In our over-stimulated modern lives very few of us feel any connection to past lives lived before we were born. An opportunity to feel holistic is not recognised. In my old age I seek those opportunities.>>

Perhaps this may help - the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, aphorism 2.39, states:

"When a man becomes steadfast in his abstention from greed, he gains knowledge of his past, present and future existences."

It is like night-vision: so long as our eyes are used to bright light we don't see the details of objects in faint star-light. Abstaining for a while from bright lights allows us to see what was formerly invisible. As modern life is focused on this material world, not much else can be perceived.

Do note though, that knowledge of past/future existences is not that important and should not be valued in its own right. Abstention from greed is a spiritual practice, and knowledge of other existences is but a side-effect, not something to fall in for (otherwise you gain nothing by replacing worldly greed by unworldly greed).

Hi (again) Mr Holden...

You wrote an article that has been received with mixed views, as evidenced by the many threads in response.

Some appear prima facie, to support your own views, while other not quite so much, and mine not at all.

Why then, don't you feel it necessary to provide further comment, or at least expand upon your opinions, in order to reinforce or contradict, or simply outright challenge the many views expressed by others herein ?

Or are you one, who likes to place a fox amongst the chickens, then stand back to see what happens ?

George,

">>the onus is on the believer<<
Why should it be? Unless, of course, he/she wants to convert you."

Exactly, so when someone claims that there's a teapot in orbit or that Zeus controls the weather, the onus is on them, he/she is free to believe of course.

"If you A PRIORI believe (in God, whatever you understand by that) you can find confirmations of your belief in your "spiritual" experience or when admiring the beautiful and mathematically sophisticated picture of the cosmos that present-day physics can offer. If you A PRIORI don't believe, you will find confirmation of your disbelief in the same things."

No. A belief without evidence is not logically consistent with the requirement that evidence must be presented before acceptance. If, as an atheist, I make the statement that "there's no evidence for a deity or the supernatural" and to my amazement irrefutable evidence is presented for the existence of God, I would change my opinion. In contrast, the religious believe without proof or evidence, so we could say that "they believe in the absence of evidence."

The atheist or materialist position is not a belief system although religious people often use the straw man argument that it is.

mac,

We obviously have different understandings of the terms “logic” and “evidence”. Suspecting this, I gave an explicit description of what I understood by “proof” (and “logic” which today, like “proof”, is used in philosophy only in its formal, mathematical, setting) and “evidence”. The statement “there is no evidence for this or that worldview presupposition, does not make sense.

We already had a number of discussions about worldview presuppositions etc on this OLO, see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2952#68780 and the sequel. So I do not see any point in going into this again.

>>The atheist … position is not a belief system<<

I agree. Compare: “Not speaking English” is not a language. Nevertheless, most of those who do not speak English have another language they speak. Replace here language with “belief system”. See for instance Bertrand Russell’s book “What I believe” or “An atheist ... is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles...” (Richard Dawkins in 'The God Delusion').

Nobody will ask for "evidence" for Dawkins' worldview presuppositions thus formulated (on which he builds his "belief system") since they cannot be falsified.

Dear George,

You wrote: “Compare: “Not speaking English” is not a language. Nevertheless, most of those who do not speak English have another language they speak. Replace here language with “belief system”. See for instance Bertrand Russell’s book “What I believe” or “An atheist ... is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles...” (Richard Dawkins in 'The God Delusion').”

I think you are guilty of playing with words. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but those who do not collect stamps may not have a hobby. Replace here hobby with “belief system.”

Richard Dawkins was guilty of loose language. He did not write with the precision of a mathematician. He should have written “An atheist ... is somebody who thinks there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles. He thinks that way because there is no credible evidence for such concepts. Belief is not evidence.”

Lack of belief due to lack of evidence is not a hypothesis which requires either evidence or falsification.

George,

In my opinion david f and I have already refuted your argument that "atheism is a belief", you're using sophistry by claiming that it is.

For historical reasons we have inherited the term, "atheism", which was originally imposed by believers from their reference point, no one these days is described as "a-Zeus or a-Thor", "a-theist" is also obsolete.