EnPassant
136
Uri Geller has been debunked on several occasions. — whollyrolling
Yes, that's true apparently. But the experiments were done under strict conditions and Geller is not the only one who could do these things. It comes to mind that Geller may have been able to do this but he lost his ability and started faking out of vanity. Otherwise we must call the author of the book a liar and I don't think he is. — EnPassant
May I suggest that, to your benefit, you allow yourself the idea that there might be such people, as opposed to letting your mind stagnate in to contentious rhetoric. — Shamshir
I'm saying one's mind stagnates if one doesn't let it wander off.Are you actually implying that someone's mind stagnates if they claim they don't believe in mythology and super powers? — whollyrolling
By contesting previously established scientific ideas.At the expense of certain social circumstances, various sciences have brought us quite a long way toward understanding ourselves and our environment, and I'd hardly call it stagnation to make progress by contesting bad ideas. — whollyrolling
Atheism includes no such stipulation. — whollyrolling
Why would they be all over the place? Are anglerfish all over the ocean?
I, for one, know seers - that I would constitute as having superpowers.
They, by their claim, say anyone can read minds or see in to the future - but, people are simply oblivious to it, being so enamored with the small physical view they're presented.
By their claim, I suppose they're not superhuman - and it's inadequate of me to give them as an example. Nonetheless, I believe they possess super powers. — Shamshir
What are you talking about, I didn't come up with such a hypothesis or such a theory, so I can't take credit for that — whollyrolling
Why do atheists believe in a extraterrestrial life, when there is clearly no such evidence? — Geo
Aren't philosophers ones who should explore ideas, wherever they may lead? — Shamshir
So, shouldn't reasonable people reason that there may be more to something, than their preconceived notions? — Shamshir
Isn't it unreasonable to say that what we're seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting is all there is? — Shamshir
Wouldn't it be reasonable to think, that in the same way there are people blind to this world, we may be blind to some other world? — Shamshir
Atheism is to not believe in gods, there's no other stipulation. — whollyrolling
They're all worth exploring or you stay in the dark.Only those worth exploring, and don't assume that the basis for such beliefs hasn't already been explored and found to be severely wanting. — S
It's not about justification; it's taking one foot and putting it in front of the other.Possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification. — S
You don't need to say something for me to ask you about it.I haven't said that. Stay focussed. — S
Once again, it's not about justification.Once again, possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification. — S
They're all worth exploring or you stay in the dark. — Shamshir
It is not about justification, as nothing wants nor needs your justification.This is an incredibly basic thing in philosophy. Are you new to the subject? — S
The group of people who are atheists is larger than the group of people who are atheists and believe in extraterrestrial life. Any atheist who is in the former group but not the latter group doesn't have to justify the additional belief of the latter group. You will find that the atheists here are only in the former group.
— S
Ask for example people on Facebook in atheist groups - Which of you is 100% sure that there is extraterrestrial life. I guarantee you that the results will surprise you — Geo
You wrong
— Geo
You troll.
— S
And it already annoying when people who have no arguments, just blaming the opponent for being a troll. — Geo
It is not about justification, as nothing wants nor needs your justification. — Shamshir
How can you justify the existence of things? They just are, with or without your justification. — Shamshir
The incredibly basic thing about philosophy is that it is 'the love of wisdom'.
And love is not a contentious thing, as you would desire it to be.
You lust after wisdom, you do not love it; perhaps this is why we misalign. — Shamshir
You're saying reasonable people 'need' it, and yet I don't 'have to' be reasonable.Reasonable people need it to accept your belief. I'm not saying that you have to be reasonable. I'm just curious what you're doing here if you don't care to be reasonable. — S
Read what is written. I don't need to justify my belief, because it is irrelevant to my belief.You aren't paying sufficient attention again. The question is whether or not you can reasonably justify your belief. — S
Meaning I can only reason about my belief, your belief and any belief.How can you justify the existence of things? They just are, with or without your justification. — Shamshir
You're silly. You go about chasing one thing, calling it 'wisdom', and leaving behind another thing, calling it 'folly'. And you end up with neither.There's nothing wise about indulging folly, and that's what you must do in order to believe the silly things you've said that you believe. — S
I plead you give these few words some thought, rather than rushing to prove me wrong - which proves nothing.love is not a contentious thing — Shamshir
Reasonable people need it to accept your belief. I'm not saying that you have to be reasonable. I'm just curious what you're doing here if you don't care to be reasonable.
— S
You're saying reasonable people 'need' it, and yet I don't 'have to' be reasonable.
So clearly, I either have to be reasonable or you're unreasonable - evident by how I cannot reason with you. — Shamshir
You aren't paying sufficient attention again. The question is whether or not you can reasonably justify your belief.
— S
Read what is written. I don't need to justify my belief, because it is irrelevant to my belief. — Shamshir
Meaning I can only reason about my belief, your belief and any belief.
Any justification itself, mind you, being a belief. — Shamshir
You're silly. You go about chasing one thing, calling it 'wisdom', and leaving behind another thing, calling it 'folly'. And you end up with neither. — Shamshir
I plead you give these few words some thought, rather than rushing to prove me wrong - which proves nothing. — Shamshir
If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic." — Frank Apisa
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.