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

Geller is a stage magician...and not an especially good one.

His tricks can be done by most amateur magicians.

Not sure about that book author...but he is all wet about Geller.

Anyone who claims to have super powers is either a liar, or they're suffering from delusions, and anyone who supports their claim is either a liar, or naïve, or much less likely suffering from the same delusions.

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.

I allow myself the idea at all times that if there were such people, then they'd be all over the place. They'd be commonplace and we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would care enough to discuss it at any length. It's that these things don't exist that compels us to discuss them. We cling tenaciously to what ifs. Are you actually implying that someone's mind stagnates if they claim they don't believe in mythology and super powers?

Imagine if I was to believe and agree with everything I hear, surely my mind would blossom into a state of super-intelligence and I'd spend my days brilliantly shining and levitating while solving complex mathematical problems.

I mean, it sounds like that's what you're saying. I could be wrong. Perhaps you have evidence of this stuff, or perhaps you can explain how, if these phenomena are true to life, then why have we only ever seen phonies? I can't get over that suggestion (to my benefit):

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

Thanks for adding some cheer to the thread. Isn't there a theme park theme song that urges everyone to believe in magic?

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.

Are you actually implying that someone's mind stagnates if they claim they don't believe in mythology and super powers? — whollyrolling

I'm saying one's mind stagnates if one doesn't let it wander off.
Like a chick stuck inside the shell that yells: "THIS IS IT! THIS IS ALL THERE IS!"
And once it breaks the shell, it sees there's a fair bit more.

Well, anglerfish are a species, aren't they, or did you imagine there was just one fish by itself down there?

So you're suggesting that I too should imagine things and then tell everyone they're real. Maybe you could come up with an example by way of which to demonstrate these phenomena.

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.

//Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?//

Why do atheists believe in a extraterrestrial life, when there is clearly no such evidence?

Atheism includes no such stipulation.

No, I quite clearly compared you to a chick stuck inside a shell.
And suggested, to your benefit, to wander down the rabbit hole and see where it leads.

I've been down the rabbit hole, it eventually led me to a perception of reality that doesn't include the visions I saw.

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

By contesting previously established scientific ideas.
If they didn't and merely stuck to what was, we wouldn't have made a step forward.

But I digress.

Early science was mysticism, of course we challenged mysticism, it couldn't be grounded on the scientific method, and it's become a little more difficult to contest scientific theories since those days. Science didn't just progress by overwriting bad ideas, it also progressed by maintaining what was sensibly and objectively evidenced and using it as a springboard into further knowledge. There's such a thing as being too open minded.

Check out the new ignore feature which has been added to the forum. Very helpful in raising the signal to noise ratio. — Jake

Thanks! I will. Can it block out comments like the above?

If according to your hypotheses there are trillions of planets in space, then why, according to your own theory of probability, we have received absolutely no evidence of alien life?
And most atheists are 100% sure that there is no God, than Why intelligent life, only exist on Earth?

Atheism includes no such stipulation. — whollyrolling

if you have time then 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

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 I find curious is why you presumably think that any reasonable group of people would give any credence to that? You do realise that there's nothing reasonable about that, don't you? You're entitled to beliefs based on whim and fancy, but why come to a philosophy forum to express these kind of beliefs?

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, and if I had it would have no direct relation to whether I believe in gods. Atheism is to not believe in gods, there's no other stipulation. The results of such a query on social media wouldn't surprise me because in order to be surprised you must first have an expectation based on a series of biases.

For example, if I walked out my front door and stepped onto the surface of the Moon, I'd be surprised because I expected something different based on the biases I formed from having stepped out onto the surface of Earth every other time.

I'd be rather surprised if I discovered it was completely impossible for atheists to argue with each other.

Aren't philosophers ones who should explore ideas, wherever they may lead?
So, shouldn't reasonable people reason that there may be more to something, than their preconceived notions?
Isn't it unreasonable to say that what we're seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting is all there is?
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?

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

Under "you" I meant most of the atheists :wink:

Why do atheists believe in a extraterrestrial life, when there is clearly no such evidence? — Geo

You really didn't think that one though, did you? 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.

Aren't philosophers ones who should explore ideas, wherever they may lead? — Shamshir

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.

So, shouldn't reasonable people reason that there may be more to something, than their preconceived notions? — Shamshir

Possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification.

Isn't it unreasonable to say that what we're seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting is all there is? — Shamshir

I haven't said that. Stay focussed.

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

Once again, possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification.

Atheism is to not believe in gods, there's no other stipulation. — whollyrolling

I just gotta call bullshit on this.

I understand where you are coming from...and I acknowledge your right to do so, but I consider it as wrongheaded as these people who think Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind.

First of all..."atheism" is a descriptor. Some people use it...some do not.

But to suggest that it arises out of "to not 'believe' in gods' is nonsense.

I DO NOT "believe" that any gods exist. That simply is not a "belief" of mine.

But I am NOT an atheist.

If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic."

Not everyone who lacks a "belief" that gods exist choose to use the descriptor "atheist."

There is no requirement that one do so...and, it seem apparent to anyone giving it open-minded consideration, that the ONLY people who do use "atheist" as a descriptor do it because of a "belief" either that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I lack a "belief" that any gods exist.

I lack a "belief" that no gods exist.

I lack a "belief" that is it more likely that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that at least one god exists.

The notion that atheism is a result of a lack of "belief" that any gods exist is nonsense.

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

They're all worth exploring or you stay in the dark.
As to whether they have been explored? Probably.
As to whether they have been sufficiently explored? Doubtful.

Possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification. — S

It's not about justification; it's taking one foot and putting it in front of the other.

I haven't said that. Stay focussed. — S

You don't need to say something for me to ask you about it.
Just like how conversations can spontaneously start with: "What's your name?"

Once again, possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification. — S

Once again, it's not about justification.
It's a question that endears its reader to think; and loosen the bonds of his mind.

They're all worth exploring or you stay in the dark. — Shamshir

Sure, whatever you say. You go run along with your magnifying glass to explore how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then. I'm okay with staying here.

Nothing you've said in the rest of your post changes the situation we started with. It's still curious to me why you presumably think that any reasonable group of people would give any credence to these ridiculous beliefs. It takes a matter of seconds for me to acknowledge that something so seemingly farfetched is at least logically possible, but there are innumerable such possibilities, so it is indeed about justification if you actually expect any reasonable person to believe in one of these possibilities which you believe to be true.

This is an incredibly basic thing in philosophy. Are you new to the subject?

You troll.

This is an incredibly basic thing in philosophy. Are you new to the subject? — S

It is not about justification, as nothing wants nor needs your justification.
How can you justify the existence of things? They just are, with or without your justification.

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.

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

Your response commits a fallacy of relevance.

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

You're a funny troll. An argument against "You wrong"? :lol:

It is not about justification, as nothing wants nor needs your justification. — 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.

How can you justify the existence of things? They just are, with or without your justification. — Shamshir

You aren't paying sufficient attention again. The question is whether or not you can reasonably justify your belief.

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

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.

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.

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.

How can you justify the existence of things? They just are, with or without your justification. — Shamshir

Meaning I can only reason about my belief, your belief and any belief.
Any justification itself, mind you, being a belief.

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

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.

love is not a contentious thing — Shamshir

I plead you give these few words some thought, rather than rushing to prove me wrong - which proves nothing.

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

Ironically, you're committing the fallacy of taking what I said out of context, which means you're being unreasonable.

You can see the proper context of what I said in the quote above. I said that reasonable people need it to accept your belief. You can't selectively remove the underlined part if you're trying to produce a logically valid criticism. Do you know anything about logic?

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

Why aren't you paying sufficient attention to what I'm saying? I said that the question is whether or not you can reasonably justify your belief, and you replied that you don't need to do so. Your reply doesn't address what I said. Do you understand the difference in meaning between the words "can" and "need"?

If you're going to switch to "need", then I say that the only context in which you need to justify your belief is in order to demonstrate that you're being reasonable. Please make clear your intention here. Are you going to try to be reasonable, or are you wasting my time?

Meaning I can only reason about my belief, your belief and any belief.
Any justification itself, mind you, being a belief. — Shamshir

That doesn't answer my questions or address the problem.

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

Sure, whatever you say.

I plead you give these few words some thought, rather than rushing to prove me wrong - which proves nothing. — Shamshir

I urge you to put more effort into restraining yourself from letting your thoughts wander away from the points that I'm making and the questions I'm asking. You seem very unfocussed.

One last point. There comes a point in an exchange I'm involved in where if my attempts to seek a reasonable response repeatedly fail to be met, I end up giving up. We're drawing close to that point.

If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic." — Frank Apisa

If you genuinely didn't care about such descriptors, then you wouldn't get so worked up about being called an atheist rather than an agnostic and you wouldn't rant about it on here as you are wont to do. But you are not like me at all in this respect. You care a great deal about something I consider to be too insignificant to get worked up about.