the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation. — Thanatos Sand
There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.
Thanatos is making assertions, unsupported ones, of course. But that's typical for Thanatos.
— Thanatos Sand
So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation
...is not compatible with skepticism.
the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation.
— Thanatos Sand
You're confusing separate statements. Yes, a belief in, or an assumption of, reincarnation would be contrary to skepticism.
But no, you haven't shown that reincarnation, itself, is ruled out by skepticism.
("skepticism", with a lower-case "s", the common-noun)
There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.
Thanatos is making assertions, unsupported ones, of course. But that's typical for Thanatos.]
— Thanatos Sand
So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation
Translation of "supernatural": Not part of Physicalism.
No doubt you have your beliefs about what's "natural". I'll just guess that, for you, "nature" means "the physical world", and reality consists of the physical world.
So, you agree reincarnation is not consistent with skepticism. Good. And skepticism isn't about ruling things out. Again, your struggle with words is astonishing....is not compatible with skepticism.
As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.
But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.
if you were a skeptic you would not make such an assertion. The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.
And since beliefs, in the absence of any actual knowledge, are supported only by other beliefs, the skeptic says we have no warrant even for thinkig one possibility is more likely than another so all imaginable states of affiras are equally compatible, and all beliefs equally incompatible. with pyrrhonian skepticism.
No, clearly the only troll or fuckwit, is you. And you've well proven that. — Thanatos Sand
The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.
You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that.
It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings. This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body. So "I" am not identical with my body and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul.
No contradiction there because although a skeptic may doubt you are a fuckwit (or quite likely both since trolls are fuckwits by definition) I am under no such obligation since, I never claimed to be a skeptic.
if you were smart you would look at the way most of your exchanges with others end up and take note. But perhaps you are enjoying yourself trollishly. If you don't say something interesting this time you will be ignored.
This is so typical of someone who hasn't educated themselves on the subject they are talking about - or only educated themselves by reading and listening to theists who don't know what they are talking about when talking about evolution by natural selection.... I said that if evolution is blind and random force without any end in sight we have no rational justification to trust our cognitive faculties. I don´t believe that evolution is blind and unguided process but that our cognitive faculties are designed to aim at true beliefs. — nixu
Natural selection isn't random. It is a lawful process — Harry Hindu
you'd get an actual education before you engaged intelligent, educated people like myself. — Thanatos Sand
Sophomoric retort at best. — Thanatos Sand
You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that. — John
Sophomoric retort at best.
— Thanatos Sand
The simple truth, as spoken to me by Natural Laws.
You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that. — John
Thanatos Sand is both of those things. I'd bet that even the most skeptical of the Greek Skeptics would unequivocally assert that. — Michael Ossipoff
Thanatos thinks that there's something lacking or incorrect in what I said in that discussion, but he can't quite say what it is.
So he's huffing, puffing, hissing, and making other angry-noises.
The forum guidelines say that trolls will be banned. Thanatos Sand is the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll.
I never said that reincarnation was ruled out by skepticism, again you misquote me like a troll. I showed the definitions of the word skepticism and how they are incompatible with reincarnation. — Thanatos Sand
You, however still have failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, as you erroneously claim.
There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.
As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.
But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.
So, you agree reincarnation is not consistent with skepticism.
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.