(January 22, 2016 at 9:44 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: It is not likely that the 99.9% of psychics are genuine, but psychic discourse via behaviors is also thought to be a major play in what is called "the minds eye."Show me a single of that 0.1% of genuine psychics first, before I can be bothered to take that drivel seriously.
(January 22, 2016 at 9:44 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: I am not talking about that at all, persay, and will not do so.You talked about it and are doing so..
(January 22, 2016 at 9:44 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: But there is a great deal of information for the fields of philosophy at least, where it may be in error due to simple psychic understandings. And there is a great deal of information in the field of psychology, where it was common to interpret the minds eye. This is a dramatic shortening of the common terms.What information?
(January 22, 2016 at 9:44 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: But it would be best to conclude, perhaps, that the field of philosophy is very new, and has not accomplished much if anything yet.You think the field of philosophy is new?
Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
- Lau Tzu
Join me on atheistforums Slack (pester tibs via pm if you need invite)