This article is too boring for this "agnostic Jew," though real
philosophy students could be attracted as apparently Sam Harris is a
big macher in atheism, not that there's necessarily
anythingggg wrongggg with thattttt .

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061218&s=wood121806&c=1

Robert Cohen wrote:

The philosophy of religion is one of the most fascinating areas of
philosophy. It addresses not only the perennial question Is there a
God?, but also the questions If there is, then what is he like? and,
most important of all, What does that mean for us? These are questions
that everyone should ask at some point.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/

To you I'm an atheist.
To God I'm the Loyal Opposition.
--Woody Allen, Stardust Memories [1980]

A few aspects that continue to affect my perceptions:

The existence of another dimension, as per in the today "chic" ideas
of "string theory,"
could seemingly eventually provide indication or proof of a
"super-natural" or a "deity."

"Valid proof" of the earthly (or spacely) existence of "psi" adds
weight to my tendency toward agnosticism.

If one's atheism categorically denies the possibilty or any probability
of an unknown(s), then I just can't respect such absolutism.

Immortalist wrote:

Robert Cohen wrote:

That's a theist strawman version of what an atheist is.
There is nothing in disbelief which requires absolute certainty.
(Just as there is nothing in belief which requires absolute certainty)

Its entirely an optional extra.
8-)

Mark.

Robert Cohen wrote:

Extra dimensions are currently no more justified than epicycles. They
are still at the state of fancy but useless math tricks.

Can you cite something. Randi hasn't yet given out his million dollars
to my knowledge.

There is no denial of anything. Only the acknowledgment of the lack of
any evidence of any gods. Only the acknowledgment of reality.

I infer from your response that you could justly call yourself
"agnostic," and I could call myself "atheistic."

m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:

L

Is each & every report of "psi"---including of the better-knowns such
as Peter Hurkos, Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Dorothy Allison--a
bottomline lie/false claim/delusion/hoax/trick/illusion/fake/phony ?

Chris H. Fleming wrote:

Robert Cohen wrote:

First of all, 'till they provide actual scientific evidence, I don't
have to come up with an excuse. It's not my job to explain away
something that was never proven. I don't have to explain why Joe Bloke
thought he saw a UFO to disprove UFO's.

But since you asked.

Peter Hurkos, an obvious conartist.
He was arrested for impersonating a police officer to get information
about the Boston Strangler so he could "predict" it.

"Should I devote any more time to esp/psi/psychic phenomena," I'm
asking myself.

There are beaucoup articles & books to expend time upon.

I consider you, Chris, an expert to whom one might ask such a
question.

B-t-w: I devoted much reading time to the "ufo," and frankly consider
it wasted, as James Moseley acknowledges decades of hoaxes in
SHOCKINGLY CLOSE TO THE TRUTH,
See his SAUCER SMEAR website and book for his perspective.

Well, are you writing/gonna write a book debunking esp claims?

This is the first page of the google search
of "proof extra sensory perception

robtcohen@msn.com | My Account | Sign out
Google Web Images Video News Maps more

Robert Cohen wrote:

The thing is, if someone were genuinely psychic in some simply way, it
would be so damn simple to prove scientifically. Say somebody says they
can read minds. You set up an experiment with the psychic on one side
of a wall and a random person on the other end. Hell, make it the
psychic's friend even. Have that person flip a coin and concentrate on
the result. Then have the psychic "read" what the result is.

Even a simple test such as this, no "psychic" can ever guess
significantly better than guessing heads every time.