dimreepr

Well, as long as this little parlour game of ours, lasts long enough for the edit. 🖖

As am I sometimes, didn't see the emoji, soz. 😇

If that was sarcasm, then yes I missed it; perhaps next time you include an emoji... And you can avoid my poetic nature. 😉

It's a question of balance, while enough of the populous can feel relatively comfortable, then the minority can look out for themselves; while the majority pat themselves on the back for putting a quid in the collection box. I think @TheVat is correct, even in the face of blanket propaganda, enough people are savvy enough to keep hold of the fundamental truth of humanity; so that when the balance shifts revolution often results.

Sensing when someone is looking at you without seeing them, is literally mind reading without, even, a clue from text; 'from future past'. Even hyper-vigilant criminal's can be spied on, without their knowledge.

Perhaps, but we could be recognising a word we heard the day after yesterday, when normal conformed to the words I know and surprise is a word I'll hear tomorrow...

India, where Muhatma's dignity defeated the British or South Africa, where Nelson dignified forgiveness and Russia on a couple of occasions. Indeed, the problem is that they manage to keep most of the people fed and sheltered, just well enough to feel comfortable; while keeping them just scared enough to feel uncomfortable with any other solution.

That sounds exhausting...

So, do you think that it's not mad to test the bonderies?

Only everywhere in history, as Huxley suggested in "It's a brave new world" and Orwell suggests in "1984"...

Sometimes it's hormonal... 🙄

It's not weaponry that defeat's them, it's human dignity...

Well, you've succeeded in that...

Sweet Thursday Maybe not the best text, but...

A formal education isn't for everyone, we can't all be academics, after all someone has to dig the dirt. You can ask a physics professor, "how does a car work?" he/she can can give you a comprehensive explanation of the physics involved, but if you asked the same professor "why did my car stop working?" he/she wouldn't have a clue, you need a mechanic for that. So ask yourself, what is my version of a success? The wrong type of bias is never letting go of the bone, just in case it starts the car... 😉

That depends on the argument, but if you want a more insightful explanation about the role of philosophy in science; start a topic on the subject and I'm sure you'll get a comprehensive answer, from a lot of the member's, not least of which from @Eise. Yes, you're just the right side of simple gainsay to maintain an interest in trying to teach you a better approach. I enjoy our exchanges, that's why I'm so keen to here a different question... 🙏

There's nothing wrong with using a tool, if it's used correctly...

I'm sure that's what confused Hitler, when he read Nietzche... A biased mindset, as you've admitted. Science and philosophy are two sides of the same coin, philosophy identifies the bias and science drives around the chicane. Now!!! will you please, start a new topic on firmer ground, bc this race has run its course...

Do you sleep with your rope?

I think perhaps the best use for this tool is in understanding the languages of other species, and perhaps our best chance of meaningful dialogue if the alien's do get in touch. People trying to look smarter than they are, always trip themselves up, bc it's only a tool if they know how to use it. Both will evolve... 😉

I think it depends on what one's primed to think, a crypt is spooky bc it contains dead people or a ufo is a certain shape bc of certain film's. It always amazed me, with all those reality type shows (especially "traitors"), at how confident people are at sensing who's lying, and how often they failed... Girl's can see when your staring at their tits...😉 IOW, I have a special ability that humanity doesn't share, to which I say "get over yourself"...🙏

Really!!! So all athiest's accept the first level of why? That takes an awful lot of faith in the answer, that's more religious than scientific. Again that's more religious than scientific.

The question becomes, how many levels of why does it take for the truth to become real?

Again no, there's a level of truth in his god delusion book, but that doesn't match the reality of religion in it's entirety; for instance, no one 'serious' believes God wrote the bible, Jesus or Mohamed or etc did and they employed a god as a defacto meme, to explain the why on many different levels... Dawkins mistake is, only asking why once...

No, Dawkins needs god in order to discredit those who don't believe what he does, basically the antipode of that sentence.