pears

No I don't. Understanding logic is useful for dissecting the things people say and working out which bits logically follow on from somethng and which bits are assumptions. I don't have to prove the assumption to find the logic flow useful. That doesn't make sense. How am I trolling?

Why?

I find pure logic fascinating AND useful. So do a lot of philosophers, so I think plenty of people do care about it, regardless of your opinion of it.

Citation needed

Isn't it the assumption itself (that what has always been observed will continue to be observed) that is in question (from a pure logic pov) rather than the data itself?

Do you mean focus your eyes in the middle space so the items in vision appear blurred? Yes but as has been said I wouldn't have thought that an uncommon ability. I can't however, 'magic-eye' ETA: I just spent the last 15 minutes looking at magic eye pictures on the internet and finally I GOT IT!! Pity I didn't get it in the 90s when it was fashionable.

Warning - may contain generalizations.

I've just started Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces"

For me religion is God. I prefer not to focus on religion but on God. My personal experiences of God are verification (for me) that He exists.

That's a lot of generalisations and a lot of claims without anything to back it up. Are you stating your opinion based on your personal experience? If so it's a pretty big leap to tar all psychologists with the same brush.

Welcome to the forums danston

Gah - no wonder I couldn't get it!

1) Civilization appeared on earth a few thousand years ago, hence we have had civilization on earth for a few thousand years 2) The statement "Thus any other civilization that we hear from is likely to be far older on average than ourselves" is implied by the previous sentences which say: since the age of a planet is a several billion years then an alien civilization will be between zero and several billion years old. It's taking a probability based on there being more chance of finding a civilization in the range 'older than us' and 'younger than us'. 'older than us' would be between a few thousand and several billion years. 'younger than us' would be between zero and a few thousand. Since the older than us range is larger you would expect that age to be more likely. Hope that helps and hasn't caused more confusion

1) Civilization appeared on earth a few thousand years ago, hence we have had civilization on earth for a few thousand years 2) The statement "Thus any other civilization that we hear from is likely to be far older on average than ourselves" is implied by the previous sentences which say: since the age of a planet is a several billion years then an alien civilization will be between zero and several billion years old. It's taking a probability based on there being more chance of finding a civilization in the range 'older than us' and 'younger than us'. 'older than us' would be between a few thousand and several billion years. 'younger than us' would be between zero and a few thousand. Since the older than us range is larger you would expect that age to be more likely. Hope that helps and hasn't caused more confusion

Interesting. I've never really pondered pantheism or thought deeply about it's definition. Is pantheism then the reverence of nature, i.e looking at the universe as is and calling nature God? Rather than defining God as something with attributes separate from nature - such as a mind? In that sense then it really doesn't seem so different.

How does a pantheist define a deity? A mind of some sort? If that's the case then it would be totally different to atheism.

That's rough about your cousin and his dad I agree, there is a certain sense of peace to be had when your loved ones are themselves at peace with death. I had relatives who were ready to go and it is a comfort. However I think the main component in grief is the sense of loss and missing of that person rather than from their own view of death. I also agree our obsession with trying to stay young and beautiful can't really help us come to terms with our own mortality. I wish society was not so ageist.

That seems to be more about facing your own death than someone else's. I see no solution to reducing the grief at losing someone other than to care about them less. If grief is the price I have to pay for loving in this life I am happy to pay it. I do however agree that in the west we are too far removed from the reality of death and perhaps this is why we don't know how to deal with it when it happens, hence the stiff upper lip and tabooness of it all. I don't think being more in touch with mortality would magicly make grief go away but it might help us to deal with it more healthily - e.g. expressing our emotions, being willing to talk about death when it happens (and before) rather than tip-toeing around the subject or sweeping it under the carpet.

I think grief is natural. When someone dies I want to grieve because I miss that person and I consider their death a loss. That doesn't mean I don't realise death is inevitable. I think in the west, certainly in the UK there is a great deal of stiff upper lip associated with death. I don't think more stoicism would be a good thing. Whatever emotions you have when someone dies are the emotions you have. I don't think suppressing them would be a healthy thing. If you want to grieve then grieve. Just because grief is present when death occurs I don't think it means that the death is being treated as a tragedy. Death is hard. Tragedy is harder. But death is hard too.

But who is to say who should and should not reproduce? Where would it you draw the line? Would we end up only allowing people with no family history of any disorder at all reproducing? If we draw a line somewhere who gets to decide where to draw it? And if we go this route and eradicate genes for genetic disorders, what about good genes in those same people? Would they be lost too? Also people are not dogs.

Is it possible to imagine a new smell or colour? I assume this is what the OP means. All our imaginings are a rehashing of what has already been experienced rather than something truly original. Beyond the first sentence I got a little lost however.

Are you saying that theists who are doctors have multiple personality disorder? What definition of multiple personailty disorder are you using? Is it one used in mainstream psychiatry?

What does this mean? What kind of scientist would you trust and not trust with your life and health? Are you saying that unless a scientist is an atheist you do not trust their results?