South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

June 23, 2017, 12:19:53 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

The Skeptical Crackpot

 (Read 30110 times)
Description: A general description
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2010, 13:45:10 PM »

Because-I-say-so-troll speaks again Roll Eyes.
If you say so.

Your insipid assertion cited earlier, however, remains baloney.

'Luthon64

And your trolling remains... trolling. Or have you decided to have an actual conve.... Ah you naughty troll, almost got me again  Shocked...

You have to make up fallacies to cover your mistakes?

Lol, that's exactly what the Myers shuffle is... making up fallacies to to hide mistakes or ignorance. I am curious, is a general description of a skeptical crackpot not clear enough for you to recognise skeptical crackpotism™.

Anyways.

Z is making the food in my fridge taste delicious. Z furthermore requires me to get you to believe in Z or else my food will become bland. What is your beliefs towards Z currently please? Do take my culinary pleasures in consideration...

I am sure you have some sort of clear definition of Z you wish to share. So far Z makes food in your fridge taste delicious and you need to believe in Z for your food to taste delicious. Ooh ooh is it salt, tomato sauce, or your own little secret recipe?

 
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +58/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3665


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2010, 14:18:54 PM »

And your trolling remains... trolling.
If you say so.  And yet that stupid claim of yours cited earlier remains the same uncorrected baloney that it started as.



Ah you naughty troll, almost got me again  Shocked...
There’s no “almost” about it, sleepyhead.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2010, 14:46:31 PM »

And your trolling remains... trolling.
If you say so.  And yet that stupid claim of yours cited earlier remains the same uncorrected baloney that it started as.
Well, at least you are constant in admitting you are only trolling here.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2010, 14:47:56 PM »

ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.
I disagree - This statement cannot be further from the truth. When the nonbeliever requests actual evidence for the supernatural, the believer almost always provides philosophical or metaphysical arguments instead of physical or objective evidence.

Don't confuse the fact that people entertain and engage in these arguments (and ultimately disprove them) with the fact that they were offered as "proof" by believers in the first place. The nonbeliever still patiently awaits actual evidence.

There is evidence everywhere. And by this I mean you and I can objectively look at the same scientific evidence and come to different conclusions.
Where is everywhere? Please name one. It is unfortunate that you use the word "scientific" in a sentence like that. If evidence is scrutinized scientifically and objectively, it should render the same result every time.

I think only one of us has the possibility of being right (given that our beliefs are exactly the opposite of each other) and of course both of us may be wrong.

Point being, both of us look at the same evidence and proceed with philosophical arguments using the same evidence.
Again with philosophy. I clearly referred to actual evidence and excluded philosophical arguments.

I think there you may be right (about the possibility of one of us being wrong), but I cannot be 100% sure of that. I would say that because of a lack of evidence for any religious belief, I would tend to agree with nonbelief.

BTW: What evidence would convince you that a god exists?
Interesting answers although philosophically shallow as you might expect.
Who ever spoke about philosophy to start with? The topic is on the degrees of scepticism vs belief and the fact that extremes may classify you as a crackpot.

What evidence you ask? Oh well, just off the top of my head: If any of the claims made by religious texts and/or believers can be substantiated. And here I am specifically referring to the extraordinary claims and the supernatural. The link you provided also points out that, unlike a scientific theory, religious beliefs cannot be falsified. Should it undergo scrutiny, it would fall flat on its back.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398


Carpe diem


« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2010, 14:48:36 PM »

Lol, that's exactly what the Myers shuffle is... making up fallacies to to hide mistakes or ignorance.
Who made up a fallacy? Are you sure you understand fallacies?
Quote
I am curious, is a general description of a skeptical crackpot not clear enough for you to recognise skeptical crackpotism™.
I am more interested in someone, somewhere actually fitting the description you have created for us.
Quote
I am sure you have some sort of clear definition of Z you wish to share.
I'm sure I do.

Quote
So far Z makes food in your fridge taste delicious and you need to believe in Z for your food to taste delicious. Ooh ooh is it salt, tomato sauce, or your own little secret recipe?
Why are you making things up about Z? Isn't that crackpottery in action? All we require is for you to state your belief currently with respect to Z.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2010, 15:00:25 PM »

ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.
I disagree - This statement cannot be further from the truth. When the nonbeliever requests actual evidence for the supernatural, the believer almost always provides philosophical or metaphysical arguments instead of physical or objective evidence.

Don't confuse the fact that people entertain and engage in these arguments (and ultimately disprove them) with the fact that they were offered as "proof" by believers in the first place. The nonbeliever still patiently awaits actual evidence.

I posted this before I read the other comments...

ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.
Baloney.

I was trying to explain my point of view, but that does the same job with less effort.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2010, 15:18:02 PM »

ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.

I disagree - This statement cannot be further from the truth. When the nonbeliever requests actual evidence for the supernatural, the believer almost always provides philosophical or metaphysical arguments instead of physical or objective evidence.

I think you are missing the point. Arguments for theism are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. There is no "scientific argument" for theism. Like I said, we both look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

There is evidence everywhere. And by this I mean you and I can objectively look at the same scientific evidence and come to different conclusions.

Where is everywhere? Please name one. It is unfortunate that you use the word "scientific" in a sentence like that. If evidence is scrutinized scientifically and objectively, it should render the same result every time.

Evidence is everywhere. Evidence for evolution for example. Just look at the evidence for that. Abiogenesis research is ongoing and likely to yield results soon. We both look at the same data/evidence with different conclusions.

I think only one of us has the possibility of being right (given that our beliefs are exactly the opposite of each other) and of course both of us may be wrong.

Point being, both of us look at the same evidence and proceed with philosophical arguments using the same evidence.

Again with philosophy. I clearly referred to actual evidence and excluded philosophical arguments.

I think there you may be right (about the possibility of one of us being wrong), but I cannot be 100% sure of that. I would say that because of a lack of evidence for any religious belief, I would tend to agree with nonbelief.

Again, with the evidence, its everywhere. How you come to your conclusions is not as a result of a lack of evidence.

BTW: What evidence would convince you that a god exists?
Interesting answers although philosophically shallow as you might expect.

Who ever spoke about philosophy to start with? The topic is on the degrees of scepticism vs belief and the fact that extremes may classify you as a crackpot.

What evidence you ask? Oh well, just off the top of my head: If any of the claims made by religious texts and/or believers can be substantiated. And here I am specifically referring to the extraordinary claims and the supernatural. The link you provided also points out that, unlike a scientific theory, religious beliefs cannot be falsified. Should it undergo scrutiny, it would fall flat on its back.

Even if you accept that even some of the religious claims are substantiated, you are still able to reject it for philosophical reasons. The point of course again is that evidence is unlikely to change minds, it is how people come to their conclusions about reality (of which the evidence is everywhere).
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2010, 15:25:59 PM »

Teleo: What is your conclusion? I've never ever seen you fully describe your conclusion, your exact viewpoint. Please for the love of pastafarians, what is your conclusion?

I know this is asking a lot of you, but if you could please, how do you interpret the available evidence to come to your conclusion, whatever it may be?

In essense, break our ignorance of your position so that we may be able to evaluate it. It's no use calling us ignorant of your position then refusing to explain what it is.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2010, 15:28:35 PM »

Lol, that's exactly what the Myers shuffle is... making up fallacies to to hide mistakes or ignorance.

Who made up a fallacy? Are you sure you understand fallacies?
Quote
I am curious, is a general description of a skeptical crackpot not clear enough for you to recognise skeptical crackpotism™.

I am more interested in someone, somewhere actually fitting the description you have created for us.

Shall I spell it out again for you that you can read the definition again so that you are better at identifying these crackpots? I did give a few examples, how about you read a bit more next time?

Quote
I am sure you have some sort of clear definition of Z you wish to share.

I'm sure I do.

Quote
So far Z makes food in your fridge taste delicious and you need to believe in Z for your food to taste delicious. Ooh ooh is it salt, tomato sauce, or your own little secret recipe?

Why are you making things up about Z? Isn't that crackpottery in action? All we require is for you to state your belief currently with respect to Z.

It sure would be (see you are not too bad at recognising things lol) if I made statements about Z that you do not believe in. Given the fact that very little is known about Z (no clear definition), I think the best thing is to just reserve judgement and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about Z.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2010, 15:45:32 PM »

I think you are missing the point. Arguments for theism are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. There is no "scientific argument" for theism. Like I said, we both look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.
How can there be scientific evidence for something that is not true or make believe? Perhaps I'm not missing the point entirely, but I was referring to the first part of your statement which reads that ALL arguments for ATHEISM are philosophical. I agree that ALL arguments for THEISM are. What more do they have? Actual evidence? I think not.

Evidence is everywhere. Evidence for evolution for example. Just look at the evidence for that. Abiogenesis research is ongoing and likely to yield results soon.
I'm glad we agree then.

We both look at the same data/evidence with different conclusions.
Clearly. When taking a scientific approach, the same conclusion is drawn. When one's judgement is clouded with personal beliefs, one will draw a different conclusion which cannot be called objective.

Even if you accept that even some of the religious claims are substantiated, you are still able to reject it for philosophical reasons. The point of course again is that evidence is unlikely to change minds, it is how people come to their conclusions about reality (of which the evidence is everywhere).
Can you list one extraordinary or supernatural claim that has been substantiated?

Evidence changes minds every day - that is to say if the mind is clear and objective. One shred of real evidence will change mine.

A reality where evidence for the supernatural is everywhere? I think not.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398


Carpe diem


« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2010, 15:49:49 PM »

Shall I spell it out again for you that you can read the definition again so that you are better at identifying these crackpots?

No, this what was asked. It is fairly easy to comprehend.
Quote
I am more interested in someone, somewhere actually fitting the description you have created for us.

Quote
I did give a few examples, how about you read a bit more next time?

roflol - the last person on this planet that can take on other's reading ability, is you. Remove from thine own eye motherfucker.

But now I have actually read your link again and still I see no one actually making the argument you claim SC's are making. Surely it cannot be this difficult to provide someone, somewhere who is actually an SC seeing as you have actually coined the phrase and extracted the definition from your rectum for all to smell?
Quote
It sure would be (see you are not too bad at recognising things lol) if I made statements about Z that you do not believe in. Given the fact that very little is known about Z (no clear definition), I think the best thing is to just reserve judgment and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about Z.


Well lets see what real skeptics think shall we? I simply don't trust you dishonest theist proselytizers.

To one and all: Z is making the food in my fridge taste good. If telic doesn't believe in Z, my food will taste bland. What do you believe about Z?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2010, 16:24:56 PM »

I think you are missing the point. Arguments for theism are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. There is no "scientific argument" for theism. Like I said, we both look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.
How can there be scientific evidence for something that is not true or make believe? Perhaps I'm not missing the point entirely, but I was referring to the first part of your statement which reads that ALL arguments for ATHEISM are philosophical. I agree that ALL arguments for THEISM are. What more do they have? Actual evidence? I think not.
I think you are missing the point. All arguments for theism are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. The only arguments for atheism are negative arguments of theistic arguments. There are no "scientific arguments" for atheism or theism.

Evidence is everywhere. Evidence for evolution for example. Just look at the evidence for that. Abiogenesis research is ongoing and likely to yield results soon.
I'm glad we agree then.

We both look at the same data/evidence with different conclusions.
Clearly. When taking a scientific approach, the same conclusion is drawn. When one's judgement is clouded with personal beliefs, one will draw a different conclusion which cannot be called objective.
We both agree that evolution happens. We both agree that evolution is not an argument for atheism or theism for that matter. We both still look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions based on philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological arguments.

Even if you accept that even some of the religious claims are substantiated, you are still able to reject it for philosophical reasons. The point of course again is that evidence is unlikely to change minds, it is how people come to their conclusions about reality (of which the evidence is everywhere).
Can you list one extraordinary or supernatural claim that has been substantiated?

Evidence changes minds every day - that is to say if the mind is clear and objective. One shred of real evidence will change mine.
There is not a single supernatural claim that is accepted by atheists, otherwise there would be no intelligent atheists. Theists take reality as a whole as evidence. Atheists do not deny reality, they just come to different philosophical conclusions.

A reality where evidence for the supernatural is everywhere? I think not.

That is your philosophical conclusion based on your outlook of the evidence.. so be it.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2010, 16:30:43 PM »

Shall I spell it out again for you that you can read the definition again so that you are better at identifying these crackpots?

No, this what was asked. It is fairly easy to comprehend.
Quote
I am more interested in someone, somewhere actually fitting the description you have created for us.

Quote
I did give a few examples, how about you read a bit more next time?

roflol - the last person on this planet that can take on other's reading ability, is you. Remove from thine own eye motherfucker.

But now I have actually read your link again and still I see no one actually making the argument you claim SC's are making. Surely it cannot be this difficult to provide someone, somewhere who is actually an SC seeing as you have actually coined the phrase and extracted the definition from your rectum for all to smell?
Tell you what, when these weird crackpots try to sound rational, I'll point them out for you Wink.

Quote
It sure would be (see you are not too bad at recognising things lol) if I made statements about Z that you do not believe in. Given the fact that very little is known about Z (no clear definition), I think the best thing is to just reserve judgement and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about Z.


Well lets see what real skeptics think shall we? I simply don't trust you dishonest theist proselytizers.

To one and all: Z is making the food in my fridge taste good. If telic doesn't believe in Z, my food will taste bland. What do you believe about Z?

Tsk tsk, no need to lie about old telic now. He said he is just going to reserve judgement and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about Z since Z is a bit of a vague concept without a clear definition in the first place.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2010, 16:32:33 PM »

Quote
Theists take reality as a whole as evidence. Atheists do not deny reality, they just come to different philosophical conclusions.

Whoah dude. You're implying that Theists have a "more complete" reality than non-theists. Then at the same time saying atheists do NOT deny that reality, and hence their reality is the same. Pick one please. Also, please define this "whole of reality" (probably hinging on your definition of "reality"), and what part of it are atheists are not privy to?

(Not like you enjoy answering concrete questions but I ask anyway)
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2010, 16:34:53 PM »

Quote
Theists take reality as a whole as evidence. Atheists do not deny reality, they just come to different philosophical conclusions.

Whoah dude. You're implying that Theists have a "more complete" reality than non-theists.

I am not implying that.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.791 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 25, 2017, 03:26:30 AM
Privacy Policy