The Skeptical Crackpot

<< < (7/34) > >>

Teleological (July 13, 2010, 13:45:10 PM):
Because-I-say-so-troll speaks again ::).
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 :o...

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?

Mefiante (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 :o...
There’s no “almost” about it, sleepyhead.

'Luthon64
Teleological (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.
Sentinel (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.
cyghost (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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page