South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 14, 2019, 04:58:00 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

The Skeptical Crackpot

 (Read 41085 times)
Description: A general description
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2010, 16:46:01 PM »

Tell you what, when these weird crackpots try to sound rational, I'll point them out for you Wink.
hmmmmm. Making bold claims about SC's and then unable to point to even a single SC is just badong imho.

Quote
Tsk tsk, no need to lie about old telic now. He said he is just going to reserve judgment 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.
For someone on record as being a 1 on dawkins seven point scale, and with these figures as given, we may have to deduce we *have* actually found a SC amongst us after all. You SC you. Why didn't you just tell us the topic is about you? Shy?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2010, 16:57:53 PM »

Bah, forgive me if I don't take Dawkins' childish scale seriously. How you get from a one on such a childish scale to a SC is really a stretch of the imagination. Should I give a general description again for you...?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 17:17:39 PM by Teleological » Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 13, 2010, 18:41:45 PM »

Quote
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include
it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the
nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief
without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular
books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang).
Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one
to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence
category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number,
category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count
myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - 1 am agnostic only to
the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the
garden.

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #48 on: July 13, 2010, 19:13:20 PM »

The only arguments for atheism are negative arguments of theistic arguments. There are no "scientific arguments" for atheism or theism.

If it wasn't for that detailed account in Genesis of how the world came into being, I could have almost agreed with this statement. But alas, every million year old fossil that is pulled from the earth makes a rock solid argument against at least one flavour of theism. And a scientific argument at that. Grin.

Mintaka
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #49 on: July 13, 2010, 19:59:34 PM »

The only arguments for atheism are negative arguments of theistic arguments. There are no "scientific arguments" for atheism or theism.

If it wasn't for that detailed account in Genesis of how the world came into being, I could have almost agreed with this statement. But alas, every million year old fossil that is pulled from the earth makes a rock solid argument against at least one flavour of theism. And a scientific argument at that. Grin.

Mintaka
The Bible is a science book? Thought not. Besides, even if the Bible was right and the universe had a beginning (alas, no age of the earth or was given) you can still deny whatever implications people might think it has... on philosophical reasons.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 13, 2010, 20:15:31 PM »

From this Teleological thread’s OP:
The SC does not have a clear definition of X, the SC has no intention of even formulating a clear definition of X and hence does not even try to understand what X entails, but the SC believes with 99.99% certainty that X cannot and does not exist.




Dredged from the morass that is another Teleological-infected thread (emphasis added):
Well played, old bean, well played indeed!

That bit where you once again cunningly expose your strategy for all the world to see?  I mean, where you’d rather shout, “Straw!” and “Troll!” than find out what makes your stunningly inept parallel a stunningly inept parallel?

Sheer genius!  And congratulations on it, too!

'Luthon64

I think you need to tap the back of the true genius here. That "because-I-say-troll" and crackpot that keeps saying it so but misses the plot completely Kiss.

Crackpots come in various versions. One version of course is your average Squatologean (with all the crap happening in their brains, no surprise really). Then there is your average "because-I-say-so-troll". Most of the time misses the point... because they say so.

And then there is skeptical crackpot (SC) best exemplified by the following:

The SC does not have a clear definition of X, the SC has no intention of even formulating a clear definition of X and hence does not even try to understand what X entails, but the SC believes with 99.99% certainty that X cannot and does not exist.




Dredged from the morass that is this Teleological thread:
Tell you what, when these weird crackpots try to sound rational, I'll point them out for you Wink.
’Nuff said, as the classics say.

'Luthon64 (BISST, SC*)


* BISST (Because-I-say-so-troll) & SC (skeptical crackpot).  Summa cum laude, TIIHII (Teleological International Institute of Higher Insignificance and Irrelevance), 2010.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 13, 2010, 21:02:41 PM »

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.

Not unless you mean something very different by objectively, perhaps some form of essentialism?

Moral relativism of course allows both of us not to be wrong or right in any absolute terms.

Only morally, not empirically.

I don't think there are many moral relativists here, if there are please raise your hands.

When it comes to objectively evaluating evidence, yes I'll raise my hand! Do you want scientists to take measurements based on how it makes them feel?

Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2010, 07:40:33 AM »

Bah, forgive me if I don't take Dawkins' childish scale seriously.
What is childish about it please? Is it possible for you to elaborate on that?
Quote
How you get from a one on such a childish scale to a SC is really a stretch of the imagination.
I used the figures you supplied, ie I think the best thing is to just reserve judgement and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about Z. You being 100% about God fit the XC (thanks Hermes) bill perfectly.

It is all crystal clear now. The only crackpot here is ...you. The fucking irony.
Quote
Should I give a general description again for you...?
No thanks, we applied it diligently and actually got a result.

I could illustrate the point of Z but are still hoping someone else here will give me their honest thoughts on Z. And you are free to try again as well.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #53 on: July 14, 2010, 07:50:36 AM »

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.

Yes, there is a debate between theists and atheists and it is philosophical. As mentioned before, it is in answer to philosophical arguments by theists in a desperate effort to provide "proof". Where you are missing the point is that atheists may employ the scientific method to disprove these claims. If only theists would do the same. Oh - if forgot - they tried and made themselves look like real crackpots.

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.

You just keep on repeating yourself, hoping it would make your statement correct. The above is an example of what YOU may do. I look at evidence and come to a conclusion based on where the evidence leads me. It has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical arguments. In fact, most of my "conclusions" went against preconceived ideas and philosophy. Evolution may not be an argument for atheism, but it sheds a different light on Christianity and the Bible for example. It was not intended to, but it blows creation out of the water, especially young earth creationism.

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.

I don't think it's a conclusion as such. Most atheists I know constantly search for more knowledge and challenge their ideas. Scientists do the same and that is what advances our knowledge. Theists come to the conclusion that "God did it", which hinders progress.

Why is it that atheists do not accept one single supernatural claim? Could it be that there is no evidence to support it? Could it be that there are other, more rational explanations for it? When claiming supernatural abilities, are these subjects able to demonstrate such abilities?

Please expand on your statement that "theists take reality as a whole as evidence". That should be more interesting than all of this put together.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #54 on: July 14, 2010, 08:26:07 AM »

Bah, forgive me if I don't take Dawkins' childish scale seriously.
What is childish about it please? Is it possible for you to elaborate on that?

The problem with the "scale" is that it tries to make God out to be some sort of scientific hypothesis where it can be rejected or accepted with with some kind of certainty by trying to attach a probability to the "hypothesis". Like rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis. Dawkins completely misses (one has to think out of ignorance... I can hear the Myers shuffle coming) the fact that God is not some kind of scientific hypothesis, I guess he was trying to cater for the IDers who try to make God out to be some kind of scientific hypothesis and admittedly some theists do think that way.

It is a complete and utter failure of understanding of basic philosophy. It is like setting up the same scale of certainty for people that believe that the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane add up to 180 degrees. Call them trianglists.

Given that a full rotation is 360 degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, trianglists believe that the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane will ALWAYS add up to 180 degrees.

Where would you put yourself on the scale cyghost?

1 Strong trianglist. 100 per cent probability.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 Strong atrianglist. 0 percent probablity.

Dawkins just showed his ignorance when it comes to philosophy with his scale and of course completely misses the point. Not really surprising.

How you got from a SC to a XC without invoking any probabilities (as per some scientific hypothesis or the silly scale) is still a complete mystery.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 11:32:13 AM by Teleological » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #55 on: July 14, 2010, 08:41:11 AM »

Yes, there is a debate between theists and atheists and it is philosophical. As mentioned before, it is in answer to philosophical arguments by theists in a desperate effort to provide "proof". Where you are missing the point is that atheists may employ the scientific method to disprove these claims.

You are still not getting it. Philosophical arguments are countered with philosophical arguments, not the scientific method. The philosophy of science of course looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method.

You just keep on repeating yourself, hoping it would make your statement correct. The above is an example of what YOU may do. I look at evidence and come to a conclusion based on where the evidence leads me. It has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical arguments. In fact, most of my "conclusions" went against preconceived ideas and philosophy. Evolution may not be an argument for atheism, but it sheds a different light on Christianity and the Bible for example. It was not intended to, but it blows creation out of the water, especially young earth creationism.

Without philosophy, science does not lead you to atheism or theism, irrespective of what the Bible or whatever religious text says.

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.

I don't think it's a conclusion as such. Most atheists I know constantly search for more knowledge and challenge their ideas. Scientists do the same and that is what advances our knowledge. Theists come to the conclusion that "God did it", which hinders progress.

That is just a flat out bad generalization and borders on being a lie. It might be true for IDers or YEC, but your average theist will laugh at you when you come up with that nonsense. Contrary to your bad generalization, theists search for more knowledge that challenges their ideas as it will increase their understanding about the truth of their reality. Accepting that objective truth exists of course and that the human intellect is reliable enough to at least try.

Please expand on your statement that "theists take reality as a whole as evidence". That should be more interesting than all of this put together.

To put it differently:
Theists and atheists take reality as a whole as evidence. Neither denies reality, they just come to different philosophical conclusions.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #56 on: July 14, 2010, 10:52:15 AM »

christ you write loads without saying anything

Whether God is a scientific hypothesis or not has got fuckall to do with whether he exists or not. The scale only measures a person's belief with regards to the conventional idea of God's existence. On which you are 100%, making you a crackpot by your own definition.

The problem here is not whether God is a scientific hypothesis or not, the problem is that you cunts *claim* his / her / it's / appropriate pronoun for pure act / being itself, existence, offer fuckall evidence to support this premise and yet want others to acknowledge and accept and respect it and asks others to follow in this belief. Indoctrinating your children and inserting your noses in education, science and politics with a demand to be taken seriously and that things should be done according to how old pure act wants it do be done. Never mind that no-one can conclusively illustrate that they know what pure act wants in the first place.

It is a ludicrous state of affairs. Beyond reason or logic.

And btw I am a (strong) 2 on your trianglist. What are you?

If my maths was surer I may have been a 100%. Because maths is, as I understand it, the only place where we *can* be 100% sure about anything. Not being a mathematician, I am 99% on that claim. (I see no reason to question them on it currently (it has no impact on my life in any way or form) and accept that it has been peer reviewed and stood the test of time.) 
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #57 on: July 14, 2010, 11:41:23 AM »

Whether God is a scientific hypothesis or not has got fuckall to do with whether he exists or not. The scale only measures a person's belief with regards to the conventional idea of God's existence. On which you are 100%, making you a crackpot by your own definition.
Bah, you just don't get it do you. The same can be said of those dastardly triangulists. Whether the interior angles of a triangle is a scientific hypothesis or not has got noting to do with whether it exists or not. The scale only measures a person's belief with regards to the conventional idea of a triangle on an Euclidean plane. Oh no, that must make those triangulists crackpots as well. Don't make me laugh. Just admit that the scale is bogus to begin with as a result of basic philosophical ignorance.

And btw I am a (strong) 2 on your trianglist. What are you?

If my maths was surer I may have been a 100%. Because maths is, as I understand it, the only place where we *can* be 100% sure about anything. Not being a mathematician, I am 99% on that claim. (I see no reason to question them on it currently (it has no impact on my life in any way or form) and accept that it has been peer reviewed and stood the test of time.)  
Lol, this demonstrates quite nicely the idiocy of the scale.

I am 100% sure given that a full rotation is 360 degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane will ALWAYS add up to 180 degrees.

I guess according to your logic this makes me a triangulist crackpot as well. Ok then...

I am also 100% sure that given that a full rotation is 100 (who knows, maybe some aliens think this because their year is 100 days or something) degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #58 on: July 14, 2010, 12:47:14 PM »

For those who wish to critically examine the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, I found a downloadable version of J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, which Dawkins references in his book. Be warned though, I've heard his book is "incredibly dense, difficult to read, and frankly, incredibly boring".
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2010, 13:13:15 PM »

Bah, you just don't get it do you.
No, I really do.
Quote
The same can be said of those dastardly triangulists. Whether the interior angles of a triangle is a scientific hypothesis or not has got noting to do with whether it exists or not. The scale only measures a person's belief with regards to the conventional idea of a triangle on an Euclidean plane. Oh no, that must make those triangulists crackpots as well. Don't make me laugh. Just admit that the scale is bogus to begin with as a result of basic philosophical ignorance.
Because you say it is? Don't make me laugh so hard please.
Quote
I am 100% sure given that a full rotation is 360 degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane will ALWAYS add up to 180 degrees.
I am happy for you. I remain 99%. You haven't swayed me.
Quote
I guess according to your logic this makes me a triangulist crackpot as well. Ok then...
No you stupid, dumb cunt. It is according to your fucking retarded logic you so graciously spread all over the InterWeb for all to laugh at in this thread. Talk about digging a hole, filling it with shit and then diving gleefully in. Now calling to others to join you. Bizarre beyond words.
Quote
I am also 100% sure that given that a full rotation is 100 (who knows, maybe some aliens think this because their year is 100 days or something) degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees.
I am happy that according to your logic that makes you crackpot. Who needs z if you actually demonstrate it yourself so well?? roflol.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 4.827 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 13, 2019, 16:17:00 PM
Privacy Policy