South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 11, 2019, 16:04:52 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: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

The Skeptical Crackpot

 (Read 42062 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 #60 on: July 14, 2010, 13:29:47 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.
You clearly need to revisit what I am saying Roll Eyes. Take it slowly. One step at a time.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #61 on: July 14, 2010, 13:33:19 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".

J.L Mackie actually deserves respect for knowing what he is talking about when he criticises theism (unlike the Dawkins' of today). A very good read indeed.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Online Online

Posts: 3128



« Reply #62 on: July 14, 2010, 13:41:27 PM »

OK, The honest answer to the question of Z is quite simple. You made it up for the sake of argument, and you're trying to sell it as a valid argument even though you clearly know it's bullshit. To a skeptic it's very obviously bullshit. I'm amazed Teleo is not intellectually honest enough to just call it like it is: Z doesn't exist. We don't have to get into a philosophical argument over the probability of Z's existence because the truth is self-evident.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #63 on: July 14, 2010, 13:42:47 PM »

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.

Exactly! That is why it may appear like arguments for atheism are purely philosophical. (You just repeat what I say and make as if you said it first.)

You mean to say that if atheism propose that a god or gods did not create species like theism suggests and uses scientific facts to back it up, it is philosophy - equal to the philosophy employed by theists to prove supernatural origin?

I am clearly missing the point you are trying to make. You said that "ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical." Please be more clear, because the theory of evolution for example (which you don't seem to have a problem with) and which some atheists use as an argument, is clearly not philosophy, theological and/or metaphysical.

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

Huh? You mean to tell me if the bible states that a donkey can talk to a person and a biologist examines a donkey and finds it absurd, you need philosophy to figure out the bible is a fairy tale or that the biologist is crazy? The comment makes no sense to me, unless you mean that only a philosopher can ponder how it is possible for a donkey to speak. Not a very rational world he lives in.

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.

Why is it a bad generalization? Do you think the theist's answer that "God did it" requires further investigation? That explains it all and no further research is necessary. In addition, theists will only search for additional information that substantiates their preconceived ideas, preferably from their own flawed texts, whereas a scientist will investigate the matter thoroughly. Not even previously established natural laws may evade retesting. A theist will immediately dismiss evidence to the contrary of their beliefs with passion and not even glance at the facts in front of them.

You have also called me a liar (Bordering on it or not). Please give me an example of where theology has initiated progress. Show me for example how the theory of evolution for instance has hindered research done into mutating viruses and how theology and its belief of demons being the cause of illness has advanced medical treatments.

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.


I don't think that "reality" belongs in the same sentence as fairy tales involving talking trees, donkeys, dragons and a lesson in breeding livestock where you can change the animal's colour by letting them (feed/breed - i can't remember) next to reeds. That is what you mean with theology isn't it? Reality it is definitely not.

People that believe these things form any part of reality are the real crackpots.

Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #64 on: July 14, 2010, 13:49:32 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".

J.L Mackie actually deserves respect for knowing what he is talking about when he criticises theism (unlike the Dawkins' of today). A very good read indeed.

That is exactly what I meant with counter arguments for theism.

Actual evidence from the part of theists, the world has never seen. It's all make-believe and all their philosophical arguments have been debunked thoroughly by either pointing out their flawed logic, or offering actual real evidence that disproves it.

There are no arguments FOR the existence of God that holds ground. Not that I know of, unless you can provide an example.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #65 on: July 14, 2010, 13:55:05 PM »

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".

As mentioned previously, if something is true it can be proven. That would also mean that there is something that could falsify it.

Holding some ridiculous idea up and saying it is not to be questioned or made a hypothesis of, just says that it cannot be proven but it is true because the person says so. That still does not make it true, however much it fits in with one's own version of reality and truly believing it without real evidence makes that person a crackpot.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2010, 14:01:31 PM »

Damn I must be bored to entertain this crap.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2010, 14:13:55 PM »

I am clearly missing the point you are trying to make. You said that "ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical." Please be more clear, because the theory of evolution for example (which you don't seem to have a problem with) and which some atheists use as an argument, is clearly not philosophy, theological and/or metaphysical.

Yet you and I both agree that evolution is not an argument for atheism or theism. When someone tries to use evolution as an argument then they re either mistaken or dragging philosophy into the argument.

Why is it a bad generalization? Do you think the theist's answer that "God did it" requires further investigation? That explains it all and no further research is necessary. In addition, theists will only search for additional information that substantiates their preconceived ideas, preferably from their own flawed texts, whereas a scientist will investigate the matter thoroughly. Not even previously established natural laws may evade retesting. A theist will immediately dismiss evidence to the contrary of their beliefs with passion and not even glance at the facts in front of them.

What complete and utter rubbish. Some do admittedly, but making such a bad generalization is about as bad as the generalization saying that all atheists are rational.

You have also called me a liar (Bordering on it or not). Please give me an example of where theology has initiated progress. Show me for example how the theory of evolution for instance has hindered research done into mutating viruses and how theology and its belief of demons being the cause of illness has advanced medical treatments.

If that is what you think theology is about, you are sadly mistaken. Theologians, Christian philosophers etc. are open to the possibility of top-down causation. Hence a program to test it where all parties (secular/non-secular) can participate.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #68 on: July 14, 2010, 14:19:18 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".

J.L Mackie actually deserves respect for knowing what he is talking about when he criticises theism (unlike the Dawkins' of today). A very good read indeed.

That is exactly what I meant with counter arguments for theism.

Actual evidence from the part of theists, the world has never seen. It's all make-believe and all their philosophical arguments have been debunked thoroughly by either pointing out their flawed logic, or offering actual real evidence that disproves it.

That is your philosophical bias, so be it. Reality contains enough evidence for both of us.

There are no arguments FOR the existence of God that holds ground. Not that I know of, unless you can provide an example.

Do I smell the emergence of a SC? I can only assume that you have honestly tried to fully understand the arguments you have found the most compelling (even though according to you flawed) and found flaws in them that you understand.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #69 on: July 14, 2010, 14:23:53 PM »

What complete and utter rubbish. Some do admittedly, but making such a bad generalization is about as bad as the generalization saying that all atheists are rational.
If it is such "complete and utter rubbish" prove your statement with an example as I requested. Good luck.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #70 on: July 14, 2010, 14:31:20 PM »

What complete and utter rubbish. Some do admittedly, but making such a bad generalization is about as bad as the generalization saying that all atheists are rational.
If it is such "complete and utter rubbish" prove your statement with an example as I requested. Good luck.
Google "Georges Lemaître" and "top-down causation". Two examples of theology friendly research.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #71 on: July 14, 2010, 14:34:15 PM »

Actual evidence from the part of theists, the world has never seen. It's all make-believe and all their philosophical arguments have been debunked thoroughly by either pointing out their flawed logic, or offering actual real evidence that disproves it.
That is your philosophical bias, so be it. Reality contains enough evidence for both of us.
Prove I am bias by offering an example of actual evidence.

There are no arguments FOR the existence of God that holds ground. Not that I know of, unless you can provide an example.
Do I smell the emergence of a SC? I can only assume that you have honestly tried to fully understand the arguments you have found the most compelling (even though according to you flawed) and found flaws in them that you understand.
Do I smell the emergence of a RN? (Religious Nut)

Of course I have fully understood all the arguments for the existence of God presented to me and have found them all to be flawed. (Unlike some RN's that don't actually check things out for themselves) These "arguments" would, for instance, not hold ground in a court of law, where logic and evidence prevails, not that any theist would dare present them in a court of law. They know they don't have a case.

What I am looking for is actual evidence and not clever semantics and philosophical bull. Until then, I will not dare to state that there is definitely no God, but due to the lack of evidence, there probably isn't.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #72 on: July 14, 2010, 14:41:10 PM »

Actual evidence from the part of theists, the world has never seen. It's all make-believe and all their philosophical arguments have been debunked thoroughly by either pointing out their flawed logic, or offering actual real evidence that disproves it.
That is your philosophical bias, so be it. Reality contains enough evidence for both of us.
Prove I am bias by offering an example of actual evidence.

There are no arguments FOR the existence of God that holds ground. Not that I know of, unless you can provide an example.
Do I smell the emergence of a SC? I can only assume that you have honestly tried to fully understand the arguments you have found the most compelling (even though according to you flawed) and found flaws in them that you understand.
Do I smell the emergence of a RN? (Religious Nut)

Of course I have fully understood all the arguments for the existence of God presented to me and have found them all to be flawed. (Unlike some RN's that don't actually check things out for themselves) These "arguments" would, for instance, not hold ground in a court of law, where logic and evidence prevails, not that any theist would dare present them in a court of law. They know they don't have a case.

What I am looking for is actual evidence and not clever semantics and philosophical bull. Until then, I will not dare to state that there is definitely no God, but due to the lack of evidence, there probably isn't.
Like I said, reality for both of us is evidence enough, you just come to a different conclusion than I do. I am curious though, if you ask "How can there be scientific evidence for something that is not true or make believe?" and refer to God here, how can you ever find it surprising that you do not find any argument compelling anyway, irrespective of what you observe in reality (i.e. evidence).
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #73 on: July 14, 2010, 15:09:01 PM »

Like I said, reality for both of us is evidence enough, you just come to a different conclusion than I do. I am curious though, if you ask "How can there be scientific evidence for something that is not true or make believe?" and refer to God here, how can you ever find it surprising that you do not find any argument compelling anyway, irrespective of what you observe in reality (i.e. evidence).
I have answered that in detail already, but I'll expand slightly. It's based on the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of God or gods or the supernatural. The only reference to God is in religious texts where He lives in a world of fairy tales where talking snakes, talking donkeys, dragons and talking trees exist.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #74 on: July 14, 2010, 15:15:04 PM »

What complete and utter rubbish. Some do admittedly, but making such a bad generalization is about as bad as the generalization saying that all atheists are rational.

If it is such "complete and utter rubbish" prove your statement with an example as I requested. Good luck.

Google "Georges Lemaître" and "top-down causation". Two examples of theology friendly research.

Is this the same as Downward- or Macro-Causation as found in Panentheism?

All your reference has done is to suggest that theism hinders progress. In the article Georges Lemaître warned the Vatican that the Big Bang Theory leaves the individual free to deny a transcendental being. Do you think this statement would hinder or progress research into the Big Bang? Of course it would hinder it, proving my point, which you classified as rubbish.

This still does not provide me with an example on how theism had caused advancement and how science hindered it. (although I requested this from you twice already) If the opposite, as I proposed, is "rubbish" and a "generalization", you should be able to correct me with proof.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 15:41:19 PM by Sentinel » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.921 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 04, 2019, 09:16:25 AM
Privacy Policy