The Skeptical Crackpot

(1/34) > >>

Teleological (July 11, 2010, 09:14:59 AM):
It is all good and well to call yourself a skeptic, however, certain forms of skepticism such as skeptical crackpotismâ„¢ are unacceptable.


The skeptical crackpot (SC) is 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 any kind of certainty that X cannot and does not exist.
cyghost (July 11, 2010, 11:04:38 AM):
Beautiful. The creation and construction of a straw man for all to behold.

There are of course an infinite number of things which we don't have to consider as existing on a daily basis. These includes grunderfloges, frumfulops and the ever playful drinderbonies. I'm sure you get the idea. All the while not 100% discounting the possibility of such existences. But as Calilasseia is aptly known to say:

If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no critically robust substantive evidence is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing, until said substantive evidence supporting the postulated existence of entity X becomes present. (my bold)

When the skeptic doesn't have a clear definition of X, it is most certainly the responsibility of the people who actually champions the existence of X to provide such a definition. And then to back it up with evidence. Or else we can easily reject it.

That which is asserted without evidence, may safely be dismissed without evidence. Hitchens.

This ridiculous attempt to shirk the burden of proof and actually attempt to shift it to others' shoulders is the typical underhanded, devious and dishonest behavior we find from the intellectually bankrupt.

So what we have here, is theists saying God exists, holding God up as the cause and creator of all that exist without ever providing a shred of evidence to back up such a bold assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sagan. When it is (naturally) rejected as bogus bullshit, we see an immediate shifting of goal post as in "the God you are rejecting is not the CTG, I believe in with all my little heart."

All that is left for the CTG believer is to create a nonsense SC concept in a desperate attempt to divert attention from his own precarious faith head position.

This can of course easily be proved incorrect by actually providing robust and empirical evidence for CTG. I suggest you put up or shut the freck up. Neither of which you will actually do, I for see with my wonderful psychic powers.
Teleological (July 11, 2010, 14:23:09 PM):
There is just no justification to support skeptical crackpotismâ„¢ in any way. Sure there are an infinite number of things we don't have to consider as existing on a daily basis. It unfortunately does not logically follow that because we don't have to consider them then we can believe with any certainty that it cannot and does not exist.

As an example. There is no need for me to believe in an infinite number of Skalli's magic squares. There is no demonstration that they do exist and possibly can't be shown to exist. I also don't need to be a skeptical crackpot and believe with any certainty that they do not and cannot exist ESPECIALLY since I do not have a clear definition or even intend try and understand what it entails. Unless of course I want to look like a sceptical crackpot ???.
Hermes (July 11, 2010, 15:18:51 PM):
It's the same tired old story over and over.
Let's consider the (ridiculous) premiss that you need an in depth understanding of classical theism in order to assess if God exists. How many xtians have bothered to study classical theism? 1 in 1000? What then about the other 999? Are they religious crackpots? Is your average xtian in the church/brothel/prison a crackpot?

Let's adapt your claim to account for that:
The skeptical xtian crackpot (SXC) is best exemplified by the following:

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

Teleological (July 11, 2010, 15:38:07 PM):
Do Christians reject classical theism :o?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page