Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next

Topic: Long skeptic in the room
Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 08:00 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 08:11 AM
It is ridiculous to deny the existence of AIDS, it is ridiculous to deny the existence of the Holocaust and it is ridiculous to argue that we shouldn't be skeptical because we have to assume reality is full of other people, objects, entities. So it's good to be skeptical, except about the things you believe in? Thanks for clearing that up for us buddy. And I know you love your strawmen, cause they keep you company on cold lonely nights, but I don't know of any scientists who deny the existence of AIDS. There are thousands of world renowned scientists who deny the link between HIV and AIDS, but they don't deny the existence of AIDS. See that? Spidercmb knows what the issue really is... So yeah, "It is a good thing that intellectuals are out there battling nonsense!" Tell you what, I will help you out Peter. If you believe in homeopathy as an effective treatment for disease then you are ridiculous. Happy? It does not change the facts, it does not argue against skepticism. By showing the ridicule you have not engaged in this argument. In fact it is almost like you revel in the absurdity and are holding it up as a badge. Very interesting. I can guarantee you ridicule ideas you see as absurd, this makes us the same. This validates my own opinions. You cannot seriously sit here and say that laughing at the ridiculous is anything anyone has not done at some point, and most people do it every day. It is a healthy, and honest reaction. The next necessary step is to then demonstrate, articulate, explain why the idea, or belief is ridiculous and that is something I am always willing to do. It takes effort, far more effort than attacking a persons character for disagreeing with you. If you guys disagree with me, then you are battling against the concept of skepticism, and on that front you have offered nothing logically consistent to dissuade any reasonable person from acknowledging the usefulness of skepticism. Maybe if a person agrees with you about my usage of language and would see me as a mean spirited, snobbish, as you called it pseudo-intellectual, but that still would not invalidate my argument.You can HATE me, and I can still be correct. No amount of arguing against my character will ever invalidate my claim. You have to argue against the claim. This is a Science and Philosophy forum, you need to argue the science, you need to argue the concept, not argue the character.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 01/12/12 08:22 AM
Bushidobillyclub, I have never argued against skepticism. I'm a very skeptical person. It is intellectually healthy to be skeptical. Look at my original post: You accept some claims at face value and with others you demand extremely high amounts of proof. Do you know the cosmological arguments for the existence of God? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. The modern "scientific" cosmological belief is that the cause of the universe is that there are an unlimited number of universes of which we are just one. This is a statement entirely without evidence, posits an incredibly complex and entirely unobservable multiverse, which clearly violates Occam's razor. The point I'm making is that scientists never stopped to think "maybe God caused the big bang", they instead came up with a different unprovable, unfalsifiable, but incredibly complex origin for the universe.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 08:31 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 08:37 AM
Bushidobillyclub, I have never argued against skepticism. I'm a very skeptical person. It is intellectually healthy to be skeptical. Look at my original post: You accept some claims at face value and with others you demand extremely high amounts of proof. Do you know the cosmological arguments for the existence of God? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. The modern "scientific" cosmological belief is that the cause of the universe is that there are an unlimited number of universes of which we are just one. This is a statement entirely without evidence, posits an incredibly complex and entirely unobservable multiverse, which clearly violates Occam's razor. The point I'm making is that scientists never stopped to think "maybe God caused the big bang", they instead came up with a different unprovable, unfalsifiable, but incredibly complex origin for the universe. AHA! Now we get to the real problems you have with me. I dont believe that god started the universe and that is what you have a problem with. Hahah, thats awesome spider. I will respond to the cosmological argument in a bit when I have time. This ought to be fun! I will real quick respond to something you just said. The modern "scientific" cosmological belief is that the cause of the universe is that there are an unlimited number of universes of which we are just one. This is not really true, this is called the multiverse "theory" which is not really an established theory at all, but a hypothesis without any conclusive evidence to support it one way or the other, and is not held as an accepted theory by any general consensus of the community. Not that a bunch of people agreeing or not makes the hypothesis any more valid or not, the evidence is what should be compelling after all . . . and its not.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 01/12/12 08:35 AM
AHA! Now we get to the real problems you have with me. I dont believe that god started the universe and that is what you have a problem with. Hahah, thats awesome spider. I will respond to the cosmological argument in a bit when I have time. This ought to be fun! Don't bother, people smarter than you or I have been debating cosmology since before Jesus was born. And my objection isn't to you per se, it's to atheists who use "skepticism" as a cloak to hide their outright rejection of religion while willingly accepting any crazy *** untestable hypothesis that competes with religion.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 08:39 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 08:39 AM
AHA! Now we get to the real problems you have with me. I dont believe that god started the universe and that is what you have a problem with. Hahah, thats awesome spider. I will respond to the cosmological argument in a bit when I have time. This ought to be fun! Don't bother, people smarter than you or I have been debating cosmology since before Jesus was born. And my objection isn't to you per se, it's to atheists who use "skepticism" as a cloak to hide their outright rejection of religion while willingly accepting any crazy *** untestable hypothesis that competes with religion. You presented it, it would be very dishonest to not dig into it. After all it has been the driving force in you posting dozens of posts in this thread attacking me, so we really should give it the time it deserves. As far as smarter people, it does not take much smarts to know the cosmological argument for god is a bunch of hand waving.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 01/12/12 09:48 AM
Bushidobillyclub, You edit your posts entirely too frequently and never note what was edited. It makes it difficult to respond to your posts.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 10:26 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 10:27 AM
Bushidobillyclub, You edit your posts entirely too frequently and never note what was edited. It makes it difficult to respond to your posts. Yup, tuff. If I edited it either I found something I didn't agree with or wanted to expound on that I didn't feel I addressed properly. I also edit for grammar and spelling. I am not perfect, but I do try to notice my own mistakes and correct them.

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Thu 01/12/12 10:38 AM
Bushidobillyclub, You edit your posts entirely too frequently and never note what was edited. It makes it difficult to respond to your posts. Yup, tuff. If I edited it either I found something I didn't agree with or wanted to expound on that I didn't feel I addressed properly. I also edit for grammar and spelling. I am not perfect, but I do try to notice my own mistakes and correct them. The Appeal to Ridicule: when in doubt, just act like your opponents are unreasonable fools. It is the last refuge of people with absolutely no argument, no response, no recourse or support for their own position. Still waiting on your numerous corrections...

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 10:42 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 10:48 AM
Bushidobillyclub, You edit your posts entirely too frequently and never note what was edited. It makes it difficult to respond to your posts. Yup, tuff. If I edited it either I found something I didn't agree with or wanted to expound on that I didn't feel I addressed properly. I also edit for grammar and spelling. I am not perfect, but I do try to notice my own mistakes and correct them. The Appeal to Ridicule: when in doubt, just act like your opponents are unreasonable fools. It is the last refuge of people with absolutely no argument, no response, no recourse or support for their own position. Still waiting on your numerous corrections... Peter, you dont have an argument against skepticism do you? Your only argument is that my act of illustrating uncritical and flawed thinking is ridicule. I posted a definition of ridicule which showed that you are right in at least some regard. Any time anyone addresses the absurd, the irrational, or the illogical they would be espousing ridicule for what they see as ridiculous. The interesting thing from my perspective is that I have only ridiculed ideas, beliefs. Where as you are ridiculing my character. To me that is the problem, and why your attempts are dishonest. The Appeal to Ridicule I am not appealing to ridicule, ridicule does not make my argument, it makes your argument. YOU are appealing to ridicule to try to say something . . . I can only imagine you are again attacking my character and ignoring the threads topic. This is a non-argument. We agree, now can you say anything at all that is relevant to the threads topic? The topic is on skepticism. I would ask that you engage that topic or stop posting. I will continue to only deal with ideas, concepts, and beliefs. I will not attack your character. Please do the same or stop posting.

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Thu 01/12/12 10:50 AM
Bushidobillyclub, You edit your posts entirely too frequently and never note what was edited. It makes it difficult to respond to your posts. Yup, tuff. If I edited it either I found something I didn't agree with or wanted to expound on that I didn't feel I addressed properly. I also edit for grammar and spelling. I am not perfect, but I do try to notice my own mistakes and correct them. The Appeal to Ridicule: when in doubt, just act like your opponents are unreasonable fools. It is the last refuge of people with absolutely no argument, no response, no recourse or support for their own position. Still waiting on your numerous corrections... Peter, you dont have an argument against skepticism do you? Your only argument is that my act of illustrating uncritical and flawed thinking is ridicule. I posted a definition of ridicule which showed that you are right in at least some regard. Any time anyone addresses the absurd, the irrational, or the illogical they would be espousing ridicule for what they see as ridiculous. This is a non-argument. We agree, now can you say anything at all that is relevant to the threads topic? The topic is on skepticism. I would ask that you engage that topic or stop posting. Seriously??? The OP was and is an appeal to ridicule, period... It just bothers you that anyone dare contradict your beliefs. So cry foul all you want, but realise it's your words, not your person, that are being "attacked". It's one thing to show the ridiculousness of a given argument, it's another to ridicule the person. Your logic is flawed and highly biased.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 11:03 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 11:10 AM
Your logic is flawed and highly biased. What logic, where? Detail it, explain it, show your work, quote in full. My premise is that the default position for any given claim is skepticism. My conclusion is if you have knowledge of the claim you can gain ground by testing the claim. Show how my conclusion does not follow my premise or that my premise is incorrect. This is the Science and Philosophy forum. Not the you are a big meanie for calling out ideas, beliefs, or concepts as false, invalid, illogical, irrational, and absurd forum. Peter, you sir are so much fun.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 01/12/12 11:47 AM
Yup, tuff. If I edited it either I found something I didn't agree with or wanted to expound on that I didn't feel I addressed properly. As I said, it does make it more difficult to respond to your posts when you do that. I always read my posts at least once before I hit "Post Reply". I also edit for grammar and spelling. I am not perfect, but I do try to notice my own mistakes and correct them. We all do that and I'm sure you know that isn't what I was talking about in my post. I personally use Firefox with spell checking, so that I don't have to worry about the spelling in my posts and can instead focus on the grammar.

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Thu 01/12/12 11:51 AM
Your logic is flawed and highly biased. What logic, where? You're right. I should have said "lack of logic"...

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 12:05 PM
Your logic is flawed and highly biased. What logic, where? You're right. I should have said "lack of logic"... Peter be trolln.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 01/12/12 12:06 PM
My premise is that the default position for any given claim is skepticism. The intellectually correct position is to be agnostic. Science is never settle and is always changing. To deny the possibility of anything is unscientific.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 12:28 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 12:28 PM
My premise is that the default position for any given claim is skepticism. The intellectually correct position is to be agnostic. Science is never settle and is always changing. To deny the possibility of anything is unscientific. Can you explain the differences between skepticism and agnosticism toward a given concept?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 01/12/12 01:29 PM
My premise is that the default position for any given claim is skepticism. The intellectually correct position is to be agnostic. Science is never settle and is always changing. To deny the possibility of anything is unscientific. Can you explain the differences between skepticism and agnosticism toward a given concept? Skepticism is an attitude of doubt or incredulity towards a new idea. Agnosticism is an attitude of being unwilling to commit to a position on a new idea.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 02:38 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 02:45 PM
My premise is that the default position for any given claim is skepticism. The intellectually correct position is to be agnostic. Science is never settle and is always changing. To deny the possibility of anything is unscientific. Can you explain the differences between skepticism and agnosticism toward a given concept? Skepticism is an attitude of doubt or incredulity towards a new idea. Agnosticism is an attitude of being unwilling to commit to a position on a new idea. Doubt/unwilling to commit. How is this different? ... pst, its not. incredulous [in-krej-uh-luhs] Origin in·cred·u·lous /ɪnˈkrɛdʒələs/ Show Spelled[in-krej-uh-luhs] Show IPA adjective 1. not credulous; disinclined or indisposed to believe; skeptical. 2. indicating or showing unbelief: an incredulous smile. Skepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2] To be skeptical, is to be agnostic toward the claim you are questioning. They ARE different, but they are very interrelated. Agnostic ( as an adjective) "holding neither of two opposing positions:" I think you are spinning your wheels Spider.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 01/12/12 02:41 PM
That is not what is meant when a person refers to themselves as skeptic. Yes, it is. So . . . seems meaning is the issue here. Possibly, you seem to have a different definition than anyone else in the world for the word skeptic. In fact, your own definition contradicts what you've posted. Skepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2] To be skeptical, is to be agnostic toward the claim you are questioning. No, skeptical means a position of doubt, agnostic is neutrality.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 01/12/12 02:44 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 01/12/12 02:47 PM
No, skeptical means a position of doubt, agnostic is neutrality. I really only need this part. Doubt, means not accepting. It does not mean you have accepted that it cannot be true, or that it can be true, but that you have not accepted it is true. Neutrality is the position of doubt. Spider, you are loosing badly. Also it is more than mildly humorous to me that you are a Christian trying to use agnosticism as a weapon against skepticism. This has been an amazing thread. I will be copying this for future reference. I hope you dont mind! ; - )