The Skeptical Crackpot

[cyghost]

So. About Z?

[cyghost]

I was gonna let it slide but what the hell...

Neat trick for covering one fallacy with another.

Which fallacy covers which fallacy?

[Hermes]

Furthermore this still seems like an attempt to sneak the Courtier's reply in there innit?

Spot on, Cyghost.   All Teleologicals recent arguments on the various threads amounts to nothing more than Courtier's reply.   The king of teleology is indeed naked.

[Teleological]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam covered up with "the Myers Shuffle".

The Myers Shuffle: When a person is confronted with the overwhelming evidence that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, he can shout "Courtier's reply", thereby attempting to divert his ignorance towards other fallacies without ever needing to remedy his own ignorance.

[BoogieMonster]

So, the only rational thing to do is provisionally believe that all the 1000's of religions of the world are true until you can fully scrutinize every single one of them, no matter how batshit crazy they appear on the surface? Are you willing to spend millions getting to the upper echelons of Scientology only to discover it's lies?

Where does this put your personal beliefs then? Is Teleo the ultimate-pan-religious-agnostic? Or does he have a preferred religion and, if so, does that mean he has fully scrutinized all other religions fully in order to dismiss all of them. And finally, if so, where did he find the time? And did he take into account that new religions are being formed every day that would also require full scrutiny, thus meaning he has to spend the rest of his natural life scrutinizing to support his chosen position?

[Tweefo]

What baffles me is how is it possible for someone like Teleological to be this confused. Maybe there is a (not so) intelligent designer out there somewhere who came up with him.

[Peter Grant]

Is Teleo the ultimate-pan-religious-agnostic?

Nah, I'm pretty sure Tele's only got one story.

[Teleological]

So, the only rational thing to do is provisionally believe that all the 1000's of religions of the world are true until you can fully scrutinize every single one of them, no matter how batshit crazy they appear on the surface?

Who says that is the only rational thing to do? Why the extremes between a skeptical crackpot and a gullible/incredulous fool?

Why not just reserve judgment and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about something you know very little?

[Sentinel]

Why not just reserve judgment and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about something you know very little?

That's a great idea! I always say that I am skeptical about my skepticism (or atheism if you want to go there).

Concerning religion, it is simple: I will only require one example of the existence of anything supernatural that can be proven without a doubt to seriously consider any one of the world's religions to possibly be 0.0000001% true. One can always build on that if it survives the first prerequisite. ("Proof" of the supernatural of course, excludes "clever" semantics, philosophy and "testimony". It has to be objective - and here I open the door to semantics and philosophy about objectivity...)

Concerning skepticism: Provide the skeptic with the evidence (s)he requires. If it is true, it can be proven.

I do however realise that some skeptics will classify everything they don't understand to be nonsense, just like some people will believe everything they hear, despite of evidence against it or the lack of evidence for it.

Every corner of the world is covered with the latter.

[Teleological]

("Proof" of the supernatural of course, excludes "clever" semantics, philosophy and "testimony". It has to be objective - and here I open the door to semantics and philosophy about objectivity...)

Clever semantic trick even if it is fallacious. ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.

Concerning skepticism: Provide the skeptic with the evidence (s)he requires. If it is true, it can be proven.

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. Moral relativism of course allows both of us not to be wrong or right in any absolute terms. I don't think there are many moral relativists here, if there are please raise your hands. 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.

BTW: What evidence would convince you that a god exists?
Interesting answers although philosophically shallow as you might expect.

[Mefiante]

ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.

(Emphasis added)

Baloney.

'Luthon64

[Teleological]

ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.

(Emphasis added)

Baloney.

'Luthon64

Because-I-say-so-troll speaks again .

[Mefiante]

Because-I-say-so-troll speaks again .

If you say so.

Your insipid assertion cited earlier, however, remains baloney.

'Luthon64

[cyghost]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam covered up with "the Myers Shuffle".

The Myers Shuffle: When a person is confronted with the overwhelming evidence that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, he can shout "Courtier's reply", thereby attempting to divert his ignorance towards other fallacies without ever needing to remedy his own ignorance.

You have to make up fallacies to cover your mistakes?  roflol - you truly are entertaining sometimes. For us to have a Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy we first have to have someone actually making this argument. Telling us SC's make the SC argument is not helping. Which should have been obvious. Currently it seems you have build an abominable straw man and manages to beat the living shit out of it. Congratulations on that btw, you are truly da man 

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...

[Peter Grant]

Why not just reserve judgment and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about something you know very little?

Because calling something about which you know very little "God" implies that you actually do know something about it. "God" is a lot less meaningful than "I dunno".