This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.
What do you think?
check it out.
https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg
peace
791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
no I mean
Is there any evidence that you can conceive of that would convince you that life or the universe exhibits Intelligent Design?
any arguments put forward by the proponents of ID are entirely beside the point
As walto points out it the video contains nothing new. It’s not even an argument it’s more of an observation. The fact is many people use skepticism as a tool to deny rather than discover the truth, All the video does is cleverly point out the sillyness of this approach in an entertaining way
Pretty sure, you are either being skeptical to discover or deny the truth. I’m not sure how you could ever straddle that fence
peace
He can’t, so he won’t. His only apparent option is tilt at straw skeptics…
As expected, nothing worthwhile from FMM.
Glen Davidson
I already said yes to this.
Indeed! And irrelevant. It wasn’t me who brought the “ID” club up.
LOL! Except that reasonable, true skeptics can’t do the latter without the former.
Nonsense. I’m rarely sure what the truth might be. I’m not rarely convinced anyone else does either.
ETA Oops duplicate part of comment deleted!
I’m still curious how attribution works. Given some event that appears to be miraculous, how is it possible to attribute a perpetrator?
Only if you continue to refuse to engage with the actual points being made.
An operational definition is required in order to determine what evidence is possible. Without it, as noted previously, the words you are using are literally meaningless.
So I repeat: “If you provide an operational definition of either of those, including the entailments were such to exist then (assuming the association with the entailments is valid) observing the entailments would provide support for the claim that faeries or gods, as defined, exist.
If you cannot provide such a definition and entailments then the problem is with your concepts not with those who lack belief in them.”
Wow, that was a terrible attempt. Lots of people know what you’re thinking sometimes, don’t they? (And how the hell do you know whether somebody is “from another planet” if they look like us–inside and out?)
Better try again. Maybe take more than five seconds this time.
It could make a difference if some know quite exactly what one thinks occasionally, rather than generally knowing. Of course then you might want to know how specific, but very exact numbers (correct 6 or more digit numbers repeatedly) that someone is thinking might be a good indication of mind reading.
Glen Davidson
Flebderkamps only read minds when they feel like to
I do think that this particular exercise is rather moot. Assuming someone could come up with some succinct evidence that would convince him or her that God existed, such would immediately make said version of God = not-God. The very first principle nearly all theistic approaches to god(s) is that the acceptance and following of such requires faith. Faith in something fundamentally good – the basis of good – beyond this world and, more importantly, the continuation of life beyond this life. Any test of that would be, by definition, a contradiction in terms. You can’t test God after all.
So for me, I can’t come up with any evidence that could even indirectly indicate the existence of any god because by my understanding the very basis of God’s existence is that there is no evidence of such.
You seem to be pretty convinced of the truth of your claim that “the theory of evolution” actually exists, somewhere.
How many theists are convinced of God’s existence by arguments or evidence anyway? the vast majority of them were indoctrinated at an early age.
Right, that’s a problem for disconfirmations. Like God being hard-to-predict or engaging in Maya. When there’s apparent evil, some theist is always sure there’s some countervailing issue we don’t or can’t know about. Flebderkamps are analogously difficult to pin down. Not just old school, Old Testament school.
Word has it Trump plans on waterboarding immigrants till they confess to be Flebderkamps. People from other planets are immigrants after all
Charles Darwin gave the first published account of it in his book, On the Origin of Species. It’s available on line. I think I may have already mentioned this. Do you think otherwise. If so, why?
I am so glad I avoided getting sucked into this silliness.
sean s.
Because theories of evolution existed before Darwin. Darwin just added another one.
So Mung thinks that there has been no theory of evolution, but that Darwin’s theory was not the first of them?
Or does Mung think that the theory used to exist, but disappeared?
Are you referring to the subject of John Wilkins’ article at TalkOrigins?
Perhaps someone could tell us what the theory of gravity is, or the theory of thermodynamics, or the theory of momentum, or the theory of chemical bonds.
You know, theories that explain stuff in the real sciences.
It’s no doubt based on the use of the word “the” as in “the one and only theory”. Or some such trivial trifle.
There is no go way to rule out the assistance of Flebderkamps but that is not an issue for this topic.
We are not looking for disconfirmations but for evidence that would convince us of their existence. Flebderkamps could exist alongside us indefinitely and we would never know it But there is evidence that would convince me.
peace
That is why I specified many times, and determining if someone was from another planet is something that will need to be worked out
As I have said any evidence will require qualification and specification. Experiments don’t emerge fully formed they need to be fleshed out. The important thing is being able to conceive of evidence that would convince you that you are wrong. Not the quality of our initial attempt
peace
well there you go.
Thanks Fred
Maybe I lack imagination, but I’m unable to conceive of any evidence that would convince me of the existence of the supernatural.
Why should I consider carrying such a burden?
Wait! If I were to find myself in Heaven, I would thank god (Hi god! How you doing? Is sustaining the Universe a burden or something to keep you engaged for Eternity? ) and enjoy conversations with him (or her) for as long as it’s interesting.
And when it became boring, I’d like to sleep.
I wonder if you understood the issue here. Apologists have been saying for millennia that their god cannot be tested, or measured in any way. And while this neatly solves the inconvenience of there being no empirical evidence for such a god, it creates the problem that there CAN BE no empirical evidence.
So if the unbeliever demands empirical evidence of what he’s been told lies outside such evidence, he’s cursed with a closed mind. But if he says he can’t conceive of what the evidence for the unevidencable might be, he’s also cursed with a closed mind. It’s only the true believer, whose reality is closed to even the idea of evidence, whose mind is open.
Theories Joe, TheorieS! Why are you using the word “the”?
Oh, OK Fred, got it. You’re not exactly sure what would be necessary.
There is another one.
The numbers keep piling up.
So far there are only 2 skeptics among all the non-theists here. I guess I should not have been surprised
So you can know that you are using skepticism as a tool to discover rather that deny the truth.
peace
Of course not, this is not about certanianty or exactness it’s about being able to merely conceive of something that would convince you were wrong.
The bar is set incredibly low here. It does not take much imagination at all to be able to think it possible that you are wrong but it does take a little
peace
So any random reason will do? Why?
I’m not an apologist but I do hang with Christians and Ive never heard such a thing coming from the folks I know.
Surely you know that empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence available to you.
How about this let’s take God out of the picture altogether to avoid any unpleasant connotations or baggage.
Tell me if you can conceive of any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong about empirical evidence being the only evidence available to you
peace
nope it has to be a reason that will actually convince you.
Because if you can’t think of such evidence you can’t think it’s possible you are wrong in any meaningful way.
Returing to Shermer’s last law
quote:
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God
end quote:
According to Shermer there is simply no way to determine if God exists.
If your methodology prevents you from ever discovering the truth it’s time to get a new methodology
peace
So if I told you that seeing squirrels fist-fucking koalas would convince me, that would mean that I’m a true skeptic?
And yet, Erik (a classical theist who claims god can’t be tested empirically) is your favorite here…
If you weren’t lying about it.
Walto’s evidence was almost that silly I have no way of knowing if he is actually serious but I’m willing to take him at his word.
peace
Surely you know empirical testing is not the only testing available
peace
Wait a minute, what determines the silliness of the reason? And if you think it’s silly, shouldn’t you point out that’s no good reason to believe?
Irrelevant to the skeptic. The classical theistic God is an a-priory. Therefore it’s not the skeptic who puts God out of reach, it’s not the skeptic’s fault that Fred has no choice but not believe in such a God
it’s purely subjective. That is why I’m willing to to give the benefit of the doubt.
As I’ve repeatedly said I don’t think we have any control over what we believe.
There is evidence that should compel acceptance that doesn’t and the reverse is also true.
what is important as far as this thread is concerned is if any evidence would convince you.
peace
It’s only out of reach for Fred. A skeptic can conceive of evidence that would convince him. Just ask walto or newton if you don’t believe me
If I was starting as a materialist skeptic the evidence for God’s existence would include evidence that something other than the empirically detectable exists
peace
oh yeah? So if I told you that the same thing convinces me that squirrels sometimes smell like koala’s poo, that would also be subjective? Are you saying the choice of evidence is independent from the object?
Seriously, you can’t be that dumb… or maybe you can, there’s plenty evidence
no I’m saying that what would convince you is personal and it’s not the same thing that would convince me
peace
Come on dazz you were doing so good at having a civil conversation don’t blow it now just because you are frustrated
peace
I’ve already said a sound logical argument would convince me so I’m not sure if I’m a skeptic and I’m not sure I care much at all
You’re asking me what evidence would convince me of the existence of something for which, by definition, no evidence can exist. Fucking brilliant
What would such an argument look like? Any logical argument whatsoever? how about this one?
Premise one: all men are mortal
Premise two: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal
Of course you know that the vast majority of humanity including most scientists disagree with your definitions here
What evidence would convince you that your hyper-materialistic definition of evidence is wrong?
peace
Not MY definitions dumbass. It’s the definition of the classical theists. This illustrates the main point here, you can’t ask for evidence without defining your terms, and defining them in a way that evidence is possible at all.