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.
Nah, I’m pretty sure Tele’s only got one story. 
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?
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.
Clever semantic trick even if it is fallacious. ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.
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.
Baloney.
'Luthon64
If you say so.
Your insipid assertion cited earlier, however, remains baloney.
'Luthon64
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…
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”.
And your trolling remains… trolling. Or have you decided to have an actual conve… Ah you naughty troll, almost got me again :o…
Lol, that’s exactly what the Myers shuffle is… making up fallacies to to hide mistakes or ignorance. I am curious, is a general description of a skeptical crackpot not clear enough for you to recognise skeptical crackpotism™.
I am sure you have some sort of clear definition of Z you wish to share. So far Z makes food in your fridge taste delicious and you need to believe in Z for your food to taste delicious. Ooh ooh is it salt, tomato sauce, or your own little secret recipe?
If you say so. And yet that stupid claim of yours cited earlier remains the same uncorrected baloney that it started as.
There’s no “almost” about it, sleepyhead.
'Luthon64
Well, at least you are constant in admitting you are only trolling here.
I disagree - This statement cannot be further from the truth. When the nonbeliever requests actual evidence for the supernatural, the believer almost always provides philosophical or metaphysical arguments instead of physical or objective evidence.
Don’t confuse the fact that people entertain and engage in these arguments (and ultimately disprove them) with the fact that they were offered as “proof” by believers in the first place. The nonbeliever still patiently awaits actual evidence.
Where is everywhere? Please name one. It is unfortunate that you use the word “scientific” in a sentence like that. If evidence is scrutinized scientifically and objectively, it should render the same result every time.
Again with philosophy. I clearly referred to actual evidence and excluded philosophical arguments.
I think there you may be right (about the possibility of one of us being wrong), but I cannot be 100% sure of that. I would say that because of a lack of evidence for any religious belief, I would tend to agree with nonbelief.
Who ever spoke about philosophy to start with? The topic is on the degrees of scepticism vs belief and the fact that extremes may classify you as a crackpot.
What evidence you ask? Oh well, just off the top of my head: If any of the claims made by religious texts and/or believers can be substantiated. And here I am specifically referring to the extraordinary claims and the supernatural. The link you provided also points out that, unlike a scientific theory, religious beliefs cannot be falsified. Should it undergo scrutiny, it would fall flat on its back.
Who made up a fallacy? Are you sure you understand fallacies?
I am curious, is a general description of a skeptical crackpot not clear enough for you to recognise skeptical crackpotism™.I am more interested in someone, somewhere actually fitting the description you have created for us.
I am sure you have some sort of clear definition of Z you wish to share.I'm sure I do.
So far Z makes food in your fridge taste delicious and you need to believe in Z for your food to taste delicious. Ooh ooh is it salt, tomato sauce, or your own little secret recipe?Why are you making things up about Z? Isn't that crackpottery in action? All we require is for you to state your belief currently with respect to Z.
I posted this before I read the other comments…
I was trying to explain my point of view, but that does the same job with less effort.
I think you are missing the point. Arguments for theism are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. There is no “scientific argument” for theism. Like I said, we both look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.
Evidence is everywhere. Evidence for evolution for example. Just look at the evidence for that. Abiogenesis research is ongoing and likely to yield results soon. We both look at the same data/evidence with different conclusions.
Again, with the evidence, its everywhere. How you come to your conclusions is not as a result of a lack of evidence.
Even if you accept that even some of the religious claims are substantiated, you are still able to reject it for philosophical reasons. The point of course again is that evidence is unlikely to change minds, it is how people come to their conclusions about reality (of which the evidence is everywhere).
Teleo: What is your conclusion? I’ve never ever seen you fully describe your conclusion, your exact viewpoint. Please for the love of pastafarians, what is your conclusion?
I know this is asking a lot of you, but if you could please, how do you interpret the available evidence to come to your conclusion, whatever it may be?
In essense, break our ignorance of your position so that we may be able to evaluate it. It’s no use calling us ignorant of your position then refusing to explain what it is.
Shall I spell it out again for you that you can read the definition again so that you are better at identifying these crackpots? I did give a few examples, how about you read a bit more next time?
It sure would be (see you are not too bad at recognising things lol) if I made statements about Z that you do not believe in. Given the fact that very little is known about Z (no clear definition), I think the best thing is to just reserve judgement and certainty (0.01%-99.99%) about Z.
How can there be scientific evidence for something that is not true or make believe? Perhaps I’m not missing the point entirely, but I was referring to the first part of your statement which reads that ALL arguments for ATHEISM are philosophical. I agree that ALL arguments for THEISM are. What more do they have? Actual evidence? I think not.
I’m glad we agree then.
Clearly. When taking a scientific approach, the same conclusion is drawn. When one’s judgement is clouded with personal beliefs, one will draw a different conclusion which cannot be called objective.
Can you list one extraordinary or supernatural claim that has been substantiated?
Evidence changes minds every day - that is to say if the mind is clear and objective. One shred of real evidence will change mine.
A reality where evidence for the supernatural is everywhere? I think not.