• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Apoplectic Skeptic

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Apoplectic Skeptic

This thread was inspired by many posts and posters in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum, too many to credit adequately here,
but the immediate impetus for this thread came from the following post by RAMOSS:

This is the classic 'We don't know, so I can pretend all sort of woo is going on'.. also known as the 'argument from ignorance'. When you come up with a testable and falsifiable model , I'll will look at your claims. Until then, it's just meaningless junk.

To which Angel replied:​

You're a Pseudoskeptic, Uncle RAMOSS. There are others here, but you're the straw that broke the camel's back.
Just when I thought I was getting out of this silly business, you draw me back in.
I'm going to have to start a thread on your ilk: the ilk what practices PSEUDOSKEPTICISM under the mantle of skepticism.
The ilk what DISMISSES and DENIES when it ought to DOUBT and INVESTIGATE....

Angel seems to us on the right side of this issue.

And so

without further ado...


The Five Kinds of Skepticism

I. Philosophical Slepticism

An old and venerable philosophy grounded in philosophical doubt as to the possibility of knowledge and the suffivienct of reason/
Much to respect here.

II. Religious Skepticism

Doubt as to the truth of religious doctrine.
Much to respect here.

III. Ordinary Skepticism

Ordinary incredulity and doubt based on critical thinking.
Much to respect here.

IV. Pseudo-skepticism

Masked Denialism.
This so-called skeptic would not be convinced by any evidence and is dismissive of evidence/
This so-called skeptic denies when only doubt is called for
This so-called skeptic tends to discredit rather than investigate, employs double standards in the application of criticism,
and assumes criticism requires no burden of proof.
Not much to respect here.

V. Apoplectic Skepticism

This is pseudoskepticism with terrible manners, given to name-calling and vulgarity.
Much here to condemn.


Which are you?

Pseudoskeptics are invited to illustrate their pseudoskepticism unwittingly here in this thread.

Friends of pseudoskepticism are invited to defend pseudoskepticism.

Opponents of pseudoskepticism are invited to criticize pseudoskepticism.

Apoplectic Skeptics are invited to confess their sins and turn over a new leaf.

Let's make the test question easy:

What is Ultimate Reality?



 
What is Ultimate Reality?
Ultimate Reality must be mind or something mind-like inasmuch as the fundamental datum of reality as experienced is mind.
 
Now - that is all we have.
Observe and enjoy.
 
The Apoplectic Skeptic

This thread was inspired by many posts and posters in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum, too many to credit adequately here,
but the immediate impetus for this thread came from the following post by RAMOSS:



To which Angel replied:​



Angel seems to us on the right side of this issue.

And so

without further ado...


The Five Kinds of Skepticism

I. Philosophical Slepticism

An old and venerable philosophy grounded in philosophical doubt as to the possibility of knowledge and the suffivienct of reason/
Much to respect here.

II. Religious Skepticism

Doubt as to the truth of religious doctrine.
Much to respect here.

III. Ordinary Skepticism

Ordinary incredulity and doubt based on critical thinking.
Much to respect here.

IV. Pseudo-skepticism

Masked Denialism.
This so-called skeptic would not be convinced by any evidence and is dismissive of evidence/
This so-called skeptic denies when only doubt is called for
This so-called skeptic tends to discredit rather than investigate, employs double standards in the application of criticism,
and assumes criticism requires no burden of proof.
Not much to respect here.

V. Apoplectic Skepticism

This is pseudoskepticism with terrible manners, given to name-calling and vulgarity.
Much here to condemn.


Which are you?

Pseudoskeptics are invited to illustrate their pseudoskepticism unwittingly here in this thread.

Friends of pseudoskepticism are invited to defend pseudoskepticism.

Opponents of pseudoskepticism are invited to criticize pseudoskepticism.

Apoplectic Skeptics are invited to confess their sins and turn over a new leaf.

Let's make the test question easy:

What is Ultimate Reality?




"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
 
from The Arch Apoplectic Skeptic

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!


The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

And an asshole of the first water.
 
Ultimate Reality must be mind or something mind-like inasmuch as the fundamental datum of reality as experienced is mind.

If “ultimate reality” exists, how would we ever know we finally had achieved it? Is it a state where no further new observations or ideas would make a difference in our worldview, and we could just relax and close our eyes and brains once and for all?

Do you see why the whole concept of anything being “ultimate reality” might be a little dangerous?
 
The Apoplectic skeptic, or the cantilever believer?
 
If “ultimate reality” exists, how would we ever know we finally had achieved it? Is it a state where no further new observations or ideas would make a difference in our worldview, and we could just relax and close our eyes and brains once and for all?

Do you see why the whole concept of anything being “ultimate reality” might be a little dangerous?
If the phrase "ultimate reality" has a referent, then that referent is already "achieved" (to use your word) and remains outside our ken for the obvious reason, namely, that reason cannot get outside it in order to ken it.
 
If the phrase "ultimate reality" has a referent, then that referent is already "achieved" (to use your word) and remains outside our ken for the obvious reason, namely, that reason cannot get outside it in order to ken it.

So at what point does it become chasing rainbows- things that disappear as soon as you think you have are reaching them, and pop up somewhere else ? Is it ever fruitful to pursue such Locus imaginarius?
 
Guilty. But some people are just clueless and classless and clumsy.

Well, at least you admit it...ditto on the 2nd part...
 
The Apoplectic Skeptic

This thread was inspired by many posts and posters in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum, too many to credit adequately here,
but the immediate impetus for this thread came from the following post by RAMOSS:



To which Angel replied:​



Angel seems to us on the right side of this issue.

And so

without further ado...


The Five Kinds of Skepticism

I. Philosophical Slepticism

An old and venerable philosophy grounded in philosophical doubt as to the possibility of knowledge and the suffivienct of reason/
Much to respect here.

II. Religious Skepticism

Doubt as to the truth of religious doctrine.
Much to respect here.

III. Ordinary Skepticism

Ordinary incredulity and doubt based on critical thinking.
Much to respect here.

IV. Pseudo-skepticism

Masked Denialism.
This so-called skeptic would not be convinced by any evidence and is dismissive of evidence/
This so-called skeptic denies when only doubt is called for
This so-called skeptic tends to discredit rather than investigate, employs double standards in the application of criticism,
and assumes criticism requires no burden of proof.
Not much to respect here.

V. Apoplectic Skepticism

This is pseudoskepticism with terrible manners, given to name-calling and vulgarity.
Much here to condemn.


Which are you?

Pseudoskeptics are invited to illustrate their pseudoskepticism unwittingly here in this thread.

Friends of pseudoskepticism are invited to defend pseudoskepticism.

Opponents of pseudoskepticism are invited to criticize pseudoskepticism.

Apoplectic Skeptics are invited to confess their sins and turn over a new leaf.

Let's make the test question easy:

What is Ultimate Reality?




Is skepticism something like...you can tell me anything, show me?
 
Is skepticism something like...you can tell me anything, show me?

Nobel-prize-winning physicist Robert A. Millikan, although a believer in evolution, did say at a meeting of the American Physical Society:

“There’s a Divinity that shapes our ends . . . A purely materialistic philosophy is to me the height of unintelligence. Wise men in all the ages have always seen enough to at least make them reverent.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100131001927AAKcKCP
 
If the phrase "ultimate reality" has a referent, then that referent is already "achieved" (to use your word) and remains outside our ken for the obvious reason, namely, that reason cannot get outside it in order to ken it.

So at what point does it become chasing rainbows- things that disappear as soon as you think you have are reaching them, and pop up somewhere else ? Is it ever fruitful to pursue such Locus imaginarius?
"Chasing the horizon" is more apt as a metaphor, I'd say. The life of the mind cannot but venture out toward the ever-receding limits of its understanding. Is this a fruitful adventure? Forbidden fruit though it be, advocates of the humanities (like me) see it as the only adventure worthy of mind.


 
Yup, proved my point. Read your links and the man had it right who said the religious tribe would survive, just like they did when they came to america. Why? Because if one doesn't believe what the religious tribe believes, the religious tribe kills off the non religious tribe. Bunch of heathens, they deserved it.

That is not at all what Jesus taught...Jesus indicated that his followers should be willing to endure personal insult without retaliating...

‘Put your sword away'...'whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him'...
 
That is not at all what Jesus taught...Jesus indicated that his followers should be willing to endure personal insult without retaliating...

‘Put your sword away'...'whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him'...

What jesus taught, obviously wasn't learned very well. If I remember correctly the crusades included those who believe in christianity? How about the Inquisition, more religion killing in the name of god. Hell the folks in the middle east of the same religion are killing each other because on side isn't practicing Islam in the right way. So what god taught and man learned is two completely different things.
 
Back
Top Bottom