It would only be a fallacy if I misrepresented your argument in such a way to make it appear ridiculous. You are doing this on your own. You obviously are proud of your conservapedia source, and not the least bit embarrassed by it. This group is made up from a bunch of young-earth creationists who are home schooled high-school kids. I pointed out an old article of a pic of Jesus riding a dinosaur, which is ridiculous, and deserves all the ridicule one could muster up, but actually I had passed on it, only pointing it out to show you how low their standards are.
It’s difficult to make out what you or anybody else is saying in your #398 post, considering how sloppy it was put together, and basically you’re starting to repeat yourself again as you have done with your quotes over and over on Einstein and Truzzi earlier. You are further away from NDE now than you ever was.
You obviously have a lower standard of what you consider credible evidence than what most here are willing to allow. You keep going at the rate you’re going, and you will replace lekatt as Straight Dope’s favorite whipping boy.
The point is, nobody here gives a flying fart about your ‘neoatheist’ fixation. Okay, I admit I argued against it for a while, but now I’m over it.
Long and short: “Neoatheist” is nothing more than the crank woo-woo type way of calling people who don’t agree with them doodyheads. It is very much a parallel to the word ‘woo-woo’, in fact, with the only noticeable difference being that the definition of the word ‘woo-woo’ actually does include all the mystical types by definition, whereas the definition of ‘neoatheist’ includes so many specific insults in it, it rules out anybody who is not actually hysterical. (This is probably because the term didn’t seem insulting enough without the included insults.)
But regardless: we know you love this word. We know you incorrectly think we’re all little Dawkins clones. And you know what? We don’t care anymore. You can call us doodyheads all you like, so just stop defining the damn word over and over and start making actual arguments to support your tenuous position, would you?
And, did anybody else notice that when you define a class of things as "that which cannot be defined, and describe them as the set of things which cannot be described, that by definition nothing matches that description and definition?
I have stated repeatedly to give a guess/explanation on NDE. It could be exactly what you say with brain chemistry with not transcendent aspect or it could also be both brain chemistry with a transcendentI aspect. I, as an agnostic skeptic am willing to consider both aspects of the question. NDEs have simply been incorporated into the bigger picture of transcendence itself as merly a sub set of the all inclusive set.
Which amounts to the same thing, since you keep defining “transcendence” as something we can’t understand or perceive. Which means we might as well treat it as nonexistent, since it doesn’t DO anything - if it did we could detect it.
Your “guess/explanation” consists of saying over and over that skeptics can’t disprove your undefined, evidence-free mystical claims, and somehow that means it should be taken seriously.
You are not even REMOTELY a skeptic. And I doubt you are actually an agnostic.
Specificially, the set of baseless and illogical claims that can’t survive a skeptical glance, so are declared off limits to skepticism.
It’s been 9 pages, how do you not get the quote system yet? See the quote start tag and the quote end tag when you click reply? Wrap those around each of the separate statements you want to quote.
Oh golly, another quote from a so-far-to-the-right-they-might-fall-off site. Didn’t you bother reading what any of posted in response to your cites? Tell you what. Find a non-political, non-religious moderate site that uses the word neo-atheist as a normal word and then you’ll have an actual cite.
No, the shot at Conservapedia merely pointed out the lack of authority that site has. Ridicule was simply the easiest way to do so. Conservapedia is a screamingly right wing religious fundamentalist ignorance cache, and quoting it to demonstrate anything but silliness is useless. If I were to quote a definition of ineffable from Uncyclopedia, you’d be right to scorn it. Just as we’re right to scorn quotes from Conservapedia.
Funny, I don’t remember you stating anything as a guess. And again, we have lots of evidence for the physical aspect, and none for the transcendant aspect. This means that they do not currently have the same probability of being true, and that the rational conclusion right now is that there is no transcendent aspect.
:rolleyes: Nope, don’t accept this for a second. Your prior behavior makes this statement very suspect.
APPEAL TO RIDICULE:
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!” It is also an Ad Homenim attack by implication and inclusion.
http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/77/p46-51_AR77_web.pdf
AND OTHERS #398 Jakesteele: “You believe there is nothing ineffable about existence yet you have no answer as to how existence came to be. As an example of an inexplicable, ineffable paradox: what happened before the big bang? Did something come from nothing? Was there nothing? What is nothing in that context? Can ‘nothing’ be defined and grasped by our finite minds? Or was there something? Would that something be definable and quantifiable? Did existence spontaneously materialize? How did it and why did it spontaneously materialize? Is it infinity with no beginning and no end? Is infinity defined as “always has been and always will be” kind of like a biblical explanation? These are mind boggling concepts that the human mind has yet to be able to wrap its head around and may never be able to.”
You should address the questions instead of attacking me. Simple question:
What happened before the Big Bang and how and why did the big bang, bang and what mechanism made it bang?
You’re right about being the ‘new whipping boy’ especially when a make my new thread entitled, “Bunk Science: debunking the debunkers” That ought to create a mini-big bang.
We don’t know for the first, and I’m not even sure what you mean by the second question ( it’s not like there was a literal ‘bang’ noise ). However; ‘it was something transcendent’ is NOT remotely implied by ‘we don’t know’. We’ve not known an awful lot of things, and the answer has NEVER been ‘transcendence’ or mystic forces or gods.
Your side of the debate has ALWAYS been wrong, throughout all of history. Not a good track record.
Ridicule by itself doesn’t make a statement a fallacy. Nor was the example you gave of 1+1=2 ridiculous. It would be a fallacy if I misrepresented your position creating a strawman as Wikipedia states, and then go on to ridicule it. Here, let Wikipedia help, or do you have something in Conservapedia more to your liking? Says Wiki:
Read further into that article if you need examples of when it becomes a fallacy.
You’re begging the question, which is a logical fallacy. How do you know the the universe has a why? Or even a how? The universe itself might be the thing that didn’t have a beginning.
And besides, science has never claimed to have these answers. We should we have to answer them? Science has lots and lots of answers, your side, not so many. So you answer them. Be sure and show your evidence.
Will it have all the top notch debate skills you’ve demonstrated here? Cuz we really don’t need yet another one of those.
Except he didn’t baselessly point and laugh. He provided valid evidence that the site was ridiculous, and didn’t laugh. Compare that against the definition and admit that it’s completely different, and not an appeal to ridicule, by definition.
Oh, wait, that would require you to admit that you could possibly be wrong. Never mind.
Oh, and now you’re a ‘skeptic’ huh? (In that alternate universe where skeptic means “entertains all notions without demanding a reason to accept them”, I guess.) If you are such a skeptic, then surely you can explain your rock-solid reasoning that convinced you not to be skeptical about the metaphysical theory for NDEs. Surely it’s very solid evidence, since you’re such a skeptic. Definitely not some easily-explained-away vision or dream, for example.
This is long past silly. The OP no longer appears to care about the answer to his own question and everyone else is is simply going along with the OP’s hijack of his own thread.
I’m closing it.
If anyone, (including jakesteele), wants to have a serious discussion about the nature of “real” skepticism, open a new thread without the baggage of this one, (and try to get some clear definitions up front).
