Pokenator said:
Eqan Asif said:
No, not at all. I don't like science. Being a Humeaian Sceptic gives me ample reasons to do so.
Up yours Newton! And Einstein can suck it.
In order to truly be a 'skeptic', one must properly understand what they are being skeptical about, in the case of science, high school science wouldn't even begin to cut it. This is why we have a world full of YE creationists. There's a huge difference between an informed skeptic and an uninformed denialist.
Very hard to replay to your post without making any generalizations, but please excuse me if I do; and also keep in mind that those will be nothing personal--even if they seem so.
In any case, I things it's a linguistic point you are arguing with me: I gather that you don't "know" (of if you do, it's barely any) about what Humean scepticism is all about. Humean scepticism is epistemological scpeticism--that humans don't "know" anything, and our "knowledge" exists only in fleeting moments of experience. Now since that is clear, it my help us come to an agreement, however, on the subject of me being a "creationist" is an assumption you have made. I'm not a "creationist," but if you must put me through an arbitrary labeling machine then the proper term would be that I'm an "Agnostic," but even that doesn't cover it---for here I adhere to Nietzschean perspectivism.
And btw, please explain to me the difference between an "informed" and an "uninformed" sceptic? I'm afraid I've no idea what those two terms mean.