It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
and you have yet to provide one single shred of evidence to back your claims up.
All youve done is repeat what you think, without evidence, and then state that what you think is a fact... again without evidence.
Repeating your claims is not evidence.
Claiming your claims are facts, is not evidence.
We will have to hear evidence from your side of the argument, before we can take you seriously.
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
Plain and simple, in philosophic history, atheistic viewpoints have never been able to answer the question of origins.
Ryan
Originally posted by mojo4sale
Perhaps thats a good reason not to take philosophy seriously. That there says that its a biased point of view without intellectual input from those that dont toe the party line. From my atheistic point of view im more than happy with my interpretation of existence/origins, no matter what philosophic history tells me!!
You have made a prejudgement. I presented the ideas without my personal beliefs or any shred of theology. You can probably see where my loyalties lie, because it's the most rational conclusion to come to. You sir, are providing secular bias, as usual in pop culture.
FghtinIrshNvrDie
Provide real irrefutable evidence for the opposition, and I will begin to take your stance seriously also. It's all a big guess, and that's why I trend towards intution and rational ideas. When combined, you can lead to the most reasonable conclusion: Theism of some way, shape, or form.
FghtinIrshNvrDie
Because of the person's point of view that is displaying the information, you disclude it from discussion. Not only do you not have a point to begin with, but you're also commiting a fallacy in the argument.
FghtinIrshNvrDie
You have made a prejudgement. I presented the ideas without my personal beliefs or any shred of theology. You can probably see where my loyalties lie, because it's the most rational conclusion to come to. You sir, are providing secular bias, as usual in pop culture.
FghtinIrshNvrDie
If a system of arguments shows overwhelming evidence in 'beliefs' you don't have, why should it be brushed off? That just doesn't make any sense, especially for a group that claims to be so fair and equal in their judgement.
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
nevermind... we just started a circle and are goin right back around on the merry-go-round... I'm not going to bother refuting the post, as it is so thickly riddled with arumental fallacies.
Ryan
I still feel that the scientific/mathematical answers have more value for me personally
Originally posted by d60944
I still feel that the scientific/mathematical answers have more value for me personally
My take was rather more that mathematics does not provide "answers", merely methods and approaches.
Cheers.
Rob.
Originally posted by skippytjc
I always get “heated” about these questions. The real problem here is the question itself, it’s a bad question. Not just yours, but every time this has ever been asked.
The contemplation of “existence” is a human made phenomenon, it’s a man made “problem”. Everything that is sentient or alive to one degree or another has some self awareness of course, but humans have somehow got their self awareness so befuddled we actually start to question our very existence or the things around us existences. And not only do we question why and how, we are so screwed up that we even question whether existence itself is real! ONLY HUMANS DO THIS!
How many of us have had teachers or professors ask the ole’: “Prove to me that desk exists…” crap? We always answered “well I see it, I can touch it...”, and of course that was always followed with “well, how do I know you exist, prove that..”
It’s all a crock.
The question is actually arrogant. Are we so smart that we have the ability to understand and more importantly question our own existence? Or existence itself? ARROGANCE!
*post trimmed due to size*