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.
Originally posted by blupblup
Man..... you can't be serious can you?
Originally posted by OldThinker
????????
just a teddy bear......
OT
Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by OldThinker
Dude, what on earth is your point in this post ?
Originally posted by blupblup
...you have you usual ramblings and games.... and defection and avoidance tactics......
Originally posted by OldThinker
PS: Another distraction to avoid my logic....sorry....I was dormant the last thread....out of respect to you and the other ATHEISTS....yes I said it......because I regonize life is hard....
This thread was addressed to skeptics and christians, did you see that...when you re-read it...?....why you join?
Easy answer...you are looking for answers....
And OT lived WAY TOO LONG to wonder around wondering.....
The ole' guy gots some answers
Originally posted by blupblup
And as i have pointed out several times yest you still refuse to address....what has SKEPTICISM got to do with GOD???
Perhaps the broadest criticism of the possibility of absolute truth is to be found in the skeptic's argument regarding the criterion of truth. Any criterion used to judge the truth of a claim can be challenged because a further criterion is needed by which to judge the present criterion, and so on ad infinitum. This argument did not deter philosophers such as Plato and Descartes from claiming to have found an absolutely impeccable criterion of truth. While most skeptics would reject the notion that such criteria are what their advocates claim them to be, most would probably accept the arguments of St. Augustine and others that there are absolutely certain claims, but that these are matters of Logic or definition and have nothing to do with establishing the certainty of any claim that goes beyond immediate perception.
The ancient skeptics did not all agree on even the most fundamental of matters, such as whether certainty and knowledge are possible. Some believed that they knew certainty was not possible; others claimed that they did not know whether knowledge is possible. The position that one knows that knowledge is impossible seems to be self-refuting. The view that one does not know whether knowledge is possible is consistent with the notion that it makes sense to strive to know, even if one can't be sure that one will arrive at knowledge. And, while some ancient skeptics seem to have advocated that the ideal is to have no strong opinions, most seem to have maintained that when there was a preponderance of evidence supporting the probability of one position rather than another, then belief in the more probable position was desirable. Most ancient Skeptics do not seem to have believed that simply because one cannot be absolutely certain about anything, one should therefore suspend judgment on all things. Such a view would be self-refuting. For, according to the principle itself one should not accept it, but suspend judgment on it. Suspending judgment on claims should be reserved for those claims one knows nothing about, or can know nothing about, and for those claims for which the evidence is proportionate on opposing sides. It may be true that nothing is absolutely certain, but it is not true that all claims are equally probable. A reasonable person uses probability as a guide to belief, not absolute certainty, according to most philosophical skeptics.
The Greek word skeptikoi means seekers or inquirers. Socrates, who claimed that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing, frequently said "Skepteon," meaning we must investigate this. The Pyrrhonists sought the truth, even if most of the time that meant that they sought contrary arguments to dogmatic positions held by other philosophers, such as the Stoics or Epicureans. On those issues where argument and counterargument equaled one another, the Pyrrhonists held that we should suspend judgment. They apparently found that such a stance fit well with their desired goal of peace of mind (ataraxia). For, it is the dogmatist who gets agitated when he doesn't possess the good or truth he knows he should have, or when others refuse to accept what he knows is the truth.
Originally posted by blupblup
Ah ok...the truth comes out.
This is just another US vs THEM thread
Do you want this?
Us vs THEM?
OT curious...
Originally posted by OldThinker
Do you want this?
Us vs THEM?
OT curious...
Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by OldThinker
Rather than quoting pages of rubbish and talking in riddles....why don't YOU answer me.
Skepticism, in this thread, has nothing to do with the topic.
I believe the term you were looking for was atheist.
Your whole OP is a trap... it's just there for you to gloat and drone on about how god is this and you know this because Paul, John, Ringo or george told you....
It's boring mate.
It serves no purpose and quite frankly.... it's despicable.
Can't wait for your next hate thread
Originally posted by OldThinker
You are looking rather defensive/desperate...
It's OK...the Cav's game is one....I'll check back later....
OT has no hate in him whatsoever