It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The person you are calling is temporarly unavailable

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:00 AM
a reply to: Peeple

The album version is WAY better LOL, but YouTube took it down. The reason why I like Frank Black is because he is sooo weird and super into UFO stuff. He even has a song called Men In Black that he tried to got on the Hollywood movie soundtrack.

"If it took you a really long time to get somewhere, would you want to rush back here? I didn't think so! Take me somewhere cool, take a long time. Take as long as it takes. Take me somewhere cool, I want to touch that face!" (referring to the face on Mars)
edit on 2015-02-26T01:01:04-06:002015Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:01:04 -060004am01Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:01:04 -060000 by corsair00 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:29 AM
a reply to: corsair00

It's actually interesting how many people seem to have come to the same conclusion as I did.

Artists will save the world.

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:18 AM
a reply to: Peeple

WOAH! Well, first off - he is an amazing pianist. But he is a little heavy on the nihilism and/or sarcastic take on Christianity. For comedy, that's their talent is to demolish taboos. I can certainly appreciate aspects of his x-rated take on the bible.

But according to people like Joseph Campbell, art that creates any type of feelings of want or desire is actually considered 'pornography' - it's the original old definition. Art is supposed to be transcendent and beautiful. I am just not the kind of guy to be high and mighty about any of that, so I am familiar with more nihilistic types like H.R. Giger and Burroughs etc. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 1980s and 1990s were fairly decadent in comparison to other generations and have produced heaping mounds of nihilism (Seth MacFarlane, Kurt Cobain and all of their followers etc). Likewise all of the rap music is also totally spiritually sterile and degenerate. I support sexual rebellion and expression, but those aspects of life are not reflective whatsoever of my own music and art and the other better artists out there that I admire.

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 04:09 PM
p.s. We did it again - another funny synchronicity.

posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:42 AM
a reply to: corsair00

Lovely people, right? I'd say with this

One of the items, depicting a winged-bull Assyrian protective deity,
they took their own shields down. What a shame, what we could have learned from this. And I would still say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. And in this case, they just reached a breaking point and deserve to die.
Rabid analphebetic, human despising demons they are.

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 02:50 PM
We're all doing and thinking our own things. Everybody has their perspective. You ask 10 people what they think is the ultimate reality and you might get 10 different answers, if there's no orthodoxy. Yet many people do follow orthodox beliefs, so people tend to answer similarly.

This is why science is praised. It's trying to find the common shared reality, so eliminating any subjective error. While most scientists think parapsychology or mysticism or anything tied to the supernatural isn't science because it cannot be empirically tested, there're still some people out there who feel it should be. I think some people in this thread probably think it should be. But I ask, is it true it cannot be empirically tested? (NOTE: If it can't be empirically tested, it cannot be confirmed to be shared reality, so it's considered subjective and unscientific.)

Is finding a common shared reality important? Well, if you believe any of the science, it has to be. If you can know the shared reality then it can bolster your survival, since you share it. In order to survive, we need XYZ. It's conservation of energy and various forces and properties interacting. Science tries to get an accurate understanding of these things.

What about survival in the hereafter or the supernatural places? What if we die and God condemns us to hell just like in the bible? Or maybe God erases us from existence because of our actions in life? Again, if these things cannot be empirically tested then they're not part of science. If we cannot know the bible and God are part of shared reality then it's not really any better than the crazy rantings from a madman.

Isn't it survival that matters? Whether it be living fully or not being condemned to hell (or non-existence) or avoiding painful punishments? I guess survival is trying to reduce negative or unwanted outcomes.

What if there's no unwanted outcomes or negative outcomes? If there's no fear or sense of danger or dislike or aversion or revulsion? Then survival would not matter, would it? Maybe then the subjective and the shared realities would mix fully and become a big blur.

So I'm arguing pain and fear and all of the negatives make us seek out shared, empirical truths. It doesn't mean we will, but we're likely to. Subjective truths are blurry and unreliable to reduce suffering.

Like a car coming to a sharp turn at night in the rainfall, I swerve to stay on the road... What I just said contradicts the fact 90% of people believe in God. Numerous studies show people who have a belief are (generally) more secure and happier. They're more likely to think there's justice. Psychiatric symptoms are also less pervasive.(*)

So subjective truths seem to help us even if they're not empirical.

(*) - I fudged the facts on some things. Belief and desire for meaning seem to stem from threats. When we're threatened, we tend to grab for something which creates meaning and hold onto it. This is why secular people will believe in science more strongly and believers in god be more devout if they're primed with death anxiety. If what they believe engenders in them purpose and meaning then somehow it helps.

This is why recent research shows when you shut off the part of the brain dealing with threat, belief falls along with it: - Directing Magnetic Energy Into The Brain Can Reduce Belief In God, Prejudice Toward Immigrants...

SO it seems subjective truth (sometimes) helps us to respond to threats in a productive manner. Surprisingly (or not?), religion is/was a good thing. Maybe it helps us make sense when sense is scarce. (below)

So uncertainty increases, and religion reduces, ERN. It looks like a feedback mechanism to keep levels of ERN under control by reducing the level of ambiguity and uncertainty in the world (by ‘explaining away’ mysteries) – at the cost (perhaps) of failing to pick up on real, but obscure patterns.

edit on 10/19/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:12 AM
a reply to: jonnywhite

But there are attempts to prove ghosts f.e. through "scientific" method, or measuring the energy output of buddhistic monks and so on. It just has the label pseudo sciences.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in