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.

 

Discuss this story!

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
cool story it illustrates the point that even though we think that we have the tools to explain everything,in the grand scheme of things we might still be just fetuses.
Even our our most imaginative ideas of things like other dimensions and living in a matrix might be just childishly simplistic thinking to what is actually true.In short the way we are made physically might make it impossible for us to mentally comprehend and understand the reality of life and existence.
Much like the impossibility for oil and water to mix maybe the ability to comprehend and understand the afterlife cannot exist in our physical bodies and we can only gain that ability at the moment of death.

I imagine It`s something like using code to create AI and an environment in a computer game and then trying to use that same code to create intelligence and environments in real life.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo

Well, it is the classic "you can not understand a system from within" meme with an awkward religious spin to it.

But yes, there are some areas where one can hide his gods from science, the quantum mechanical uncertainty, the exterior of the spacetime or the afterlife.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo

Well, for one, babies inside the womb can hear voices from outside the mother's body; they can feel and react to pressure.

What they can't do is hold intelligent conversations about the "after-delivery" phase of their lives (thank you for not calling it "after-birth"), and if they could, they'd be wondering who all the voices are that they can hear but can't see, and they'd want to know what the hell was poking them.

This story, while neat, really proves or says nothing, other than making an obvious attempt to make non-believers look ridiculous.

It fails...I mean, the whole thing is about womb-ridden fetuses discussing existential ideas about after-delivery. In my lonely opinion, it's using a fantasy to try and prove a fantasy. I'm not sure which logical fallacy that falls under, but I'm sure there's at least one.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
OP, excellent story!

Lets now dial it back yet another level.

Sperm 1 says to sperm 2, Hey do you think there is life after this? I mean swimming, training, swimming and more training, is that all there is before the final swim to this so called egg?
Sperm 2: I try not to think about those things, we are here for a duty and we must follow our training to the end.

Sperm 1: I mean, what the hell is this so-called egg anyway, why do we have to go to it? What happens after that? why cant we just stay here? I have herd rumors that only 1 of us out of the millions actually get inside this "egg" while the rest of us die horrible death's.

Sperm 2: Oh, so your one of those conspiracist nut jobs huh, If I were you I wouldn't ask too many questions, that's dangerous thinking my friend, and that's frowned upon around here.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kusinjo


The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? 



I dont know about you guys, but I've been trying to go back as much as I can since I was 16.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo

Following your analogy, the skeptical baby was always technically correct in its doubts. One cannot make assumptions about things one doesn't know. Clearly, the babies found out what happens after the birth, and one of their beliefs were validated. But that only works when looking at the story in hindsight. It also doesn't mean that death works the same way as birth.

One more thing, the actions of the babies in the womb had no baring or consequence on what transpired to them after they were born. So your philosophical parallel opens up some newer ideas in that religion isn't necessary to experience whatever happens after death (contrary to what religion likes to tell everyone).



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Kusinjo

Love the analogy!
Thanks for sharing it. To bad so many will not consider a relationship with Jesus in this way.

Evils of man made religion and satan convincing people he doesn't exist have blinded many to considering the truth.



I'll consider a relationship with Jesus if you can a) cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving he actually lived and b) cite testable evidence proving he exists now. When you've done that, we'll get to Satan.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: misskat1

funny side note: that would make fleas pagans.



Uh..how would that make them pagans?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kusinjo

Following your analogy, the skeptical baby was always technically correct in its doubts. One cannot make assumptions about things one doesn't know. Clearly, the babies found out what happens after the birth, and one of their beliefs were validated. But that only works when looking at the story in hindsight. It also doesn't mean that death works the same way as birth.

One more thing, the actions of the babies in the womb had no baring or consequence on what transpired to them after they were born. So your philosophical parallel opens up some newer ideas in that religion isn't necessary to experience whatever happens after death (contrary to what religion likes to tell everyone).


He's tricked you into calling them babies instead of fetuses.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Loving all the replies! This is what I was hoping for thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts.

I feel like I understand my purpose and I live accordingly. As far as proof goes, I feel like I get the best of both worlds. I know that I don't know everything and like the babies, I am unable to comprehend the implications of what it means to be "born". All I have to go on is the manual for life which I, personally, have chosen to live by. I admit that, living in the country I do, I am given the free will to practice which ever instruction I choose and in life I am given the same choice. Some people do not have that luxury and it is a travesty. Both worlds being Science and Creation. I FEEL, and this is just me, that I need Jesus. I SEE and have scientific knowledge. I give glory to the Almighty for HAVING the knowledge to create what man has been trying to figure out for thousands of years. It is obvious that babies in the womb can not have conversations, nor are they able to formulate specific thoughts, as most of our thoughts are formulated through the voice in our mind that understands language and sounds like us. Babies go more on feelings. So in this world if we are endowed with only the basest of instincts, than what will the next phase be like? But like the babies, we don't know nor are we in possession of the tools to find out. Scientifically or Theologically.
I have my instruction manual and I have teachers and ATS
but that only covers THIS life. I feel that if people want to go through life without an instruction manual of their own, that is their prerogative but just like learning without a text or building with out a schematic, it may take longer to get out of life what the end result will be. And you may run out of time before the deadline. Or maybe not. Who knows?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

HA lmbo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you strike me as a very cynical person. I just want to remind everyone. I did not write this analogy. I stumbled across it on FB. I liked it so I shared it. No trickery. No sleight of hand. I don't need to trick people into having a conversation with me.

As far as fetuses are concerned. They ARE babies. Babies that have yet to be born. You might see me as pro-lifer, right!
Actually I am pro-choice. I learned that in my instruction manual. Despite what some would have you think. I hate the killing of innocent pre-born babies. But I feel people are given control over their lives for a reason and I won't stop them from practicing their own free will. However, abortion is wrong, people that do it don't WANT to do it. They feel they have to for whatever reason. I digress. I do not want this thread turned into a debate about abortion. Tangerine if you feel the need, go start an abortion for or against thread somewhere. We can discuss it there.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

HA lmbo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you strike me as a very cynical person. I just want to remind everyone. I did not write this analogy. I stumbled across it on FB. I liked it so I shared it. No trickery. No sleight of hand. I don't need to trick people into having a conversation with me.

As far as fetuses are concerned. They ARE babies. Babies that have yet to be born. You might see me as pro-lifer, right!
Actually I am pro-choice. I learned that in my instruction manual. Despite what some would have you think. I hate the killing of innocent pre-born babies. But I feel people are given control over their lives for a reason and I won't stop them from practicing their own free will. However, abortion is wrong, people that do it don't WANT to do it. They feel they have to for whatever reason. I digress. I do not want this thread turned into a debate about abortion. Tangerine if you feel the need, go start an abortion for or against thread somewhere. We can discuss it there.


No, before they're born, they're fetuses. After they're born they're babies. Chickens are eggs before they hatch. Now you're claiming that women who have abortions don't want to have abortions. How in hell could you possibly know what all women who've had abortions wanted? The notion that you can speak for women is ridiculous. If you are one, you can speak for only one. If you're not one, you can't speak for any. I didn't bring up abortion, you did.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I know, because I know people. How many times have you heard a woman say "I think I will get pregnant today so I can go have an abortion! Yea, that will be AWESOMESAUCE!" Why do you get so angry? I think someone needs a lolly! (searches pockets) Sorry I don't have any. What is your issue man? Do you have to hate everything that is good. Eggs are eggs dude. Women have eggs too. they are not fetuses. Chickens grow baby chickens inside their eggs. Really. For once I would like to see what it's like for you and I to agree on something, or do you just troll people you disagree with?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

I know, because I know people. How many times have you heard a woman say "I think I will get pregnant today so I can go have an abortion! Yea, that will be AWESOMESAUCE!" Why do you get so angry? I think someone needs a lolly! (searches pockets) Sorry I don't have any. What is your issue man? Do you have to hate everything that is good. Eggs are eggs dude. Women have eggs too. they are not fetuses. Chickens grow baby chickens inside their eggs. Really. For once I would like to see what it's like for you and I to agree on something, or do you just troll people you disagree with?


Oh, you know some women so you know all women's opinions. If ever I've witnessed delusion....LOL. You're definitely young if you think you understand women.

Let's see, should I use the definitions of scientists or should I use the definitions of the Assemblies of God church? Hmmmm. I think I'll go with the scientists when it comes to medical matters.

No, I don't troll. It just happens that I don't agree with much you've said.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

It's just that I wonder why you don't bring anything to the table. You don't offer an insight or opposing views. Just negatively snide comments. I am asking you why do you do that? I don't expect an answer to that question because up to this point I have asked you, in this thread and in others, what your views are and you ignore them. So give me your thoughts. It is what I asked for. It's all I ask for. You can cling to your negativity if you want to, that is your right. I feel like my post is a relevant talking point, so talk about it. You want to bash it, go ahead. Give reasons for your bashing. I am failing to understand why that is so difficult for you. Is it because you are afraid to have people see what makes you tick. I don't claim to be right, but what I do know has gotten me this far in life, and it doesn't bother me to share what I have experienced with strangers and open myself to praise or criticism. I am getting something from this, are you?
edit on 2-2-2015 by Kusinjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

It's just that I wonder why you don't bring anything to the table. You don't offer an insight or opposing views. Just negatively snide comments. I am asking you why do you do that? I don't expect an answer to that question because up to this point I have asked you, in this thread and in others, what your views are and you ignore them. So give me your thoughts. It is what I asked for. It's all I ask for. You can cling to your negativity if you want to, that is your right. I feel like my post is a relevant talking point, so talk about it. You want to bash it, go ahead. Give reasons for your bashing. I am failing to understand why that is so difficult for you. Is it because you are afraid to have people see what makes you tick. I don't claim to be right, but what I do know has gotten me this far in life, and it doesn't bother me to share what I have experienced with strangers and open myself to praise or criticism. I am getting something from this, are you?


I've offered a number of opposing views. You responded to them so I have to conclude that you noticed them. My initial thought, as I stated, was that you were setting up the thread to proselytize Christianity. That was later confirmed by some of your posts that followed.

I find proselytizing offensive and covert proselytizing especially offensive.

Am I afraid to have people see what makes me tick? LMAO. You're very unlikely to figure out what makes anyone tick although you're highly likely to believe you do.

For someone who claims that it doesn't bother him to open himself to criticism, you're damn touchy.

Am I getting something from this? Sure. I predicted that you were a Christian proselytizer and I was right. I got confirmation of my prediction.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
We are designed to believe, to have faith.
God made us this way.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
We are designed to believe, to have faith.
God made us this way.


I don't believe. I just disproved your hypothesis.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

You believe that you don't believe.

How can you prove that you don't believe?

Unless I believe you?

There must be something you believe in?
edit on 2-2-2015 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
And "God" designed those children with bone disease to suffer. I mean I can keep going...

a reply to: bitsforbytes




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join