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.

 

It's time to wake up!

page: 27
25
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity
Did you watch and listen to the video about the quiet that contains the mind?




posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Look guys, thank you for your opinions. But I will not defend myself or explain any more. I said more than enough.

It is ok. we disagree.

What matter is that you can make those around you happy all the time with wisdom and compassion.

This is my way of doing that. You have yours...nothing wrong with that. right?
edit on 14475864521120November2011203015 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Itisnowagain

for current me or relative me!

But that is just a motivation for dissolution...where me is gone. This should be clear if you would not be so stuck on words alone but try to get my meaning behind them...

Explain what is meant by 'current me' and then explain what is meant by 'relative me' - what are these?

What does 'me' mean? And how many are there?
edit on 15-11-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

I still don't see where the disagreement is. It sounds like your saying the same things, just in different language and possibly context.
edit on 15-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain
Sorry it was poorly worded. So this issue should be cleared.

current me or I = thought or ego based, motivated by desires

relative = non I or non self.

both of them have the same underneath desire for love. Unconditional love, because love is what makes us do whatever we do.

But ultimately both of them are false. there is only one. And that one is in the body of a person embodied saint with all the virtues and non of the vices with complete union.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity
No one has ever found 'non self'. No one can know their own absence.
There is only presence when 'you' are absent.


edit on 15-11-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalFire

Alan Watts is great, is one awakened human being along with the guy who wrote the holographic universe and a good friend who led me further by sharing Bryan Kemila's, 'also a well known artist from british columbia', knowlege and awareness of what this place is.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Well pointing out where I am wrong is you trying to show proof that I am wrong.

No it isn't. It is having a discussion.


How is it possible to even participate in an argument or discussion without providing proof?
I thought you were supposed to be the athiest, not the christian.

Only people trying to convince others need to provide proof.

The atheist just sits there and tells the christian that what he is bringing to the table isn't proof. I'm playing my part.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



No it isn't. It is having a discussion.

So discussion is just exchanging ideas/opinions without providing any supporting evidence correct?



Only people trying to convince others need to provide proof.

The atheist just sits there and tells the christian that what he is bringing to the table isn't proof. I'm playing my part.

Isn't it a good thing that two people try to persuade each other to threaten their beliefs through facts?

I don't know what use this discussion would be unless we start providing support for our opinions. I just seems mutually un-beneficial just stating opinions without any proof. Basically a mind game.
edit on 15-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
So discussion is just exchanging ideas without providing any supporting evidence correct?

It can be.


Isn't it a good thing that two people try to persuade each other to threaten their beliefs through facts?

Not necesarily.


I don't know what use this discussion would be unless we start providing support for our opinions. I just seems mutually un-beneficial just stating opinions without any proof.

I posted the way I am using it way back in the thread. Hard evidence.

From my point of view, your "proof" is incorrect but I can't offer hard evidence to show why so, all I can do is discuss the topic.
edit on 15-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I posted the way I am using it way back in the thread. Hard evidence.
From my point of view, your "proof" is incorrect but I can't offer hard evidence to show why so, all I can do is discuss the topic.

Why can't you show any evidence to show I am wrong? What is the difference between hard and normal evidence?



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I think it is possible to have a discussion where two people disagree with each other, provide proof, but are still open that they may be wrong and thus take what the other person says in high consideration.

Debate is more like two people having fixed views and both are trying to support it at all costs. I was intending our discussion to be as the first sentence I wrote.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Why can't you show any evidence to show I am wrong?

Because it is personal experience.


What is the difference between hard and normal evidence?

It's normal evidence split into reasoned conclusion and hard evidence, which is definitive.
edit on 15-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Because it is personal experience.

I don't understand. You cannot show me I am wrong because of personal experience? What if your personal experience is more of a " In a dream saw Jesus take mary on a wagon to the heavens above, that's how I know they exist."
Then your personal experience would be unreasonable and thus one would have to use logic to falsify your experience.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
I don't understand. You cannot show me I am wrong because of personal experience? What if your personal experience is more of a " In a dream saw Jesus take mary on a wagon to the heavens above, that's how I know they exist."

My fault, I did not notice that you did not include "hard" in your question and I did include it in my statement. That makes the difference.

I have no hard evidence to share and the logical observations that I posted before where dismissed so there is nothing more to say.
edit on 15-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

So hard evidence is stating things with supporting evidence and soft evidence can be as far as a baseless opinion.
I believe I stated some hard evidence with the supporting logic. You had no hard evidence to give, so you simply gave your opinion which was not supported by logic. How does this sound?
And even your disagreements were soft evidence because they had no hard evidence in them.
So you basically fought evidence vs opinion. Hard evidence vs soft evidence.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
I believe I stated some hard evidence with the supporting logic.

You can believe whatever you want.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But it isn't an opinion. It is hard evidence supported by logic.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Spoken like a good christian.




top topics



 
25
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join