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: 56
25
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
You questioned my application of logic only so it can fit your standards. I can't prove god doesn't exist to a christian if his standards are the bible.

Exactly. I'm not saying that they are right, I'm saying that you are wrong in assuming that your words are convincing.


I can only point you to see for yourself.

And I address that in the rest of the post.


My other claim is...

Doesn't matter. I'm talking about how people view your claims not what those claims are or if they are valid.




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Doesn't matter. I'm talking about how people view your claims not what those claims are or if they are valid.

Then we're talking about different things. You're talking about how my information can be viewed differently to others who hear it and not be convincing/proof worthy.
And I am talking about arguing my claims using logic and reasoning, but that doesn't seem to be your aim here.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Then we're talking about different things. You're talking about how my information can be viewed differently to others who hear it and not be convincing/proof worthy.
And I am talking about arguing my claims using logic and reasoning, but that doesn't seem to be your aim here.

The former is part of the later because you arguments are going to be viewed by others and it is up for them to decide if they are convincing/proof.

I have said it over and over that that isn't my aim here. See what I mean about comprehension?



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I have said it over and over that that isn't my aim here. See what I mean about comprehension?

So your aim is simply to point out why my information can be viewed differently by others. Not discussing the actual validity of the evidence itself?

It is difficult to understand what your intentions were because sometimes you seem to revert between the two. But was just proving that simple point your aim all along, and not discuss the validity of my arguments?



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

I was critisising content. But you don't want to argue with me anymore 😢



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
So your aim is simply to point out why my information can be viewed differently by others. Not discussing the actual validity of the evidence itself?

Why do you think I keep repeating that?


It is difficult to understand what your intentions were because sometimes you seem to revert between the two. But was just proving that simple point your aim all along, and not discuss the validity of my arguments?

Obviously there were posts where I discussed the content of the claims but even then it was to bolster my point that what you present can be dismissed by anyone as not being proof.

Way back from page 17


This isn't about you and those who undesrtand you. It's about those who define it differently.

In this part of the thread we were discussing DE, specifically, but it applies to everything discussed so far.
edit on 25-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
It is true the illusion is an illusion. This cannot change, but the illusion is a real illusion as it has been quoted. Simple logic.


Let's go back to page 20, shall we?
This is so many kinds of wrong it is astonishing. But i bet you don't mind explaining what you meant with this?
Just try to use an understandable logic this time.

I am very much looking forward to your response...



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Obviously there were posts where I discussed the content of the claims but even then it was to bolster my point that what you present can be dismissed by anyone as not being proof.

You see how this can be a cop out? First you try to discuss the content but then you revert back to the "it depends on the person who is considering it". I can't possibly discuss the validity of my arguments if that is not your motive.



In this part of the thread we were discussing DE, specifically, but it applies to everything discussed so far.

You were saying DE was something I experienced and it was no big deal. I told you many times that is not what was meant. Having a DE experience is nothing much, everyone has them. But seeing through the illusion of self clearly and consciously; now that has implications which stick.

But seeing you're not hear to discuss the validity of my points then why even bother talking about them?



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

You're dying for my responses aren't you? But I can't help you here, I provided many pages to answer that question and we're discussing something else now. I really can't spend much time arguing with a person who can't understand the simple fact that "tommorow" doesn't exist right now. It can only exist as a concept.
Illusions are experienced as real, so in some sense it is real.
edit on 25-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Because the illusion is a real illusion? Lol!!!!!! So logical!!!!!!! Of course you could if you would want to it is just not the topic? Talking about cop outs....

No you're right i was just stating that for three pages and she didn't get it, but we already established your comprehending skills aren't the best, so i forgive you.

edit on 25-11-2015 by Peeple because: Add

Answer to your edit, so you say reality as a whole is an illusion? Created by...?
edit on 25-11-2015 by Peeple because: Add



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

It is interpreted by the brain based on science. So I guess it's created by the brain.
edit on 25-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
You see how this can be a cop out? First you try to discuss the content but then you revert back to the "it depends on the person who is considering it".

Sure, so what? The thread is 56 pages long.

Besides, they are not mutually exclusive. How am I going to point out that your claim might not be seen as proof without mentioning it and the parts that someone might have trouble with?


I can't possibly discuss the validity of my arguments if that is not your motive.

Good, you are finally seeing that.


You were saying DE was something I experienced and it was no big deal. I told you many times that is not what was meant. Having a DE experience is nothing much, everyone has them. But seeing through the illusion of self clearly and consciously; now that has implications which stick.

And I said who cares what you "say" about it. What can you prove?


But seeing you're not hear to discuss the validity of my points then why even bother talking about them?

I'm defying ignorance.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

That's not the same as saying it is an illusion. But true, hey
for you.
So the brain creates an interpretation of the information it gets fed by our senses, right?

Oh you edited again so we can move to the next question: would you say your emotions are before the interpretation or after? And do they cause a reaction, or are they the effect of a reaction?
edit on 25-11-2015 by Peeple because: Add



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




And I said who cares what you "say" about it. What can you prove?

I already said I can't prove it for you, and I can only point and maybe you will use it to see for yourself. I can only prove it myself, how many times have I said this?



How am I going to point out that your claim might not be seen as proof without mentioning it and the parts that someone might have trouble with?

I highly doubt someone benefited from this discussion.



I'm defying ignorance.

You're a true ATS member, way to go. All your doing is telling me that you can't prove what you know to other people unless they see it as proof for themselves. You haven't even discussed the validity of my points consistently.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

That's a slightly different topic but I'll still tell you what I think. Interpretation causes an emotional reaction. So interpretation then emotion. But then again emotions can cause interpretation to happen differently so they effect each other. These are just my two cents, I haven't really delved to much into this.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
I already said I can't prove it for you, and I can only point and maybe you will use it to see for yourself. I can only prove it myself, how many times have I said this?

Which contradicts why you are still arguing the point.


I highly doubt someone benefited from this discussion.

No reason why someone might not stumble onto it and get something out of it.


You're a true ATS member, way to go. All your doing is telling me that you can't prove what you know to other people unless they see it as proof for themselves. You haven't even discussed the validity of my points consistently.

Actually I did point out a lot of problems in your arguments. Circular logic, red herrings and arguments from ignorance at different points in the thread.
edit on 25-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: Peeple

That's a slightly different topic but I'll still tell you what I think. Interpretation causes an emotional reaction. So interpretation then emotion. But then again emotions can cause interpretation to happen differently so they effect each other. These are just my two cents, I haven't really delved to much into this.

But you try to convince others your interpretation of free will is the only right one? Maybe you should delve a little deeper than, huh?
Because one can also have conflicting emotions, what would you say about that?
Or reason and emotions in conflict with each other before you decide, how do you think that could ever be solved if no one is in control?



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Actually I did point out a lot of problems in your arguments. Circular logic, red herrings and arguments from ignorance at different points in the thread.

You will always find those problems and inconsistencies in an argument. But those examples you gave were mostly used as excuses to miss my points.

I remember somewhere back you accused me of making unjustified new age claims. You said it was like me saying, energy cannot be created or destroyed but using that like to make my metaphysical arguments make sense. That was unjustified from you, because it was just a blind opinion based on no justification. You said that because it sounded that way to you.
Since that was you claim, then you need to prove where I made the unjustified claims and prove how I could have used it as an excuse.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

I actually agreed with your version of free will. You can chose to change, to think critically when you find it necessary. But that motive HAS to have some influence behind it. And that influence stretches all the way to atoms and subatomic particles.
I try to be a nice boy, but only because my brain is wired that way. There was no freedom in that.

So it's cause and effect is a universal rule. It is how the universe is governed. It's about you seeing my definition of free will because we got them mixed up.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
But those examples you gave were mostly used as excuses to miss my points.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Others who reads the thread might not see it that way.


I remember somewhere back you accused me of making unjustified new age claims. You said it was like me saying, energy cannot be created or destroyed but using that like to make my metaphysical arguments make sense. That was unjustified from you, because it was just a blind opinion based on no justification. You said that because it sounded that way to you.
Since that was you claim, then you need to prove where I made the unjustified claims and prove how I could have used it as an excuse.

That was when I said that your argument was pseudoscience. If you don't understand what that means then you will continue to miss it.

I don't need to prove anything when it is in plain sight and even less when you agreed that it was only members of the scientific community which shared your opinion and that science has not accepted the theory as law.
edit on 25-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
25
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join