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.

 

A Video Explaination on how Many Atheists Here on ATS View Religion

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Ghost147

Say what you like, but you cannot tell me I have not experienced directly what I have.

Are you saying I should deny a very real experience?


How do you know you weren't hallucinating?

Did you take any steps to find out?




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
YES, but, why are you searching for religion outside of yourself??


I'm not searching for religion. I am staunchly apposed to religions.


originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
Search within and be your OWN scientist!


I have performed several scientific experiments myself.


originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
You can conjuring new experiments from experiences during meditation and learn the truth about who YOU are!
With full respect to all the Gods, but don't mind them and focus on yourself and meditate.


That is not a valid way to confirm anything. There is no objective elements to that experiment, therefor nothing to confirm what I experience is anything but in my own mind.


originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
If you would inspect yourself to the utmost abstract point imaginable. You would have a bit of a feel of who you really are. And next step is to try to experiance "it" -> your true SELF.


Again, answers nothing as there is no external factors that can confirm my experience.


originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
who am I?

by knowing that you will know the forest!


I am human, I am an animal, The reality I experience is only a product of a highly fragile, Highly influenced neurological network that is subject to extreme failure. That is why subjective observation is an invalid source in making any sort of conclusions upon reality.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: NthOther
Predictably, the video fails to address the role of direct spiritual experience in the confirmation of one's faith, portraying believers as simpletons believing what they do as mere products of their cultural environment.

As if what actually happens in life doesn't matter--it's all about what people have told you.

That is a ridiculous claim.


the part i always have a hard time understanding isnt how someone can believe in a god, but how someone can believe in only one. if one is real, then they all become possible.


I really depends on the definition of god. If one being can be omniscient by being connected to everything then I agree why cannot more spirits?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
It really depends on the definition of god.


This is the problem with all of this. You need to come up with a definition of god you like, and then search for the evidence to support your definition, instead of discovering evidence and then forming a definition based off of that evidence.

If no one can agree to a single definition of a god, then logic states that all definitions are made up.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

well you obviously are underestimating your SELF in my opinion.

You are all that, and much more in my opinion.

In meditation you don't focus on any sense, not even your mind. But I understand that is probably hard for someone who uses the mind all the time to grasp such concept...maybe...you could try it, if you are curious, you know.

It just takes patience and practice and learning.

I mean...look you could find out something amazing about yourself. Just think about it for a bit. If you would be totally open up about it, without any ideas from your past experiences and be empty, like a baby - I already mentioned this in first post...that was a hint and some know exactly what is the point...probably : )

I don't claim I know all the truth.

I just know what I am not.

I am NOT just an animal, a human, etc etc...

that is one of meditative techniques even for some...

Self inquiry!

And what happens in silence is a secret between you and your Self.

: )

Also, Yes I am intentionally writing in such wired manner. Maybe it will trigger some wired flow of thoughts within you sometime in the future. This is like planting seeds in a way... : )

Life is about learning isn't it? Why don't you wanna learn about your Self?
Are you only the senses?
really?

I know I am not that also btw : )

and look, in deep meditation you would laugh at that idea also, if you would open yourself to that possibility and if you want to learn and train your mind to that point. Practice and patience. Very important. Analytical mind also. Must be grounded and not delude yourself in fantasies.

Also I am NOT magic or visions.

so...who am I ?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Ghost147

Say what you like, but you cannot tell me I have not experienced directly what I have.

Are you saying I should deny a very real experience?


How do you know you weren't hallucinating?

Did you take any steps to find out?


What is an hallucination and how is it created?
How do you change the dial/recalibrate the third eye?
Even if the experience is subjective how do you not know there is something real behind it creating the experience?



I once was in the state between awake and sleeping where you can see what happens in the room around you but at the same time can hear 3rd eye auditory transmissions. Hearing a thing on the internal speakers without it coming thru the ears. One of those moments when everything you think you know changes.

Do you consider energy awareness a hallucination or an ability? Some doctors would consider it a hallucination since they do not like the existence of things they do not want to understand.

Disregarding something with the word hallucination is the easy way and ignorant way that does not seek to answer the unknown.

The real scientific approach would be to do as much measurement as possible on what is happening to the body so that you can figure out as much how the experience is processed by the body. Maybe learn how to calibrate the third eye back in those souls who experience suffering. And make test with those souls who are not afraid of testing what they find with different calibrations.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
What is an hallucination


A sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
Dictionary.com


and how is it created?

Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive, so you'll have to be more specific, as the onset from sensory to sensory can differ.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
How do you change the dial/recalibrate the third eye?


What?


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Even if the experience is subjective how do you not know there is something real behind it creating the experience?


You don't, that's our point. There is nothing else evaluating the event to give credit to the events validity.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
well you obviously are underestimating your SELF in my opinion.


How? I never said that my 'self' cant be anything more. You asked me to ask myself "Who am I", I provided the answer to my current knowledge.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
You are all that, and much more in my opinion.


Opinions mean very little when trying to prove a point. If there is no evidence to suggest that I am 'All that and more' then there's nothing to convince me otherwise, nor is there anything compelling me to spend time doing what you suggest when you haven't presented any sort of evidence that implies any validity of what you suggest is even in existence.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Also, Yes I am intentionally writing in such wired manner. Maybe it will trigger some wired flow of thoughts within you sometime in the future. This is like planting seeds in a way... : )


I assure you my mind isn't so easily swayed. If you want to convince me, evidence does such a thing.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Life is about learning isn't it? Why don't you wanna learn about your Self?


You haven't given me any information as to the validity behind your claims, so why would I even bother spending time doing what a random person on the internet is telling me to do?


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Are you only the senses?
really?


The way I interact with reality is exclusively through the senses, yes.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Also I am NOT magic or visions.

so...who am I ?


For all I know you're some loony on the internet. Presenting evidence would suggest otherwise.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I am happy that some people choose to push the boundaries instead and learn something instead of ignoring the unexplained by saying an event is not valid of exploration if it is hard to explore it.

Your way of ignoring leads to stagnation and blindness instead of increased knowledge and awareness. And it is also very bad science.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

That is not a valid way to confirm anything. There is no objective elements to that experiment, therefor nothing to confirm what I experience is anything but in my own mind.

What about when billions of other people have had similar experiences?

At what point does it become objective? Is there a critical mass of accumulated experience that will ever satisfy your conditions for evidence?

You cite the multiplicity of religion as evidence of its falsehood. I see it as evidence of a deeper reality than can be experienced by anyone. Glass half-full, I suppose.

That's me, the eternal optimist.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: Ghost147

I am happy that some people choose to push the boundaries instead and learn something instead of ignoring the unexplained by saying an event is not valid of exploration if it is hard to explore it.


Hard to explore, and inaccurate exploration are two entirely different things.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Your way of ignoring leads to stagnation and blindness instead of increased knowledge and awareness. And it is also very bad science.


The only thing I'm ignoring is an inaccurate way to observe what is really being tested. Subjective observation doesn't allow that.

If you could objectively observe any topic, I am all for that. Your assessment of my stance is misguided.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
What about when billions of other people have had similar experiences?


Neurology explains that (at least, in this case). We can actually induce religious experiences by activating specific parts of the brain, and we understand how religion came to be throughout human evolution. Both of which have nothing to do with an actual god.

Of course, your question could equally be put against your side, because every religious experience that isn't of your religion goes against the validity of your religion, according to your logic.

It doesn't matter how many people populate a specific position, population does not equal validity.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
At what point does it become objective? Is there a critical mass of accumulated experience that will ever satisfy your conditions for evidence?


Yes, one that doesn't rely on subjective observation alone. Just because a bunch of subjectively observed events took place at separate times in separate locations and in separate environments does not suddenly make it objective.

If you can repeat an event, if you can evaluate what is causing the event and how it functions, and not exclusively through the perception of individuals, that would be objective observation.


originally posted by: LittleByLittle
You cite the multiplicity of religion as evidence of its falsehood. I see it as evidence of a deeper reality than can be experienced by anyone. Glass half-full, I suppose.


I don't believe I actually stated that because we have a number of religions, that makes them false (although I do believe another member did state that).

However, we have a thorough record on how religions evolve, we have evidence that suggests why humans often turn to religion and why it would develop in the first place, we understand and can replicate the induction of a religious experience, and all of that points to perfectly natural, non-supernatural causes.

If you'd like I can actually give you links to all of those studies to show that what I'm saying isn't mere opinion. I would greatly accept the same offering of confirmation from your position, too.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

Neurology explains that (at least, in this case). We can actually induce religious experiences by activating specific parts of the brain, and we understand how religion came to be throughout human evolution. Both of which have nothing to do with an actual god.

Inducing a religious experience would assume that "religious experience" has been defined and quantified, no?

Or did they just zap people's brains and ask, "Ok, do you feel spiritual now?"



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
What about when billions of other people have had similar experiences?

At what point does it become objective? Is there a critical mass of accumulated experience that will ever satisfy your conditions for evidence?


When it can be reproduced with an experiment that can be duplicated every time it is attempted. Personal experiences are NEVER objective, no matter how many people witnessed it.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

When it can be reproduced with an experiment that can be duplicated every time it is attempted. Personal experiences are NEVER objective, no matter how many people witnessed it.

And what if that can never happen due to the nature of the experience?

We're all crazy? Is that what this all really boils down to?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

When it can be reproduced with an experiment that can be duplicated every time it is attempted. Personal experiences are NEVER objective, no matter how many people witnessed it.

And what if that can never happen due to the nature of the experience?

We're all crazy? Is that what this all really boils down to?


Then it remains a mystery then. Nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." It's much more honest than making # up and pretending like you do know, like religion does.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




I stumbled upon this very well written and visualized explanation on how many atheists view religion, and I feel it is necessary to spread the expression for educational purposes. The concept within the short video goes beyond religion, but any personally held belief or truth. We could very well expand this analysis to general thought itself.


No, there is no such thing as "general thought itself", Gost147. There is only thought....as such. There are only good and elaborate arguments or mere agendas, egos, who pose as something like being well thought.

Opposing any kind of religion, as some sort of atheist, is not a sign of intelligence. And you can be sure I read a lot of what you posted on ATS during the last two years.

Here is what I have to say, regarding your stance: There are no atheists, acutally. There are only those who think they are. Anti-theists are more into what I'm driving at, because they do know, mostly by having had painfull experiences with fake religions, what spiritual crap is all about. And they deny it properly, if they have the skills to do so.

"God loves atheists most." Although there is no god. Okay? Know what I'm driving at?

And no, I don't deal in paradoxical messages, because once a wise dude said, "the paradox is the last spark of a rotten mind."




edit on 24-2-2016 by Willingly because: typo



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Ghost147

Neurology explains that (at least, in this case). We can actually induce religious experiences by activating specific parts of the brain, and we understand how religion came to be throughout human evolution. Both of which have nothing to do with an actual god.

Inducing a religious experience would assume that "religious experience" has been defined and quantified, no?

Or did they just zap people's brains and ask, "Ok, do you feel spiritual now?"


There are chemicals known to induce a state one might describe as spiritual. Our brains produce some of them naturally.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

...one might describe as spiritual.

Sounds pretty subjective to me, scientist.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: TzarChasm

...one might describe as spiritual.

Sounds pretty subjective to me, scientist.


How is inducing a neurological response in another person, monitoring their brain activity and pinpointing chemical reactions a subjective observation exactly?




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join