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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What will it take to change your mind?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Maths has given you everything that makes your life enjoyable. Everything that allows you to live past the age of 30. Everything that allows you to go anywhere you want to on the planet.

People, places and things aren't what 'fulfill' us. Unless we're so hopelessly addicted to materialism and vanity that is.
Math has given us war, pollution and poverty, too.

We're choking on the effluent runoff from our "civilization".



What has spirituality and religion given us?

Two different things. Organized religion has given the world war, death and misery times illusion, cubed.

You are spirit, not this husk.




posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Again. I'm not getting into a theoretical discussion with you about hypercubes. It is off topic. I'm not going to listen to Sagan because I don't care about this topic in the context of this thread. It is irrelevant to the discussion.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014


No it f*ing isnt. Stop making the goal posts so wide that you don't have to prove anything at all.

I would say, stop pretending your belief isn't, but I'm not close minded like you. So I am willing to hear any proof you have that there is no spirit. Any, at all....



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Again. I'm not getting into a theoretical discussion with you about hypercubes. It is off topic.

Math 'models' are theoretical, too.

The forth dimension is not off topic. It is a scientific way of beginning to explore the concept of another realm we can't see. Math includes it for good reason. In the logical progression of things, It cant be denied. Space, point, line, plain, cube, hypercube...

So be mathematic but don't theorize, don't explore... lol.

Choosing to remain ignorant is your prerogative. I'll plant a little suggestion against that locked door in your mind...

Even you from time to time question if there is anything more, is my understanding complete? From now on whenever you ask that question the discourse on dimensions video by Carl Sagan will pop into your head.



edit on 31-8-2016 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014


That, in no way whatsoever is a miracle

Actually, it is within the definition as used in Littlewood' law: " a person can expect to experience an event with odds of one in a million (defined by the law as a "miracle") at the rate of about one per month." (35 days)

Some people notice one in a million events, some don't.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'm not choosing to remain ignorant. You confuse me not caring about talking about this topic currently with not caring about educating yourself. Nope. When I deem to educate myself further on hypercubes, I will, maybe in a thread specifically talking about them. I just don't feel like talking about them now. I'm sorry that gets your panties in a bunch, but too bad.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 3danimator2014


No it f*ing isnt. Stop making the goal posts so wide that you don't have to prove anything at all.

I would say, stop pretending your belief isn't, but I'm not close minded like you. So I am willing to hear any proof you have that there is no spirit. Any, at all....


How could i ever prove that something like that doesnt exist? Could you prove to me that osmium pooping fairies dont exist.

This is BASIC stuff mate. Really basic



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Maths has given you everything that makes your life enjoyable. Everything that allows you to live past the age of 30. Everything that allows you to go anywhere you want to on the planet.

People, places and things aren't what 'fulfill' us. Unless we're so hopelessly addicted to materialism and vanity that is.
Math has given us war, pollution and poverty, too.

We're choking on the effluent runoff from our "civilization".



What has spirituality and religion given us?

Two different things. Organized religion has given the world war, death and misery times illusion, cubed.

You are spirit, not this husk.


I never said these things were. And yet, you, we, all use them every dingle day of our lives. And they help us live long and fruitfull lives. So, to deny that they are important or a good thing (mostly) is silly.

And i see that you are one of these guys who pretend to hate what man has become, you hate the tech and what it means for earth and humans...but you wont be the first to give up your phone and computer etc...Stop buying medicine, ANY medicine. Dont ever watch a film or TV again. Dont you know the awful scenarios with which the Tantalum ore (Coltan) is mined..thats needed for every electronic device.

You dont want to be a MASSIVE hypocrite, right?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



What do you mean if you told him ahead of time? If I told the guy a week before I put him in the machine that I'm going to advance the world 100 years, then put him in the machine and that would make me Allah once he got out? That doesn't make sense. That sounds more like a lie to dupe that guy to me.

For the sake of argument, let's say I don't believe in a creator god (a sentient invisible being who can make something out of nothing). Let us then pretend that I am an astronomer. I have star charts going back 100 years and forward projected star charts for the next 100 years. I know exactly what the night sky will look like in 100 years.

One day, my laptop has a click here button displayed for no particular reason. I click it. "I am the creator. Tomorrow I will advance the universe 100 years, leaving the Earth itself unchanged, a sort of stasis bubble during the 100 year advancement."

The next day, based upon observation of the star alignments, 100 years has passed, in astronomical time. This is also quite evident to all astronomers in the World. They all know that for some unexplained reason, 100 years has passed, or perhaps the Solar system has moved instantly to the place it would be 100 years later, except the planets are also in relative position of a 100 year advance.

So, I click the click here button again and see The Newest Testament of the Creator.

If this highly unlikely event occurred, I would be inclined to change my belief to "There is a creator god".

If, on the other hand, this event occurred with no pre-warning and no Newest Testament, yet all astronomers were aware of the event, and it was published, and speculated upon, and the subject of TV talk shows for two weeks, and then some prominent theologian found the Newest Testament on his laptop, I would be skeptical of any direct relation between the event and the Newest Testament.

I hope that clarifies it a bit.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena
That still doesn't completely help. What if this entity was just an alien being (or whole race) from another planet that was screwing with us? If it is possible to rapidly advance time for a single person in the universe, then it should only be an application of expansion of resources to do it for a whole planet (especially one where the dominant race is land locked onto it). And given the size of the universe, there should be plenty of resources to do that.

Now if, in your example, we were talking about REVERSING time, then that would be a bit more impressive. It is a bit harder, even theoretically to reverse time and it may not even be physically possible using the rules of physics. So if an entity could demonstrate the ability to reverse time, I'd be a bit more open to believing them.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


What if this entity was just an alien being (or whole race) from another planet that was screwing with us?

I guess I would have totally fallen for it.

Goes to show that some people have different thresholds of credibility. But then, we kind of expected that intuitively. Maybe I should check to see if there are Psychology journals discussing tests of credulity.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Always remember. The higher your standards of evidence, the better your chances of finding the real truth, and one must ALWAYS have an idea of skepticism. No matter how sure you are you are correct, you should never be 100% confident of yourself.

Agnosticism is really the most common sense approach to belief. This way you don't worry about succumbing to too many biases that could inhibit your willingness to accept new information.

So with these two paragraphs being said, even if god tried this experiment like we've been talking about, I'd still have an air of skepticism about it. Because I cannot see directly into god's head to see what god is thinking. Therefore I can never know if god is ever lying to me without first doing my own research. If god can defy physics, the research I can do may be limited so I doubt I'd ever have 100% confidence in gods existence. At least until I died and met him in the afterlife.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



No matter how sure you are you are correct, you should never be 100% confident of yourself.

It does indeed appear that self perception does influence credibility threshold.


Source Credibility Effects: a Test of Behavioral Persistence
ABSTRACT - The effect of source credibility on behavioral persistence is tested in an experimental setting The results support the behavioral hypothesis based on self-perception theory the moderately credible source is found to facilitate greater behavioral persistence than a more credible source
...
Furthermore, when researchers have focused on behavioral change and not only on attitudes, less credible sources have been found to be more effective than higher credibility sources (Dholakia and Sternthal 1977; Hill, Smith, and Mann 1986; Tybout 1978; Powell 1965; except Brock 1965) If one's behavior is available as a cue, it appears that attitude change is greater among those exposed to a less credible source (Dholakia and Sternthal 1977; Tybout 1978) If the behavioral manipulation was perceived to be a choice situation, then it was observed that the less credible source was more persuasive when compliance was perceived to be voluntary (Eagley and Chaiken 1975; Himmelfarb and Arazi 1974; Jones and Brehm 1967)

It appears from a review of the experimental literature that the use of source credibility for persuasion must consider the situational context and rely on different models to explain the outcomes (Sternthal, Phillips, and Dholakia 1978) Specifically, cognitive response analysis (Greenwald 1968) may be employed to predict that highly credible sources will be more persuasive than low credibility sources when only the source and communication- related cues are available On the other hand, when an individual's own behavior is also available as a cue, then self-perception theory (Bem 1972) can be employed to predict that low credibility sources will be more persuasive than highly credible ones

It looks like when dealing with straight education scenarios higher credible sources counts more than less credible, whereas if behavior modification is the intent, and when it's a choose this or this, then less credible sources are more effective. From Association for Consumer Research.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

That's what I mean, biases seriously inhibit people's ability to accept new information. So if you default to an idea of disbelief then it is easier to build up the right answer. Though if that answer you build up turns out to be wrong, it can be hard to change your thinking. Even scientists suffer from confirmation biases and failure to adapt to new information. Egos are hard to overcome for everyone. We, humans, don't like being wrong.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

The controllers make everything so necessary, theres less and less choice about it. Difference is I don't revel in the technocracy, I don't marvel at it. I don't 'believe in it' the way proponents do. You see marvelous technology I see industrial pollution. You see fantastic inventions, I see factories for war.

Akin to worship, the marvels of man, the genius, all the while denying the waste, the misery and death from war, poverty and disease.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


When I deem to educate myself further on hypercubes, I will, maybe in a thread specifically talking about them. I just don't feel like talking about them now.

You did ask for proof? But i have to remember in your eyes, theres no proof. You have to cut off attempts to show you anything because that would conflict with your biases.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
Once upon a time, circa 1991, a woman was in a coma, living will stating, "no measures to extend life", so call it terminal coma. A guy, who had only met her once before, about 1 1/2 years before, went to visit her in a convalescent facility, with two other people.

The nurses on duty indicated that it wouldn't do much good to visit her since she was comatose. They left the nurses and went to the woman's room. The guy said her name, she sat up and said, "I know you." After 15 minutes or so chatting, the three people left the room.

At the nurses station, one nurse said, "I told you it wouldn't help."

The guy said, "Sure it did. We had a nice chat." To which, the nurses raced toward the woman's room while the three visitors left the building. Official reports of the woman's death two days later stated that she had never regained consciousness during the whole time of her coma.

One of the witnesses thought that the event was a miracle. The other witness, though stating having clearly seen the woman sit up, didn't think anything was special or remarkable about it.

So, although I personally may consider that a miraculous event, the witnesses are divided. And no other objective evidence is available except maybe enhanced interrogation of nurses, which I don't endorse. The point is that it proves nothing anyway. Maybe the guy had the right tone of voice. Doesn't prove that his worldview is more correct than another's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Highly unlikely? Yeah. Miracle... errr, I think not. For me a miracle has to be something more than an unlikely event. It has to be something beyond conventional explanation. If the other witness alone found nothing extraordinary about what happened, I mean, I wouldn't be able to consider it a miraculous event whilst shedding all doubt. My question to you would be whether you believe it was a miracle so strongly that nothing can sway your view? Although, the fact you said you only "may" consider it a miracle tells me you have some semblance of doubt, which is totally rational. On the other hand, the people who would believe it was a miracle wholeheartedly and refuse any contrary explanation whatsoever...


originally posted by: pthena
It doesn't matter except to the experiencer. It influences the experiencer to view life a little differently. The experiencer is not required to present it as fact or reality. She/he can paint pictures, or write poetry, or fantasy, or dance, or sing, or if all else fails, just smile more.


My main question in the thread is not about proving your beliefs to anyone else though. It's about whether the experiencer/believer is open-minded enough to consider that they may be wrong about what they've experienced/believe, and what it would take to sway their stance. Do you not believe in the value of objective truth? Or do you not believe there is such a thing as objective truth? It's all good and well for someone to go through life BSing themselves believing what they know is absolute fact and nothing and no one can prove them wrong EVER, but is that rational? That's akin to sticking their fingers in their ears and going "na na na na na" when the world may be able to educate them on something they can't be 100% sure about... coz none of us really can be 100% sure about anything, just some people aren't rational enough to admit it.


originally posted by: pthena
Actually, it is within the definition as used in Littlewood' law: " a person can expect to experience an event with odds of one in a million (defined by the law as a "miracle") at the rate of about one per month." (35 days)


By that definition wouldn't it be a miracle every time someone wins the lotto? For me winning the lotto is just a highly unlikely event, nothing miraculous about it. But I suspect we'd be debating semantics at this point.

edit on 31-8-2016 by namine because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2016 by namine because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
As a Christian, I began having significant doubts around the age of seventeen. I already knew a lot of it didn't add up, especially considering the Bible itself. With so many different cultures and beliefs on the planet, how could I know for sure mine was right? I decided I needed to figure it out. Honestly I was a bit nervous at first but I felt that if it was true, God couldn't fault me for questioning it. Long story short, I am now an atheist. Nothing will convince me of the Christian narrative, or the narratives of the other Abrahamic traditions, or those of other religions. They are too broad and varied, with many errors.


Your journey reminds me a lot of my own... it would take something really miraculous to convince me of the Christian narrative., whatever that is...



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: namine


By that definition wouldn't it be a miracle every time someone wins the lotto? For me winning the lotto is just a highly unlikely event, nothing miraculous about it. But I suspect we'd be debating semantics at this point.

After careful consideration, I have concluded that the incident was in fact a miracle, precisely because of what I do not know, nor can I ever know.

We are not discussing lotto. We are discussing life and death. The benefit to a person in being a living participant in her own last rites as opposed to being an inert recipient can not be known to anyone but to herself alone.

I am suspecting that life, however short, is the meaning of life. That in our quest to formulate a rational worldview, we should not forget to live.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 3danimator2014

The controllers make everything so necessary, theres less and less choice about it. Difference is I don't revel in the technocracy, I don't marvel at it. I don't 'believe in it' the way proponents do. You see marvelous technology I see industrial pollution. You see fantastic inventions, I see factories for war.

Akin to worship, the marvels of man, the genius, all the while denying the waste, the misery and death from war, poverty and disease.



Wow, you are so much more enlightened than the rest of us. And not a hypocrite AT ALL.

/sarcasm

So you think it's ok to look down on mans technological feats while at the same time using said feats to make your life more enriched and comfortable. Tell us all what YOU re doing about waste, misery, death, poverty and war?

Do you lead by example or just mouth off on an Internet forum anonymously. Tell us o'enlightened one.
edit on 31-8-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join