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.

 

New Agers Vs. Skeptics: The Great Divide

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   



as for what makes me say its a bunch of crap its that hippies and new agers arent very creadible look at their history since the 60s there actions speak for themselves and tinkleflower i know your not a hippie supporter your just being inquistive and asking questions to fill up forums.

tinkleflower this is not the first time youve asked me to be more specific on my point of view or my assumption.


[edit on 14-7-2005 by healthyhitter]


Yeah, I know. I'm kind of like a nagging, inquisitive pupil...sorry
(This is also why I so often ask for clarification - it's essential to understanding someone else's point of view, don't you think? Ambiguity isn't good for comprehension...)

Anyway...back to the topic.

I probably do fall into several new age, or hippy categories. I make no apologies for that; it's just who I am. I've read, or experienced, myriad different "alternate" lifestyle flavours; some aspects I kept with me, and some I discarded (just as any discerning student should!).

Now don't get me wrong - many people absolutely do "try on" various religious or cultural practices, and end up missing the point of them completely; but by the same token, many don't miss the point at all, and if nothing else, learn valuable lessons from their experiences.

Which actions are speaking from themselves? And can we not ignore the other "subgroups" of society who've also had substance abuse issues? (in other words - virtually every subgroup. Hippies/new-agers are not alone in this problem...it's a human problem, not a hippy problem).

(I'm also not seeing where credibility comes into play - is a person who has lived a 'hippyish', new-age lifestyle since the 60s, and now teaches at a university, any less credible than his more straight-laced, conservative counterpart?)




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   


probably do fall into several new age, or hippy categories. I make no apologies for that; it's just who I am. I've read, or experienced, myriad different "alternate" lifestyle flavours; some aspects I kept with me, and some I discarded (just as any discerning student should!).Which actions are speaking from themselves? And can we not ignore the other "subgroups" of society who've also had substance abuse issues? (in other words - virtually every subgroup. Hippies/new-agers are not alone in this problem...it's a human problem, not a hippy problem).


really i never really thoguht of you that way from your posts but i can understand your trying new ways of life but discarding away with the ones that you dont like that seems more like your acting like yourself.

I was watching a show about ghosts and they went to this clearing were in the 60s hippies mutatlated eachother for their cultish beleifs which resulted in some deaths which may have resulted in ghost.

When yous say sub group you mean minority right? Im targeting hippies for their history of substance abuse as a minority because that particular minoirty is relevant to this forum and i will point out aspects of this minority.

Yah ive heard of hippies from the 60s today in a very high social,political or high occupation position today but you will find they have given up the hippie fad for a life style that is considered normal among majorities not minorities.
Hippies protested as a minority but a country that satisfies a minority is not doing its job it should be satisfing majorities and that job for a government is never done which also brings up gay rights and they are a minority they should not be able to marry. but htey are not relevant to this topic so i w ill not disucss them on this particular forum.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Tinkleflower, have you read the book? I am 99% sure you have not, and therefore your conclusion that its wrong is meaningless. I lived there, there is a large Satan worshipping community, to this day. The things she said happened when she was five were corroborated and affadavits sworn to that effect by professionals, a doctor, a dentist, and they found confirmation of a death she witnessed by searching newspaper archives.
That is a lot of substance, saying she didn't really experience what she says she did, with zero study, means zero. imho



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Tinkleflower, have you read the book? I am 99% sure you have not, and therefore your conclusion that its wrong is meaningless. I lived there, there is a large Satan worshipping community, to this day. The things she said happened when she was five were corroborated and affadavits sworn to that effect by professionals, a doctor, a dentist, and they found confirmation of a death she witnessed by searching newspaper archives.
That is a lot of substance, saying she didn't really experience what she says she did, with zero study, means zero. imho


LOL actually, yes, I did read the darn book.

Please, do offer something with substance - even the "anecdotes" you mentioned have been largely accepted as bunk; did you actually read any of the transcripts, etc? The links I posted earlier?

I have no doubt that the victim probably believed it herself - but since there appears to be more evidence supporting the "no Satanic abuse" theory than other, I have no option but to assign it as "hoax".

Where's your proof again?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I was wrong in my bet that you did not read the book, and I gave the statements by the medical professionals quoted in the back a little more credibility. And, I lived there 13 years, met Satanists, who by the way were very anti-Wiccan. My Wiccan friends were not treated well at all by them. Satanism is real, Satan is not, in my opinion, but since I do feel that there is a spiritual aspect to reality, I can believe that she is not making it up, lying, or delusional. I have been called a chump all my life because I believe the things that good people swear to me they saw, and because I have seen so many odd things myself. It is not pleasant being scoffed at, chuckled about, called a chump. When I hear a story like hers, I have to wonder, why would she want the abuse that is obviously coming? I sure don't, it sucks. Why would anyone? I know some do, but some don't. I am with them. I dislike being sneered at, and only share my stories because they are so amazing to me, knowing full well that 99 % of the time the reaction will be rolling eyes, a chuckle, and a sideways look that says 'This guy is not all there."
And I still continue to say it. It is cuz their ridicule and insulting accusations of imbecility or dishonesty are not my problem, and I don't believe them. And the price is not too great in my mind, for that 1% who say......ME TOO!!
I'd die if not for them. Literally.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Well, an attention seeker generally doesn't care what kind of attention s/he receives....negative is better than none at all, you know? Michelle received the kind of attention that you can't buy...and that's often the only requirement for the situation.

Again, I have no doubt that Michelle believes her own story - but that doesn't mean there's any truth to the story. Not least when we have so much evidence pointing to the other possibility.

I know Satanism is real. I've never disputed that, anywhere; on the contrary. But the existance of Satanism again doesn't prove that there are any real, legitimate cases of Satanic ritual abuse.

Do you recall anything about the McMartin trials? That was a truly horrifying situation - because it ruined the lives of several completely innocent people.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I also believe I have seen some things. But my belief is that I did see them, of course. So, I am not so quick to doubt others, and trust me negative attention is not better than no attention. Whoever said that didn't have to face it their whole life. It sucks. I bet positive attention even sucks after a while, like the Beatles, you become a prisoner. Maybe Michelle made it up, I don't know. I just know other people who I trust, who are sane, who I believe, and they believe me, and it is refreshing when someone does so. I agree that some people crave infamy. But that does not mean all do. Some people really really wish that people would stop calling them a chump or a liar. Honest.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   


I have no doubt that the victim probably believed it herself - but since there appears to be more evidence supporting the "no Satanic abuse" theory than other, I have no option but to assign it as "hoax".


You are quite right. The only 'evidence' of all this comes from recovered memories there is no objective truth to it. While I think recovered memories do have a useful aspect they are most often tainted with the beliefs of the people doing the investigating. To do this sort of investigation requires a degree of precision that humans almost never achieve. Even the slightest mistake can lead the subject down a path that is complete illusion.


In reference to the original post on this Thread.

This just shows what happens when people take in anything that comes their way without thinking clearly. A Wiccan who is attempting to channel Satan? Wiccans do not believe in Satan, and moreover they understand exactly what the poster realized, there is no Satan, evil comes from human actions. The greatest fault of most mainstream religions is that they move the source of good and evil outside oneself. This means that we do not give ourselves proper credit when we do something selfless or helpful, and we do not take responsibility when we act wrong or hurtful.

What we have here is an excellent example of what happens when we blindly accept anything. Each new idea must be examined within the context of what we already know. There should be a consistancy, things should fit together.

Religions of the past were told to people who lacked the ability to understand some of the most basic of scientific facts. They needed something to explain their place in the Universe, and religion was the only answer available. Today things are different in many ways, but the need for answers remains. Science is a wonderful tool and has given us many of the answers we seek but it also ackowledges that for every answer there are 10 new questions. It does not have an end point and humans want things wrapped up TODAY, because we have to live and act in this World today.

The New Age movements (note the 'movements' there is no unifying religion here but rather a number of divergent paths) are a transition stage from old beliefs to what will eventually emerge. It is so easy to get caught up in all of it and not realize that one must carefully pick and choose those elements which have meaning. It is not necessary to show any sort of proof that what is written in a book is valid, the only test required is 'will it sell'. Now more than ever before we must all look very carefully at everything if we are to avoid incorporating false and even dangerous ideas into our own personal belief structure.

It is wrong to reject all notions of spirituality, to say there is nothing beyond that which Science can verify. To do so is to ignore a fundamental need in ourselves that has long found it's expression through forms of religion. But it is just as wrong to accept everything. Each of us is unique, and so our needs are unique as well. But we live in a collective Society where as much as some of us would like to deny it, our actions have consequences for those around us.

For myself I have never rejected Science, I simply keep it in it's proper place. It can tell me how we may accomplish something but it cannot tell me what is not possible. I wish to study those things which remain outside of our current knowledge, to explore the frontier. To do so I have had to dig into mystic thought and what we call the occult. There is nothing evil here, but it is challenging and requires care. I am not that old (43) but even in that short time I have seen many things go from 'Mystic nonsense' to 'established fact' and I know this trend will continue.

There is something exciting about this, and along the way I have found peace within myself. I am as moral as any Christian, more so that most because I actually live the words I say, every day, every moment. I am not perfect and I am well aware of this, but I am content that my actions help others. I do not charge for my services in this area, and I do not attempt to gain students, they simply show up and ask me to help.

So in the end I urge anyone who is going down the path of the originator of this Thread to step back and look at what they believe.


A.T
(-)



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
High time we got a spiritless, heartless, atheist skepic in here, and here I am.

People look for methods to vent their insecurity of the world, be in some topic like science, or religion, or magic. Everyone is dumping their trust into a topic. Whether it is correct or not does not matter, and thus no matter what you say, that person will not stop trusting it, because you would be ripping a mental support out from under them.

I personally dont let any paranormal stuff fly when Im around, and mostly because it doesnt seem to have any validity in the world. Im probably "somewhat depressing", but the world seems like a very physical place, and moreso, as someone else mentioned, the "Im special, more special than you." attitude doesnt help.

This is just like any other spectrum of people, political, for example, you have the hardcore skeptics (Me included) on the far left, and the highly religious or supersitious on the far right. This doesnt mean each person agrees with the topic at hand, but their general attitude toward life in general. Thus most people are in the middle somewhere.

As im sure you all know, it is virtually impossible to change someones entire mindset on life, and thus arguing either way is as pointless as... well.... politics.......

Science has its own cult following without a doubt. As does magic and religion. They always have, and things evolve over time into strange, new mindsets. Every human needs some type of mental support, and whether that lies in God, or magic, or technology, or your own reasoning, is required to function.

It is also always funny to stand back and watch two from far opposite sides of the spectrum go at it, one for tech, and one for magic, and just verbally bash it out, better than most movies these days.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
'As im sure you all know, it is virtually impossible to change someones entire mindset on life, and thus arguing either way is as pointless as... well.... politics....... ' Raideur
Well, I would only change one thing about that point, and that would be to change virtually to totally. It is my personal view that the only mindset that I can change is my own, and that the attempt to achieve the changing of anyone else's is not only futile but almost always causes more harm than help. If someone differs on any topic, and tries to 'prove' that the only correct view is their own, in order to convince others to convert, they are far more likely to create animosity and division than agreement. It is my practice to state what I feel is true to me, and then listen to what another person's view is. That is all I do, share my view. If it is a factor that plays a part in another person's future choice of what they believe, or if it is not, is not my business. I cannot make their choices for them, as they cannot force me to think the same as them. It is a similar concept to the idea that anger, depression, sorrow, and joy are not things that others 'make' us, ie: he makes me so angry, etc. No one makes us angry, events occur, and we choose how to react, whether with anger, or joy.
Life is not what happens to us, but how we respond to what happens to us.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
"New Age" came to the forefront in the late 1960s when people were burning draft cards and using mind bending drugs and having psychic experiences that sometimes were hard to debunk. It contues today but maybe a bit more laid back than at first.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
"New Age" came to the forefront in the late 1960s when people were burning draft cards and using mind bending drugs and having psychic experiences that sometimes were hard to debunk. It contues today but maybe a bit more laid back than at first.


People have been using psychoactive drugs for many, many hundreds of years....if not for millenia.

The 60s were simply a "new baby" in the grand scheme of such things.

Ever checked out certain forms of Shamanistic techniques?

Eliade's Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy is a remarkable text on the subject.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join