Welcome a new ATS member, Cide

page: 516
0
<< 513  514  515    517  518 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
want to c latest technology




posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Lorem Ipsum test test Lorem ipsum



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Ok, so I'm and new member, and this is my introduction.

I haven't a clue what I should really say here or what it's really ok to say.

I'm from the US. I'm Christian, mostly conservative but with some strong environmentalist leanings. I enjoy getting into educated debates about serious subjects, but I abhor personal attacks.

Personal attacks, to damage the credibility of a speaker, are used by people who don't have an honest answer for the speaker but who still vehemently disagree with him/her.

As my name implies, I enjoy getting to the bottom of things and stripping away the hype, spin, and smoke used to create acceptable images for people and issues.

I can speak fairly intelligently on politics, history, military and strategic issues, Islam and Christianity, and a few other things. I've studied the basic CFR/Trilateral Commission/Illuminati conspiracies since I was a child, but I'm rather skeptical of theories about aliens, magical power sources, and so on.

On the other hand, I know something's going on out there (Area 51, etc), but I'm very uncertain if this is really a good place to have serious discussions about that. After all, despite the ATS site name, how much really Top Secret or above stuff has been posted here? Would anyone who had access to it really divulge it on such an insecure forum as this - and so risk going to jail?

Questions that probably no one has an answer to.

Oh, another thing I like to talk about is, "Who gets to define the terms?" of any discussion. After all, there is a saying, "He who gets to define the terms, wins the argument."

For instance, "Terrorism." What does that really mean? Isn't one person's terrorist another person's freedom fighter? I saw one definition recently that I do like: "Terrorism is violence which we don't approve of." So whoever gets to dominate the discussion medium gets to enforce their standard for what that means.

National sovereignty is another thing I like to talk about: What does that really mean, and why is it that only nation states have the right to wage war? Are some nations more equal than others? What happens when one country exercises its right to national sovereignty at the expense of another country's national sovereignty? Does might make right?

Oh, here's a good one: Religious Freedom. Should we continue to have religious freedom if the free exercise of one religion (say, Islam) inevitably results (by doctrine) in the taking away of religious freedom from other groups (Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc)? If the founding fathers of the USA had known about the habits of other religions, such as Islam, would the US still have religious freedom?

Ok. That's probably enough of an introduction, but that's how I think and some of the stuff I'm interested in.
Thanks,
4reality



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
i didnt know this was here!!!! i joined ages ago!!!



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
rainer, Welcome. My bet is that a lot of members would be interested in the inside info on the famous Red Baron. He was respected by his enemies and that ain't easy to do .
skep



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Hi, I'm skep
I have been looking for a URL to post some basics about myself and finally realized that it's done in here. Opps!
I am a retired sporting goods/ firearms Rep. I worked in Human Dynamics in the military and was out of country for about 10 years. I studied religion but only as an adjunct to psychology in an attempt to learn something about us, humans. I am not religious but will discuss any subject with the proviso that I am probably not well informed in most disciplines.
I am impressed by what I've read in here and the international character of the members.
On UFO...they're all over the place since if someone observes a flying object and cannot identify that object it qualifies, for that person, as an unidentified flying object. There seems to be nothing really special about that.
Conspiracy in the organized church, well, the idea, that has developed into what we call religion, may have originally been an honest effort to explain things but appears to have morphed into a grand conspiracy on its own.
My real interest is origins. The origin of almost anything is something I find interesting. I think that knowing the origin of something is the path to understand that thing and consequently the route to knowledge. Oh, I hunt n peck and will make typos which I blame not on my laziness but the fact that I have big fingers and keep hitting more than one key. Delusional? Probably.
skep



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
“J Q”, may I call you JQ?
I liked the example of a tornado making a 747…lol In response to that Probability Theory states just such a possibility, given enough time and tornados, is not only possible but probable. Advanced mathematics can get hairy iffin ya don't know a lot of math.
Re the Big Bang, it may upset religious fundamentalists but it is nevertheless our best explanation yet of the origins of our Universe and if you think about; it’s logical. Just run the movie backwards. The question is not whether Big Bang is valid; it is. The question posed by Super String is whether our Big Bang was a unique event or one in a series of such events. If your religious assumptions require you to refute sound scientific theory, a futile exercise at best, possibly another path is open to you. Why not ask some questions of your religious assumptions and see what answers they can provide to support their claim. That is what science does each time a postulation is elevated to the level of theory and what science does each and every day until the theory is accepted fact or fails one test, just one. At which time the theory is abandoned. Religion could use a bit of this type of searching and honesty. If a religious claim works for you then keep it; enjoy it; don’t embarrass it by making it try to things it can’t do.
skep



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Nice piece on symbols. The reasoning as applied to the basics of how we use symbols appears to be on point. I think the question is not whether symbols are valuable and in long use in human thinking but whether we, as humans, use symbols with honest intention. It is, IMO, this question of honesty and proprietary purpose which most of us question about secret societies in general and the masons in particular.
But that may be…just me. lol
skep



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I can't remember what I wrote but I liked your verbal picture of symbols and found it supportable in logic. Actually, I wrote a piece, some time ago, suggesting that symbols marked on rocks were the first attempt at written language, probably in the middle to lower Paleolithic. I, of course, did not take credit for the idea; I was writing a piece of how our language in the US of A has degredated in the last quarter of the 20th century. Anyway the symbols on rocks thing seems logical. But...who knows for sure?
skep



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
want to c latest technology



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
What we need to do, is not just get on here & blab all night & day on a website, but get out there & start talking about all these topics that keep getting new threads & the old ones too, & get people stirred up.

Sorry, but the New World Order's best defense, is that you won't talk about it, because you might be seen as a crazy person. You know, all those times that you hear "he was a very quiet person, always kept to himself", that's what they're counting on. That you'll bend to peer pressure & shut up, & keep quiet because you might be shunned by society.

Not Me, I tell as many people as I can out in the real World. I'm not seen as crazy either. I pick My words carefully, & I pick the places I tell the stories, & pick the people carefully, & then I open their minds slowly, & drop the seeds in their minds, & see what grows from it.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Wotcha - I'm from the UK and a big fan of conspiracy theories and all things slightly shady. Looking forward to getting stuck in here.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 513  514  515    517  518 >>

log in

join