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 challenge to all "sceptics"

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeaponsOfMassDistraction


Just stop by www.atheists.org/ and see how many times the word Christianity appears on every page. It's everywhere,


lol. excellent point. basically a-theism is a-religion, but specifically in the west, where christianity is dominant, it mostly responds to christianity.

I will go further to annoy Major Malfunction: Atheism is a product of Christianity. (explanation see response to scientist above)




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lexion
 


Its been four posts now without a response to the question. That is response enough.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I'm not bashing the atheist, I'm pointing out what is happening to atheism as a modern belief. If the atheist falls into the organized "anti-christianity" game, it's a lost cause.

I believe organized atheism is a lost cause in any case, as atheism is a belief, just as what they are fighting is as well.

I think agnosticism is the way to go, as no one really knows the answer. I can't have faith in god or no god.


Anyways, this is getting off subject, so I'm out as well.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction


Anyway, all children are born atheists.



Children are neither born deists nor atheists. They have no opposition toward any religion or god, they dont even know what all this is. They are born without any philosophy, approach or opinion whatsoever.




Now I see this thread isn't meant to be anything other than skeptic bashing -- and in particular, atheist bashing -- as that is where it has ended up.



To debunk the debunkers




I'm sure someone else will no doubt still like to dance with you a bit. But I prefer to have discussions with people who are not so obviously out to get points for cattiness.

Have fun. I'm off to more interesting conversation.


What you have posted so far contains a lot of antagonism but not much that would counter the thread topic. I fully agree with protecting ourselves from snake-oil-salesmen but strongly disagree with some of the other stuff mentioned. simple as that.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WeaponsOfMassDistraction
 


The statement that atheism is a belief-system is not a "bashing" of atheism anyway, its just an opinion.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Just tossing in my quick .02 here...


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Reply to Jazzerman

Excellent post. You make a good case for the other side. I would never suggest getting rid of science though. I acknolwedge the importance of science. What I am proposing is that purely materialistic science focussed on studying mainly physical objects is limited and needs improvement. Improvement to what? The study of consciousness (the part of us observing the objects). Rather than only looking at what is studied and has been studied, I would look at the one studying and also at what could be studied.


Actually, scientists do. I'm currently taking a course (graduate level) in Behavior Analysis, and there are courses and papers referenced where consciousness is studied... by scientific methods. Biologists study consciousness, psychologists study it -- a plethora of fields study the phenomina of consciousness, belief, faith, and so forth.

All of it is by scientific method since studying it by faith or any other method simply doesn't tell you anything useful.

By the way (you don't sound like you're aware of this), a number of universities including Berkeley studied parapsychology and related subjects in the early 70's. They gave up the studies because the evidence for these things (measured scientifically) showed that they didn't exist. Nobody could reliably read thought transmissions of Rhine card images 80% of the time or even 20% of the time.

However, out of these failed efforts came new studies such as the ones I mentioned -- scientists becoming curious about what the body was doing, studies of meditation and meditating individuals and so forth. There are interesting and proveable things happening with meditation and trance, and there's courses being taught about biofeedback (behavior analysis mentions it in introductory courses) and the like.

Just fyi...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
What challenge? Carl Sagan wrote"Extraordinary Claims reqiure Extra Ordinary Evidence" If you make a claim, back it up with proof that can't be debunked. It's that simple. Dont cry about the debunkers. They have to proove nothing. Dumb thread. And your ignored.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Vapouring


Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Astyanax
Hurry up throw out your challenge, whatever it is. I can't wait to take you up on it.

OK, the challenge in simple words, the theory, my theory: Because of a few experiences of spiritual nature I have... tumty tumty tumty... "hard physical evidence".

You know, 'challenge' is a fairly simple word. Most children grasp the meaning of it in primary school, but I fear it has somehow eluded you. Kindly allow me to help.


chal·lenge /ˈtʃælɪndʒ / -- noun
  1. a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc.
  2. something that by its nature or character serves as a call to battle, contest, special effort, etc.: Space exploration offers a challenge to humankind.
  3. a call to fight, as a battle, a duel, etc.
  4. a demand to explain, justify, etc.: a challenge to the treasurer to itemize expenditures.
  5. difficulty in a job or undertaking that is stimulating to one engaged in it.
  6. Military. the demand of a sentry for identification or a countersign.
  7. Law. a formal objection to the qualifications of a particular juror, to his or her serving, or to the legality of an entire jury.
  8. the assertion that a vote is invalid or that a voter is not legally qualified.
  9. Biology. the process of inducing or assessing physiological or immunological activity by exposing an organism to a specific substance.
  10. Hunting. the crying of a hound on finding a scent.
-- Dictionary.com, Unabridged (v 1.1)

None of these meanings apply to your original post, nor to the one I quote above.

Since you cannot understand a word as simple as 'challenge'. I doubt that you can possibly understand a much harder one like 'sceptic'.

Ta-ta, then. Talk to you on a more interesting thread... maybe.



[edit on 18-9-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





To be frank, I am SADDENED by looking at experiencers who come to ATS full of life, juice and enthusiasm, willing to spill their hearts out to others, and are then beaten with the cold and robotic response "wheres the evidence?" And this is my original motivation for opening the thread. So while skeptics have their validity, this thread goes against hardcore-sceptics.


Isn't that what the skunk works is for? Things can be discussed in there that are considered to be 'speculation'.

I personally don't consider myself a sceptic or skeptik or any other spelling of that word but I vvcertainly don't believe everything that is fed to me. Surely that is one of the reasosn we are all here? I prefer to be open minded and open to being convinced. I am more flexible as to what consists of 'proof' and judge each thing on its own merits.

At the end of the day, what I believe is my own business so I 'admit' concepts into my belief system using my own criteria - not neccessarily what other people construe as proof.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well, most skeptics that have shown up here have offered up insults. one says I am abusive, the second said I am a failure and here you are telling me I am not smart enough to understand something.

Im glad this is happening because it shows me what self-proclaimed skeptics are really about.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I am aware that study of consciousness and in the 70s study of the paranormal were acknowledged and conducted by science. I am not referring to scientists in this post but to a certain breed of scientists. But thanks for the good info anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'm way ahead of you. I'm skeptical of our current science. Simply beacuse they tend to be close minded and close ended.

Why are UFOlogists ridiculed? Because they don't FIT into the general scientific agenda.

Most of us found ATS because we feel there are "things" out there that are BEYOND science.

Yet, some here turn skeptics and debunk anything here, makes me wonder why they aren't at "popular scientic" or "national geographics" forums.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
In summary, this thread produced two types of skeptics that anyone looking at the progression of the thread will be able to spot:

1. The Hardcore-Skeptic who is in denial of anything else than is preconceived view ("Only what can be measured and repeated is true") and attack and insult those who disagree. These are the cultists.

2. The Regular skeptics who objectively try to understand but then make their counter-point ("Might be true, but I dont think so"). These are the gentle and intelligent minded, imo.

The same differences can be found on the side of the "True Believers". You will have the fanatic who believes the most outrageous nonsense without questioning it, and you will have the gentle minded enthusiast who believes something but remains aware that he might be wrong.

I guess you could make a scale of fanatisism ranging from 1 hardcore skeptic to 10 hardcore believer. But in the end 1 and 10 are more similar in their attitude than they care to admit...or will ever be able to see.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Oh my Gosh,
Maj Mal, I almost wee wee'd myself when you jumped to conclusions that it was 'all about you', not all about 'us skeptics'. You are very very egocentric and quite quite full of yourself. Glad it wasn't me that made you out yourself.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
You are very very egocentric and quite quite full of yourself.


Thank you for the kind words jpm



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I am very skeptical of even my own skeptism, so I live in a constant state of confusion.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777
I am very skeptical of even my own skeptism, so I live in a constant state of confusion.


Yeah...how true.


We werent born skeptical though. As children we believed any and everything fed to us. The advantage of that: Enthusiasm. The disadvantage: Being easy to con and manipulate.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I was very skeptical even in my first few days of life, I remember that day when I looked to the doctor with the scalpal and thought, are you sure that is a good idea what you are about to do down their.

screammmmmm!!!

ok I crossed the line there sorry.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

A dog perceives more sound-frequencies and an intuitive person may perceive more energy-frequencies. The motto of the "sceptic" is that anything that cannot be physically perceived and demonstrated must be untrue. From this vantage point, anything that doesnt fit into the limited confines of this view, must be distorted to fit. Sceptics will go to ridiculous lengths to prove that there are no paranormal and spiritual phenomena so that everything remains safe for them.

No one can prove that paranormal events don't happen but paranormal does not mean that anything is possible either.
As an atheist I do not believe spiritual energies and quite frankly there is no reason for me to either. You speak of science well there is no evidence that spiritual energy exists outside of the personal belief for some that it does.

In my view, these types of sceptics use their philosophy to mask and supress insecurity. They feel insecure and fearful in life and, similar to the people who hold on to a religion, they hold on to the view that they know what most things mean, that physical reality is the prime reality and so forth. You have to be courageous to say "I really dont know whats true".

In this regard I can say the same thing about believers in regards to God and an after life etc who refuse to accept that it is very possible such things do not exist.



I will close in saying, that I am sceptical myself....but I am not sceptical towards paranormal and spiritual realities, I am sceptical towards the worldview spoon-fed by some scientists and "sceptics" posing as authorities.


This makes you somewhat hypocritical doesn't it. The scientific view is to find evidence and then even more evidence to support that evidence and so on until it is solid.

You who would talk about people being closed minded to 'spiritual' whooey yet you are closed minded to the possibility that you are wrong.

I believe what the evidence and proof supports. I hate to break it to you but there is not one single shred of acceptable evidence to support a God, Spiritual energy, ghosts, afterlife and so on and so fourth.

For example i hear a lot about telekinesis and so on from people who claim to be ale to do this yet when I ask for a demonstration or for them to prove it exists they always refuse or blow me off.

You are NOT a skeptic you just claim to be but you are actually just as bad as those who will fight tooth and nail against you.

Those who make claims should have to prove those claims and validate them. You just can't make a claim and say believe it and if you say it's BS your closed minded.

Just because you believe something to be true does not make it fact and it never will and not everything is possible just because you want it to.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

I will go further to annoy Major Malfunction: Atheism is a product of Christianity. (explanation see response to scientist above)


Silliness....

en.wikipedia.org...


In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".





^

The Greek word αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians (2:12) on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as "[those who are] without God".


[edit on 19-9-2007 by Rasobasi420]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join