It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Please answer me this

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:44 AM
Hi Everyone,

First of all I'd like to say I do genuinely believe that "everything is not what it seems", I do believe that there are forces, other life forms, goverment conspiracies even that the average human has absolutely no knowledge off.

However, as a person of logic I have to draw the line somewhere as I'm sure everyone else does.

My question I pose to you all is this, how can so many people on this board (the majority even?) blindly believe in something of which they have absolutely no knowledge or proof off?

My first argument when talking to Christians is how can you believe in god when you have never seen him, touched him, heard him or felt him?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't not believe that just because you haven't experienced something personally that it doesn't exist - thats flawed logic!

No one on this planet can "see" Oxygen but through scientific knowledge we all know it exists, - if it didn't than neither would we!

I just don't understand how so many people can believe in John Lear's statements for example, or believe in the Dulce Base, or that Reptilians live among us on this earth! I find it ridiculous to be honest, that people are so easily lead and suggestible, gullible even.

I invite anyone on here to tell me, why they personally believe in such things. I'd like a Christian to tell me why they believe in God. I personally do believe there is a God of some sorts or some higher being/entity but I do not believe in the teachings of the Bible or that one day Jesus will come and save us.

Why is it that so many people seem so willing to believe in some wholeheartedly when they have no proof that its true and in the majority of cases its so far fetched that it couldn't possibly be true?

I find it hard to believe that people actually think there are reptilians living on this planet amongst us, that such things as star gates actually exist, that there is a "soul-catcher" on the moon and people live there!!!

Your thoughts, answers very much welcome ....

[edit on 4-7-2008 by Death_Kron]

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:12 PM
The existence of God is impossible to prove to yourself or anyone in a debate or as a sheerly intellectual pursuit using reason and logic. The problem seems to be epistemological. Such debates usually end up at a couple of famous endpoints, such as "well, what was there before the Big Bang?" or "reason can't question its own validity, or else reason eats itself".

Some people move the conversation over to consciousness and there the problem manifests itself in Chalmers' "hard problem". This debate is over something called "qualia", or the subjective essence of things. In other words, is there such a thing as "redness", or "the thing in itself"? Or, is subjective experience more of a creation of language, whose existence as a language construct is what we are actually experiencing?

But at the end of the day, here you are, experiencing the world and interacting with it. And, even if you are nothing more than the successive concrescence of information expressed upward from quantum states into elemental particles, atoms, molecules, tissues, organs, and their integrating systems, and even if everything that you are could be reduced to constituent matter and its interactions, here you are, still, experiencing the world and interacting with it.

You cannot escape choice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice, as someone once said. You cannot make yourself believe something that you do not believe, but you can pull at the threads of beliefs that you already possess, in order to find out for yourself whether you should believe them, or if you simply inherited them through your life experience.

If you keep pulling at the threads, even when such an exercise begins to feel dangerous or threatening, then you may begin to better understand why other people believe some of the strange things they believe.

Having said all of that, I have to warn you that this kind of exercise is not trivial. It is difficult and dangerous, and it typically results in moral terror at certain intervals. It has been known to result in madness, dissociation, depression, delusion, and paranoia. That's how you know it's working. Many people here will completely disagree with me, holding that this kind of thing is far too dangerous for someone to do alone, and that it is irresponsible to suggest such a course of action.

So you will have to decide whether you believe there is something more to know and whether it is worth knowing, or whether you would rather retain the balance you have already struck with your "reality", for the sake of comfort and perhaps sanity.

I took the red pill, and I do not regret it.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:05 PM
Then end all answer is simply that different persons require differing amounts of proof.

On one extreme we have those who can't accept anything they can't see, feel, touch, or hear. They require an impossible amount of proof by any standards.

On the end, there are those who we call gullible that will accept anything as possible and are willing to belief anything possible with the slightest proof.

Both extremes appear have bad consequences.

As to the debate of God there are numerous clarifications needed prior to establishing whether God exists or not.

Without the clarification of each parties understanding of the nature of God, misunderstandings arise causing one party or the other to misinterpret what the other party is saying.

For example:

Before we can debate the existence of God, we must understand what form God takes from each point of view. Is God a philosophy, or a true being?

Kabbalah says that God is all and God is nothing. Does this mean God could not take the form of a burning bush, or a man?

And now, we're full circle to, 'How much proof do you require for yourself?'

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by garyo1954

You can't reason your way to a direct knowledge of God.

My experience has taught me that the more gifted one is with language, the easier it is to content one's self with the clever use of it. A person could go on amusing himself with his clever "insights", which are nothing more than interesting word constructions.

The power of the word is in its ability to point to what is beyond words. That's why there is always the existence of paradox in traditions that are devoted to bringing one to the direct experience. Christian mysticism, kabbalah, kundalini, zen, what have you.

You have to tear it down before you can even know what it means to build it up again.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by applebiter]

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by applebiter

Excellent post, however at the end of the day your not providing any definitive answers, how do you know God is real? How does anyone know God is real?

Each and every person one this Earth creates their own reality and I truly believe that, but with the focus of this conversation not centered around the existance of God but the seeming willingness to believe in something of which they have no proof?!

I'm not disbelieving the existance of God, that wasn't what this post was about. I want to know why people blindly believe in something which they have no reason to?

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by garyo1954

As said, I'm not debating the existance of God, however your post is very much welcome. Answer me this, with God aside how can people blindly believe in Dulce, or cattle mutilations or UFO's ?? With no proof how can someone believe?!? Religion I believe is a comfort blanket and a means of controlling a population, nothing more and nothing less. It was a method developed in ancient times gone by to control people, I have no problem with that. But if I told you that I have the secret to the entire universe in the palm of my hand, what would your first reaction be? I'll answer that for you, it would be "Prove it"

Why are people so naive? Why are people so gullible???

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by applebiter

I completely agree with that post aswell, you make an extremely valid point. People will use their skill of language to manipulate and contort a conversation so it suits their own point of view without any real evidence or proof of their point of view! Majority of people get tricked by their use of language and believe what there are saying is true! Without sounding big headed but I reckon I could start a post on here and make people believe it, without any proof, pictures, evidence! People are too gullible!!!!
I believe in a healthy dose of paranoia, but come people use your common sense, do you really think theres a "soul catcher" on the moon???
Reptilians??? Has anyone ever seen one??? MIB - anyone seen them? Dulce??? Anyone ever been there? (who can prove it) Area 51 - anyone seen that??? Majestic 12 - spoken to any of its members??? John Lear "people live on the moon" - wheres the proof then fella?? Didn't manage to take a picture when you seen it??? Bullsh*t!!!!!!!!!

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by applebiter

You can't reason your way to a direct knowledge of God.

I have no clue what you mean and seriously doubt you do either. It is possible for anyone to come to a reasonable conclusion in any matter.

If you are choosing to make this God specific, then you'll have to do a better job of understanding what form God takes from my point of view, otherwise we have no way to communicate understandably between the two of us, no place to go but argument, and no end but agreed disagreement.

It is not my inclination to attempt a conversion, nor do I see where this issue became a discussion of 'direct knowledge of God.'

Are you trying to hijack this thread?

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by Death_Kron

The same points hold true whatever the contention.

The amount of proof necessary depends on the person.

In almost any thread dealing with UFOs for example, there will be those who say:

1. hoax
2. bird
3. plane
4. UFO/unknown

A person who screams hoax right off will never be provided enough evidence to prove otherwise. His mind is made up and proof is an impossibility in his view. He is one extreme.

The persons saying bird and plane are more willing to believe if there is further confirming evidence. We might call them the fence sitters.

The person screaming UFO/unknown has already made up his mind. Likely nothing can be said that will change it. He is the other extreme.

There will always be two extremes and a middle ground in any open discussion.

Does this help?

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by garyo1954

The word "God" is a placeholder. Sure, you can look at it, measure it, and try to place it in its proper context because you intuit that surely it can't mean the same thing between any two people. Surely the context is important. Surely it matters which God we are talking about. And is "god" the right word? Maybe we are talking about self-knowledge. Maybe we are talking about the "absolute", and as we know, all the philosophers can do is argue over whether or not the "absolute" can ever be known.

What I am saying is that, at the bottom of it, you are not your roles and you are not your mind. You are a consciousness that seems to be at the center of a world, wherever you go in it. Your education does not matter. Your verbal skills are not important. Your adherence to labels and accretions of labels is the only thing that stands between you and an ocean of chaotic energy. When you break language and its constructs into itty bitty pieces you are left vulnerable to this chaotic energy, this raw being. I call it a direct experience of God, and I don't care what you call it.

We agree to settle for common definitions because it makes us feel more secure. Unfortunately, it can be conclusively proven that even those things whose names and meanings upon which we seem to all agree, are mysterious and obscure. What we often mistake for clarity is our ability to settle upon definitions which are useful to our pursuits. Oh no! What if we are not pursuing the same goals? Does the meaning change? Where did the clarity go?

[edit on 4-7-2008 by applebiter]

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by Death_Kron

The word "faith" is problematic. If "faith" means the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or for which the evidence is contra-indicative, then "faith" makes a mockery of reason. This definition of faith doesn't deserve to stand.

I think faith means faith in yourself. Not in some humdrum sense, but in a vigorous and vital way. Why are you here on ATS? Why is your heart filled with questions? What are you really trying to find? Something in you drives your quest. Something in you isn't happy with the picture of the world that you see. Something makes you worry and wonder about the strange beliefs you see espoused here and elsewhere. Something in you is looking for answers. This is the evidence, and this is the part of yourself that you must have faith in.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by applebiter
reply to post by garyo1954

We should agree that we will only continue this discussion as long as it continues to relate to the topic of this thread so as not to impose upon the good nature of the OP.

I do agree with your assertion that the use of labels in themselves cause misunderstanding. And I think we both understand that there are two types of labels.

There is the objective labels like this: 2. Generally speaking, no one should misunderstand what is meant in using that symbol. It is accepted as: 1+1, the second number when counting.

Much like 2, we also accept the sky and water as blue, and grass as green. All are considered objective labels. And although there may be persons willing to debate the true scientific colors, these are generally accepted as 'correct.'

The second class, the subjective label, is open to personal experience. For example should I say 'bird,' what comes to mind?

Do you see a blackbird, cardinal, blue jay, mockingbird, maybe an eagle?

If I say 'airplane,' is it military, commercial, small, large, etc?

So it seems that each of these labels (that we must interpret) as we read or hear, paint a picture that is either believable, or unbelievable in our own minds.

Our minds provide us with certain information, rightly or wrongly interpreted, from what we have read, and on this we base whether the writing, or the photo, or even the idea has merit.

Thus, labels are not necessarily our friend.

Certainly then, the amount of proof necessary for any purpose depends on who is examining the evidence.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by garyo1954

Fair enough. I did skip a step between the OP and the topic of God and labels. I'll try to rectify this and hopefully it will shed more light on my other posts in relation to the OP.

Somebody pretty clever observed that the search for a grand conspiracy that connects the important events in the world is really a search for God. Again, this begs the question, what does "God" mean? I think, in this context, it means order.

We instinctively know that we're missing the big picture, don't we? We know there is something just beyond our grasp; a missing piece of information that, once put into place, reveals the connections and the implications.

The OP mentioned the reptilian theory, and it's a good one. Maybe it's true in a literal sense - one can never be too sure - but for me, the truth of it is more poetic or metaphorical. When we think of reptiles, we think of cold-blooded, emotionless animals. Isn't that what we're afraid of the most in the people who lead us? They seem so far removed from the world we live in. They know wealth, power, and prestige. They have the wherewithal to do, it would seem, anything they plan to do. And when they speak, it often sounds as if they are just using words to manipulate our emotions. We do not feel connected to them at all. Who are these people?

But look again. There is another way to look at reptilian theory that says maybe these people are human, but their drives, ambitions, and motivations are based in the reptilian part of the human brain. Remember, the brain has evolved gradually over eons, and not all at once. The spinal cord and the lower brain are responsible for autonomic function and are the seat of the most basic drives of survival, sex, and domination. Icke says these people are emotionless and very ritualistic in their behavior. Reptilian behavior can be viewed as ritualistic. The rattlesnake's warning, the alligator's egg-burying ritual. I'm sure there are more examples.

The cerebellum, which sits atop the "reptile" brain, is also referred to as the mammalian brain. There we find the home of emotions, such as the warmth and affection we receive from our dog when we come home, or the powerful bond between a mother and her child. Do we simply not see any evidence of this warmth in the ruling elite? Does reptile theory tell us more about ourselves than it tells us about them?

There may be other ways to look at reptile theory, I don't know. But I can see from these examples that the theory is, in fact, valid... from different points of view.

There may be a more useful theory than reptile theory to understand the ruling elite and what they have in store for us. How can we know which theory is the best? For me, there is no way to answer that question until I know the answer to certain other questions. For instance, is there such a thing as occult knowledge? If there is, can it really be used against us? Is there a God? Won't he protect us from people who would harm us? And the questions grow. For every answer I uncover two more questions, and I begin to feel paralyzed, because my approach seems to push me further away from comfort and further away from understanding.

Ultimately, the solution must be to understand who you are and what is really going on, here. Is there a God? Is there something that really connects the dots? In my opinion there is, but you have to find it for yourself. You have to tear down all your preconceptions and false beliefs and in the process, you will reveal a theory of connectedness that is uniquely yours. Reptile theory, as nice as it is, belongs to Icke. You have to do your own heavy lifting.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by applebiter]

new topics

top topics


log in