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.
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by jimmyx
"""Until people can realize that nothing is universally true, and therefore all belief is unfounded then true understanding can never be achieved by them - they will be perpetually ignorant. Whether your belief is religious, or that 911 was a conspiracy, or that it wasnt - or ET's are real and visiting or they are not - it doesnt matter which side of an argument you are on - if you believe it - then you are always wrong. """"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my response:
your first sentence is a direct contridiction of itself.
1..."nothing is universally true"---you offer no proof.
2..."true understanding can never be achieved---"never" is a long time
it appears as if you do understand something, but everyone else is ignorant, because they fail to understand that nothing is true. but somehow you believe what you say to be true.
therefore, if anyone believes anything on any side of an arguement, they are always wrong...hhhmmm
You say I believe what I say is true - not so, I am presenting an idea that has practical application - if you apply it, some understanding may result - that does not imply it is true, nor does it imply that it will be applicable and give the same results in different applications - I don't believe it, I understand it - understanding stems from practical application of an idea, from seeing how it works - it is not necessary for me to believe.
There is no contradiction. I offer no proof, because proof implies some kind of universal truth. I can't prove anything, neither can anyone else - proof is simply a way of saying 'present a bunch of evidence that causes people to believe something, so they create some new truth'. I am not trying to supply you with any truth, but an idea that true and false are very limiting ways of viewing things.
Beliefs inhibit understanding - for simplicity, you could say they are opposite - though it is more complex than that, understanding encompasses belief but is not constrained by it. Understanding is the boundary of belief, truth, reason and logic - but it is external to them - it also encompasses possibility, falsehood, fantasy, intuition and imagination.
If you say there is only night, or only day - then you are limiting yourself to a small part of the picture - how can a person who only exists in the night, relate to someone who only exists in the day? If you acknowledge both you have understanding, rather than having to chose one.
With respect to the question of being wrong or right - lets address the question of their being a god or not. If I say there is, or is not - then I have a chance of being wrong in either case. If I say that either case is possible - then I can never be wrong.
I am suggesting not that people are wrong - but that the entire concept of choosing one thing or another as an absolute is very prone to failure (in terms of practical application) considering how little we actually know, experience and can sense.
[edit on 28-9-2009 by Amagnon]
Originally posted by jimmyx
the brain can be trusted, for example: to "see" stairs, and then decide to lift our legs one at a time to climb them, rather than tripping and falling down. the brain, through research and testing in our early years as a child, came to that conclusion, and for that particular brain, it is now a "known"
[edit on 27-9-2009 by jimmyx]
Claims require proof. Proof must be repeatable under controlled conditions. What's so hard about this concept?
Originally posted by undo
Claims require proof. Proof must be repeatable under controlled conditions. What's so hard about this concept?
Nothing hard about it all. But let's say we are told by a professor to both go out and individually collect 10 things that have meaning for us and return them to the professor. what are the chances those 10 things will be identical?
Originally posted by undo
Now let's say the professor asks us to go out and collect 2 different sets of evidence to prove 2 different theories. One of us is given a well researched but highly debated topic to collect evidence on, and the other is given a little known, obscure, overlooked but seemingly fairly well supported topic. Does the amount of available and popularly accepted information on a subject legitimize it? I'd think about that before you answer it.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by xelamental
And if your search for truth differs considerably from someone else's, do you believe it is your duty to force them to accept your version? afterall, i'm not you and you are not me! all we can do is suggest and give reasons, free from the fetters of rhetoric and stereotypes. if there's nothing i hate more, it's stereotyping.
Originally posted by undo
aren't you assuming an awful lot?
Originally posted by undo
how much research is research? i have a sneaking suspicion that it isn't considered conventional research unless it doesn't have anything to add, in which case, you're just sitting around rehashing the same crap the other guy said.....with different words. i have a thesaurus too, but it doesn't do THAT much for me.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by xelamental
It's archaeology and history, not quantum physics. just because it potentially can be explained to function with quantum physics, doesn't mean my research is from that angle. are you suggesting that any research that contains something that potentially works scientficially, should be given empirical process before discussing the archaeological and historical references?
Once we do go through our core beliefs and test them, we soon realise that we have far fewer facts than we thought, and that can scare some people. Even scientific "facts" are subject to this, because what we call facts are actually our current best guess based on all available data. We cannot rule out the possibility that new data that we either didn't have or couldn't have will change our viewpoint entirely.
The existence of God is a major black and white area. Most people are of one of 2 camps - you either believe in God or you don't.
Evolution is another sticking point. But what are the facts? We have a fossil record that we can physically see and prove. It's existence is a fact. Our scientists over the years have strung that fossil record together to try to back up their claims of evolution, but all of their work is based on many assumptions - the main one is how the fossil record came about.
We have a best guess, but there are anomolies in the data that don't fit the best guess.
Evolution is an attempt to explain the existence of life on earth when you've already crossed out the possibility of an external creating intelligence, and that's something we cannot prove or disprove, making evolution a belief (and a widely held one), but not a proven fact.
The ancient astronaut theory is another big one, but again, it's based on guesses and interpretations. Our archeology has turned up some artifacts that certainly raise eyebrows, and show us technology that cannot be accounted for in our interpretation of humanity's history.
When we look across the ancient writings and records of early man, we see a common thread of beings who came down from the heavens with their amazing knowledge and technology, but who were they talking about?
We spend so much time arguing over who's interpretation is true, but in reality, any and all of our theories can be swept off the table with a single new discovery.
Originally posted by TheIrvy
We make assumptions about ourselves as well. We view ourselves as physical beings, which we clearly are, but beyond that it gets a bit blurry. I know for myself that I have experienced many things that I cannot explain, and science cannot explain. For example, every night i lie down and loose 8 hours, but sometimes I have memories of a complex and intricately detailled other world which defies the natural laws and anything is possible. In that realm, I can fly, I can talk to dead relatives, I can turn into a dolphin and swim. That we dream is a fact, how or why it happens is a complete unknown. And when there's no answer, anything's possible.
We also classify what is "normal". Our studies have shown us that there are marked differences between the brain of the males of our species and the brain of females of our species. A qualified doctor can easily distinguish between the 2. We have also discovered that the brain of an autistic individual is different again. The amygdula is larger, and the mini columns that connect to the brain are thinner but no less powerful, and less insulated, allowing a freer exhange of data between them (forgive me if I got that wrong, it was off the top of my head based on my own memory). We classify autism as a disorder, but that's not proven. I myself am a high functioning autistic person, and I can assure you, there's nothing disabled about me. I have a different set of things that come naturally to me, just as men and women have their own areas where they better each other, and I have a different set of things that really don't come naturally to me and must be worked at harder to learn. Again, exactly the same as between men and women. Could our species be far more complicated and diverse than our medical sciences allow?
We cannot rule things out based on our own desires of what we want to be true or not true. We cannot force theories onto each other that are unproven and unobserved. In order to find the truth, we must seek the truth, and that means not ruling anything out until we've absolutely proven that it can be.
To know anything you have to assume that things are knowable. Your position asserts the opposite, kind of like saying the laws of the universe could change at any moment. That's true, but useless, because truth from my perspective is the ability to be useful.
Most athiests I have talked to do not do this. They simply assert that in the absence of evidence for a god, they cannot assign a probability. The only assumptions we make is that the universe is real and we are in it.
The alternatives are that a god made it look perfectly like evolution happened exactly like scientists say. Do you think we should assign a high probability to this?
There are anomalies in gravitational theory. It doesn't mean that it's not mostly correct.
Sorry. Start with abiogenesis (evolution says nothing about it). Given all the evidence, what theory fits the data? Molecular, physical, mathematical, geographical, chemical etc. The thing that fits is evolution.
Not really. The antikethra mechanism, baghdad batteries are really the only things we don't understand. Pictures are pictures, fiction has existed from the dawn of time. Or do you think all men back in the day had 2 foot penises?
Agreed. Does this mean that this actually happened? Joseph campbell has the answers I suspect.
Yes, but in most cases with established theories, the evidence would have to be very compelling! E.g. to dispel gravity.