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.

 

Science Vs.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Well, i can give you my view on the topic. Basically, god = pure consciousness and all consciousness of the universe. Where as you are in a limited perspective(son), god would be that which knows all things(father). I can go into more detail.

But I have a follow up question.

What are/is "you"?




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by sirnex
 


Well, i can give you my view on the topic. Basically, god = pure consciousness and all consciousness of the universe. Where as you are in a limited perspective(son), god would be that which knows all things(father). I can go into more detail.

But I have a follow up question.

What are/is "you"?



I think you would have to go into more detail, especially in the realm of evidence and any subsequent research that has led you to conclude your belief in God as a reality.

I don't understand what you mean by your question, can you clarify what you mean so I can provide a proper answer?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


How do you define yourself. What are you?

Like, do you define yourself as your body? Your brain? Your mind? Your job?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by sirnex
 


How do you define yourself. What are you?

Like, do you define yourself as your body? Your brain? Your mind? Your job?


I define myself as an individual human living amongst the human species and other species that co-inhabit the planet Earth.

If your asking do I believe in the soul, no I don't and for very good reasons.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I define myself as an individual human living amongst the human species and other species that co-inhabit the planet Earth.

If your asking do I believe in the soul, no I don't and for very good reasons.



So you see yourself as flesh, or a body correct?

How can you be something that is a possesion? "Your" body? "Your" mind. And I'm not talking about a soul, because it's "your" soul.

If they are possessions, does that not suggest that something else possesses it?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



So you see yourself as flesh, or a body correct?

How can you be something that is a possesion? "Your" body? "Your" mind. And I'm not talking about a soul, because it's "your" soul.

If they are possessions, does that not suggest that something else possesses it?


Are you trying to separate the mind from the body as if it's a separate 'thing' capable of possessing the body?

Evidently, the logic behind the word play tactic is woefully faulty if you sit and think about it for a bit. For starters, your arguing as if what makes us who we are is a separate thing from our bodies that exists of it's own accord.

No, it doesn't suggest to me that something is capable of possessing my body at all. I don't view my body as a possession in the same regards as your trying to allude to. It's faulty logic and pointless word play.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
"The significance of my name"

So every single time,

I look at a knife = thugs nationsz
I look at chain = wannabe-rappers
I look at a tree = Tree of life; Evolution
I touch my pc = technological prison
I eat meat = immoral doing
See a cross = Christianity's Hell
Read a romantic poem = Hippy drama
See a TV = Media and Goverment Propaganda
Read double letters; SS = Nazi memories
Speak the word Jew = Racist inference
Talk to someone who is white = BNP re-union

SS does not belong to anyone and anything. Language is no prisoned to either historical, social or scientific expressions; not my fault you have such an utterly affiliation with extremely specific "sayings".

"I mean, sure I might could buy into that if you had S.S. in the front of your name, which could be short for soul slayer. But unfortunately, you only have a period at the end of the SS"

Bhwahah.

Right, the period is the al mighty indicator. Aha!

Sherlock Homes is back to reality and He smells hatred, bigotry and racism.

Good try, but not good enough.

And dont buy anything.

You are making fallible speculation based upon the duplication of a letter, joined by a dot and closed by a latin word = absolute truth = Racist Nazi.

Go you.

"used by such extremists, and the rest, and it seems a bit fishy to me"

But I'll drop it and give you the benefit of the doubt. You might want to consider another name, because I'm going to bet this won't be the last time someone notices it.

The name with the SS. in front of it is known well enough, that an online game called WWIIOnline bans any name that starts with SS. For exactly the reasons I'm posting. So you might seriously want to consider a name change.

I dig that nickname because I find it beautiful; the double ss does the job for me.

Now, if every single time you see double SS and you go; Kill the infidel; that is not MY problem but YOURS.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
There is a difference between a Matchmaker and a God; it implies a religious deity; a man which cannot be seen; it has pre-disposed religious qualities.

So I am not debating the possibility of a Matchmaker/Creator but the probability of a God one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Science does not know YET and I will keep emphasizing that; it is not inherently Agnostic; as if every single time it takes a good observation at the Universe and the Cosmos; a word of "God" pops up.

Human race has moved from seeing nature as the Willing of a God, from "Miracles" of His Decision and Destruction due to His Anger.

Since then, science has started to minimize the frequent obsession of using that term to explain in an infamous "irreducible complex" manner; we know more than ever and still going on forwards.

The presense of a "God" is becoming tinier and tinier. The possibility of a Matchmaker is still either only because we cannot conceptualize YET the origins of the origins; the beginning of Time and Energy.

"Agnostic means not being a closed minded little arrogant prick"

And I still stand to my view; not knowing YET does not mean maintaining a circle with its central point as Agnosticism.

"That right there is just an outright lie"

Just because we havent travelled the whole Universe and Cosmos does not mean the basic principles of physics, biology and chemistry are still irrelevant, absurd and inefficient.

Finding out and discovering "new this and new that" only changes our basic understand of that object and entity, it changes how we view their nature; not the formula of their genesis into this existence

"I myself am a man of science, but at least I understand enough of the science behind these theories to see how erroneous they are"

Erm.

I am aware of their flaws and errors. So what? Suddenly we have to wake up one morning with amnesia and re-invent everything and everyone?

That is the best we have until now.

Having windows of doubts, or ineffable [unexplainable] events does not mean suddenly the whole system collapses.
It is open to interpretation, but their substances; universal scientific point of you; their nucleus of theoretical and empirical foundation stands until further notice.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
"But yet, if you notice I said religion was philosophy in it's PURE form. Pure form, meaning not dogma"

Oh yeah, the Ancient Greeks when they observed natural disasters, purely philosophical speaking, they said "It might be GOD"; that is not philosophy because philosophy will not tell you "this is how it is" but it will push to to say "this is how it should be or this is definitely NOT how it is".

Now if you are talking about religion's messages or philosophy that is a different matter.

There is a difference on what it is and what its Social Contribution is.

Ps: I have read the bible.

My argument is that your view on religion is purely aesthetic; You go back to the past, excavate all of those beautiful, divine moments of personal revelation, you hear again and again their apocalyptic rhetoric speeches and read about their sacrifices;

Primarily, your view is Historically Romantic; stuck on how marvelous it was for it to exist, how breath-taking it was for it to survive and how mind-blowing it was for it to capture the eyes of the World.

Today, this is not the case. Thus, I condemn it on its current affairs and "exposion" to the Public.

Its organised crime.

Another profound discrepancy between Religion and Philosophy is that whenever you have a religious argument, its Alpha and Omega, its first word would be God and the rest follows; Philosophy has no Master; its Masterless.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
"The majority of the great advancements in science are actually from people who were religious"

Say, what?

"Like it or not, Jesus has a philosophy behind what he says. In fact, he even tells people how to understand that philosophy for themselves, and shows how to understand all the commandments with 2 lines. Love one another as yourselves and so forth."

Jesus one thing, religion another.

Lets not start how gruesome their differences are, along with their hypocritical practises and their mask behind their public statements.

The basis of the commandments are based on this. Don't steal, lie, kill and so forth.

"You want to know the secret to what made Einstein so great? He realized and understood that time was not "real" in the manner we know it, and as such - philosophically - he was able to see the universe without time"

Exactly, he didnt do it religiously; he didnt put a God and voila; All makes sense now!

You think Philosophy will do any good to Religion?

It will break it down so fast and so hard, its head would not be standing on its body every again;

I.e P: Where is God?
R: Inside your Heart
P: No it is not. You are just using an old trick; putting me into the state of mind of "emotional intuision" so my thoughts would be purely lead by my feelings; thus accepting that a God is inside There.
R: See it with your inner eyes my child!


"Name the things about religion that you see are bad, and I will show you were the bible says they are bad too"

The bible is not a universal book of Christianity; it is a compilation of different scriptures, from different sources, by different interpretations and different inclusions and exclusions; Lets not get into the debate of apocraphic or Dead Sea Scrolls, along with the true "nature" of Jesus; or what particular texts were embodied while others were ignored or burned to dust.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
"1 possible reality among an infinite number of realities."

That is again, an over-repeated and over-posted cracked-barrel philosophy;

as if every single time you put your Pathos on the table and glorify the diversity of the human race and individual differences, case is solved.

That happens when we talk about concepts such as "what is this, what is that" because it cries out loud for a universal, absolute truth on its nature; Wrong, if you want to specify the nature of "something", either draw anthropological research into it so you could make somewhat of a good judgement based on the common traits of human race for instance, or specify it upon "culture"; comparing and contrasting the different understandings of the same "something" due to culture.

Dont go all out on such as what is the "truth" because you can get away linguistically with infinite thoughts, responses and arguments; since truth has no definition, thus truth cannot be ever explained or have a universal agreement; Wrong, place that truth to exactly what you want to say about it, how it is related to you and how it is expressed by you.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
"Science - objectivity, religion - subjectivity"

That is one of the most language tricks to get away with your unjustified abstraction; you are raping words and how they are defined so well, it is like raping it without letting it breath for a sec.

Objectivity does not appear just like that; are you inciting that because science is "objective" it cannot understand the "subjectiviness" of something or are you trying to say that "objective" is different than "subjective".

You are somewhat creating TWO roads as if they are; equal, intrinsically different and practically uncorrelated.

As if two humans exist and each of them leaves in a different domain while sharing the same existence!



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Job done for the moment.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by badmedia
 



So you see yourself as flesh, or a body correct?

How can you be something that is a possesion? "Your" body? "Your" mind. And I'm not talking about a soul, because it's "your" soul.

If they are possessions, does that not suggest that something else possesses it?


Are you trying to separate the mind from the body as if it's a separate 'thing' capable of possessing the body?

Evidently, the logic behind the word play tactic is woefully faulty if you sit and think about it for a bit. For starters, your arguing as if what makes us who we are is a separate thing from our bodies that exists of it's own accord.

No, it doesn't suggest to me that something is capable of possessing my body at all. I don't view my body as a possession in the same regards as your trying to allude to. It's faulty logic and pointless word play.


Your brain uses your physical body to create consciousness and feelings...

but what/who actually experiences and feels?

You are the observer responding to the reality created by your mind...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by badmedia
 



So you see yourself as flesh, or a body correct?

How can you be something that is a possesion? "Your" body? "Your" mind. And I'm not talking about a soul, because it's "your" soul.

If they are possessions, does that not suggest that something else possesses it?


Are you trying to separate the mind from the body as if it's a separate 'thing' capable of possessing the body?

Evidently, the logic behind the word play tactic is woefully faulty if you sit and think about it for a bit. For starters, your arguing as if what makes us who we are is a separate thing from our bodies that exists of it's own accord.

No, it doesn't suggest to me that something is capable of possessing my body at all. I don't view my body as a possession in the same regards as your trying to allude to. It's faulty logic and pointless word play.


Your brain uses your physical body to create consciousness and feelings...

but what/who actually experiences and feels?

You are the observer responding to the reality created by your mind...



I see no evidence that there is some separate 'thing' outside of the brain/consciousness doing the observing. What your doing here is complicating something that is really quiet simple in my opinion. I believe that it is quiet obvious that we are our body, brain and consciousness and through these various systems of the human body we experience and act accordingly to different inputs received from the world around us. Reality isn't created by the mind, it's interpreted by the mind.

I wish I could explain it better, but for me it's obvious that there is no separate outside observer that is us.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by badmedia
 



So you see yourself as flesh, or a body correct?

How can you be something that is a possesion? "Your" body? "Your" mind. And I'm not talking about a soul, because it's "your" soul.

If they are possessions, does that not suggest that something else possesses it?


Are you trying to separate the mind from the body as if it's a separate 'thing' capable of possessing the body?

Evidently, the logic behind the word play tactic is woefully faulty if you sit and think about it for a bit. For starters, your arguing as if what makes us who we are is a separate thing from our bodies that exists of it's own accord.

No, it doesn't suggest to me that something is capable of possessing my body at all. I don't view my body as a possession in the same regards as your trying to allude to. It's faulty logic and pointless word play.


Your brain uses your physical body to create consciousness and feelings...

but what/who actually experiences and feels?

You are the observer responding to the reality created by your mind...



I see no evidence that there is some separate 'thing' outside of the brain/consciousness doing the observing. What your doing here is complicating something that is really quiet simple in my opinion. I believe that it is quiet obvious that we are our body, brain and consciousness and through these various systems of the human body we experience and act accordingly to different inputs received from the world around us. Reality isn't created by the mind, it's interpreted by the mind.

I wish I could explain it better, but for me it's obvious that there is no separate outside observer that is us.


If you were your body you would simply be a biological robot without any freewill...

What separates you from a robot or your flesh is that you feel.

You said "brain/consciousness" but consciousness is not even something that can be proven scientifically.

Consciousness is an abstract idea to explain our mind's relationship to the physical vehicle.

Your mind/soul/observing energy responds to the consciousness that is created by the brain.

You should really look into to psychological psychology and neuroscience because not only is it very interesting but it will give you a clearer perspective on the distinction between perceivable reality and physical reality.

So much of what we believe to be "us" is chemical reactions but on a physical level our pure consciousness is unexplainable.

We are able to see the variables and how we react to them but their is still a third factor involved outside of the brain and body.

The entity that experiences and feels the consciousness is the observer.

That is you.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



If you were your body you would simply be a biological robot without any freewill...


Do you view the human species as the only species that possesses consciousness and free will?

What about ants, or trees?


What separates you from a robot or your flesh is that you feel.


All sensations arise from chemical signals induced from outside input. This is a proven thing, even the emotion of love is nothing more than a chemically induce emotion that serves certain precise functions required for finding a mate to reproduce with.


You said "brain/consciousness" but consciousness is not even something that can be proven scientifically.


I disagree and so would many others from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines.


Consciousness is an abstract idea to explain our mind's relationship to the physical vehicle.


Can you prove this statement true with peer reviewed scientific research and evidence? I don't accept empty claims as valid arguments.


Your mind/soul/observing energy responds to the consciousness that is created by the brain.


Can you prove this statement true with peer reviewed scientific research and evidence? I don't accept empty claims as valid arguments.



You should really look into to psychological psychology and neuroscience because not only is it very interesting but it will give you a clearer perspective on the distinction between perceivable reality and physical reality.


From my understanding of those two scientific disciplines, neither consider consciousness as something separate from the brain, but as an integral aspect of the brain itself that can be altered and one day reproduced through digital simulations or even hardwired analogs.


So much of what we believe to be "us" is chemical reactions but on a physical level our pure consciousness is unexplainable.


It may appear to be unexplainable to you, but for me it's a different story.


We are able to see the variables and how we react to them but their is still a third factor involved outside of the brain and body.


Can you prove this statement true with peer reviewed scientific research and evidence? I don't accept empty claims as valid arguments.



The entity that experiences and feels the consciousness is the observer.

That is you.


Can you prove this statement true with peer reviewed scientific research and evidence? I don't accept empty claims as valid arguments.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Are you trying to separate the mind from the body as if it's a separate 'thing' capable of possessing the body?


Not exactly. The mind is also a possession. What I am separating is that which possesses from that which is a possession.




Evidently, the logic behind the word play tactic is woefully faulty if you sit and think about it for a bit. For starters, your arguing as if what makes us who we are is a separate thing from our bodies that exists of it's own accord.


As opposed to calling yourself things which are clearly possessions and clearly treated as possessions?

What makes you who you are in the manner of possessions is to name things which are part of your experience. Your body defines your experience, as does your time, place in the universe and so forth. I am asking you what experiences it?

It's a very deep philosophical question. But, it is the difference maker in being able to understand what people are really talking about. When you realize these things - without me telling you, then you will see a bunch of other things, which aren't exactly easy to express.



No, it doesn't suggest to me that something is capable of possessing my body at all. I don't view my body as a possession in the same regards as your trying to allude to. It's faulty logic and pointless word play.


Calling it a word play is a cop out. Especially considering it's a question that has been asked and debated for thousands of years, even in the times of Plato.

Have you ever heard the allegory of the cave? Well that is basically what it's talking about etc.

You not being able to see/understand it is what it means by being blind etc. You are unable to see yourself as anything other than flesh. But maybe now you can start to see where people are coming from?

In the end, all you can really say is "I am that I am".



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SS.Invictus
 


Like I said, if I'm wrong please accept my apologies. If you can't handle then, then oh well.

Small note: Can you please start using quote tags in your replies? It makes it easier to follow who said what.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SS.Invictus
Oh yeah, the Ancient Greeks when they observed natural disasters, purely philosophical speaking, they said "It might be GOD"; that is not philosophy because philosophy will not tell you "this is how it is" but it will push to to say "this is how it should be or this is definitely NOT how it is".

Now if you are talking about religion's messages or philosophy that is a different matter.

There is a difference on what it is and what its Social Contribution is.

Ps: I have read the bible.


You ever seen the movie the matrix? Think of it like that. Now, does it matter that Neo is just an actor and that the machines aren't real? Or is the real truth of the movie what it says about our own current state in society and reality?

If I say the Matrix movie speaks alot of truth, does that mean I am saying Neo and the Machines are literally real?

Neo and the Machines are simply expressions of a deeper understanding. The bible and religion is that way.

For those who understood the Matrix, they saw a deep philosophical movie that hits on many philosophical questions. For those who didn't understand, they got "awesome CGI".

Same thing with the bible, some people understand and others just accept the other stuff.

If I am expected to defend those who don't understand, then I'll just quit now. Because that isn't even what it's really about.

You read the bible, but did you understand it? I use to be an atheist because I read it and it sounded like brainwashing hogwash. But after I gained understanding(outside the bible), when I read it it suddenly made sense.



My argument is that your view on religion is purely aesthetic; You go back to the past, excavate all of those beautiful, divine moments of personal revelation, you hear again and again their apocalyptic rhetoric speeches and read about their sacrifices;


This is an assumption of yours mostly. I did have a vision, which was followed by alot of understanding. However, I do not at ALL agree with Jesus as a sacrifice, and I say this all the time. Even started topics on the subject about how wrong sacrifice is.

Jesus never presents himself as a sacrifice. In fact, talks against it. Says: "Go learn what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice".

He was quoting a verse in the bible, Hosea 6.



6For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


You do know the bible contains both sides right? Good and evil? Most people don't.



Primarily, your view is Historically Romantic; stuck on how marvelous it was for it to exist, how breath-taking it was for it to survive and how mind-blowing it was for it to capture the eyes of the World.


It's more about understanding that what it is "to be" and so forth is not a part of the physical universe. This is for deeper discussion into the free will, choice, feelings and so forth.



Today, this is not the case. Thus, I condemn it on its current affairs and "exposion" to the Public.

Its organised crime.


Again, you are merely judging based on the actions of others. Should I name off all the bad things Atheists do, and then try and paint the picture that makes them wrong by default? Of course not, that would be foolish.

It is organized crime. That is why Jesus was AGAINST it so much, and why he was killed.

You are doing exactly what I did. It wasn't until I realized that Jesus was actually against all that kind of stuff and spoke out against it that I started to understand the deal with it.

I am not a christian, I do not belong to any church, and it is well known that I don't like organized religion. I am talking about what Jesus actually says, not what Christians do.

Don't tell me what Christians do that is wrong/bad, I can't point that out on my own easily. Tell me what is wrong/bad about what Jesus says.



Another profound discrepancy between Religion and Philosophy is that whenever you have a religious argument, its Alpha and Omega, its first word would be God and the rest follows; Philosophy has no Master; its Masterless.


Again, you are using what religious people do as argument, rather than what it actually says and so forth. The bible isn't the word of god, but it is an expression of it when properly understood.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join