It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by something wicked
I don't need to prove it because it's already probable. Have you counted all those galaxies yet like I told you? I guess not. There's probably more than just billions, as astronomers have said. There could be this many; 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, yet you think other civilizations are improbable. What a bunch of bull# that is. It's not based on "belief", it's based on logical reasoning and empirical observation. Now, if this solar system was all that existed, then other civilizations would be improbable. There's the flaw in your argument because this planetary system is obviously one among quadrillion quadrillions of them, maybe even more than that.
Originally posted by lowki
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There are a large variety of scientists...and very few of them are claiming what you claim
I'm ecclectic as in selecting my own beliefs.
Certainly each scientist,
makes their own claims,
based on their own research.
I'm a Cognitive-Scientist,
I study mental phenomena,
I am now reporting my findings.
AboveTopSecret.com users generally have high intelligence,
and ability to understand and organize complex information.
Besides, if I'm to report my finding to a scientific-journal,
then might as well convince an atheist (science-belief-system) of it's validity first.
Motivated by your senseationalization of your beloved academic review.
Though I dono,
I think you're gonna have to do some more convincing,
so far, well, bad things happen to scientists due to intelligence-agencies,
especially to scientists that know about above-top-secret things...
Probably would have to have a safe haven for my body,
such as seasteading on the ocean, going where the wind blows.
Being famous has many consequences that need to be taken into consideration.
So I'd rather just let it happen by word of mouth, if indeed it occurs.
So? Ancient concepts aren't any more valid than modern ones. More often they're not, they're invalid. Just ask Ptolemy.
Your query is invalid.
Ptolemy is dead.
The fact that the same concept occurs (repetition),
through several morphological changes (tests),
and the passing of several thousand years (reliability).
it's as conceptually solid a fact as, karma,
what you do to we, we do to you,
known as the Golden Rule,
in philosophy language.
...no, you made a claim that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. It's not just a 'wrong' claim, but a ridiculous claim. We have no evidence of dinosaurs less than 65 million years ago. None. None at all. There are tens of millions of years between the last dinosaur specimens and the first hominids.
wow you totally ignored my evidence
Before we move on to the actual study of Galactic History, it is important to realize that such research is still in its very early stages. Most of the available information comes from contactees and channellers.
See it comes from the mind, that's in the realm of Cognitive Science.
The study of the nature of various mental tasks and the processes that enable them to be performed.
I observe data that comes out of people's mind and find patterns.
so are you saying this third-hand knowledge makes you confident?
subject first-hand, tester second-hand, summarizer third-hand.
Or do you mean you do the testing yourself?
If so, you'd can test some cognitive-science experiments,
like meditation, remote-viewing, past-life regression, precognition.
lol, yes but human-cloning and gray-aliens Top Secret.
You can observe it in your mind.
I'm sure other people than me can observe thing in their minds,
that's exactly why we have a common expression "mind's eye".
Not everyone is a visual learner,
some are auditory learners,
all valid senses.
You also cannot control experience to any valid degree.
you can control mind-sensations via meditation.
That is one of the first steps of cognition-control.
It's why it's frowned upon to experiment on one's self.
frown is merely a facial expression.
It's not just sometimes dangerous,
really? you're afraid of thinking?....
woah, hold on there..
just clear your mind,
relax, it's okay.
it's always bad science.
bad is subjective.
Cognitive-Science is merely different.
Imagine a letter in your mind,
you've tested that you can do it,
you've repeated something I have done,
and you have been in control the whole time.
Except that we have no way of observing each other do it.
We could also via telepathy,
or by recording our mind-sensations,
there are many patents for such things.
It's basically recording certain microwave frequencies.
I have not necessarily seen the letter in the same font, size, color, stroke intensity, position in the plane of my mental image, relative rotation of the letter, etc.
I didn't ask you to do any of those things.
I asked you to think of a letter.
Based on ambiguity of the language, you may have thought of an alphabet-letter my intention,
or you could have thought about a piece of paper with writing.
Okay let me be more clear.
Experiment is to see with your mind's-eye the letter "e",
the exact, font, shade, color, that you see on the screen,
with your eyes closed.
now to prove that you can make a new image in your mind,
see with your mind's-eye two letter e's upside-down next to each other.
draw what you see in your mind.
How was your experiment?
Did you succeed?
if you post the photo of the drawing up,
I can observe what you mind-saw.
And the only way I can confirm these things is by telling you. And I could just make stuff up,
that's the whole point,
you're going to be creating mind-sensations.
forget what I experienced,
can simply do another attempt.
or misinterpret what I experienced.
remember the duality thing?
words prefixed by mis- seem sexist to me.
fems are perfectly capable of interpreting things correctly.
In fact, they often have the other half of the story.
Yes, that half is different from your half,
but you can still learn from it.
Not very scientific when "he could just be making it up" is an option you can't simply dismiss.
To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create: made problems for us; making a commotion.
Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
Originally posted by madnessinmysoulWow, hack apologetics, that's really going to be something that demolishes atheism...
Calling someone a "hack apologetic" doesn't make it so, nor help your argument (Ad hominem).
His credentials: B.Sc. Univ. of Toronto (1985); Ph.D. MIT (1990). I find it funny that a person born on December 23, 1988, thinks he somehow is more philosophically knowledgeable than someone who got his B.Sc before he was even born. Pretentious much?
His point is that negative existential claims can indeed be proven. Which you seem to agree with, illustrated by the bolded "until". I posted that to clear up why they can be proven; to show why the "You can't prove a negative" statement is incorrect. End of story.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul On the second issue, your source is entirely wrong. For some reason, this person who holds a philosophy position seems to think that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, when they are not. In fact, he seems to be of the opinion that atheism can only exist as a reality claim, when it, like theism, is a claim of a position on a subject. There is also an argument from tradition, a logical fallacy you should expect a paid philosopher to avoid, in calling the non-standard definition necessarily wrong. So what if it's non-standard? If you can support it logically, it is valid. The common understanding of this word is wrong and it can be shown to be.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoulIt is not a reality claim, it is an expression of skepticism. Now, if you were to claim that you know a deity does not exist, that would be a reality claim, but none of the 'new atheists' actually make this claim so far as I know. As an atheist we do not claim "God does not exist" we claim "We have no good reason to believe in any deity".
See above. And really, none? lol All you have to do is read around these forums and you'll see "fairy tale" this "fairy tale" that, coming from self described "Atheists".
Originally posted by madnessinmysou
The whole thing rests upon semantics and a poor application of evidentialism. And this is coming from someone who is only a third year philosophy minor. In applying evidentialism in a manner that a skeptical rejection of a positive claim which lacks evidentiary support requires evidence itself you are basically turning rational discourse on its head. It would require evidence to support disbelief in any proposed idea, including ones I made up on the spot. Carl Sagan knocked this idea out of the park with his garage dragons.
Originally posted by tiger5
OK Your antipathy to Parapsycholgy is your prerogative. However it is a legitimate and rigourous science.
At least the equal to communications.
I have highlighted the meta studies. You have not even read the conclussions. Seeing that you can “find the research errors” them you really should challenge them I am sure the cash strapped universities would be more than happy to save money by shutting down the department! I will fly anywhere in the world to watch you do this.
Did you think that a scientific paper would not have a conclusion? What were the conclusions of the metastudies? Did you read the abstracts or summaries at the start of the paper? What were the conclusions embedded therein? The combined dataset in the metastudy confirmed that ESP exists. Our ability to fly to other planets by mind power seems unlikely.
No my friend yours is a closed mind one that is on a par with David Icke’s followers who believe the royal family are reptiles. That previous comment was harsh but the case for your wilful ignorance is below,
1. You could not use a search engine to quickly check what was on the web.
2. when I showed you how to use a search engine you then found 3 metastudies. I found considerable more see above.
3. You assume scientific papers on parapsychology are “Pseudoscience”.
Because the sceptical community practice the most blatant of wilful ignorance I thought the only way to prove that psychic phenomena exist by letting you have the experience. The training takes time but I would have thought the effects would have been observed a lot sooner. But given your wilful blindness you will simply accuse me of drugging you or using holographs or whatever a wilfully blind mind will conjure up.
And that is the fallacy of most sceptic. They are wilfully blindadn arrogantly believe that their grasp of scientific experimental design is greater than that of current professional academic scientists. How absurd!
What do you mean by atheism is disbelief in my God? Does that mean you may believe in someone elses? Could you pass me a copy of your atheism rulebook? Where does it say atheists are allowed to believe in one persons God but not anothers?
RULE 1 of 1
Thou shalt unless you choose otherwise , believe or disbelief anything you choose at any given time
Originally posted by something wicked
Soooo, let's cut to the chase.
You are saying Christianity is stupid.
You are asking why so many threads attack atheism
and yet you attack Christianity - interestingly you focus on that one faith, perhaps you have some underlying issues there.
You also focus on the Old Testament whereas Christianity by it's very nature is focussed on the New Testament.
Would you like to talk about the stupidity of other faiths while you're at it?
Your division of atheism is frankly stupid.
Implicit atheism (including babies) is nothing more than a philosophical luxury. A baby would have no concept of anything outside its very close environment (parent, food, warmth, coldness) - why on earth is it worth highlighting they have no concept of God?
Atheism is very simple - you understand the concept of a deity and reject it - that's it, stop trying to dress up something that is very straightforward.
Any further division of that is ridiculous, it's a binary division, yes or no.
To argue anything else is fatuous and is again a philiosphical luxury you are allowing yourself to make lack of belief in a deity into something more sophisticated than it is.
Is there really a group of atheists?
Are you members of a cult? Do you have meetings to discuss your lack of belief? Hey, why not select one day of the week to have these meetings and call it your special day?
Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by something wicked
Of course I attack christians when they assert their beliefs. There's a huge lack of evidence and a huge lack of anything to observe logically. All they can think of for "proof" of their god is an edited copy of an ancient bronze-age text and their feelings about it. That is definitely not empirical observation. There's a difference between that and all of the galaxies you can see with your eyes. You don't have to feel that they're there or believe it without evidence. The evidence has been available for a long time and it certainly has much more worth than a religious belief system.
If you didn't know what the concept of an invisible man was, you wouldn't be in a position to accept of reject it with any degree of certainty.
Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by The Djin
But Thor exists! There's ancient mythology that describes him in texts and I "feel" his presence. I have faith that he exists, despite the fact that the evidence does not exist! Thor's adversary is fooling christians into believing that their god exists by magically manipulating their thoughts...with magic!