Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What's ATS turning into?!

page: 7
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
What's ATS turning into?

G L P 2.0




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
Seriously guys, a lot of you are screwing this place up big time. Back when I first joined, this website was about intelligently discussing topics, learning from them, and moving on. Now it's turned into "ALIENS WILL INVADE NEXT MONTH" and other BS like that.


Yeah well - - I joined because I thought it would be the perfect place to discuss Light Beings - The Indigo craze - stuff like that. Which gets no respect at all and is immediately dumped into Skunk Works. It should at least be in the religious forum.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I agree that skunk works doesn't seem to be the place for those discussions.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Great rant thanks for posting it..ATS draws people from all walks of life i try to contribute by making threads i have to say im not good at it but i try ..I think this 2012 thing is over the top right now and as the months go on its going to get worse ..I have to admit some of these threads that make front page and get tons of stars upsets me sometimes.. Like last week allot of time was put into a thread i made and placed in RATS gets 6 flags i thought it was even applause worthy but nothing ..But a ridiculous thread gets 100s of flags and stars i find it frustrating ..
Don't get me wrong ive learned allot from various different threads, ATS is a great forum and i wouldn't leave here over any of this.. I'm learning everyone here has different perceptions and attitudes and many people like the far out unrealistic threads lets face it ATS has become a great entertainment spot so im learning to just go with the flow..Peace,sugarcookie1



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I agree with your point.
Every time somebody wants to discuss a subject although it may be new to them it has been covered on here dozens or hundreds of times before.

Maybe there should be a rule where you have to be here for a year and READING posts before you can continue.

It is pretty crazy to follow a post, see it be debunked and then it pops up again in a day or week again.

Or when a post is debunked or a logical explanation is given on the second page and yet people keep the crazy theory going for another 30 pages because they just read the post and non of the follow up.
DEon't just read the opening post and comment, read ALL the pages and maybe it was explained already....

I still find interesting things on here but the lunacy is getting just crazy. I wonder if the majority of ATS users are 12 years old or are adults just getting that naive and silly.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 

Facts are objective. I agree. The problem is that the OP, like many others, has confused his subjective opinion with objective facts.
I understand how annoyed you can get (since I do too) with hyperbolic claims. I have clicked on so many Youtubes with the phrase "undeniable proof" regarding a possible UFO sighting only to see a video of a light in the sky. I sympathize completely.
But on the other side of the coin are those who make blanket statements such as "There are no such things as ghosts" or "There are no such things as UFOs" but when you confront them and ask for some objective evidence to back up their statement you either discover they "know" their position to be correct based on nothing more than their opinion or the very unscientific assumption that absence of evidence proves absence of existence. That I can not prove God or UFOs or Big Foot exist is taken as proof they do not.
The point I was trying to make was if a thing can be neither proved nor disproved then the proper answer as regards it's reality is "I don't know". I have no objection to the use of the word 'improbable' but I would like to see evidence before I accept a claim of 'impossible'.
Your particular objection seems to be against outrageous nonsensical claims of proof and I agree with you totally. But since none of the subjects mentioned has been resolved one way or the other the idea of banning certain subjects because some people have decided they have been 'debunked' is ridiculous. I ask what I thought would be the obvious question. Who gets to decide when an issue has been settled?
Someone sees a photo of what he believes to be a ghost.
Someone else sees a trick of light and shadows.
Who can claim more than an opinion? A subjective opinion?
Who can say it is this or that and so the subject is now considered closed and no more threads on that particular subject will be/should be accepted? This does not seem a valid question to you? It is wrong of me to ask?
Object to nonsensical claims?...Yes. I am with you.
Object to subject matter because 'you' believe it has been resolved?...It sounds like pure arrogance to me.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
You are all right imo. All of you, completely correct.

But you can read old threads from 2006 that complain about how superior things "used to be" around here, and how they have deteriorated. Apparently it's always been that way.

*It might be a good idea to bump some old threads as models to newcomers. Many of them are still relevant.

*Sometimes people have interesting things/important things to say, but are chased away by hateful posters because they don't want to put up with the crap. That's a shame.

*We say "don't feed the trolls", but we do daily. We allow them to derail threads and actually assist them, by responding to them. Will we never learn to ignore them?

*It's not advisable to go onto a thread just to say "already posted", "this is stupid" and such. YOU ARE BUMPING IT. Let it die if it's that's bad.

/rant



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I agree there are many very out there posts, however you have the right to choose whether or not to visit these posts.

They usually are placed correctly in the hoax, dreams and predictions, Gray Area or Skunk Works category.

If some of these posts are getting 100+ stars maybe something IS up.

Maybe there are many people who either have dreamed of or feel that these threads have merit.

So many of our human freedoms have already been stripped from us.

Who are you to say what one can and cannot post?

Yes, one does a post on a very important issue and it's ignored and another thread pops up that is not really important or even appears now to be silly and receives mega stars and flags.

At least there is still a limited amount of freedom here on ATS and you would deny and dictate what may or may not be discussed?

150 years ago if you had discussed microwaves, cell phones, a man on the moon (supposedly), jet flights from LA to Paris in a matter of hours - you would have been deemed insane.

50 years ago mainstream science only dreamed of multiple dimensions, now multiverses and hyperspace, spaces within spaces and holographic universes are becoming mainstream reality - (mainstream scientists will only admit or go out on a limb as far as they are allowed for funding / grant reasons. What are they aware of and not able to admit to the public???)

Doom and gloom, yes there are way too many "the spacemen are coming the spacemen are coming threads.........but if enough people grow tired and move along and these threads are ignored, they will eventually go away.

However, remember the story about the boy who cried wolf.....................once too often and the last time he cried wolf, was the real deal.

We are all interconnected, a part of the "source" the whole, some call the collective consciousness.

Something is up. Something big has been up for quite awhile. Most sensitive people can feel it deep in their bones, like before a rainstorm or heavy snow storm is approaching before the weather station even confirms it.

Something is coming, what that something is, I haven't a clue. Personally I don't have warm, fuzzy feelings about whatever it is that is coming.

More earthquakes
Our O2 level dropping even further (much lower and homosapiens will not be able to breathe and we may be paying for air like in "Total Recall".

If you want ATS to up their standard, then you begin threads and be the change you want to see.

I'll be sure to pay close attention to what you decide to post, just let me know via u2u that you've started a thread.

My own opinion is there are no coincidences, not when it comes to major stuff - something is going on, we as a species are being taken advantage of.

I do not pretend to know the who, what or why of it, I simply feel deep within my being, my gut, that there is more than we can see, feel, hear, taste or touch and like Obi told Luke Skywalker, "Sometimes you must close your eyes and let the force guide you."

Lastly, If a group of entities have the technology to travel either from another planet, star system, universe or other dimension - there will be no war like "Independence Day" or "War of the Worlds" - we are not even a Class I civilization yet, you are then possibly talking a Class II or III.

What you consider crazy may not seem so crazy 150 years from now.

edit on 28-3-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
Back when I first joined, this website was about intelligently discussing topics, learning from them, and moving on.
It's a good thing I'm not running ATS because I'd be on a massive banning spree for anyone who continually chooses ignorance over facts.


Do you consider yourself a part of the people that can learn from their mistakes, instead of treading around them, and acting like they didn't happen?


It wouldn't be half as bad if people actually LISTENED, LEARNED, and took REALITY into consideration...


Or do you only consider reality that which you agree with, without evidence?
edit on 28-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron


Do you consider yourself a part of the people that can learn from their mistakes, instead of treading around them, and acting like they didn't happen?


Now why on Earth would you be so vague?



Or do you only consider reality that which you agree with, without evidence?
edit on 28-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)


I consider reality facts supported by evidence.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox



Do you consider yourself a part of the people that can learn from their mistakes, instead of treading around them, and acting like they didn't happen?


It's just a question, you could have answered it as well as spitting a question back at me.



I consider reality facts supported by evidence.


Even when it comes to the arena of belief?


Want to take a test?
edit on 28-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron
It's just a question, you could have answered it as well as spitting a question back at me.


A vague question.



Even when it comes to the arena of belief?


Want to take a test?
edit on 28-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)


I do not tend believe things unless there is at least an iota of truth to it. That is how facts work, after all



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox


I do not tend believe things unless there is at least an iota of truth to it. That is how facts work, after all


Oh, so I take it you believe that everyone has a belief regarding the existence of God. Everyone that has been exposed to the concept of God, right?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by paradox


I do not tend believe things unless there is at least an iota of truth to it. That is how facts work, after all


Oh, so I take it you believe that everyone has a belief regarding the existence of God. Everyone that has been exposed to the concept of God, right?


Rephrase that?

I do not have a belief in the existence of god.
That is the definition of atheist, sir



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by paradox


I do not tend believe things unless there is at least an iota of truth to it. That is how facts work, after all


Oh, so I take it you believe that everyone has a belief regarding the existence of God. Everyone that has been exposed to the concept of God, right?


Rephrase that?

I do not have a belief in the existence of god.
That is the definition of atheist, sir


But you can admit that an atheist, according to your definition that you used in another thread can't being to describe you because you have been exposed to the idea of God, thus shedding you of disbelief regarding the existence of God.

You believe that God doesn't exist, and that isn't a disbelief, so you can't be an atheist as you defined it.

Right?
edit on 28-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron

But you can admit that an atheist, according to your definition that you used in another thread can't being to describe you because you have been exposed to the idea of God, thus shedding you of disbelief regarding the existence of God.

You believe that God doesn't exist, and that isn't a disbelief, so you can't be an atheist as you defined it.

Right?
edit on 28-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)


It is a disbelief. It is a rejection of theistic claims.
There would not be atheism, if it were not for theism.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by satron

But you can admit that an atheist, according to your definition that you used in another thread can't being to describe you because you have been exposed to the idea of God, thus shedding you of disbelief regarding the existence of God.

You believe that God doesn't exist, and that isn't a disbelief, so you can't be an atheist as you defined it.

Right?
edit on 28-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)


It is a disbelief. It is a rejection of theistic claims.
There would not be atheism, if it were not for theism.


Why couldn't atheism exist without theism? According to you, it's a disbelief. Why do you need theism to disbelieve something?

But my question is how you can consider yourself an atheist when you can't say that you haven't been exposed to the idea of God? I mean, you came up with the definition.

It seems to me that you still believe it even though the evidence is there to say you shouldn't.

I'm just saying, because you seem to be adamantly against people like that in your OP.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron


Why couldn't atheism exist without theism? According to you, it's a disbelief. Why do you need theism to disbelieve something?


*sigh*
Theists created the claim of god.

Atheists did not. Atheists reject the claim of god's existence.
You can not have a disbelief in god's existence without the claim of god in the first place. Otherwise what claim would there be to disbelieve?



But my question is how you can consider yourself an atheist when you can't say that you haven't been exposed to the idea of God? I mean, you came up with the definition.

It seems to me that you still believe it even though the evidence is there to say you shouldn't.

I'm just saying, because you seem to be adamantly against people like that in your OP.


Holy crap. how is it not possible to understand such a simple concept?
[a] without [theist] belief in the existence of god.

You are atheist if you are exposed to the idea, and then reject it based on the lack of evidence.
A disbelief.

It's really that simple.....
edit on 3-28-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Atheists can't be atheists, according to your version of the definition. Only babies can be atheists, or people that unfortunately can't grasp the world like normal people. You aren't either. Why do you belief that you do in the face of evidence?




Holy crap. how is it not possible to understand such a simple concept?
[a] without [theist] belief in the existence of god.


But your belief that God doesn't exist IS your belief, why can't you accept that? You still have a belief. Evidence is there, yet you don't accept it.

Again, if you say that atheism is a disbelief in God, then you aren't an atheist!


You are atheist if you are exposed to the idea, and then reject it based on the lack of evidence.
A disbelief.

It's really that simple.....
edit on 3-28-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)


You reject the idea that God doesn't exist, but you retain the idea that God does not exist? Get it? You can't be an atheist according to your definition.

I've given you proof over and over, but still you hang on to your false idea.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron

Again, if you say that atheism is a disbelief in God, then you aren't an atheist!


Go ahead and write to Merriam Webster. It looks like they have to change the definition and how the entire world views the word, just because you fail to grasp a very simple concept.




You reject the idea that God doesn't exist, but you retain the idea that God does not exist? Get it? You can't be an atheist according to your definition.

I've given you proof over and over, but still you hang on to your false idea.


Correction, I reject the idea that God does exist.

Yawn...this conversation is really getting tiresome.
You still have not convinced me, or anyone else of anything, so exactly what was your goal?

The sky is blue, the Earth continues spinning, and I am still an atheist.
Good day.
edit on 3-28-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join