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 ANOK
Originally posted by Wonders
Shows where you get your information from. Why is God the hypothesis?
How can it be a hypothesis when people won't even bother to see for themselves if God is real because all the other loud mouths tell them that God's imaginary?
Where I get my information from? So where would that be?
God is the hypothesis because it can not be tested and is not observable. How hard is that to understand?
Originally posted by namine
Problem's faith is blinding, and often stronger than facts and logic.
As for your question, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who can prove something doesn't exist, zealot or not.
Originally posted by Wonders
There you go! You gave me a glimmer of joy when you posted the scientific method!!!!! Then you post this?
If that's the case, then why are there people like myself who have experienced things that science IGNORES?
I understand what you are TRYING to say, you HONESTLY think that God can not be tested and is not observable, that is a limitation that you have put on yourself, how convienient.
Originally posted by cjttatu
Originally posted by Wonders
Originally posted by cjttatu
Originally posted by Wonders
Originally posted by cjttatu
Originally posted by Wonders
reply to post by jiggerj
Have you ever went to a group of satanists to make fun of their beliefs? No? Hmm....
their really good at hiding.
i looked for them once..honest i did, seems they get some weird active results.
But alas not a satanist to be found
I don't doubt that. I want to know how many people are actually studying Satanism for it's validity, could someone tell me why more people who were into satanism converted to Christianity rather than become agnostic?edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.
did they or did they just go back to the title alchemists.
to get out of the religion clique??
What does the title matter if the content is merely tweaked. Protestant and Catholic are both considered Christianity and yet the distinction in title remains because the content is tweaked.
yeh but according to supposed satanistic beliefs,the trick is
for people to believe they no longer exist,much like supposed secret societies.
I was kinda being light hearted about the alchemy thing but there are some who believe
they go hand in hand.
Originally posted by godlover25
(that was a joke)
Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by Wonders
So basically, you had some internal experiences that made you believe in god. You either hallucinated, or communicated with some entity in your mind? So basically what you're trying to say is, you're schitzophrenic? Or do you claim to know reality so intimately that you know the human mind in its entirety and can describe every function and how "god" speaks to you? Are you prepared to admit that your experiences don't indicate an ultimate god who created the universe - but more a mechanism of the human brain which is not understood fully, that many people use to claim proof of "god"? I do love me some schitzophrenics. The more extreme ones always have grand notions about god.
When I was a child I used to try to speak to god. I would always get in instantaeneous subconcious and vague reply. In the end I decided it was more a mechanism of my brain, not the "creator of the universe talking to me in ambiguous terms and not about anything complex".
I love how lots of religious speakers today talk about how they "spoke with god at length".. And basically are just describing their own thought-processes. Sigh... All this talk about the masses of braindead humans is depressing.edit on 14-11-2012 by WorShip because: (no reason given)
When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.
Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.
To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.
Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.
In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Wonders
There you go! You gave me a glimmer of joy when you posted the scientific method!!!!! Then you post this?
If that's the case, then why are there people like myself who have experienced things that science IGNORES?
I understand what you are TRYING to say, you HONESTLY think that God can not be tested and is not observable, that is a limitation that you have put on yourself, how convienient.
No it is not a limitation on anyone.
You claim science is wrong. Science has a method to prove it's right. You can not prove God using that method, what method would you use?
You can not prove God by claiming you have experienced him. You have no idea that what you are experiencing is in fact God. You can not do that, however much you think you can, seriously. You want it to be God so you think it is. It has nothing to do with anyone not understanding what you experience, you thinking you experienced God does not make it a fact.
So if you want to prove God to those who are skeptical the only way to achieve that is to use the scientific method. But of course you know that's impossible, so you'll just simply argue that I don't understand and around and around we go...
edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Wonders
Okay, prove to me that vaccinations are right.
Science is whatever the hell the person with the most money says it is. Vaccinations don't work. We don't NEED fossil fuels. and Mainstream Media is corrupt. I know what a fact is. And just because you think you're more knowledgeable than I, does not make it so.edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: Some people will believe anything from an unknown source, so long as that source is outwardly more wealthy than "commoners" like themselves. This goes for "Christians" too.
Fewer than half of U.S. students are proficient in science, renewing questions about the country’s global competitiveness, the Education Department said Tuesday...
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Wonders
Okay, prove to me that vaccinations are right.
Well that's not really science is it? As in creating an hypothesis and then testing it to see if the hypothesis works.
They don't have to follow the scientific method to produce a vaccine. They are making a product, not trying to prove an hypothesis. The blame should lie in the capitalist system, not in science.
Science is whatever the hell the person with the most money says it is. Vaccinations don't work. We don't NEED fossil fuels. and Mainstream Media is corrupt. I know what a fact is. And just because you think you're more knowledgeable than I, does not make it so.edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: Some people will believe anything from an unknown source, so long as that source is outwardly more wealthy than "commoners" like themselves. This goes for "Christians" too.
Vaccinations not working has nothing to do with science. Blame the chemist that made them, and the capitalist system that puts profit making above health care.
Fossil fuels also has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with making profit.
What do you think it is I'm believing, and from what source? This is just common sense mate, I don't need a source. Your arguments are none-arguments, you simply don't understand science. Not surprising though...
Fewer than half of U.S. students are proficient in science, renewing questions about the country’s global competitiveness, the Education Department said Tuesday...
Most U.S. students lack science proficiency, goverment reports
You can choose to believe that, or not, but I bet if you polled ATS you'd get a similar result.
edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Wonders
Alright so maybe I'm mistaken, are vaccines attributed to the wonders of modern science, or aren't they?
Real science is supressed, and that's why we use fossil fuels.
And Americans aren't proficient in science because the powers that be want it that way, BUT someone can still study what they can when they graduate and they don't need a tuition to do it either.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Wonders
Alright so maybe I'm mistaken, are vaccines attributed to the wonders of modern science, or aren't they?
Yes they are, but you can't blame science for the application of that science.
Do you blame Einstein for the bombing of Japan with a nuclear weapon, or two?
Real science is supressed, and that's why we use fossil fuels.
Yes science is suppressed, but that is done mainly because that science would cost some huge industry some profits. So that industry uses it's massive economic persuasion to get that science suppressed.
Again not the fault of science.
And Americans aren't proficient in science because the powers that be want it that way, BUT someone can still study what they can when they graduate and they don't need a tuition to do it either.
Well I agree, but I do believe you missed my point, entirely.
edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
When a medicine is prescribed or administered to a patient, it can have several effects. Some of them depend directly on the medicine's pharmacological action. There exists, however, another effect, that is not linked to the medicine's pharmacology, and that can also appear when a pharmacologically inactive substance is administered. We call it placebo effect. It is one of the most common phenomena observed in medicine, but also a very mysterious one.
The placebo effect is powerful. In a study carried out at the University of Harvard, its effectiveness was tested in a wide range of disturbances, including pain, arterial hypertension and asthma. The result was impressive: 30 to 40% of the patients obtained relief with the use of placebo. Furthermore, the placebo effect is not limited to medicines but it can appear with any kind of medical procedure.
In a trial to test the value of a surgical procedure (ligature of an artery in the thorax) to treat angina pectoris (pain in the chest caused by chronic heart ischemia), the placebo procedure consisted in anesthetizing the patient and only cutting his skin. The thus fictiously treated patients showed an 80% improvement while those actually operated upon only 40%. In other words: placebo acted better than surgery.
Up to now medical science has not fully explained what is the cause (or causes) of the placebo effect. But it seems that it is the result of the patient's expectation of an effect.
Conditioned Reflexes
According to Pavlovian theory, the functioning of the nervous system can be understood as depending on reflexes, that are responses to stimuli from the external or internal milieu. A sensorial stimulus, come it from inside or outside the body, reaches a receptor and modifies the organic conditions, and, consequently, calls forth a motor, secretory or vegetative response.
There are two types of reflexes: conditioned and unconditioned.
Unconditioned reflexes are those with which the animals are born, acquired along the evolution of their species, that is, their phylogeny. For example, if we put food in a dog's mouth, saliva begins to flow. This response is preordained inside the dog's nervous system.
Conditioned reflexes are those acquired by the animals during their own lifetime, that is, their ontogeny. These reflexes represent one of the types of learning the nervous system is capable of. As certain stimuli keeps acting on them, the animals form conditioned responses to these stimuli. In order these conditioned responses can appear, they have to be based upon unconditioned ones. In Pavlov's classical experiment, ringing the bell didn't cause the dog to salivate initially. But after he repeatedly rang the bell preceding the unconditioned stimulus (food), the dog began to salivate in response to the ringing of bell alone.
Placebo effect as a conditioning
Thus we come to a very convincing physiological explanation about the placebo effect: it is an organic effect that occurs in the patients due to Pavlovian conditioning on the level of abstract and symbolic stimuli.
According to this explanation, what counts is the reality present in the brain, not the pharmacological one. The nervous system expectation in relation to the effects of a drug can annul, revert or enlarge the pharmacological reactions to this drug. This expectation can also cause inert substances to elicit effects that actually don't depend on them.
We could then define placebo effect as the therapeutically positive (or negative) result of expectations implanted in the nervous system of the patients, through conditioning, consequent to the prior use of medicines, contacts with doctors, and information obtained by means of reading and remarks of other people.
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
Originally posted by Wonders
So how great can science be if it is easily supressed by greedy people?
How are athiests so noble that they've allowed their own foundation to be corrupted?