Has Intelligent Thought Become A Lost Art at ATS ?

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I have lost any hope of original thought. I don't think it is possible.
Perhaps new combinations of existing thoughts can be created...?

Here's the thing-
Having been obsessed with being "original" and an individual who thinks for herself, for as long as I can remember, I refused to turn to traditional education for anything. Though my mother had a degree in Philosophy, my stepfather was a respected professor of Philosophy, I rejected suggestions to read any philosophy, or even classic literature at all, because I didn't want to become "infected".

I wanted to drink only from the inner source. I had no trust in man.

As my life unfolded, (and I was lucky enough to have lots of isolated time for introspection) I began to form my own vision, my own philosophy and eventually, what I thought was my own very original and uncommon perception.

When I got introduced to the Internet, I began to write out my thoughts and perceptions. People started to say things like "Yeah- you're talking about that theory Jung had." (or Freud, or Spinoza, or Nietzsche, etc....) and I started to check out books in the library. I had mixed feeligns upon realizing that NOTHING, none of the realizations I had had while observing the cosmos inside, were totally original! Right now I am reading another book for the first time and having the same experience- here is a big scoop of what I have been writing for years and claiming it to be my own original and strange view. Sometimes the wording is even the same....

Call it the collective subconscious, or some sort of Noosphere, but we pull thoughts from the pool of all thoughts humans have had for thousands of years. It seems we lock into some channel for a while, and then switch to another, but I doubt any of it is really truly original!

On the other hand, the benefit of surfing the inner channels is that you can better understand the concept sometimes- because you can percieve it almost as multidimensional object- you can approach it from many different directions, or language.... you can ask questions about it, or have others ask questions about it, and the answer is there because the concept-object is there- in wholeness.

True originality may not be possible... but comprehension can be and that, for me, is the really important thing.




posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


Ok let's try another angle. The faithful have to keep the faith of their beliefs in times that seem like their god doesn't exist. People like me don't have to maintain our zero belief in the face of miracle after miracle. We don't have to come up with cliche phrases like "well god doesn't work in mysterious ways". It's not a belief in the negative, that I have to hold onto, and try to rationalize in situations that contradict my stance. It is just a zero belief. If evidence arises to the contrary, then it is possible I could analyze it and change my mind.

Everytime god stands by and does nothing while innocent kids are raped, tortured or murdered, is a slap in the face to believers. Why does your pussy god not intervene? I know I would, my wrath would be felt by the wicked. Make the decision to bomb some civilians, well here is some #ing spontanious combustion for you bitch.

Everytime a kid dies a painful horrible death by cancer or whatever, where was god then?

Trying to turn zero belief into a negative belief is playing symantics.
edit on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:24:18 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)
edit on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:03:26 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 



I appreciate you exploring this idea and trying to clearly express your viewpoint, but I still see things the way I explained them.


People like me don't have to maintain our zero belief in the face of miracle after miracle.


And yet you do. Unwaveringly.


It's not a belief in the negative, that I have to hold onto, and try to rationalize in situations that contradict my stance.


But you do. Despite what anyone says. Despite what others consider "evidence." You fit their evidence onto your BELIEF structure, which is that of no-god. How are you not seeing this?


If evidence arises to the contrary, then it is possible I could analyze it and change my mind.


And Christians can do this as well. It is true that many choose not to. But for you to put one label "Christians" on the whole group, and paint the whole group as though they are responsible for the actions of the few, is just like the people who think all minorities are hooligans and criminals. It is prejudice. Pre-judgment.

If a christian suddenly sees or think something that doesn't accord with their previous beliefs, they can change their minds. If you read the thread about 20 questions for christians that was mentioned earlier, you may have seen my mention of having grown up in a christian family. Over the years my beliefs have changed MULTIPLE times. I am free to do that just as you are.

I'd like to address this:



Everytime god stands by and does nothing while innocent kids are raped, tortured or murdered, is a slap in the face to believers. Why does your pussy god not intervene? I know I would, my wrath would be felt by the wicked. Make the decision to bomb some civilians, well here is some fn spontanious combustion for you bitch.




Who said it's a slap in the face to believers? It is true that some people have a hard time understanding how there could be a god who would allow all these things to happen-- but from what I've seen, most of these people tend to be NON believers like you, or maybe agnostics. Believers usually have some kind of understanding or rationalization for these things. I have my own.

Let me take this opportunity, however, to say that I'm very glad you're not god.
You sound like you would be a very violent god who lacks understanding and compassion. So you are pro-hell, then? Eye for an eye? Forget all that "forgivness" nonsense?

I will actually briefly touch on my views about this, even though it has no bearing on my previous point (regarding belief versus no-belief both being faith) which still stands.

We live in what some have called "the world of opposites." It is called this, of course, because for any thing to exist, its opposite must also exist. Things can be defined more clearly through opposition. For example... what if there were no such thing as "feeling bad?" What if all feelings were good feelings? How would you ever know you were having a good feeling? Because it is what it always was? Because there is none of the thing you never knew existed in the first place (bad feeling)? The only possibility there, is definition by gradation. You could have a stronger feeling than the one before, maybe. But it still would not have the feeling of "good" because there would be nothing available to compare it to. By this same token, this world NEEDS to have pain, for the very existence of pleasure.

Now the next one is a bit trickier. Tricky because I have known a few rare people who understood this as teenagers, and I have known MANY adults who still seem a little too "underdeveloped" to get this. Can you think of a time in your life when something bad happened, that changed you? A time when something happened which was catastrophic or painful at the time you went through it, but which caused you to think in some profound way that lead to a lasting change? This is a common human experience. Psychologically speaking, people are driven to move toward pleasure and away from pain. You ever wonder why some people have addictions they can't seem to break? It is because they do not yet have enough pain associated with their addiction. Or otherwise there is more pleasure associated with it. Hang out at some alcoholics anonymous meetings and you will hear the speakers talk about how you have to "hit rock bottom" before you can truly change and recover. This is the meaning of that. Pain serves a constructive purpose.

What do you think life would be like without pain and suffering of any kind? Don't answer. Just think about it. Seriously. (Keep in mind that without pain you can not truly know its opposite)

(continued in post below)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 



(continued from post above)

Along a similar theme-- maybe you've had something happen to you which you perceived as disastrous at the time, but which somehow lead to something else in your life which was good. This could be a change like in the previous paragraph, or a seeming coincidence. At the time the painful thing happened, you probably were cursing the event-- upset about it. But later on looking back, you can see how if you did not have that one event, you would not have ended up with the good thing you have now. Personal example... if I hadn't gone through several failed relationships, as well as experienced a few other personal tragedies, I would never have met and re-connected with my current girlfriend, who I am very in love with and very happy with.

A slightly different angle--Imagine you catch your child smoking. You punish them. They are angry with you for the punishment, because they do not see in the same way you do, that your punishment will have a positive impact on their life in the long-run. This is because you are older, and wiser, and have a wider-vision than a child.

Likewise, this is the kind of question we are debating. We are like little children, tyring to figure out the motive of someone far older and wiser. With our limited perspectives, we can never entirely see the big picture. Some of the children will try to accept the punishment gracefully, and some will kick and scream the whole time. I think we both know which child usually has an easier time.

Maybe you think the presence of pain, suffering, and "evil" in the world is cruel and unthinkable. How about this one-- do you watch movies? Play video games? Do you hold a funeral every time a character dies? Is it cruel for you to send a video game character into battle? Okay, the game isn't sentient. Fair enough. What about an actor, playing a role. A scream queen in a horror movie... being chased down by a big guy with a chainsaw.... neither the writer nor the director feel bad about this. Because it isn't real. The camera stops rolling, the director calls cut, and everyone goes home. Likewise, this is how a believer views it.

I still say you're the one playing the semantics game, and no matter what i or anyone else says, you will try to fit life into your pre-conceived notions of there being no god. Ideas which I'm sure you've borrowed heavily from others. You could argue that I'm doing the same, and neither one of us gets to "win." (Or actually, both of us do, considering we both think we're right
)

One thing you can not say about me, is that I am some sheep who just believes what others tell me. Yes, some of my spiritual ideas are based on christianity and judaism... and I do respect the teacher and mystic commonly known as Jesus Christ, but I adopt ideas from other places as well, and add my own when logic dictates. When is the last time you used logic to adapt your atheistic faith to keep it current with your understanding? I'm not sure I've ever seen that happen, from an atheist. Just a strong faith in doubt and nothing.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 

I have seen a grand total of zero miracles. So no, I don't do that at all. Everything anyone has ever held up to me as proof, can not be proven. Personal experiences are not really proof, there are plenty of natural drugs out there that can invoke the same kinds of experiences. A well targeted electrical impulse to the right part of the brain can invoke the same kinds of experiences.

Prayer is a joke. My cuz started preaching when she was 8. Up on the pulpet, for crowds, the whole nine yards. At 10, she was diagnosed with a bad brain tumor, she had literally thousands of people holding prayer meetings, for months. She still died, the biblical god heard no one's pleas. This was a beautiful little girl, that spread his word every chance she got. He could not return the favor and help her though, what a prick.

I am not an atheist, I do not believe in the biblical god, that man created in his own image however. I see zero evidence of a god that resembles human traits.

If I would spontaniously combust savages that blow up civilians, that makes me worse than god? That god that went and murdered all the firstborn children of the egyptians, because their pharoah wasn't listening to moses?
That god that ordered his people to slay whole villages except for the little girls they could keep for sex slaves?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
People quote and repeat what they agree with, their personal worldview, if they are neutral on a topic, they may state both sides.

This is only natural when either trying to make a point or defend an idea.
Let me give you an example.

The Fermi Paradox Verses The Drake Equation

My worldview leans towards the "The Fermi Paradox" supported by the "Rare Earth hypothesis"
These are not my idea's obviously.

Of coarse I believe in old earth creation and that is why I would support those idea's, it's intelligent thought is not lost at all, it is in fact supported by more than just faith today, it is supported by research that reinforces our current belief structures. And those that don't are discarded, this happens to both sides.

Just for fun I will throw this in
edit on 25-11-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thetiler
 


You'll have to forgive me for not believing in the psychic you mentioned either, because I don't believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ, son of God, and messiah to mankind. That being so, I don't believe that anyone, no matter how little money they charge, could talk to Jesus Christ, because there never was a Jesus Christ.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


I was going to write up a small thesis on the lack-of-evidence for the existence of God, or even the validity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam... then I realized I only get 5,000 characters to write with. I decided to do one better. Instead of rehashing the sources I use for my own writings, I'd just give them to you directly. Luckily, it's almost Christmas, that awesome pagan holiday of gift-giving and communal connection to help us survive the dark winter. So, go ahead and add many of what I'm linking to below to your holiday gift list. You'll have months of good reading ahead of you!

First, there's the book Philosophers Without Gods, a compendium of modern atheists and their explanations for why they've lost the faith, and why they now believe that God and Christ are myths and not realities. This book also heavily outlines the lack-of-faith which is required to be an atheist.

Second, the works of Richard Dawkins, but, specifically his volume The God Delusion which outlines the cultural and personal development of religion and religious thought, and why it is most likely not reality.

Third, numerous works by various anthropologists, mythographers, and professors. People like the esteemed Samuel Noah Kramer, who's study of Sumerian and Babylonian mythology has shown me the origins of Biblical myths like the creation of man, the flood, the story of Job, and even the early origins of Christ as a resurrected shepherd who leads his people to salvation. Alongside this are authors like Arthur Cotterell, J. A. Coleman, and David Leeming who's works have helped me uncover the Egyptian, Anatolian, Levantine, and Greek myths which Hebrew and Christian writers got their inspiration from.

Finally, if you're too lazy to read books and do some leg-work yourself to uncover the illegitimate origins of Christianity and Judaism, there's also the seminal website, Jesus Never Existed, which outlines every source from which Christianity has stolen. Covered within the extensively researched articles are the truth of the Apostles, the lack of existent Biblical locations, Christ's origins in pagan religions, how the Bible altered historical figures to fit their needs, and so much more. There's even a YouTube page where Ken (the author) narrates his articles, and a book if you'd like to own all the articles, sources, and research which have gone into the construction of the site.

Historically, culturally, scientifically... even spiritually, God, Jesus Christ, Judaism, the prophets, and Christianity are all shown for the fabrications that they really are.

Whether we agree or not, is unimportant, if you're still of the belief that God exists and atheists subsist on faith alone.

~ Wandering Scribe

edit on 27/11/12 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 

Forgive me, but I'm not clear on your position.

I was going to write up a small thesis on the lack-of-evidence for the existence of God



Historically, culturally, scientifically... even spiritually, God, Jesus Christ, Judaism, the prophets, and Christianity are all shown for the fabrications that they really are.
Your first position is that there isn't any evidence for God. Your second position is that there is conclusive evidence that God was fabricated. Which do you choose, or do you support both positions?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Neither statement is in opposition of the other.

Perhaps my use of existence is what has confused you. Existence, as I am using it here, requires that the thing in question be provable through empirical evidence.

There is no empirical evidence for God's existence; all of the available evidence points to God being a plagiarized rehash of older polytheistic beliefs.

So, if you accept God's existence, based on God's testimony, the Bible, then you would also need to accept the existence of all of the other gods which God stole His work from. If not, then you become a hypocrite for believing one, over the other, when both present the same reason for believing in them.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 

Dear Wandering Scribe,

Thank you for your attention, I appreciate it. It's a good thing when someone is willing to discuss significant matters.


Sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought your two positions were in opposition. Clearly they're not, they're separate. It appears that you accept them both, that's fine.

Neither statement is in opposition of the other.


Existence, as I am using it here, requires that the thing in question be provable through empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence, as I understand it.

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.
The only empirical evidence would be that which was recorded by the witnesses at the time of Jesus. I don't see how any other "empirical" evidence would be possible for Jesus, or any other historical figure. It seems a bit like requiring a video as the only acceptable evidence for anything in history.

But, if that's what you're going to require, while I don't think that's reasonable, I admit I can't supply it.

Surely however, given that, you can't expect me to accept your claim that

all of the available evidence points to God being a plagiarized rehash of older polytheistic beliefs.
Prove plagarism by empirical evidence, then.

The only evidence for your proposition that I know of, is the similarity of one religion to another, followed by the assumption that plagarism must have been involved. We even have to assume that all of the New Testament writers even knew about all of these other religions.

So, if you accept God's existence, based on God's testimony, the Bible, then you would also need to accept the existence of all of the other gods which God stole His work from.
But you haven't even shown the work was stolen.

If not, then you become a hypocrite for believing one, over the other, when both present the same reason for believing in them.
I don't agree that the same reason for belief is presented.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I use the same definition of empirical evidence as you do. The reason being that anything which can not be observed, measured, or tested by any willing participant can never be satisfactorily described as "existent."

To the contrary of your claim though, empirical evidence can be acquired at any time. All it would take would be for the omnipotent, omnipresent being known as God to manifest in an open, public place for every living being on the planet. Or, for Jesus to return and publicly address the nations of the world, followed by demonstrations of the miracles her performed in the Bible. These would not be difficult for beings such as God and Christ.

Since no such demonstrations have occurred outside of ancient, unprovable accounts, many recorded hundreds of years after the supposed actions, I have no empirical evidence on which to believe in God anymore than in Baal, a contemporary of God's.

 


As for proving plagiarism by empirical evidence, while I cannot say that it had to have happened, exactly as I described, we do have an alternative.

We have physical evidence which points to the Hebrew's Babylonian captivity between 600 and 580 BCE. At the same time we have tangible cuneiform inscriptions of Sumerian and Babylonian mythology dates from as early as 3500 BCE, and as late as 669 BCE (and probably even later).

Now, here we have nearly 3000 years of frequently recorded mythology, which occurs right up to, and most likely beyond, the Jewish captivity when the Hebrews began writing their own mythology. Among the myths popular in Babylon during the captivity?

1) Two creation myths: one where the god Enki and the goddess Ninmah (Ninhursag) create human beings out of clay, and then breathe life into them. These humans are then instructed to look after the flora and fauna of the paradise garden, called Dilmun, where they will never age, suffer, or die. The second creation myth, of the state-god Marduk, details how he built man out of clay, mixed with blood and spit, then breathed life into man. Marduk then sets human beings to tending to the needs of the earth. Whichever account you prefer, it leads directly to...

2) A flood-myth. In this myth humans have gotten too noisy, too rude, or have stopped being faithful to the gods (differs depending on if it's a Sumerian, Babylonian-Akkadian, or Chaldean account). The result? The god Enlil decides to have a host of storm gods flood the entire planet, killing every human being for their offensive ways. Before this can be completed though, Enlil's brother, Enki, communicates with a single inhabitant of Sumer named Utnapishtam. Enki warns Utnapishtam of the coming calamity and instructs him to build a boat which he, his family, and his livestock may use to survive the coming disaster. After the rains, Utnapishtam releases a bird to find solid land and offers sacrifices to the gods. This leads to a new species of human beings, who end up in great suffering. A particular writing remains of a figure known as Tabu-Utul-Bel.

3) In his writing, known as the Ludlul Bel Nimeqi (c. 1700 BCE), we have the story of a man who tries to be righteous and faithful to his gods, but begins to see evil, suffering, and despair take hold of his world. Eventually, this same evil consumes Tabu himself, and he cries out to his gods, his personal deity, even his priests and enchanters for the answer to why he suffers, though he is faithful and upright. At the end, the messengers of Marduk come and release Tabu from his torments and rewards him for his faith.

Those are just three myths, all from Sumer, which parallel the creation of man in Genesis, the flood and Noah's ark, and the book of Job. There are numerous other myths from Egypt, Babylon, the Hittites and Hurrians, the Canaanites, and various others which also match the Hebrew and Christian traditions.

It can be said that these older myths do not mention Yahweh, or Jesus, or Noah himself, etc., and cannot be the same. This is a mistake though, because the Jews were attempting to differentiate themselves from the pagans who they were enslaved to. They wanted their myths to project a personal, cultural identity. It is, however, not unreasonable to assume that the Jews took the myths they were familiar with, added their own legendary figures, and repacked them, claiming them as as their own, while they were in developing their identity during the captivity.

Judaism and Christianity are not the only place where this happens either. The myth of Teshub and Ullikumi is an older version of the myth of Zeus and Typhon. The Descent of Ishtar and the Death of Dumuzi gets retold, with slight changes each time, as Osiris and Isis; Baal and Anat; Attis and Kybele; Demeter and Persephone; Orpheus and Eurydice; Odin on the Yggdrasil; and then even as Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

[EDIT TO ADD]

So, the myths are not the exact thing, but they would not be. The Jews were attempting to become a different people, with a different philosophy. But they could not escape their history. Likewise, this undermines God's originality, because it is apparent that He is based upon these older gods, these older myths, and these older precepts. As the Jews continued to wage war against the pagans and wander about West Asia they simply reformed the myths of the pagans they encountered into their own mythology.

[EDIT TO ADD]

~ Scribe
edit on 27/11/12 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 

You are only partly right. I believe intelligent thought has become a lost art in most of the western world. I just had a, I don't know what to call it, it was sure not a debate with a member on another thread. He was doing what you described as a parrot. The problem is I believe this is a result of someone's or group of someone's intentions and has been going on for a while. The dumbing down of the Western world.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by winterkill
I'm new to this site, and have been looking through the different areas and something has come to light. The scarcity of free thought, and the abundance of parrots. Parrots are birds that used to be people, but somewhere along the way, they stopped thinking and began to only retort words that others had spoken. They use those words in defense of their position, without regard to where those they quote obtained their ideas

Mark Twain, summed it up perfectly when he said

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
― Mark Twain

So the next time you sit down to write a response to someones thoughts or questions, I have an idea. Why don't we molt, shed those feathers of another person's mouth and think for ourselves, speak for ourselves. Not the opinions or research of others, but for ourselves.

You may find it odd that I use another man's words to express this thought, but I do so for a reason. I have researched his life, and what made him and what he made of others. I know from this, that his words are if nothing else, his and his alone, and truthful, and it is because of this I wanted to show you what it was like to hear words of truth straight from the man who created them, and not those who paid to be taught them.

So, what is YOUR and only YOUR thoughts on this?






So the next time you sit down to write a response to someones thoughts or questions, I have an idea. Why don't we molt, shed those feathers of another person's mouth and think for ourselves, speak for ourselves. Not the opinions or research of others, but for ourselves.





speak for ourselves. Not the opinions or research of others, but for ourselves.

‘Please provide a source’

Can you provide a link?

Your thread has been moved to the trash bin’ no reliable source’

Your thread has been moved to the hoax section’>Reason.
No source, No Evidence, and we don’t believe you, and your full of Bs, because its not on utube, no book has been written about it, we never seen it on T.V, no body famous has said this, its not on the net, its not in the news paper, info wars didn’t announce it, so therefore…it doesn’t fit our…‘Programmed agenda’

Loll…so now we have 3,000 forums…with 300million posters, lmaf, All relying on somebody else’s, beliefs, thoughts, and have to write and copy what they think or what ‘THEY’ have said ,pertaining to ‘WHAT’ you wont to ‘SAY‘. In other words, you’re basically a mocking bird or parrot, or a …‘Puppet’.

It’s sickening and sad ,to see how programmed this really is, and how, lmaf, dysfunctional a person may become…all ways relying on some one else’s source or links, as if that person has become you for that 5 or ten minutes writing a thread.

PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK
PLEAE PROVIDE A SOURCE
PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK
PLEAE PROVIDE A SOURCE
PLEAE PROVIDE A SOURCE
PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK
PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK
PLEAE PROVIDE A SOURCE

Sure, here is a link on utube about how ‘God was made‘… PLEAE ENJOY my incredible thread now, because my link is super stoked and kool!
I honestly hate to say this but, this is a treasonous statement, and could very well be terrorist related. ‘’Speak for our selves‘’, lol ,where are you from ?, are you an alien ? are you from this world ?



speak for ourselves.
edit on 28-11-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
alien...stuck here...no link to prove it





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join