Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Paradigm – Think

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Think or Believe – this is your choice. None other.

Imagine this movie scene: Aliens are living on earth, though hidden. Centuries ago they lived openly. They declared themselves Gods which entitled them to rule as kings and built monuments as proof of it. Conditions on earth are different from the aliens’ natural environment and they prefer to use humans to execute their will. Those chosen to represent them must keep certain information secret.

Nowadays, information has become more complex with many different levels of secrecy. The chosen people have grown into various groups of secret societies which control earthly governments and many important institutions involved in the control of the masses. Aliens raise humans (like humans raise sheep) for a purpose that will be revealed at a later time.

Given that information is controlled through government controlled education and government controlled media, and the incestual relationship between governments and religion, nothing can be known by people. Nothing. Humans with their limited intellectual ability are not able to distinguish between misinformation and the truth. They typically “believe” what they are told by government officials, religious leaders, and business owners. Their thinking is limited to efforts of getting food, sex, drugs and a few other means to create pleasure.

However, this is not a movie scene, this is reality. And what humans are experiencing is the fake reality. Recognizing this, everything suddenly makes sense.

Copernicus shattered humans’ self-image by declaring that the earth is not the center of the universe. Freud shattered humans’ self-image by declaring that humans have a subconscious. Humans’ self-image needs to be shattered again by realizing that we are the sheep and those empowered to govern us are the shepards. The aliens are the “potters”, we are the “clay” (Bible: Romans 9:21), their tools or toys.

Examples:
Why do Aliens not come out? They chose to go into hiding because this allows them to control governments and other institutions more easily. Potters will not explain their intent to the clay.
Why are many people unhappy with American politics? Because it is designed to execute the wishes of the aliens, not those of the American people.
What would be a better political system? Of course, there could be a constitution that provides real transparency as well as choice between governments. But this would reduce their ability to control human development.
Why was George Bush elected President? Like the god-cop-bad-cop interrogation technique, it is often useful to employ a dichotomy of good against bad. We have Republicans as the “bad party” and Democrats as the “good party”. The aliens organized 9/11 and the financial crisis through the Skull and Bones secret society. “Bad Republicans” were to be blamed for the wars and the crisis. The Republicans had to agree to the bail-out so Democrats would appear innocent and as coming to rescue.
Why does Obama seem to continue many Bush policies? Guantanamo Bay, drones, restriction of civil liberties are examples that show that Democrats are not "good", they simply have to play the other role. Like communists in Russia and China, tyrants come in all colors.
How else did secret societies gain power to control the world? Freemasons were instrumental in the founding of the nation which is still visible today by simply looking at a map of Washington DC.
Where can you get real knowledge? You cannot. "Knowledge" is impossible. Science will give you only theories, doctors only opinions. The best you can do is to get basic, undisputed (like mechanical) data from various independent sources and use that to think for yourself - to create your own theory.
Is there a God? God may have created the aliens but humans were created by aliens, as it states in the Bible, the aliens being the “potters”.
Was there a Big Bang? This theory only opens the question of what came before it and therefore provides no useful answer about anything.
Who controls the media? There are only about 4 owners and CEO’s left (according to Dan Rather in 2008) who control all of the mainstream media, who, in turn are controlled by clubs/think tanks/secret societies such as the Council on Foreign Relations, which in turn, have their highest levels of secrecy controlled by the aliens.
This is not a valid explanation because there is no proof that aliens exist!? There is no proof of anything. All scientific theories are only valid until disproven. This theory here attempts to explain observations that defy human-centric explanations. Nobody has seen the Big Bang either.
What can we do to become free from alien control? Nothing, they are millions of years ahead of humans in their technological evolution/development. We have only one choice: to remain ignorant (and comfortable) by believing what we are being told by the “shepards”, or to think (which is a lot of tiresome legwork) for ourselves. We cannot know, be free, or even ensure our own survival.




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
By becoming masters of our own minds can we be free from alien control. We may attain consciousness of a higher order to supersede the alien control. The authority which the aliens have taken is merely over the lower, animal and emotional Mind. It can be our choice, and is within our power, to answer only to a purely positive and absolute Being.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecapsretuo
By becoming masters of our own minds can we be free from alien control. We may attain consciousness of a higher order to supersede the alien control. The authority which the aliens have taken is merely over the lower, animal and emotional Mind. It can be our choice, and is within our power, to answer only to a purely positive and absolute Being.


Sorry, if I was not specific enough, what I mean is that we cannot be free physically, we cannot revolt. They can send another flood, volcanic ash, asteroid if we do. What is the point in gaining consciousness if they can defeat us anyhow? Take the government as an example. Can you be operating at a higher level than Obama? If so, and he decides that you are a "terrorist who needs to be eliminated for the good of the American people", or you are being put into "indefinite detention" with no lawyer and no trial, how did your consciousness help you?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


If aliens wanted to get something from humans, it's been arranged decades ago. People want them to be around every day like in V, what if they change dimension and simply already know humans, so do not need to look for communication with us? I am sure they care about humans as much as you care about a pebble on the ground you pass by.

But it is true, so big is the brainwashing and bias that if something were real photo, no one would believe it and put it in the same group of fakes as all the rest.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Think or Believe – this is your choice. None other.
...


I agree on the basic premise.

But for me it's not mutually exclusive — for I think *and* I believe.

More precisely, I think first, then I believe, then I think again, then I either disbelieve or believe stronger. And so on and so forth. Also, I communicate. And communication is a two-way street. So I listen and talk (or write or post links) and read and ask for opinions and try to persuade. And essentially argue. But always with clarity and civility. (Unless unfairly attacked, after which I would defend or counter-attack. But never without provocation)

This is actually what I think happens in everybody's mind whether they realize it or not. Except those who cannot *think* as clearly or unequivocally or in a multifaceted manner would stick to one belief. Maybe their momma taught them something. Or just believe that there's really no point in thinking about certain things (consciously making the choice of ignorance), which is still a belief.

In the end, we may all just be players in an infinite game of power and control. Those who have power control those who don't. Simple as that. And it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or believes.

Wasn't all this already explained in the Matrix?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Think or Believe – this is your choice. None other.
...


I agree on the basic premise.

But for me it's not mutually exclusive — for I think *and* I believe.

More precisely, I think first, then I believe, then I think again, then I either disbelieve or believe stronger. And so on and so forth. Also, I communicate...

In the end, we may all just be players in an infinite game of power and control. Those who have power control those who don't. Simple as that. And it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or believes.


You are right, I think and believe also. But you realize that I was trying to make a point by making the distinction. Reflecting about your comment, “believe” is what you do when you accept, or take over, somebody else’s thinking.

E.g. do you believe in the Big Bang? If you do, you took over the scientist’s thought or idea who created that theory. If you believe in the Christian God, you are taking over the thinking of the Bible, the priest or whoever provided you the concept of God.

To think is to create your own theory, without relying on anybody else’s conclusions. This requires taking only very basic facts that are undisputed by people who have widely different views (I used the term “mechanical”), and use them to describe one’s own theory, that is the result of one’s thinking.

Common usage blurs the meanings of these words. It would be accurate for me to say “I believe you expressed your own theory on ATS” and also “I think you expressed your own theory on ATS”. The better usage in this example (in my opinion) is “I think” because it is my conclusion/understanding, whereas “I believe” what you expressed because the thought did not originate from me.

To the extent that we believe we are like candles in the wind, pointing at Zen one day and Hopi folklore the next. To the extent that we think, we become immortal because like art, thoughts/ideas never die.

Everything that comes from government and (organized) religion is somebody else’s. They can (and do) control your belief, but your thinking they can not.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
...But you realize that I was trying to make a point by making the distinction. Reflecting about your comment, “believe” is what you do when you accept, or take over, somebody else’s thinking.

E.g. do you believe in the Big Bang?
...
Everything that comes from government and (organized) religion is somebody else’s. They can (and do) control your belief, but your thinking they can not.


But why stop there?

If "think or believe" is more than a rhetorical kick in the ass for sheeple to wake up, if you're really talking about thinking and knowing methods — you'd have to drill it all the way down to its core.

What can you really know? What do you THINK you really know?

Not just the Big Bang theory. But that person who you think is your Father.

Literally everything is somehow communicated to you through intelligible thoughts or senses at some point, and there's no clear separation. At the higher levels are science and theories and government releases and all this debunking crap, etc. Or the religious crap. Or the extraterrestrial crap. These are all inevitably other people's thinking.

Can anybody really develop into a functioning adult without accepting the thoughts of others whatsoever? That woman you used to suckle as a baby believes that that man is your Father. It's only her thinking. It's only her opinion. Can you really believe her?

So is a priori knowledge the only valid truth? After all, you really don't know for sure that your Father is really your Father because you're not born with the knowledge.

Or is it about Empiricism? You can't believe extraterrestrials until you see them with your own eyes? Poke an ET eyeball with your own hands? (rhetorical question here as I already know your position). You then can't really know Mexico City exists either until you've personally walked their cobblestone streets, eaten in their stinky restaurants, etc. Therefore, Mexico City is a complete myth for many people.

At some point you get drowned in the depths of philosophy.
edit on 2-1-2013 by FormerSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   


But why stop there? ...
What can you really know? What do you THINK you really know?
Not just the Big Bang theory. But that person who you think is your Father.
Literally everything is somehow communicated to you through intelligible thoughts ...
Can anybody really develop into a functioning adult without accepting the thoughts of others whatsoever?
Or is it about Empiricism?
At some point you get drowned in the depths of philosophy.


Actually I do not stop at Kant nor Empiricism. They did not have the privilege of having electron microscopes. Nowadays we realize that we do not even know how many dimensions exist. Knowledge is impossible, 100%.

For practical purposes let's divided reality into 3 parts, past, present and future. We should know most about the present, because of our empirical observation. But unfortunately, while the chairs we sit on appear solid, they are mostly empty space with a few atoms in between. Our senses fail us. Predicting the future is done by making (imperfect) empirical observations, and creating a theory that explains the observation (through thinking that may or may not be flawed). We then use the theory to build bridges, attempting to have them not collapse during their useful life.

The most interesting for our discussion is knowledge about the past. Until recently we have relied almost exclusively on reports of observations to tell us what happened in one-time historical events. Such reports from, say, newspapers were collected into history books.

I am not asking these fundamental questions in order to find some philosophical absolute like Kant did, but to satisfy my very practical doubt that much - if not most - of what I learned in history lessons may be 180 degrees away from the truth.

Eye witness accounts of accidents are known to be highly inaccurate. Add to that the fact that these reports are mostly provided not by neutral bystanders but by biased participants of the event. Further add that the event took place 50 or 500 years ago. And since then they have been run through the government filter that has absolute power over any information that is provided under its umbrella.

It seems obvious to me that the end result (our history book) is unreliable, to say the least. Presenting such unreliable information as fact is suspicious in itself. It should be examined skeptically. If it does not stand up to scrutiny the blame goes squarely to the government. If the government prohibits or discourages such scrutiny it clearly has something to hide.

E.g. is it physically possible for (all 3 NY) buildings to collapse - vertically - as they did on 9/11 due to fire? This is where you use science. Again, nothing can be known, which is why mutually exclusive theories can be maintained. If there were a possibility for knowledge we would have knowledge about an event as recent as 2001. It is not possible.

This is what we must come to terms with. Yes, we must also "believe" information provided to us by others - but only basic (mechanical) information from neutral sources (say demolition companies in non-anglophone countries), and then we can start making our own theory by independently "thinking", rather than "believing" the conclusions arrived at by others about historic events such as this one.

And btw, what would be your reaction if scientific data (like the 9 months thing) pops up that causes you to ask your parents (biased participant "observers") and they avoid to answer your questions? Lingering doubt?

I do not "believe" alien or UFO accounts, I "think" aliens exist because of (mechanical) data about quarrying and placing 1000 ton rocks in Baalbek.

edit on 2-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Actually I do not stop at Kant nor Empiricism. ...Knowledge is impossible, 100%.
...
It seems obvious to me that the end result (our history book) is unreliable, to say the least...

...Again, nothing can be known, which is why mutually exclusive theories can be maintained...

...Yes, we must also "believe" information provided to us by others - but only basic (mechanical) information from neutral sources...

And btw, what would be your reaction if scientific data (like the 9 months thing) pops up that causes you to ask your parents (biased participant "observers") and they avoid to answer your questions?

I do not "believe" alien or UFO accounts, I "think" aliens exist because of (mechanical) data about quarrying and placing 1000 ton rocks in Baalbek.


But for sake of argument, if you're truthful to yourself, you're still not wrapping it up. Not that I would think less of you, but consider...

If knowledge is absolutely 100% impossible, then why believe "only basic (mechanical) information from neutral sources?" Why believe they're neutral? Why believe the scientific data like the 9 months thing? Why believe the data about quarrying and placing 100-ton blocks? Why believe anything whatsoever? Where do you draw the line separating your own thoughts from what you believe?

Is your "believing" really mutually exclusive of "thinking?" Are you truly picking one over the other? Either or but not both?

Are you really taking it beyond Kant or Locke or Plato or any of the philosophies on "what do we really know?"

Or, instead, are you perhaps just drawing the line in a slightly different spot?

This is why I commented about thinking *and* believing (and the continual ping-pong effect going back and forth and communicating) — instead of "think or believe" as some sort of new paradigm.
edit on 2-1-2013 by FormerSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Thanks for your comments. I do not want to appear like trying to force my opinion on you. I agree that it is impossible to function without believing any information provided by others and I support communicating as much as you do.


Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
Is your "believing" really mutually exclusive of "thinking?"


Belief requires trust. Thinking does not. Thinking you are active, believing you are passive. Thinking makes you immortal (like Plato), believing you hope for immortality. Your belief is being controlled (by religion, education, media), your thinking is not. (E.g., do you really want to trust a politician who belongs to a secret society, “Skull and Bones”, that he is unwilling to provide any information about? If you do not trust that person, then I suggest, do not belief what he says.)


Why believe they're neutral?


Because they were not written in a political context, or by people who may have a vested interest. Maybe you have a friend who works in construction and can provide personal insights. It is your judgment call to decide what is reliable. (E.g., the anthropologist Margaret Mead living in, and writing about, asian cultures I would consider to be reliable. But when she is accused by colleagues of basically inventing, and just writing fiction stories, that affects my judgment.)

Since communicating is “a two way street” let me suggest to use different words for each direction. When we express a thought the process of verbalizing it turns a vague impulse into a concrete idea, your own thinking. That is the beauty of this kind of forum, we get the chance and the motivation to verbalize.

To be the recipient of communication is much less useful (IMO). Your boss’s instructions you must follow, basic mechanics you may judge to believe, but beyond that much of it is disorienting noice. As a child we are highly suggestible, like people under hypnosis or those on drugs, and become easily indoctrinated. Later in life our brain works by building on top of the (false) structures that already exists. To think clearly we must shed the beliefs we accepted under the influence of suggestibility.

I am not presumptuous to expect you to “believe” what I write. (I only hope that you will agree, i.e. think the same as what I think.) I also do not “believe” what the Ancient Aliens program reports. What do I do? You probably guessed it, I fact-check their information with that from neutral sources. If the information is reliable according to my judgment call, then I use that information to come up with an idea/conclusion/thought/theory to explain the given observation – possibly one in agreement with that program but not because I believe them.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
America is the future roman empire, and it will also crumble to nothing but cool buildings.
why?

-Started out based on good principles.
-Has a very well equipped army that isn't big in numbers but has the resources to show superiority through technology.
-Showed up the world in leading tech and national achievements.
-has elections to find its new leader fair and square (must be born in America) Obama still makes me laugh.
-The Romans knew they were up # creek when they let barbarians into their leadership council.
-Slowly all of the above are being destroyed by greed and corruption.
-endless wars costing huge amounts of money and slowly raising the death toll of their army's.
-poverty and hunger struck the empire but America has its "economic crisis".
-less and less country's want to be like America and would rather their own kind of rule.
-America cant seem to keep their nose out of other peoples business, this will lead to further conflict.

America will die out sooner or later =D I'm just hoping Arnie gets another run before it goes down.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
If my distinction between think and believe is clear and makes sense, then hopefully it makes sense also why we cannot have any knowledge. Because knowledge could have been arrived at only by thinking or believing - and both of those are flawed. At least thinking eliminates the bias of other people and organizations. But it requires de-programming yourself, getting rid of conditioning, un-learning the structure of beliefs that was established when you were suggestible. Effectively we were all hypnotized.

For example, during the Middle Ages the church had tremendous power in Europe and was the biggest land owner at the time. That makes no sense for an institution whose main objective is to advance spirituality. Notice that the Bible mostly not even talks about how Humans can practically advance spirituality but about how kings and kingdoms were fighting wars with each other, resulting in hardship for the people.

Like science, knowledge precludes belief. Not only belief in a religion but also belief in history.

We can learn from science, not by believing in alchemy, but by thinking/making theories. Same with history. We can learn from history not by believing the official "belief-version" sponsored by the government. You, I, can only learn from history by thinking-theories (which, since they contradict the government biased version, are referred to as "conspiracy theories").

What should be the end-result of our thinking/theories? A constitution that protects You, Me, the People from the government. Presidents who belong to secret societies do not protect us from themselves. The government gives itself immunity.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Knowledge about historic events? You were not there, how can you know?

You believe those who documented the event. Those people were in most cases not neutral observers, they were participants. Do you not think they were biased? I would almost certainly think so.

That information is then transmitted to you through government controlled schools and (significantly government manipulated) mainstream news media. Their information may often be incorrect, but more importantly has been selected after clearing a filter that removes anything embarrassing to the government.

And of course there are Secret Services, CIA and the like, which act on behalf of the government, in complete secrecy and with complete immunity, and the PEOPLE who should be considered owners of the government will almost never find out about their activities. Why not? Not because of "National security" but because those activities are not in the interest of the people.

National security is in the interest of the people - false flag attacks are not. So what do most of us know about historic events? Nothing. Most of us believe what we learned in school or on TV. That is why we have been fooled until the internet has become popular for providing us with information from PEOPLE, independent of the media.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join