Losing my Religion

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: undo

So you're not going to answer the question then? Again...

no way to answer it without denying what i already know. i can't unknow stuff so you can feel good about yourself.

It's a hypothetical question. Anyone can answer it hypothetically.

For instance: I am an Atheist. There is nothing in the universe that points to a higher being, from my perspective. Yet, if one day a higher being reveals him/her/it/themselves, I would instantaneously chance my position.

According to your logic, what I just accomplished is impossible. I just showed how my position could be swayed in the light of evidence.

You are apparently incapable of accepting any new evidence that doesn't already appear to justify your position. Which is more than irresponsible, it's outright insanity.

a reply to: Ghost147

you asked me to give you a list of evidence that would convince me. i know of no such thing, since it would require that i dream up scenarios in which the past didn't happen.

whereas your scenario is a future possiblity, the scenario you set for me requires that i pretend the past was not the past.

did you just call me insane?

a reply to: undo

I'm somewhat interested in a source for your claim about the Rosicrucians, but it's ok. No need to take your time digging one up for me.

It is clear to me that you will not, under any circumstances, admit to being wrong about something. When some explanation is shown to be false or in some other way in error.. You pull something else out of the hat to fill the void as evidence. Firmly keeping your explanations and conclusions intact.

You also don't even address the bulk of posts.

For example I explain how/why all those guys are bull# artists conning people. You're response is:

if the peer reviewed community won't touch the subject with a ten foot pole, people who are drawn to study this type of information, need to survive somehow. they sure aren't going to be offered jobs to study that type of data in mainstream institutions

Go ahead and just ignore the other things you've claimed in this thread about why this information is kept from the public's mind. That being the overarching control over information the RCC has. On one hand you claim they control the info and how it's disseminated. On another you claim the average Joe who is drawn to these subjects can make uninformed highly mind blowing discoveries. Have you ever even bothered to consider, that maybe they are just full of #?

I looked up that Stephen Mehler guy. Right off the bat I can tell you he is a lying maggot. Crystal skulls? Please, give me a break. Those have been debunked ages and ages ago. But I digress..

There is no consensus on when the Age of Aquarius began, or even if it has yet. It really depends on how you're calculating the dates.

As for cow worshipers being annihilated.. what!?

Anyway.. like I've said before. Interesting theories you've got.

I will not be subscribing to a single one of them.

The RCC is clearly using you to try and convince me of some incoherent beliefs.

The RCC is clearly using you to try and convince me of some incoherent beliefs

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

entirely possible, since i think they control the dissemination of religious and atheist data, and that pretty much covers everything/everybody. as far as i can tell, they have the whole planet under their control. i mean it's a massive organization, with the accumulated riches of thousands of years.

wakeupbeer

one more thing: so what do you make of the earthquake proof info? yes you can look in the telescope at the crazy people who are saying that the osirieon in ancient egypt is earthquake proof.

telescope

a reply to: undo

Congratulations are in order. You have succeeded in keeping my lack of belief in any gods, and healthy skepticism about all things, intact.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: undo

Congratulations are in order. You have succeeded in keeping my lack of belief in any gods, and healthy skepticism about all things, intact.

did you look in the telescope yet?

a reply to: undo

I don't have any issue with it being built earthquake proof or find that notion crazy. I'm not an architect or very knowledgeable about Egyptian construction techniques. I certainly do agree that the Pyramids and megalithic structures are feats of engineering.

a reply to: undo

I'm not sure if you notice this or not, but you've made many more claims than those that specifically relate to history.

Here's my question again:

What evidence would need to exist in order to sway you from your position, entirely? As in, not to believe anything you've stated in this topic, and instead accept the opposing position.

There must have been pages worth of everyone telling you the definition of Atheist without any response from you; despite your continuous use of it incorrectly.

You've made claims that Atheism is a belief system

You've asserted that Atheism and science, combined with that of some philosophical notions are bad, if not dangerous.

Trust me, there's many more. I am not as well educated as you in the field of history, so I cannot point out your errors in your claims that incorporate it. I can point out your logical fallacies however. From what I've seen outside of your history based post, those logical fallacies are many.

You see, no one needs to change the past in order to change the position. Do you know why? Because Archeology generally uses the Scientific Method. Which means that our current understanding of ancient civilizations can change at the chance of a new discovery that alters the accuracy of that current understanding.

So again, it appears that you're simply demonstrating your typical stance that new information is impossible for you to accept, so long as it doesn't already abide by your current state of mind, belief system, and position.

You can't even answer a hypothetical question!

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

okay so that's 1 out of 3. what about the scooped limestone?

scooped limestone

What evidence would need to exist in order to sway you from your position, entirely? As in, not to believe anything you've stated in this topic, and instead accept the opposing position.

so many things would have to change in order for that to happen, which would be the equivalent of erasing history. i can agree to this: you believe that atheism is a lack of belief. to you, this is fact because you know you have a lack of belief. that's about the only thing i can say in that regard.

a reply to: undo

I addressed the scooped limestone and crumbling black granite already. Those claims, as far as I can tell, are coming from the pseudo scientific crowd I ranted about already. Their assertions are that there had to be some type of advanced tech required to do x, y, and z. I am not a geologist either, so I have no informed opinion to share with you. My bullcrap radar spikes though. Because of the nature of the claims and where the claims are coming from. Frankly, they come from sources I consider completely unreliable. In the form of uneducated opinions and in the form of pseudo scientific charlatans that tell blatant lies. I can't trust average Joe's opinion as fact because merely observing something and making a claim about how they feel it was done or how the accepted explanation has to be false, is irresponsible of me. I can't trust the people with horrible track records to tell me the truth either. Those are the only people I've ever heard make claims about advanced technology in ancient times. Frauds, and the people who believe them.

Take the crystal skulls for example. Maybe you aren't familiar with those. There are some wild claims made about them. One in particular that I recall, was that the skull felt "alive" and would project scenes of the future out of its eyes onto the wall. The theory is that the crafter imprinted information into the crystal. Cool theory. And one that would be extremely easy to prove to the world if it was true. Accept nobody has ever seen the skull do this outside of the people charging others to simply be around the thing. That is one of many issues that proves the crystal skulls as bull.

I brought up the crystal skulls for a reason though. As I said, they are not hard to prove fraudulent. One only needs to do a little bit of research into the claims made about them, objectively. But in this pseudoscience arena, the crystal skulls are still talked about, written about, and hyped up. All (or a lot anyway) of the ancient aliens/ancient tech crowd push the crystal skulls just as much as anything else. They all push all the outlandish things. They are always on the same bandwagon. There is always another book or dvd to sell, or lecture to deliver, or donation foundation set up so all the suckers can help fund their research. Research that they can't get funding for anywhere else because of the alleged conspiracies in mainstream scientific community. How many decades was Lloyd Pye begging for hand outs? He even begged for money to pay for his cancer treatments.

These guys want you to believe they're persecuted. That nobody will listen to them, or accept their "solid proof". Do a little digging into the character of these people and the picture becomes clear. They string people along. They tell lies and half truths and play the victim. Oh and more often then not, the reason the mainstream community of scientists doesn't touch the evidence they offer up, is because they refuse to share it with them. Because they know it's easily proven false or refutable.

Of course I don't think we have all the answers to our past. There are still plenty mysteries. I certainly don't have the answers. I won't presume to fill in the blanks where my understanding falls short. I can see how you put a lot of these things together to form your ideas. I do not fault you for asking questions and forming conclusions! Like I said though, I feel you need to be more objective. You make some bold claims and plenty of erroneous ones at that.

Please don't take that to mean I think I've got all the right answers to the things we've talked about. I don't feel that way. I've only tried to point out some of the things I've noticed about your claims and beliefs that I feel are wrong and absurd. Also, for the record. I don't think that everything you say is absurd or wrong. Though I do feel your posts are often convoluted.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

part of the problem is, to write down the reasoning for a position i have, particularly to the degree of proof the average skeptic requires, is the equivalent of chapters of information in which i have to make sure my reader absolutely understands every word i'm saying, otherwise it can be miscontrued. i learned that here at ats, over the years. been posting here since 2005. so i've learned to just state my position and let it be misconstrued by those who would've miscontrued it anyway, and let those who are interested, research further. since i'm not making any money off all this, i have learned to just shrug off the nitpicks and insults, although i'm not particularly fond of being called insane.

what did i write that you found convulted? just curious, cause chances are, even if i were to attempt to correct that, you would still find it less than revelatory.

my sister told me years ago that my areas of interest were frequently too controversial, and that it wasn't healthy to be embroiled in controversial topics, as they keep your emotions all tied up in knots (which can effect you physically). perhaps she is right. perhaps the only thing to do is just go back to playing video games.

p.s. yousef's video about the serapeum (see second video). yousef is the son of the nice elderly fellow ab'del hakim awyan.

originally posted by: undo

i can agree to this: you believe that atheism is a lack of belief. to you, this is fact because you know you have a lack of belief. that's about the only thing i can say in that regard.

You didn't answer anything in this response, you're just dodging the question. All you've said is that you accept that I think the definition of an Atheist is what it is. Definition is not a personal opinion, it's defined that way or it isn't.

You've been dodging this issue for pages and pages of this topic. What makes it such a difficult concept to accept for you?

a reply to: Ghost147

what the hell do you want, i said i was willing to accept that to you, atheism defines the lack of belief and to you, that is a fact since you have a lack of belief

a reply to: undo

Do you not even realize you're dodging the question?

I don't need to be told what you think I believe. I feel like I'm speaking a language you cannot read.

Read very carefully:

"What evidence would need to exist in order to sway you from your position, entirely? As in, not to believe anything you've stated in this topic, and instead accept the opposing position."

Since you have a tendency of going of on a tangent, we'll focus on one specific issue:

~ The Definition of Atheism

What would convince you that your current concept of Atheism was in fact false? What evidence would we have to bring forth in order for your concept of Atheism to be changed?

a reply to: Ghost147

well you've made a good case for atheism not necessarily being dangerous to other people, which i kinda knew to begin with. my premise was that atheism in the hands of global leaders like stalin, who was clearly mean to everybody but had a particular beef against the indigenous catholics (i may not always agree with the hierarchy but i don't have a problem with catholic people), can be extremely dangerous.

or mao, who in his zeal to spread communism all over the capitalist world, had his people make millions of babies that their economy couldn't support, which were then aborted by the millions by his communist replacements, almost exclusively female, leading me to believe that if the world had an atheist leader of communist persuasion, they would have no qualms in killing billions of people for the sake of their world vision, even to the extent of wiping out an entire gender. as a result, in such scenarios, women become expendable or even men. as a woman and a wife, that makes me nervous.

by itself, in the brains of the average person, it doesn't seem particularly dangerous. i think also the premise was also that a communist, atheist leader, is dangerous. i've seen no evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: undo

I've already talked with you on this issue and proven it post after post how you're concept is false. No need for me to bring it up for the 10th time (It actually is near that number). Perhaps you should just read the posts and learn how to learn.

So again ill ask:

What would convince you that your current concept of Atheism was in fact false? What evidence would we have to bring forth in order for your concept of Atheism to be changed?

a reply to: Ghost147

erm atheist world leaders not slaughtering people based on things like:

gender, religion, lack of religion, financial bracket, race and mental/emotional/physical health.