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.

 

Religions provide the PROOF Religions don't exist. Religion's conspiracy against religion.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Sorry if it seems like I’m becoming over analytic of this but if the cells are exposed to the mothers neuro-peptides then wouldn’t that just have conditioned the cells? And wouldn’t that just contradict your statement of babies being born with fear. Because technically the cells never knew fear, they were exposed and conditioned to their mothers fear, and thus learning it, not being created with it. So can we conclude that a cell in its natural form, not being influenced by it’s mothers neuro-peptides has no fear.




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
anyone? your telling me no one has an opinion of that last statement?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
anyone? your telling me no one has an opinion of that last statement?


I don't really see what ET is stating about fear and neuropeptides, one neuropeptide has been clearly shown to be involved in the suppression of neural fear responses, oxytocin. This neuropeptide is also involved in attachment, social recognition, and aggression.

Thus administration of oxytocin increases judgements of trustworthiness.

The fear response is predominately associated with the amygdala and a resulting sympathetic nervous system activation and HPA axis fight-or-flight response which is a cascade of hormones and involves also neurochemicals (glucocorticoids, adrenaline, noradrenaline, serotonin etc).

What has been shown is that stress in pregnancy can have a affect on the sensitivity to stress in children, as cortisol (a corticosteroid hormone produced during stress) can pass the placenta. It is thought it affects the development of the HPA axis system in the fetus. This predominately occurs during the later periods of pregnancy. Children of such mothers are more vulnerable to anxiety. There was a study a couple years back on humans that showed this, it was previously well-established in animal models.

This maybe what ET is referring to. But I would say they are born sensitive to stress and anxiety rather than 'born with fear'.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
First let me apologize for the long delay in my response spaceman16. I was either focused on other thread subjects at the time, or i wasn't on ats for a couple weeks. Sorry spaceman16, and other members.


Originally posted by spaceman16
Sorry if it seems like I’m becoming over analytic of this but if the cells are exposed to the mothers neuro-peptides then wouldn’t that just have conditioned the cells? And wouldn’t that just contradict your statement of babies being born with fear.


The way i understand it (as has been explained to me, or i've read) i don't believe this is contradictory, but it is a justified question indeed.

As i understand it:

Neuro-peptides are very small protein strands (chemical) messages created by the hypothalmus and distributed throughout the body to appropriate celss in specific systems and organs. The neuro-peptides are messages that are associated with specific emotions such as fear. When a cell receives the message it in some cases actually changes the genetic make up housed in the neucleas (sp?) of the cell, so that the cell can adapt to the changes required, if the change is one that is one that will be necessary for survival throughout an extended period of time, or for life. So if the mother has been experiencing anxiety (a form of fear) or any other fear throughout her pregnancy, odds are the chemical messages (neuro-peptides) have also been delivered to the fetus's cells as well, which may alter their dna and/or cells also.

So the process may not be contradictory. I am currently at a loss if this is a theory or a proven fact, but i can google later for more information concering the phenomenon. I don't want to give the wrong information. So, the explanation i offered is my current best understanding of what it is i have been taught, or learned from reading. And is the best reply to your inquiry that i can offer. I hope this makes sense.



Because technically the cells never knew fear, they were exposed and conditioned to their mothers fear, and thus learning it, not being created with it.


Again, you may be right. I'm not sure. However, we can witness actions and behaviors in the reactions that are exhibited in new borns of the animal kingdom also. So, perhaps the genetic encoding that represents fear in the dna could be inert, until activated by the mother's neuro-peptides which command the cells in the developing fetus to activate the cellular genetics that are natural adaptations to fear. This is an educated guess on my part, but i still believe that children do have knowledge of fear upon being born. The birthing process can be tramatic for a newborn, and with the stress of being born, coupled with the fact that their own systems are now responsible for what had been supplied for them, may indeed be reason enough for some emotional response at the cellular levels, without the conscious mind (which is underdeveloped) understanding how to cope. So, one question that could provide an answer to your question is: Do newborns "feel" emotions?



So can we conclude that a cell in its natural form, not being influenced by it’s mothers neuro-peptides has no fear.


I'm not qualified to say you are totally incorrect.

However, it is difficult for me to imagine how the primary instinct of "Self Preservation" can be carried out without any "alarm" system in place to let someone know that they are in danger.

Can someone percieve that they are in danger, and need to act in order to preserve their own safety, without being afraid?

I think pain itself is a defense mechanism, but pain is also a form of the message of fear being delivered to the brain by the cells themselves. So, can we assume that pain is an example of how the cells relay the message of fear? Perhaps we shouldn't assume, but we could entertain the idea of it, until we have proof otherwise. Now, IF pain is a form of fear (cellular/nervous system level) do newborns feel pain? And if so, do their cells now know fear, and accept that it is justified for long term incorporation as an individual grows and develops through life?

These are pertinent questions, which i may have an opinion on, but i do not have the answers to.

Thanks for making me think spaceman, and happy new year by the way,
john



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Ive always pondered this..

how can we have soo many religions stating there god is 'the god'

doesnt that mean religion is fake..?

because if there was 1 god, wouldnt we all be under it ?
Instead of all creating a different god for every belief?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Ive always pondered this..

how can we have soo many religions stating there god is 'the god'

doesnt that mean religion is fake..?


I'm sure that my response to this question will seem at odds with the intro post i authored, considering it seems my perspective is that of an atheist. Although i empathize with atheists, i do veiw my environment and experiences as though there is a God. So, i believe the concept of "god" is the result of real cause. My intentions behind starting this thread was to demonstrate that commonly accepted belief systems may be fundamentally flawed, considering their own logical justification for their belief systems.

In my opinion any relationship with god is between God and the individual, although i do not automatically discount the idea that there may be souls to aid our souls on there journey and growth. Although my personal beliefs may be too tolerant for most "organized religions", i also believe that there is truth in all of them, just not all the truth given to one "religion".

*** If it were "god's" intentions to have the same relationship with everyone, then why create us so diversly? ***


This is why i choose to accept people for who they are, while trying to share my personal experiences with them, although often the experiences i share seem too abstract and ambigutious for some people to understand what it is i am trying to convey. I concede, i often think the failure for some to comprehend what it is i am trying to say with my posts lies within my inhability to use the right words. And i regret this, very much. So, when i try to use the right words, or use specifically elaborate words that do mean exactly what i want to mean, i loose people due to the words i've used. This tends to be frustrating, and understandibly so.



because if there was 1 god, wouldnt we all be under it ?
Instead of all creating a different god for every belief?


If there is one god, logically there should be familiarities throughout the teachings of each religion, which are the same god, but somehow the interpretations of the reciever (buddah, confuscious, jesus, moses, etc..) where from the same source, however interpretted slightly different, due to the perceptions of the abstract thoughts involved.

Consider how one would explain "rage" to someone who had never been angry, or ever hated anyone. Would they understand what is meant, without any basis for comparison in their own experiences? I think not. So, this is why i still entertain the possibility that all faiths, and all religions, to include ancient paganistic religions, are all from the same source. thought.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Good long post, but sorry for me it doesn't wash.

gods god. full stop. Be all and end all. If you do / do not believe then thats your free will choosing for you. But please, your argument about God being an aethiest, well frankly I fell off my chair laughing. He knows who and what he is - the alpha and omega. he IS every thing and he knows it, so to say he needs to believe in god is laughable....

Any how, it was a good post bar a few dropped points, so I'll say B+ for effort, but slipped to a D - for the conclusion.


Being an atheist does not mean a disbelief in the christian god, it's a disbelief of any god/gods, so......

Assuming that god is a physical being which most christians will, either by saying Yeshua is god or by thinking that god is something physical; if their god doesn't believe in any gods, then he is by definition an atheist. Once again assuming god is a physical being, of course "he" would believe in "himself" but "he's" not going to worship "himself" in the manner that christians would, therefore he would not hold such a high reverence for "himself" (like christians do) so he doesn't believe in any god/gods, therefore he is by definition an atheist.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7Pan7cho7

Assuming that god is a physical being which most christians will, either by saying Yeshua is god or by thinking that god is something physical;


Although my intro may give the impression i do not believe in God, this is not the case. However, flaws of logic can be found in the accepted dogmatic thinking supplied by organized religions, which was the purpose of this thread. Having said this, i think you may find some christians who will argue that they don't believe God is confined to the physical, but did take physical form when God was manifested in a man named Yeshua (as well as a few other names).



....if their god doesn't believe in any gods, then he is by definition an atheist. Once again assuming god is a physical being, of course "he" would believe in "himself" but "he's" not going to worship "himself" in the manner that christians would, therefore he would not hold such a high reverence for "himself" (like christians do) so he doesn't believe in any god/gods, therefore he is by definition an atheist.


Thank you 7Pan7cho7 for this post.

7Pan7cho7 has restated one of the premises for this thread (as stated in the intro) in words that say the same thing as i was saying, although perhaps in a smoother way, which more people can relate to.

thanks 7Pan7cho7 for sharing your thoughts on such a contraversial subject,
john



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join