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.

 

Are we all mistaken?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
It has been said, "The only thing I can be sure of is that I can not be sure of anything." It is with that open-minded spirit that I would like to begin this thread.
Today's world is quickly changing. The dangers that are around us are real. The powers which control the governments of every country are real. The wars are real. The countless deaths caused by idealogical disputes are real. The sophisticated technological advancements are real. The cures to disease and the medical and scientific discoveries are real. But have any of these things truly contributed to the well being of our race?
In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "No".
I spent some time asking myself, "what is human nature?". The short version of my deduction was "Eat, sleep, and procreate." I went on to ponder, "In what ways are humans any different from any other mammal?"
To this I really struggled to find a clear answer. My first thought was that perhaps humans possess reason and other mammals do not. However, if you agree that preference requires reason you could quickly determine that other mammals also possess the ability to reason. Take for instance a canine; if you were to place two birds in front of the canine, one bird is still fresh and the other has decayed substantially, which bird do you suppose the canine will choose? This is my opinion, is an exhibition of preference. If preference is present then the canine at some point would have had to apply reason in order to determine the preferred selection.
I went on pondering, considering that I had ruled out reason as the primary difference. One further attribute soon came to mind. This attribute is egotism. Now, you may notice through self-examination that you were initially (and possibly still now) object to the idea of comparing your self to a canine. This initial objection seems to me to indicate that egotism is a controlling element in our species. We often dream ourselves as being somehow more significant to some "creating deity" or somehow consider our current race as the leader in the evolutionary process. Yet, there is no supporting evidence of this.
As a result of this egotism we are continuously under the impression that the world is some how MORE dependent upon humans that any other species. When in fact quite the opposite is true. Humans are the only species on the planet who have create an existence that damages the environment for nonessential, non survival based gains. We have built massive structures, laid thick layers of hardened substance (concrete/asphalt) for reason not related to our survival but instead strictly for our convenience. We have permanently scarred the planet for reasons that are not directly corresponding to our basic instincts.
I challenge the notion that we are more advanced that any other species. Take for instance, the life of a primate, absent any "unnatural" human intervention. It seems to me that the primate has a far more advanced and effective lifestyle. A monkey does not seem concerned with his neighbors actions, so long as his neighbors action do not deplete his ability to act instinctively. The primate takes what he needs an leaves the rest alone whether leaving and negative effects on his environment. There are not idealogical wars. Merely survival. That is the crux of the primates existence.
There are many more details but, in the view of a 4000 character maximum, I will sum my thoughts up.
I have come to the conclusion that at some point in the past the human race came to a crossroad. It was at this cross road that humans made a choice. This choice was between "progression and convenience" or "naturalism and instinct." I believe it is fairly safe to assume that, in the inability to see the pitfalls of the first option, early humans chose to take that path as it seemed to be the path of least resistance. However, I believe that this was in fact the wrong path and the consequences of that path are the tragedies of todays world

[edit on 29-5-2009 by KingPen]




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by KingPen
 


Yea, you're right. We are mistaken. We're NOT an animal that is part of this complex living planet, but we ARE a virus that's infected it.
Common sense tells me that a virus must be destroyed, completely, before it kills it's host.
Humans WILL kill the planet, regardless what any do gooding whimp says or thinks, we WILL cause this planet to die.
Here's a solution. Every human on the planet should stand in a line, no mating, just stand in a line. One human (the guy in the front) gets a desert eagle 50 caliber pistol, with unlimited ammo, and puts a bullet between the eyes of EVERY SINGLE ONE of us.
And yes pussies, I would gladly stand in line, with all my loved ones, why? Because humans are NOT important. I am NOT important. My loved ones, your loved ones are NOT important.
This remarkable and rare planet is VERY VERY important, and if we kill it, which we will, then we're just fu#*ing cu#ts!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by KingPen
 


Yea, you're right. We are mistaken. We're NOT an animal that is part of this complex living planet, but we ARE a virus that's infected it.
Common sense tells me that a virus must be destroyed, completely, before it kills it's host.
Humans WILL kill the planet, regardless what any do gooding whimp says or thinks, we WILL cause this planet to die.
Here's a solution. Every human on the planet should stand in a line, no mating, just stand in a line. One human (the guy in the front) gets a desert eagle 50 caliber pistol, with unlimited ammo, and puts a bullet between the eyes of EVERY SINGLE ONE of us.
And yes pussies, I would gladly stand in line, with all my loved ones, why? Because humans are NOT important. I am NOT important. My loved ones, your loved ones are NOT important.
This remarkable and rare planet is VERY VERY important, and if we kill it, which we will, then we're just fu#*ing cu#ts!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Well thats a bit extreme. I am not so sure about that one, but to each his own.

I think we, as a species, made a horrible miscalculation early on. And that miscalculation led to the pursuit of control and knowledge. Both of which, in my opinion, are the driving forces behind all the chaos and wars that are engulfing the planet.

For clarification, I am not an environmentalist or a green party member or anything of that nature because, in my view, those things are a bit irrelevant at this point. We, long ago, moved past the point of no return.

I will agree that there is really no solution that would ever be applied to completely "solve" this problem.

A major point in my theory, that I didn't mention in the first post, is that from my perspective we have created a society that is bent on our destruction. This conclusion was reach in this way:

If we were to assume that our instincts are the nearest natural urge we have to survive, we could easily come to the conclusion that denying or limiting those instincts would be to act in a way to contrary to our core existence. Now, if we consider that we have generally accepted monogamous relationships, nearly scheduled eating times, and for the most part ventured into a currency dominated system wherein most the population could not survive were it forced to scavenge for its own food; we could clearly see where our society has cultured us to act against our core instincts. As a result, we could logically conclude that our own society is, in effect, running perpendicular to our basic existence.




[edit on 29-5-2009 by KingPen]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NathanNewZealand
 


I may not be as important in the long run, as I have not yet made an impact upon the present.

This is much different from saying that humans are unimportant in any way shape or form. If you subscribe to the idea that we are unimportant, yet believe the Earth is important, then all you are doing is applying a logical, rational sentiment that something CAN be important. But is it rational? I mean, were any of us not around, how important would this world really be?

Might sound crazy, but I dunno. If none of us were here, there would be NO importance, as importance is just a belief, something proprietary ONLY to rationally thinking matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to me, to be of importance.

A planet doesn't die when we suck up all it's oil. We just run out of that type of fuel. It only metaphorically dies (is unable to support some life) when we pollute it to a critical level. But some life will live on, and will evolve, etc. We very well could blow the planet up, but so could a comet.

There are plenty of solutions to these problems, but humans, as a "perversion" of availability, are greedy. Life is lazy by nature. The most energy/adversity efficient organism wins. Always.

This planet is only rare and unique because we haven't found/had the ability to find anything like it. Can we live on domes on Luna? On Mars? Moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus (hehe, had to)? I don't know, only because we haven't done it. But we will know for sure when we try, and we will eventually have to in order survive.

What I'm really worried about is why people don't desire to survive anymore. Or is this the ego (maybe superego?) at its finest? Or is this mind control?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by shanerz
 


I know that you were replying to the other poster but I would like to comment on your response.

I also wouldn't categorize humans as any more important or less important than any other species. Instead, we are just another species, we are not special in any way; the possibility is that we are in fact deviant as opposed to special. It seems to me that our species has taken a relatively "unnatural" route of existence. Instead of living simply by instincts, as other species do, we instead have decided to seek "advancement" and "knowledge". Perhaps the true advancement and knowledge comes from disconnecting with that course of evolution. Thus suggesting two paths, one of knowledge and advancement, the other of simply "being". The path of "being", unlike the path of "knowledge and advancement", runs in complete agreement to our existence.

As for humans destroying the world, I don't think that will happen. But I believe our society is bent on destroying our race. Do get me wrong, I am not suggesting that there is some "force" seeking to destroy humans, but instead that the human obsession with "knowledge" will be the driving force of our eventual extinction because it runs counter to our core existence.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by KingPen]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by KingPen]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingPen



In our aquisition of knowledge, we did nothing wrong nor unnatural. We just did what is - and what we did then is definitely not unnatural! We made mistakes with what we did with this knowledge, of that I'm sure, but being as young as we are - yes we still act like emotionally charged teens - we are prone to making mistakes. What sucks is that we are so emotionally inferior to our intellect: We blindly hate, need control, and are too worried about ourselves to think about others. Too worried to think about the future. And we have nukes. Also, lot's of people are, excuse me, rather unintelligent. They won't think for themselves. This isn't a natural phenomena, though. Hence we have many theories with very reliable proof of people in control, keeping control of other people. Not all of us exhibit these qualities, but it's still the truth. Of this, I am sure.

Like I said before, the most successful organisms are both energy and adversity efficient. With this, inevitably, being as young as we are, led to the widespread use of fossil fuels, which pollute, or "kill", the symbiosis-supporting rock we live on. Because some need to control, we seem hopelessly stuck on a path that cannot change. But this, in no way, means it cant be "fixed". Looks can be and are deceiving. Those who call themselves informed, say it is hopeless, and feel convicted to the cause are either too lazy or too scared to try to make a difference. This is my belief.

I'm not qualified to be an expert historian nor sociologist nor psychologist, but it's pretty evident our society is one of old. Same heirarchial structure, different name/place. Sure, we have more a degree of freedom and control over our own course than many of the past, but we are still far from controlling our own experience. Most are educated to do the work and some are handed the business to reap the rewards, hence why some logically attribute a slavery state.

You cant blame the majority, well you can since you now know and were ignorant before and now seem convicted to wanting a "better" place, but most are comfortable in their ways, unkowing they are being educated to act they way they do. This sociological/psychological aspect really has nothing to do with nature, other than people were smart enough to understand how to exploit it and people like control.

I didn't create the problem, I just have no way - and i stress this point - AT THE MOMENT to change it. Doesn't mean I can't some day, doesn't mean I will someday.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by KingPen
 


What I'm tying to say is we are not acting unnatural in any way shape or form. Now I know I'm crazy
when I'm going to try and explain what is natural.

To simply put it: If you can prove it happens, it's natural.

Therefor, it's natural to be rational. The big "problem", aside from the pre-teens that be who like to play G.I Joe with themselves, is a continuum of our ever expanding knowlege - in the direction of where I truly believe we NEED to go: off this "oh-so-special-so-rare" symbiosis-supporting rock. We needed to understand propulsion, so we used the most primitive form: fossil fuels. We needed to understand energy, so we used the most primitive form: fossil fuels. We needed to eat, so we became farmers. We needed to reproduce, so we had sex. We neeeded to feed MANY mouths, so we do what we do to animals (sure we don't need to abuse, but that isn't me). *This is what happens when a species, such as us, are primitive.

In my opinion, if we lost our instincts at all, we gave in to our insticts too soon. We took to "territoriality", and "controlism"" much, much too soon. We need to get off this planet to survive in the long run. We need to get out of our desires and get expanded. If we haven't grown up by then, we can just have star wars and such... lol.

*Oh, i never meant to say we are any better than other life forms. Without them, we wouldn't be here. Nothing else needs to be said.

And I'm not saying we will blow up our planet, but I'm rather inclined to say at least one person wouldn't mind it happening. I was saying it is a chance, as is gettin hit by an asteroid, believe it or don't.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by shanerz
 


But even where your going with this is beyond the source issue, at least in my opinion. And while, this is a bit counterintuitive (but I will admit that I too have been inflicted by the negative culturing effects of society), I am of the opinion that even this very conversation should not take place because, instinctively we should not be concerned with these issues whatsoever. We should instead focus on our core instincts/responsibilities, which are eating, procreating, and sleeping. If we focus only on those things I believe we would be vastly better off than we are now.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingPen
reply to post by shanerz
 


But even where your going with this is beyond the source issue, at least in my opinion. And while, this is a bit counterintuitive (but I will admit that I too have been inflicted by the negative culturing effects of society), I am of the opinion that even this very conversation should not take place because, instinctively we should not be concerned with these issues whatsoever. We should instead focus on our core instincts/responsibilities, which are eating, procreating, and sleeping. If we focus only on those things I believe we would be vastly better off than we are now.


Maybe I did get off topic a bit, but I was mostly using it as evidence to why we can't jus give up on the industrial, ever expanding intellectual world. The problem isn't you and me, the problem is other people adhereing to primitive human nature. The only real difference between chimps and us is that they just can't seem to get along. Saw it on Animal Planet lol. To say we are a bane to this symbiosis-supporting rock is to say we are doing something that could potentially end symbiosis. Point taken, there is no doubt about this. But giving up what we know, giving up what we understand and focusing on ourselves and our basic desires/needs won't help us in the long run - and to me just seems selfish in the light that our kids will. There really are other ways to "heal" our planet, than to just go back to act the way every other animal acts like in their entirety... which leads to this.

To add to what I said earlier, I do believe we are more special than other animals on this planet. Not in the fact that we are living, emotional, intelligent beings (which, yes, they are), but in the fact that we know how to destroy this place, we have the potential to fix it's problems, and we have the potential to save every species on this planet in the face of adversity. Name any other animal that can do so.

Am I on subject here? Because what I see is stop learning, (in the extreme) go back to technologically-inept civilization, stay on this planet, let the species die here, at least we will be happy/"Natural".

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by KingPen
 


To simply put it: If you can prove it happens, it's natural.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]


Hmm.. Thats a interesting position on things. I suppose you and I have different opinions of natural.

But consider this, everyday we have scientists who are injecting lab rats with all sorts of unusual, lab-created, viruses in order to learn the effects. This is not something I consider natural. Further, take a look at the any major city. One of the striking things you will notice is that almost the entire surface of the earth is cover in concrete/asphalt. Which are not "natural" materials. Now, imagine for a moment that someone completely coated a particular area on your body. (Let's say a four inch square area on your forearm.) Over time this will cause destruction on some level.

Now, my definition of natural is a bit different from yours. I believe something can be termed natural if it exist in order to facilitate one of the basic instincts or the survival of something else.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz

Maybe I did get off topic a bit, but I was mostly using it as evidence to why we can't jus give up on the industrial, ever expanding intellectual world. The problem isn't you and me, the problem is other people adhereing to primitive human nature. The only real difference between chimps and us is that they just can't seem to get along.


Are you suggesting that the difference between humans and chimps is that chimps cant get along with one another???
So meaning to say that we humans get along famously??
Which explains the ever growing threat of nuclear war. ???


But giving up what we know, giving up what we understand and focusing on ourselves and our basic desires/needs won't help us in the long run - and to me just seems selfish in the light that our kids will.


My thinking is exactly opposite. By living for conveniences and knowledge we are acting extraordinarily selfish because we may be very well creating an extremely hostile environment for our posterity.



To add to what I said earlier, I do believe we are more special than other animals on this planet. Not in the fact that we are living, emotional, intelligent beings (which, yes, they are), but in the fact that we know how to destroy this place, we have the potential to fix it's problems, and we have the potential to save every species on this planet in the face of adversity. Name any other animal that can do so.


Beyond our own egotism, how are we so certain that other species aren't fully capable of doing the same? Perhaps they have realized how trivial and misguided it is to try. We do not have the ability or knowledge to rule out that other species may have a better grasp on things than we do.


Am I on subject here? Because what I see is stop learning, (in the extreme) go back to technologically-inept civilization, stay on this planet, let the species die here, at least we will be happy/"Natural".


Absolutely! You are reading it correctly. Now, I do not for one minute think there is is any possibility of that occurring because, as i mentioned I think we are beyond the point of no return. However, if theoretically we were able to do that, I do not for one instance believe that our species would die under those circumstance. Would we thin out a bit? Certainly.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by KingPen]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingPen

Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by KingPen
 


To simply put it: If you can prove it happens, it's natural.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]


Hmm.. Thats a interesting position on things. I suppose you and I have different opinions of natural.

But consider this, everyday we have scientists who are injecting lab rats with all sorts of unusual, lab-created, viruses in order to learn the effects. This is not something I consider natural. Further, take a look at the any major city. One of the striking things you will notice is that almost the entire surface of the earth is cover in concrete/asphalt. Which are not "natural" materials. Now, imagine for a moment that someone completely coated a particular area on your body. (Let's say a four inch square area on your forearm.) Over time this will cause destruction on some level.

Now, my definition of natural is a bit different from yours. I believe something can be termed natural if it exist in order to facilitate one of the basic instincts or the survival of something else.


Cement is made of rocks and water. Metal is found in rock. Sure, it doesn't naturally arrange itself the way we arrange it, but that doesn't mean it isnt natural for us to shelter ourselves in such a way. After all foxes dig their homes in the ground. Yes, our cities are built wrong - we decimated lots of ecosystems. This doesn't mean our human nature is wrong. It just means we made a mistake with our knowledge and we need to fix our cities.

Nature = everything that happens - from the way atoms arrange, to the way wind blows, to the way some stars supernova. A species nature = the behavior of a species. We inject lab rats because we understand it may help us some day. You can label it all you want, but the truth is that is all it is - us trying to advance ourselves/survive according to our highly intellectual nature.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz

Cement is made of rocks and water. Metal is found in rock. Sure, it doesn't naturally arrange itself the way we arrange it, but that doesn't mean it isnt natural for us to shelter ourselves in such a way. After all foxes dig their homes in the ground. Yes, our cities are built wrong - we decimated lots of ecosystems. This doesn't mean our human nature is wrong. It just means we made a mistake with our knowledge and we need to fix our cities.


I do not believe that it is human nature that these types of things have sprung up out of. Consider for a moment that the earliest humans lived in forest, in deserts, in caves. The point of our restructuring is merely out of comfort not necessity. However, my illustration of a crossroad earlier, wherein there was two paths, would have occurred at a much earlier point. Early humans just failed to see the long term consequences of the behavior we chose.



Nature = everything that happens - from the way atoms arrange, to the way wind blows, to the way some stars supernova. A species nature = the behavior of a species. We inject lab rats because we understand it may help us some day. You can label it all you want, but the truth is that is all it is - us trying to advance ourselves/survive according to our highly intellectual nature.


Further, whats with the preoccupation with survival? Do we have any evidence to suggest that upon death there are unfortunate consequences?
Does it really make a hill of beans if we survive or not? If there were no humans on Earth, do you think things would cease to be?

By the way, I am not trying to sound rude of contentious. Just a healthy dicussion.


[edit on 29-5-2009 by KingPen]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingPen
Are you suggesting that the difference between humans and chimps is that chimps cant get along with one another???
So meaning to say that we humans get along famously??
Which explains the ever growing threat of nuclear war. ???


No, I'm sayin we are still very primitive. It's obvious we have so much in common. Hence, I called humans a young species.




My thinking is exactly opposite. By living for conveniences and knowledge we are acting extraordinarily selfish because we may be very well creating an extremely hostile environment for our posterity.


It's just a 'byproduct' of our nature. As i said above this point, we are still prone to things such as blind hate, control issues, etc. and Emotional/intellectual evolution is something we have to actively work to progress ourselves, that's the nature of it.



Beyond our own egotism, how are we so certain that other species aren't fully capable of doing the same? Perhaps they have realized how trivial and misguided it is to try. We do not have the ability or knowledge to rule out that other species may have a better grasp on things than we do.


Yes, I could see other species as possibly being actively intelligent (meaning they behaved the way we do now) at one time. But to which I would object. If they were, at on point, as intelligent as we are now, they would have realized that this planet is doomed in the long run, and going back to the way they behaved before (and now), would be the doom of a planet full of life. So I really don't see this scenario to be the case. All life wants to survive, we have the ability (intelligence) to make it a high probability. Don't doubt your own capabilities, just because some egos make you sick!



Absolutely! You are reading it correctly. Now, I do not for one minute think there is is any possibility of that occurring because, as i mentioned I think we are beyond the point of no return. However, if theoretically we were able to do that, I do not for one instance believe that our species would die under those circumstance. Would we thin out a bit? Certainly.


But don't you see? Our planet will burn up one day. This isn't paranoia. This is fact. If we can't find a way to get off, our species will die - along with every species on this planet. This is of course should we survive any objects coming our way - which we also need to learn more about stopping these objects. This is why in my first post I insisted that people don't have the will to survive anymore, the single most important aspect of life, in my opinion.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingPen






Oops cut part off sorry. lol

Oh but it really is. It is every organisms nature to try and become as energy efficient as utterly possible. Humans aren't the only species to always have sought shelter from the environs - every form of life does it whether its from the weather or from predators. We build our houses where they are because of our understanding/conditioning that we need to work to advance our species... we build relatively near our place of work to expend less energy getting to and from. We build our houses the way we do because we understand what kinds of structures can stand up to what environments and out of our emotional attachments to art.

Sure, some of us have gotten "out of hand" but it has no real impact on others, until they are starving (sigh). The currency system is to blame (it's supposed to be about natural resrouces BAH - also an extension of primitive human nature), and certain other aspects of what I believe are primitive human nature already discussed. China (rice) and the US (durum) could feed the hungry world easily. But they have childish agendas. It's not hard to see.



Further, whats with the preoccupation with survival? Do we have any evidence to suggest that upon death there are unfortunate consequences?
Does it really make a hill of beans if we survive or not? If there were no humans on Earth, do you think things would cease to be?


Yes, your intelligent species, other than humans, will run from predators. They will consume other life to survive, and they will reproduce to continue the species. That, my friend, is survival.

To me, it does mean something if we survive. My little girl is worth more than anything to me, and I hate thinking of where I'd be without her. She is so beautiful. That's all I need to understand what survival is.

*I don't mean to shatter beliefs here. It's just the way i have interpereted the proof that nature offers us. Maybe, just maybe, it could be that we procreate to create more "souls", but in either case, our understanding of survival is still vital to this point of view. I just haven't seen any proof in regards to a soul, yet. Soooo.



By the way, I am not trying to sound rude of contentious. Just a healthy dicussion.



I understand, and I feel the same at times. But I feel there is something deeper than just a disbelief. Lets keep on keepin on.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Sucks, I just typed a really long response to this message but when I tried to post it refreshed and I lost it all...grrrr



Originally posted by shanerz
Sure, some of us have gotten "out of hand" but it has no real impact on others, until they are starving (sigh).

What makes that exception so insignificant???




Yes, your intelligent species, other than humans, will run from predators. They will consume other life to survive, and they will reproduce to continue the species. That, my friend, is survival.


I agree. That is natural survival. There is a strong difference between survival and the fear of death and that should be clarified before moving forward.



To me, it does mean something if we survive. My little girl is worth more than anything to me, and I hate thinking of where I'd be without her. She is so beautiful. That's all I need to understand what survival is.


I have a little girl and a little boy, I understand your sentiments but let's face reality. One day, you and I are going to stop living. Just how it works, no avoiding it. One day then, you will in fact be away from you kids and I will likewise be away from mine. In this situation we are not discussing survival. In this situation we are discussing the fear of death.



*I don't mean to shatter beliefs here. It's just the way i have interpereted the proof that nature offers us. Maybe, just maybe, it could be that we procreate to create more "souls", but in either case, our understanding of survival is still vital to this point of view. I just haven't seen any proof in regards to a soul, yet. Soooo.


Fear not about "shattering my beliefs". If I were that easily swayed I wouldn't have posted.
The issue of soul has been greatly debated and yet there is no clear evidence suggesting the existence of such a thing. Perhaps it is in this issue of "soul" that we have been so misled.
In your words, "if you can prove it happens; its natural". Please prove for me the existence of "soul". (Other than James Brown
) So then if "if you can prove it happens; its natural" is true, and if we can agree that you can not prove the existence of a "soul", then that would be indicative that the concept of "soul" is unnatural, correct?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by KingPen]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingPen
Sucks, I just typed a really long response to this message but when I tried to post it refreshed and I lost it all...grrrr


LOL i hate that.




What makes that exception so insignificant???


I didn't mean to make this appear to be like "oh what is what is". Because the fact is the US (durum) and China (rice) could feed the world over easily. Primitive (childish) human desires stop this from happening. That is what is.

That brings me back to a point about unnatural eating habits. Again, people with set dining schedules... there is nothing wrong with it. If big cats on the African praries had a huge supply of food, they would either become very fat, or have hunger-stimulated dining schedules.

Another notion that proves organisms desire to reduce energy consumption, all animals will steal good if they can. Why use energy chasing food if you can juss take someone elses?

In fact, it is better to eat small ammounts throughout the day.





I agree. That is natural survival. There is a strong difference between survival and the fear of death and that should be clarified before moving forward.




I have a little girl and a little boy, I understand your sentiments but let's face reality. One day, you and I are going to stop living. Just how it works, no avoiding it. One day then, you will in fact be away from you kids and I will likewise be away from mine. In this situation we are not discussing survival. In this situation we are discussing the fear of death.


Is there, though? Do animals fear a hell or nonexistance? I know they feel emotion when things die. And I'm next to certain they understand it is nothing bad, good, it is just the way it is = nature. Their offspring get devoured all the time, yet they continue to reproduce, to make sure the species survives. So I am convinced this is proof that we don't fear death, and that yes fear of death is a false sense of reality = a control factor.

If I got hit by a car, shot by a burglar, etc. there's nothing I can do about it. Sure, I don't want it to happen... But I'm more afraid of leaving my girl unprepared to survive than "finding" oblivion. I truly believe this is a response to the survival of my species, and keeping my genes in the pool.




In your words, "if you can prove it happens; its natural". Please prove for me the existence of "soul". (Other than James Brown
) So then if "if you can prove it happens; its natural" is true, and if we can agree that you can not prove the existence of a "soul", then that would be indicative that the concept of "soul" is unnatural, correct?


I can't prove a soul. Unless you call a soul what I believe to be a plethora of chemical reactions giving specific sensory responses to environmental stimuli. I understand there isn't proof, but Then I can cite credible neurologists of their ideas on the topic. No it's not unnatural, if someone conceived the thought of soul, for any purpose, then it happened, and I could prove, for one reason or another (i presonally subscribe the control), that the thought of soul is natural.

Maybe, somewhere down the line there is something humans will never be able to prove, but it still happens, but is not unnatural... So I should refine it to Nature = the way things behave. But I'm still convinced, some way or another, we can prove behavior. I rguess my wording was misleading, but proving = repeatedly happening when it is supposed to. We cant necessarily prove supernovas or quasars happen, In a lab anyway... but we can observe them happening when they are supposed to happen.

I've got a question pertaining to the topic
why do you believe everything is so hopeless for us? Or better yet, why don't you feel the need to survive is as important as I believe it to be?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by shanerz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by KingPen
 


2 major differences between humans and other mamnals:
1. The ability to save itself from extinction.
2. The ability to cause its own extinction.

3. Bad speling



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Yep very good thread. I prefer to live my life as simple as i can, and if i was let be i would have just a simple job, and not bother with what other people want or need people to do.

People in this world are so stup1d it is beyond any reasoning in my mind that man runs this planet. This is why i believe totally that we are just ants on a farm, being played like we would with other animals.

When i hear the people at the top of society say they would prefer to come back as this and that instead of a human being, i am too in that thinking. Just look at how free animals are, compared to us. Look at a cat, or a bird, seems to me they have more independence than use.

Like the op said, people should live within there means and stay out of anyones business but there own. I am one of those who never bother with gossip, i have never understood the rubbish people say about people. Science claims it is a higher brain function that needs gossip. I do not think they are right, i think that is just for the feminists, and sciecne tries to play to womens feelings, saying gossip is essential. I call bullsh1t on that.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join