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.

 

What would you say is man's greatest fear?

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Hmm. Well thought out. But since I am almost quiet positive that very few percentage of the world are educated enough to understand the 3rd law of thermodynamics, based on that alone cannot be man's greatest fear. But that was a nice approach. If your educated enough to know about the law then I know your brain is working. Very nice.




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that all Religions are wrong and can't be real. And what I am saying is that you do not know that. They could be real. As a matter of fact most people in the world believe that religion is real. So they do not fear death because they believe it is real. Whether they are right or wrong is another debate. I personally believe they are right, but I am considering that evolution is also right for this debate. So looking at this question without accusations into right or wrong the majority believes in religion so by statistics alone, which is science, the fear of death cannot be man's greatest fear. But I do understand where you are coming from.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Lol. What? Morality and ethics have nothing to do with religion? Really? Where have I been? lol. Just teasing, don't take me to seriously I love to laugh. Ok. Morality and ethics are the basis for the way each individual lives their life. Whether theirs are good or bad is another debate. But everyone has a morality system for how they live. So since that has been established to be true then for the one's that are religious, morality plays apart in that also.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I am not questioning your morality. Only you can do that. You question the morality of others, the christian, by your own Morality and ethics....see where I am going with this?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Now if that statement is false about evolution then think about it. Evolution will continue forever without an end, unless something happens to stop it and that would have to be the same for all to really stop it. But if nothing happens then evolution will continue for infinity, continually perfecting itself for survival, until at last it reaches perfection. Perfection is what? Most of the earth contributes perfection to ........God! I do not know where you get your information, but I do like the way you think. Surely someone of your intelligence can see the reasoning behind this. Its simple. One thing I have learned in life is that spirituality is actually simple. Science requires hours upon hours of learning and can describe everything in this reality. When the time comes that they have all the true answers. When they can figure out how a word will bring matter into existence or even separate matter from energy, and if evolution is right it will happen, then it is no longer magic, but a fact.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Now if that statement is false about evolution then think about it. Evolution will continue forever without an end, unless something happens to stop it and that would have to be the same for all to really stop it. But if nothing happens then evolution will continue for infinity, continually perfecting itself for survival, until at last it reaches perfection. Perfection is what? Most of the earth contributes perfection to ........God!


God is far from perfect, he lies, he cheats, he murders and he commits genocide. He even proclaims himself to be a vengeful and wrathful God, not exactly something I would equate as perfect. Unless we're talking perfectly evil and tyrannical. As for Evolutionary Theory, it also does not state that the evolutionary process leads to perfection and ultimate survival of a species or a complete change from one species to another. As we grow, learn and discover new thing's, old ways of thinking are proven to be wrong and that description is mostly wrong as we now have a clearer understanding of the evolutionary process today.


I do not know where you get your information, but I do like the way you think.


I read everything and I use common sense, but thank you.


Surely someone of your intelligence can see the reasoning behind this. Its simple. One thing I have learned in life is that spirituality is actually simple.


Actually if you take the time to learn, spirituality is only simple if it goes unquestioned. The minute you apply logic and knowledge to the nature of spirituality and the many various religious and non religious views on what it is and what it contains and what it means, then logic dictates it's all rubbish. Like I said, as we grow, learn and discover new thing's we learn that old ways of thinking are wrong. This includes the spiritual realm as it is a primitive idea developed by a primitive people thousands of years ago before there was any true scientific knowledge learned.

Nothing in spirituality has actually been proven as true, be it God(s) or a soul. Nor is any mechanism pointed to as being observable for evidence of spirituality. Most if not all spiritualist either claim it just exists because it makes sense showing a lack of understanding in what common sense means or they proclaim that science just doesn't know yet despite everything else known about the universe showing that a soul just couldn't exist and certainly not in the thousands of different descriptions and ideas given.


Science requires hours upon hours of learning and can describe everything in this reality. When the time comes that they have all the true answers. When they can figure out how a word will bring matter into existence or even separate matter from energy, and if evolution is right it will happen, then it is no longer magic, but a fact.


Again, try not to equate Evolutionary Theory with the whole of scientific discovery as the Theory only postulates a possible process for how life can change and nothing more. It predicts nothing about any other aspect of our universe and never will nor ever can. The whole point of the scientific method is for discovery, so that we may know more about our world and how to better our lives in it. If we just one day and accept a spiritualist answer to everything as our forefathers had done through the dark ages, we would end up living in filth, disease and poverty just as our forefathers had. Continuous discovery is good, but proclaiming to have all the answers out of arrogance is bad.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Conclusion, Great question!

I've heard it said mans greatest fear is not living up to his potential.

My only fear is having REGRETS when I'm ready to move on...

OT



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
In my opinion, man's biggest fear in life, is... To be proven wrong.

Think about that one.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


I'm pleased to meet you too. I would like very much if you added me to your friends list and kept in touch occasionally. This is a very thought provoking thread and from the responses It helps us to understand our fellow humans fears. I dont know what good this star rateing is but you are getting a star from me because I feel this thread is worthy of my time.
BE AS ONE Magantice



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You said this----God is far from perfect, he lies, he cheats, he murders and he commits genocide. He even proclaims himself to be a vengeful and wrathful God, not exactly something I would equate as perfect. Unless we're talking perfectly evil and tyrannical. As for Evolutionary Theory, it also does not state that the evolutionary process leads to perfection and ultimate survival of a species or a complete change from one species to another. As we grow, learn and discover new thing's, old ways of thinking are proven to be wrong and that description is mostly wrong as we now have a clearer understanding of the evolutionary process today.



Ok. How can you deny the fact that survival of the fittest, does not allude to an on going perfection of the subject. Evolutionary changes could only take place in such theory. And as far as a complete change from one species to another would be the definite result from a single microbe in the ooze to Homo Sapiens. Also the character of God is not the debate. For you he is like that, for the religious he is all. Just as you said old ways of thinking are proven wrong. Will evolution be proven wrong 1000 years from now because it will be an old way of thinking?





You said this----Actually if you take the time to learn, spirituality is only simple if it goes unquestioned. The minute you apply logic and knowledge to the nature of spirituality and the many various religious and non religious views on what it is and what it contains and what it means, then logic dictates it's all rubbish. Like I said, as we grow, learn and discover new thing's we learn that old ways of thinking are wrong. This includes the spiritual realm as it is a primitive idea developed by a primitive people thousands of years ago before there was any true scientific knowledge learned.


Agreed. Spirituality is not always simple. I am applying logic and reason to spirituality right now, and it still holds true. With the old ways proven wrong view I answered already.



You said this-----Nothing in spirituality has actually been proven as true, be it God(s) or a soul. Nor is any mechanism pointed to as being observable for evidence of spirituality. Most if not all spiritualist either claim it just exists because it makes sense showing a lack of understanding in what common sense means or they proclaim that science just doesn't know yet despite everything else known about the universe showing that a soul just couldn't exist and certainly not in the thousands of different descriptions and ideas given.



I disagree. I think things once thought of as magic has been proven to exist. When we figure out how it works the magic is gone. Doesn't make it any less to to exist. Spirituality is evident in many people. Just because you do not know how to use it does not mean someone else doesn't know. That like trying to put an average Joe in the LHC and telling him to run it. If he doesn't know how it works, that doesn't mean someone else doesn't.
A lack of understanding common sense? Lol. Common since is knowing if you throw a ball in the air it comes down. Your saying that if you do not know how and why the ball falls back to earth you have no common sense.
What? Everything else about the Universe shows no soul? That is very assumptive since we know very little about the Universe as many Scientists will definitely agree with.



You said this----Again, try not to equate Evolutionary Theory with the whole of scientific discovery as the Theory only postulates a possible process for how life can change and nothing more. It predicts nothing about any other aspect of our universe and never will nor ever can. The whole point of the scientific method is for discovery, so that we may know more about our world and how to better our lives in it. If we just one day and accept a spiritualist answer to everything as our forefathers had done through the dark ages, we would end up living in filth, disease and poverty just as our forefathers had. Continuous discovery is good, but proclaiming to have all the answers out of arrogance is bad.


If it only POSTULATES a POSSIBLE process then how can you not see the other side then? As far as Evolution not predicting anything, this Evolutionist would disagree with you.
chem.tufts.edu...

It states the following:

Predictions - Is Evolution Science?

Original at - www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:


* Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.


* Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.


* There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You said this---------Continuous discovery is good, but proclaiming to have all the answers out of arrogance is bad.

I would say to dismiss a solution without consideration that science just can't explain it yet, would be a definition of arrogance.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Magantice
 


Thank you for your kind words. But believe me it is my pleasure to have a thinker such as you to share your wisdom on this subject. You are truly thought provoking. Thank you for your star and flag, but mostly your time.


Peace.

Oh yeah, I did add you as a friend.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Which is more arrogant? Claiming a solution without showing validity for that solution and submitting that everyone should just accept it at face value without question or dismissing that solution because it shows no actual solution.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WanderingParadox
 


I would relate that as to not succeeding to be proven right. Very deep. Yes men do not like to be proven wrong. I have read, "A wise man loves to be refuted." That is so they can always learn the truth. So wise men would not fear being proven wrong. Only the unwise would.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Which is more arrogant? Claiming a solution without showing validity for that solution and submitting that everyone should just accept it at face value without question or dismissing that solution because it shows no actual solution.



You can only tell one of a solution. They have to understand it for themselves, No matter what subject they need to comprehend.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 

What good is a message if one can't even teach it? Meaning, that if there is a spiritual world and there is all this so called evidence for it devoid of any other explanation, then should this not be utterly obvious for all? Anyone can claim anything and demand that you just don't 'get it', but does that inherently make them correct and everyone else who can show their work are wrong on the matter? That makes no sense and is devoid of any logical thought if you ask me.

If I claim the a giant penguin eating dinosaur is the source of all creation and I tell you that you just don't understand the message, am I inherently correct on the solution or would you demand that I show my work?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 

What good is a message if one can't even teach it? Meaning, that if there is a spiritual world and there is all this so called evidence for it devoid of any other explanation, then should this not be utterly obvious for all? Anyone can claim anything and demand that you just don't 'get it', but does that inherently make them correct and everyone else who can show their work are wrong on the matter? That makes no sense and is devoid of any logical thought if you ask me.

If I claim the a giant penguin eating dinosaur is the source of all creation and I tell you that you just don't understand the message, am I inherently correct on the solution or would you demand that I show my work?



First off who said it is not being taught? People are learning about it everyday. You could say the same thing about quantum physics just because someone doesn't get it. For the people learning about it, they do not show the work, the work is shown to them. So they could also ask the same question about you. Logical thought is what the ancients used to come up with spirituality, because they didn't know science to know how it worked. They just knew it worked. You know common sense.

Do you really believe that? If your answer was yes, then I would believe that you believe it. I would disagree and ask you to debate it. If you can debate it and make me believe then to me I would have gained wisdom.

If you real answer is no, then nothing to debate. Just another what if.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Ok guys. I have to hit the hay so that I can work tonight...


Maybe that is my personal greatest fear...work....lol

Thanks again for all the contributions...Sirnex is really keeping me on my toe's and for that I applaud him/her...sorry but I don't know. Sirnex makes a lot of very good points. His/her intelligence is undeniable.

Peace.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Very nice one.
OT you amaze me with the simplest answers. lol. Well live and learn. Anyways I could equate the Fear of regret to the fear of not succeeding in living life the way you deem it should be lived.

Excellent answer. You are an Old Thinker indeed.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



First off who said it is not being taught? People are learning about it everyday.


Sure, they are learning that there *might* be a spiritual solution, but what is not being is a viable mechanism for spirituality.


You could say the same thing about quantum physics just because someone doesn't get it.


The difference here being that QM has testable theories in which some have been proven valid whereas spiritualism's testable theories have not been adequately proven nor observable. With the spiritualist solution we see way to many descriptions on what it is and how it works with none in agreement, it follows nothing like science.


For the people learning about it, they do not show the work, the work is shown to them.


I would assume that is a 'personal experience' statement. That being the case, exclaiming personal experience that a faith is valid because your chosen God has told you so is immediately invalidated when taking in account the various other hundred faiths who have hundreds of thousands to millions of followers who also claim personal experience for their faith which goes against what your faith teaches.

If we look for a logical solution to everything, then wouldn't you surmise that the logical solution would be agreed upon as true by all of humanity, in the same light that we all agree gravity exists?


Logical thought is what the ancients used to come up with spirituality, because they didn't know science to know how it worked.


At this stage of the argument we have to learn to be truly honest to ourselves. Spirituality would include any specific deities, concepts of a soul or supernatural creation of the universe or causation of natural occurrences.

Let's start with the creation of the universe, none agree on how it happened or how many God(s) were required in order to create it. What about the soul? Well, each culture and religion has their own views on what a soul is how it forms and where it goes upon death. Man has used primitive logic to even prove the existence of rain God(s), if we dance or pray for rain and we receive rain, then logic dictates that there should be a rain God answering that request for rain. Yet, that is faulty logic and not true logic.


They just knew it worked. You know common sense.


Claiming something exists because you alone personally experienced it and convinced a mass of people to accept it is not inherently common sense or proof of something. Not saying you personally, but more to the point of people who came up with these various beliefs initially. Look at Scientology, a new religion concocted by a science fiction author and yet most if not all of it's followers proclaim personal experience that it's teachings are true. Or ... common sense.


Do you really believe that? If your answer was yes, then I would believe that you believe it. I would disagree and ask you to debate it. If you can debate it and make me believe then to me I would have gained wisdom.


If it stands to reason that my solution is debatable, then shouldn't any other belief devoid of physical proof be equally debatable and questioned?




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join