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: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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.



The viable mechanism for spirituality is the spirit. In order to learn about something first you have to take part in studying it. Meditation, prayer, ect...these are the books with which to learn from to understand 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.


The testable theories that are proven valid, are valid only to the one that understands them. There are a lot of scientist who believe in God that understand them. Since they believe in God they are not taken seriously. Think about it. Who would know the truth. One who studies both and knows both, or the one's that just study one side of the equation, disputing the other without ever studying and learning about it.





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?


One way to look at it is, with all of the personal spiritual experiences in the world, as you said happening to millions of people should be enough proof. As far as other religions being invalidated, that is a matter you have to decide for yourself. Nothing anyone can state with truth goes against what he truly believes.
Yes I agree that a logical solution should be agreed upon as true by all humanity. But we do not need to know how gravity works to know its real.





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.




I agree to a point. Anything that happens in this universe can, and will someday, be understood with the help of science. What you call supernatural creation would have to follow the Laws of this universe. Now getting to the Honesty to ourselves. You know as well as I do that science cannot figure out the Unified Field Theory as of today. So there in we do not know all the Laws of the universe. I believe there to be many more. As pertaining to specific deities I believe there can only be one from which everything else came. Even Evolution would support that.




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.



Your statement is very true, and as you have pointed out logic does not always dictate truth. Science even shows us this. You see with spirituality, as with science, we have to take what we know as true for ourselves and go from there. As far as the many religions, well once again just as there are different theories on evolution the same holds true for spirituality. You have to study and pick which one rings true to your soul. As for faulty logic as both of us have learned in this debate, it is easy to refute faulty 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.


That is true. Now I do not know much about Scientology so I cannot debate that. As we have shown above logic has its faults or faulty logic. That is one reason it is hard to use logic with spirituality and it usually happens on a personal level. But there have been mass visualizations of the spiritual nature. So that is evidence that not all spiritual experiences are personal ones, but I am sure they were also felt on a personal level.





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?




Yes. Through reasoning with each other common ground becomes the wisdom both seeks.




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



The viable mechanism for spirituality is the spirit. In order to learn about something first you have to take part in studying it. Meditation, prayer, ect...these are the books with which to learn from to understand spirituality.


I do practice meditation, but I have never experienced any of the effects of spirituality that spiritualists associate with it. I would presume that this is because I do not automatically apply a spiritual mindset to the practice of meditation itself. As for prayer, it appears to be about just as effective as the placebo effect. Prayer can not grow back amputated limbs.


The testable theories that are proven valid, are valid only to the one that understands them. There are a lot of scientist who believe in God that understand them. Since they believe in God they are not taken seriously. Think about it. Who would know the truth. One who studies both and knows both, or the one's that just study one side of the equation, disputing the other without ever studying and learning about it.


Or more accurately, the tested theories are proven valid because they are reproducible by all if they so choose to validate the theories themselves. As stated, in the case for spirituality, all claim personal experience, but mileage may vary. There is no one testable accurate defined description for the spiritual world and all defined concepts are held as valid by those who uphold personal experience as a form of validation rather than a concrete testable conclusive evidence for validation.

Studying both ways is certainly what I try to accomplish and through studying both ways I've come to the determination that the evidence for spirituality is inconclusive. I don't necessarily deny the possibility, I am certainly open to it, but it just doesn't appear to have any concrete evidence suggesting it's reality in our universe at this moment.


One way to look at it is, with all of the personal spiritual experiences in the world, as you said happening to millions of people should be enough proof. As far as other religions being invalidated, that is a matter you have to decide for yourself. Nothing anyone can state with truth goes against what he truly believes.
Yes I agree that a logical solution should be agreed upon as true by all humanity. But we do not need to know how gravity works to know its real.


I see how my analogy could be used against me, mistake on my part in which I hope I don't make again. Point of the matter is, personal experience is a moot concept when validating something as true or trying to drive across to others as being true. For example, you could claim personal experience that big foot is real while I don't personally believe that and I could claim the Loch Ness monster is real while you don't believe that. In either instance, personal experiences for aren't proof of. We could argue back and forth for all of eternity over who's personal experience is more valid, but at the end of the day the only thing that will determine who is correct will be the first one to provide tangible evidence, something we can point at and study.


I agree to a point. Anything that happens in this universe can, and will someday, be understood with the help of science. What you call supernatural creation would have to follow the Laws of this universe. Now getting to the Honesty to ourselves. You know as well as I do that science cannot figure out the Unified Field Theory as of today. So there in we do not know all the Laws of the universe. I believe there to be many more. As pertaining to specific deities I believe there can only be one from which everything else came. Even Evolution would support that.


While we can't describe a UFT as of yet, neither can we proclaim that this is evidence for anything else. It's a logical fallacy to exclaim proof of because of lack of. While there may or may not be more laws undiscovered in our universe, this says nothing of where the universe came from, any theory or law of would pertain to the universe itself and not beyond that. As for deities, there is no logical reason to conclude that only one deity must exist as it is equally plausible to conclude an infinite number of deities could exist. Evolutionary Theory as applied to organic living beings would have nothing to say about deities capable of creating something from nothing, the theory just does not apply nor postulate anything close to resembling that.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


I apologize for not being clear about how evolution would agree with it. I assumed you would understand. Evolution believes that life started out from a singularity in the primal ooze. That is what I meant. Everything came from one thing.

While I understand all of your points and they are very good points, I fear you do not understand mine. The only way you can understand is experience it for yourself. If that happens you will be reflecting on your innermost thoughts. And with the knowledge that you have with science, and I admit dwarfs my knowledge of it, you may be the one to bring the two together. Spirituality is just like living, you have to experience it before you can come anywhere near explaining it.

You are a great debater and it has been a joy. Frustrating at times, but a joy none the less.



Wow. We really got of topic...sorry.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


I was distracted by my wife, so I replied a little prematurely and missed the other half of your post. I'll reply to it at the end of this one.


I apologize for not being clear about how evolution would agree with it. I assumed you would understand. Evolution believes that life started out from a singularity in the primal ooze. That is what I meant. Everything came from one thing.


Evolutionary Theory postulates no beginning to the universe nor any beginning of life, but is a theory that describes a possible process for what is observed to occur in nature. It only deals with life itself.


While I understand all of your points and they are very good points, I fear you do not understand mine. The only way you can understand is experience it for yourself. If that happens you will be reflecting on your innermost thoughts. And with the knowledge that you have with science, and I admit dwarfs my knowledge of it, you may be the one to bring the two together. Spirituality is just like living, you have to experience it before you can come anywhere near explaining it.


Yet that is just the point, where I haven't experienced spiritualistic happenstances myself, should I ever experience them I would develop my own understanding of the occurrence that may be totally different than anything you understand based on your own personal experience. Our two personal experiences would dictate different views of reality that don't agree with each other. That is not to say that I haven't dabbled with the spiritual side of thing's either. I've attempted developing psychic abilities when I was young to no avail. I've dabbled with voodoo and thought I had proof positive results that it worked only to find out it was a mere coincidence when I questioned it further.

Absolutely got off topic, but well worth it in my opinion. Now to get to the rest of the other post.


Your statement is very true, and as you have pointed out logic does not always dictate truth. Science even shows us this. You see with spirituality, as with science, we have to take what we know as true for ourselves and go from there. As far as the many religions, well once again just as there are different theories on evolution the same holds true for spirituality. You have to study and pick which one rings true to your soul. As for faulty logic as both of us have learned in this debate, it is easy to refute faulty logic.


True, with spirituality it is more of a matter of faith than tangible evidence as it does inherently go against what is currently known as possible to man and man certainly does not know everything that can be possible. Yet, if we just follow what 'feels' most right to ourselves and leave it at that, what are we really learning?


That is true. Now I do not know much about Scientology so I cannot debate that. As we have shown above logic has its faults or faulty logic. That is one reason it is hard to use logic with spirituality and it usually happens on a personal level. But there have been mass visualizations of the spiritual nature. So that is evidence that not all spiritual experiences are personal ones, but I am sure they were also felt on a personal level.


Again, at the same time it has been viewed by primitive man as a mass visualization that their prayers, chants and dances produced rain from a rain god, but that mass visualization or personal experience doesn't inherently make a rain god any more real. If we can't test for a rain god and discover tangible evidence for it, but we can produce evidence for a naturalistic reason for why rain occurs, which line of reason do we assume is most correct? And this would apply to any spiritualistic solutions I would imagine.


Yes. Through reasoning with each other common ground becomes the wisdom both seeks.


Great observation! Hopefully we are both expanding on our wisdom in this regard. With a better understanding that neither science nor spiritualism holds any key knowledge of where the universe came from and without evidence for that ultimate beginning, both are equally valid to a degree, but one must also factor in various evidences for each. While I may not be a religious person myself, and I enjoy debating against monotheism, I also understand that the possibility is still open for one God or a multitude of Gods. I just don't personally subscribe to any man created definitions of which God or Gods must be the right one's and if any such God really cares if we worship them or not or if they are even aware of our own existence.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
mans greatest fear or my greatest fear?

i think man as a whole's greatest fear right now is death.

but my personal fear is not figuring out what i'm mean to do in my lifetime or not doing the right thing.... or failing to figure any of it out.. i fear letting down the 'gods' who put me here,

[edit on 24-10-2009 by hautmess]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


I agree 100% but they also fear fear itself the last thing most people want is to be afraid

Most fear comes from not understanding thats why we are always seeking for answers to even the simplest question, and of course to satisfy our endless curiosity.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Northernwolf
 


And so we are back to square one......


Most fear comes from not understanding
.....

fire, falling, drowning, predators etc. These are things we pretty much all fear because we know what the possible outcome might be...

When talking about man's ability to contemplate future events (What makes us human...) your are absolutly spot on. But this gives us a bit of a conflict, "Most fear comes from not understanding" vs "Most fear comes from understanding"

Animals only have fear of the known.......'so who's the smart one again??

Peace


[edit on 24/10/2009 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Im with you... Id rather die than be castrated.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
"Man's greatest fear"


Loneliness.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
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.


If you re-read my previous comment you'll see that I said "creations greatest fear" not mans.
Mans greatest fear, as I mentioned in the last post, changes over time with his environment and these fears center on absolutes as represented by:

  1. choice (having no capability to affect the world around us / choice without consequence)
  2. concepts of self / group
    1. a borg-like society developing
    2. the possibility that nothing exists outside of yourself - you're it - alone for all of time & space
    3. the notion of "every man for himself" where group cooperation completely breaks down & we all kill each other
    4. or a world where we realize we have no true identity we're just the sum of the parts of information that our brains have absorbed (metaphysical nihilism)

  3. and nature (that nature will eventually destroy all things through entropy; or that if nature can be overcome man will eventually have nothing left to see or do).


For the people here saying that they most fear never being loved. Consider that this is simply a concept of someone else never choosing you. (IE/ a combination of choice and self not being picked by another from the group.)

Another conceptual axis is the idea of "consequence," which can be broken up in to two parts (positive and negative experience).

Which is to say the expectation is that being chosen by someone else from the group reflects a positive result. It's also the one thing no person can buy, demand, or expect to have provided to them naturally as just a product of being alive. So it's perhaps one of the most tenuous and valuable in the sense that nothing the person can do affects the outcome if the other person chooses otherwise.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. The unknown is what stops us from acting, and the unknown is simply fear itself. We don't want to go to the basement because we don't know what insects might be there. We don't want to give the speech because we don't know how it will be received. We are afraid when a loved one is delayed because we don't know if he is safe. We fear to marry because it may not last, to love because it may not be returned, to try because we might not succeed. We fear death because we don't have a road map that tells us how to face it, how to experience it, or what will come next, and we fear that the answers we have are inaccurate or incomplete. What we fear is simply fear itself -the unknown in any of its guises. Thus mankind's greatest fear is fear itself. If the concept of 'fear' was eliminated then nobody would fear anything at all.

Although our built in ignorance of what we need to fear removes a global fear. The fearful one will not gain an advantage over the non fearful one. If extinction comes in the form of the meteor, it will hit them both at the same time, so it depends wether you are reffering to mankind or individuals.

Personally for me its death, and that when I die theres no heaven no hell,nothing. That in reality in the grand scheme of things humans are of little importance at all. However my fear right now is that I dont have enough booze left in the fridge.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sarunas Pranevicius
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.


I know what your saying, but there are real fears in the real world. Not everything is rosy as we all know.

Fear is also something to protect us remember.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
"Man's greatest fear"


Loneliness.


In a broader sense, isolation. As social animals, we define ourselves in relationship to other human beings. And of course, in relationship to our environment. If you take away those points of reference, there's not much left of our humanity.

Oh and death, i think our brain perceives that as the ultimate form of isolation, or loneliness, if you will.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Conclusion
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.


If you re-read my previous comment you'll see that I said "creations greatest fear" not mans.
Mans greatest fear, as I mentioned in the last post, changes over time with his environment and these fears center on absolutes as represented by:

  1. choice (having no capability to affect the world around us / choice without consequence)
  2. concepts of self / group
    1. a borg-like society developing
    2. the possibility that nothing exists outside of yourself - you're it - alone for all of time & space
    3. the notion of "every man for himself" where group cooperation completely breaks down & we all kill each other
    4. or a world where we realize we have no true identity we're just the sum of the parts of information that our brains have absorbed (metaphysical nihilism)

  3. and nature (that nature will eventually destroy all things through entropy; or that if nature can be overcome man will eventually have nothing left to see or do).


For the people here saying that they most fear never being loved. Consider that this is simply a concept of someone else never choosing you. (IE/ a combination of choice and self not being picked by another from the group.)

Another conceptual axis is the idea of "consequence," which can be broken up in to two parts (positive and negative experience).

Which is to say the expectation is that being chosen by someone else from the group reflects a positive result. It's also the one thing no person can buy, demand, or expect to have provided to them naturally as just a product of being alive. So it's perhaps one of the most tenuous and valuable in the sense that nothing the person can do affects the outcome if the other person chooses otherwise.



Got it you are speaking of Creations greatest fear. For this thread lets stick with man's greatest fear. Perhaps since we can even make reasons for fear, then you might be right. Nice post.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


okay. I understand now. Creations greatest fear. That is very deep. But ....lol yeah another but, Since humans are the only one's, that we know of anyway, can reason the fears to be had, then creation intriguing. I will have to research this to see what I can learn. Thanks you have helped tremendously.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Erectile Dysfunction and a Hotty wife!



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
Erectile Dysfunction and a Hotty wife!


*STAR*

I change my mind and wish to go with this answer. I would choose death over that lol!



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


That would be a very difficult situation....lol



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Hey i just thought of an other one...


What would you say is man's greatest fear?


The eyes of a stranger. People always turn away from the eyes of a stranger, why is that??

You know when your driving in traffic and you look at the person next to you. The moment they look back and you make eye contact one of the two will turn away......funny how that works.

Hey, i know it is not man's biggest fear but it should be on the list of fears more than 50% of the world population has.

Peace



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


That is odd, and very true. Great observation.




top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join