Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Brief History of Evolutionary Spirituality

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Nope. We will not define spirituality for you. We can't do that. It's Your job to go figure it out yourself. You will not understand until you experience, my tiny little talking monkeys.


Two words: Cop out.

You CANT define spirituality, because there is no such thing.

Debate me, if you can. If you can't, or won't, you clearly lose this one.




posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Two words: Cop out.

You CANT define spirituality, because there is no such thing.


Define the color blue using no other colors in your description.

Can you describe any color to someone who is color blind?

Spirituality is just a word.
What matters is what that word implys - which can range from anything based on the persons view/perspective/beliefs.

For people who believe that it's the 'invisible' energy in all living things, there actually is scientific analysis to support this.
Steven Hawkins and many others have talked about this force.

So something that seems mystical and absurd to you could just be our inadequate minds trying to understand something that we can not.

Can a human really give a definition to that?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
My personal view of the process of life in the universe seems to fall into the category of spiritual evolution. At least as I understand the concept.

As simply as possible: The beginning is a singularity. The universe is the explosion of that singularity, separating the one that was into all that is. Life, as it pertains to the whole, and history, of the universe is the process by which we return to the singularity. Thus it begins all over again.

I'd like to add though that I don't see this as evolution, as that implies imperfection. To me, perfection is balance. The universe continues to exist and therefore must be balanced in its very nature, whether it appears so from down here or not. Every moment is perfect, with everything exactly where it is supposed to be.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox


Define the color blue using no other colors in your description.


The colour blue is the result of all other spectrums of light being absorbed by the material the light is reflecting from. This can vary from a blue the same colour as a winter morning sky to the deep blue of the depths of the ocean.




Originally posted by TruthParadoxCan you describe any color to someone who is color blind?


Indeedy, because being colour blind doesn't mean you see the world in black and white, it means you see reds as greens, or greens as browns, etc.


Originally posted by TruthParadoxSpirituality is just a word.
What matters is what that word implys - which can range from anything based on the persons view/perspective/beliefs.


Right, we're getting somewhere here.

So what you've just said is: "spirituality is the collection of a persons mythic fairytale beliefs that are completely unfounded in real life".


Originally posted by TruthParadoxFor people who believe that it's the 'invisible' energy in all living things, there actually is scientific analysis to support this.


if there is, GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE. Don't just make blase statements that you know I'm obviously going to call bunk on unless you have some pretty incredible ways to prove it!


Originally posted by TruthParadoxSteven Hawkins and many others have talked about this force.


Link link link link, link link link link....


Originally posted by TruthParadoxSo something that seems mystical and absurd to you could just be our inadequate minds trying to understand something that we can not.


Perhaps your inadequate mind, but don't go making blanket statements for everyone, thanks. I can comprehend these things quite well, and what we're dealing with here are ancient superstitions manifesting themselves in people with less-than-amazing intellect.

There is nothing mystical. Mystical is a word made up by the ignorant to explain what the educated already know.

We call it "science".




Originally posted by TruthParadoxCan a human really give a definition to that?


Yes.

a "cop out". That's c-o-p o-u-t. It means "to accept something at face value so that the correct, and more difficult, meanings and implications do not have to be confronted or accepted".

Spirituality, the soul, et all, DO NOT EXIST.

Prove me wrong by example or just accept you are saying nothing but wishful thinking. Anything else is ignorance.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Schrodingers dog, excellent thread which gets a flag from me.

However, people who believe in pure evolutionary theory, in the profusion of different forms which even Hegel himself had to dismiss as the contigency of Nature, do not necessary believe in the presence of spirit or soul. It is a sticking point between those (like me) who want to believe in a Divine Creative Act and also evolution.

Religion depends on the presence of a consciousness/soul/ego which is to be judged on its actions following the death of its material correlate - the physical body. Evolution cannot possible accommodate the idea of spirit or soul but do admit to an awareness of the environment called consciousness, which a machine can also have if programmed correctly. Sorry friend but you will not change the views of evolutionists.


The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.
The force that drives the water through the rocks
Drives my red blood; that dries the mouthing streams
Turns mine to wax.
And I am dumb to mouth unto my veins
How at the mountain spring the same mouth sucks.

The hand that whirls the water in the pool
Stirs the quicksand; that ropes the blowing wind
Hauls my shroud sail.
And I am dumb to tell the hanging man
How of my clay is made the hangman's lime....

Dylan Thomas
www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link








[edit on 11/10/2008 by Heronumber0]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by TruthParadox


Define the color blue using no other colors in your description.


The colour blue is the result of all other spectrums of light being absorbed by the material the light is reflecting from. This can vary from a blue the same colour as a winter morning sky to the deep blue of the depths of the ocean.


You've explained how the color blue comes to be

you still haven't described blue



Perhaps your inadequate mind...


now, now...

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 




Define the color blue using no other colors in your description.

Spirituality is just a word. What matters is what that word implys - which can range from anything based on the persons view/perspective/beliefs.


if we have to construct a handle for one concept before we can use it to continue on in another subject - this may be get as good as it gets

it's not going to work for everyone - but, as far describing the indescribable - explaining the unexplainable?

I think this is a beautiful way to start



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Heronumber0
 




Religion depends on the presence of a consciousness/soul/ego which is to be judged on its actions following the death of its material correlate - the physical body. Evolution cannot possible accommodate the idea of spirit or soul but do admit to an awareness of the environment called consciousness, which a machine can also have if programmed correctly. Sorry friend but you will not change the views of evolutionists.


god, I love that

it won't solve anything - but I like how it was thought out

and I agree

but, what if this particular discussion wasn't about proving anything - or changing anyone's minds?

the word evolution is going to raise a few red flags for everyone

but what if this whole discussion were just about where we were and where we're going?

how our view of the world has changed, our views on morality have changed, how we relate to each other - all changed from our beginning?

our view of the universe and existence changed one way or another, and it's going to continue to change

unless we have a hand in our own demise - which would make this whole idea very relevant - and even useful

where do we see ourselves heading?

I still don't see why this can't involve everyone's opinion

I just wish we all could move beyond the sticking point of what's provable or not - surely everyone can agree that change is constant - and that our humanity is a shared condition - independent of belief

I'm not holding you accountable for the answer :-)

you just got me thinking

also - who is the poet?

edit to add - oh, i just need to read more thoroughly

thanks



[edit on 10/11/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
The colour blue is the result of all other spectrums of light being absorbed by the material the light is reflecting from. This can vary from a blue the same colour as a winter morning sky to the deep blue of the depths of the ocean.


And yet someone who had never seen color would have no clue what that translates to correct?
You can't transmit your view of a color to another persons mind.
You can only list specifications.


Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Indeedy, because being colour blind doesn't mean you see the world in black and white, it means you see reds as greens, or greens as browns, etc.


Actually,monochromacy is a form of color blindness in which a person experiences a complete absense of color.
But even so, you missed the point I was making.


Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
So what you've just said is: "spirituality is the collection of a persons mythic fairytale beliefs that are completely unfounded in real life".


Completely unfounded in real life?
There are many things for which we have no scientific explanation.
These things are considered by some to be spiritual.
Take away your view of mysticism.
You watch to much TV.

As solomons path said, there are experiments done by Masaru Emoto which show that human emotions and words directly effect water.

There have been experiments which show that emotions have a direct effect on DNA. www.thequantumsite.com...

Ever hear of Gregg Braden?
He has some interesting things in his book, The Divine Matrix.
You can check out an interview here. www.youtube.com...
That's part 1, but you can find the rest if you search youtube.

If you truly want to learn about these things and not just scoff at the idea, I suggest some research.


Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by TruthParadox
For people who believe that it's the 'invisible' energy in all living things, there actually is scientific analysis to support this.


if there is, GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE. Don't just make blase statements that you know I'm obviously going to call bunk on unless you have some pretty incredible ways to prove it!


Look into some of Max Planck's work.
Also check out the youtube link I gave above.
He talks about it at somepoint, maybe in part 2 or 3.
Either way, it's worth the listen, especially for someone like you who seems to know very little of how little we know.


Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So something that seems mystical and absurd to you could just be our inadequate minds trying to understand something that we can not.


Perhaps your inadequate mind, but don't go making blanket statements for everyone, thanks. I can comprehend these things quite well, and what we're dealing with here are ancient superstitions manifesting themselves in people with less-than-amazing intellect.


That really does take a lot of arrogance.
If you believe our minds are completely adequate then why is the existence of our universe an impossibility at worse and a parodox at best?
Can you understand the mysteries of the universe?
And what makes them mysteries?
Is it not that our inadequate minds are incapable of understanding them?


Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Spirituality, the soul, et all, DO NOT EXIST.


I do not believe that we have a soul.
But you seem to be putting a blanket over every spiritual belief and say that they all have NO bases whatsoever.


Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Prove me wrong by example or just accept you are saying nothing but wishful thinking. Anything else is ignorance.


Ok.
I gave evidence of an experiment in which emotion has an effect on DNA.
Some people call this spiritual.
I call it science.
You're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As I said before, spirituality is just a word.
A word in which some people take as mystical and others take as science which we do not yet understand.

Also, I suggest you look up the definition of ignorance and take a close look at your own narrow point of view.

When you've done the propper research, come back and tell me that it is 'completely unfounded' and I will know better what kind of person you are.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dunwichwitch
 


We will not define spirituality for you.

You and whose army? Or is that a royal plural?


We can't do that.

So then why do you insist on talking about it?


It's Your job to go figure it out yourself.

Indeed not. It is the responsibility of the user to define the terms, just as it is the responsibility of the claimant to prove the claim.


You will not understand until you experience, my tiny little talking monkeys.

Be careful puffing yourself up like that, O Wise One, you might burst.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

It's not poetry; it's a hymn.

* * *


reply to post by solomons path
 


I'm not sure what your point is . . . really?

My point is that this thread contains many occurrences of the word 'spirit', a term for which there are numerous definitions, many of them contradictory and several of them essentially meaningless. Therefore, it needs to be established what people using the term are talking about, and whether or not they are all talking about the same thing.

Your own personal choice of definitions


#'s 3-6 on MW's list

illustrates my point perfectly. First of all you choose not one definition but four. Since the four definitions are all different, you could easily confuse people (including yourself) as to what exactly you are talking about.

So, just to make sure no-one (including yourself) is confused, would you please explain

(1) how defintions 3,5 and 6 relate to definition 4

(2) how definition 4 is not to be regarded as 'supernatural'?

Further, would you enlighten us on the etymology of definitions, 3, 5 and 6, showing how 'spirit' in this context does not have any supernatural connotation either in spite of the fact that these definitions arise from usages to describe various conditions of being influenced by a supernatural character not oneself, but has, since the Enlightenment, been taken to refer to a motivation or character state that is purely internal and psychological?

In short, can you show us that you actually know what is meant when you, or somebody else, says 'spirit'?

Thank you kindly.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

It's not poetry; it's a hymn.


just a poem you can also hum



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




4: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person





(2) how definition 4 is not to be regarded as 'supernatural'?


causality?

(as long as I'm still thinking about it)

aren't our thoughts the direct result of something?

even if that something can't be tracked through the forest - something preceded our thoughts - caused our thoughts

while you can't put a thought under a microscope - can't we at least agree that they exist?

even independent of consciousness or "mind"

I'm not prepared - or even interested right now - to get into that one again

I'll just roll over on sentient - but immaterial intelligence?

our thoughts - not real? nonexistent?

say it isn't so Astyanax - say it isn't so

wherever will this end?

do you have a word that you think would work?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

My point is that this thread contains many occurrences of the word 'spirit', a term for which there are numerous definitions, many of them contradictory and several of them essentially meaningless. Therefore, it needs to be established what people using the term are talking about, and whether or not they are all talking about the same thing.


Why does this need to be established? Not all of us ARE talking about the same thing here. We are actually expressing views on "spirituality" that in some cases are vastly different. Including, in some cases, what is meant by spirituality itself. Is that a problem? I dont find it to be so. I can recognize when someone is using a word, even if the word is the exactly the same, in a different way than I am. If that is the case, I examine the difference, how far apart we are on the underlying assumption of what that word means, and I choose to either try to move closer in understanding or let it drop.

I pick my battles. Not every battle is worth fighting, particularly those where the motivation is simply to be "right." For me, argument or discourse is more about refining my own understanding than simply proving a point to some other. I do not think that one necessarily has to agree with a point of view in order to desire a better personal understanding of that view. You for instance, could very well think that this is all rubbish, but want to understand how we can all be so deluded. I do not think that is even the case.


I suspect your argument is merely about you being right, rather than refining your own understanding. It feels disingenuous. Rather than a sincere question, asked in order that you better understand where some of us are coming from, (as all of us are not coming from the same view any more than all scientists holding competing theories are coming from the same view ) it feels more like you have an idea that this whole field of endeavor is "wrong" where your understanding of how science works is "right." And, it seems as though you want us to be well aware of your "rightness."

If you were sincere in wanting to understand, if not agree with, what some individual here or several individuals here were talking about, you would ask an individual rather than operating from the assumption that all of this is pure hogwash and then lumping everyone into the same boat.

I dont assume that everyone blabbering on about physics is a physicist. Or that all people talking about evolution in biological beings actually understands the process. Why would you assume that a group of individuals on a thread like this were all in agreement, and all held the same level of "expertise" on the subject?

Mind you, I am not saying anything critical about differing views on this thread specifically, but rather I am questioning your own rather unscientific assumption that all of us are and must be in agreement. You have no basis for that.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner . . . real life called for a bit.

Although it's already been broached, quite well I might add, 3-6 all have to do with functions of consciousness . . . sub or otherwise. If you think consciousness doesn't exist you need to brush up on your psychology, philosophy, and neuro-sciences. While you ASSUME all have a supernatural component, I've already stated (serveral times) that I don't deal in the supernatural. I don't believe consciousness or emotion are generated at a supernatural level . . . Do you? If so, my points are moot. I believe they are natural processes.

As far as etymology . . . for what . . . I say the "mind" isn't controlled by the supernatural . . . those definitions can all be ascribed to the "mind" or the emotions generated by our perception of natural forces. How is writing an essay on the orgins of these words going to change your perception that the mind or consciousness is driven by a supernatural force? And as stated previously, "spirit" is just a term for all of this, IMO. You seem like an intelligent fellow . . . you should be able to discern just what I meant by reading my first three posts. I know what I meant because I wrote it . . . and included just what I meant when using the term "spirit"



Beyond that, the entries all speak on religion and the supernatural . . . seems you can't have a spirit without the supernatural. I don't dwell in the supernatural, so when I think of spirituality, it encorporates empathy, compassion, perceptiveness, attachment to others and the universe, and ethical and moral behavior. So how can we measure those aspects . . . emotional intelligence


Finally . . . if you are getting stuck on 4 because it says "Sentient" or "immaterial" . . . I'll ask you . . .
How is being aware of your consciousness and your relation to the universe (sentient) supernatural? How are our thoughts, feelings, or emotions (immaterial) supernatural? If we practice abstract thought . . . is that supernatural? . . . Therefore, not real?

Prove to me that the mind or consciousness is supernatural or feelings and emotions aren't biochemical and physical processes and I will give some validity to your rant . . . otherwise it's just speaking (writing) without truly thinking about what is being presented. I think they have a word for that . . .



[edit on 10/16/08 by solomons path]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


After posting my rant, it occured to me that you and I are of the same belief structure. Only difference here is that we're splitting hairs over the use of the words "spirit" and "spirituality". I will concede that these terms have, historically, been of a supernatural origin. My original point (since we are talking about the "evolution of spirituality") is that we are now seeing how the conscious and our emotions are driven by physical and biochemical processes. In the past, this would have been label as being driven by the spirit. As time moves forward, I think we see the meaning behind "spirituality" change, as well.

Argumentative semantics . . . that's our only difference on this, IMO.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   

St. Sebastian Replies



@Spiramirabilis: it isn't so.


aren't our thoughts the direct result of something?

Yes. They are the result of brain activity provoked over time by external stimuli.


even independent of consciousness or "mind"

Exactly.


our thoughts - not real? nonexistent?

As real as money.

* * *


@ Solomon's Path: at last we make progress. Yes, we are of much the same view.


3-6 all have to do with functions of consciousness

Thus is appears that 'spirit', to you, is consciousness, or perhaps what one might call mind. Why not call it one or the other, then, instead of risking being misunderstood by using a word of uncertain and controversial meaning?


How is writing an essay on the orgins of these words going to change your perception that the mind or consciousness is driven by a supernatural force?

I entertain no such perception; as you now discern, I am a materialist.

The thing is, I have a strong bias towards conceptual hygiene. In calling for a definition of spirit, I was not being merely rhetorical but, if you will, Socratic: I was drawing attention to the multiplicity of extant definitions of the word 'spirit' and the very plain fact that no two participants on this thread are using the same one. They are talking past one another. And in your particular case, the usage is highly unconventional.


"spirit" is just a term for all of this [empathy, compassion, perceptiveness, attachment to others and the universe, and ethical and moral behavior]

I take no exception to the usage, but that is a far cry from an immortal soul, animating principle or undying essence, all of which have been implied in the usage of other thread participants.

And although I quoted a fragment of one of your earlier posts in my request for a definition, my request was not particularly directed at you. I thought that had been made fairly clear with the following:


Originally posted by Astyanax
Will someone please tell me which of these definitions applies on this thread? Sadly, I don't suppose it's No. 12.

My present emphasis.


You seem like an intelligent fellow.

Thank you very much. Plainly I am not always intelligent enough to reliably distinguish polite euphemism from the New Age pseudophilosophical goulash that abounds in this subforum.

* * *

@Illusionsaregrander: the exposition of your motives and modus operandi as an ATS member was very interesting. Mine are different, unfortunately, so I cannot emulate your fine example.

[edit on 17-10-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


such a relief

my thoughts are real...

I knew it - I just knew it!

not as comforting:



As real as money.


and this...



aren't our thoughts the direct result of something?

Yes. They are the result of brain activity provoked over time by external stimuli.


way to suck all the romance and magic out of my existence - not to mention my nonexistent soul

but, at least I get to keep my thoughts

[edit on 10/17/2008 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

* * *

@Illusionsaregrander: the exposition of your motives and modus operandi as an ATS member was very interesting. Mine are different, unfortunately, so I cannot emulate your fine example.


It was equally an exposition of your motives and modus operandi.

Which I suspected was an opportunity to say this;


Originally posted by Astyanax
Plainly I am not always intelligent enough to reliably distinguish polite euphemism from the New Age pseudophilosophical goulash that abounds in this subforum.


Why you felt the need to disguise it in a post that appeared to be asking a question of all of the contributors of the thread, I am uncertain, a simple;

"Ur stoopid" would have sufficed.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Interesting posts on this thread but !!!!!

When you experience death and I mean as in "Brain Dead" for more than 30 Minutes, our beliefs and understanding is blown to pieces!!!

I think I will stick with reality and Not the assumptions and wishes of those experts who haven't been there I mean experience so called death yet and returned.

Yes indeed such an experience sobers up even the most sceptical.

It is hard to understand how so much wealth, has come into such great poverty???

The True Mind Boggles.

Oh well I guess The Truth remains, no matter what is believed after your Consciousness finds it has No body and yet is still exists without the Primate.

I guess all shall find the Truth in the End No matter what it may be.

Truth never leaves, just because a primate wants to think differently or believe in falsities, or to place restrictions on the rules of Life and the reality of existence.

There is Not a person on Earth that will Not experience this and discover the truth of The All.

It's time to Wake up Humankind....

The age of Sleeping has past and the Dawn comes, just like a mother giving birth to a child.




[edit on 17-10-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]






top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join