FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Are you a spiritual creature
Are you a spiritual creature
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. We're both boring old scientists." Aww but don’t you find ; I do at least my academic friends , people in the scientific community , particularly those on the cutting edge of research have huge amounts of faith , not necessarily organised / religious but believe in god. My friend gave lectures on this very topic, interesting what drives people to make those breakthroughs in bio-informatics etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have something. Not sure what it is. Kind of a 'if it's meant, it'll happen' kind of vibe "I think it’s called Predestination. It appears in most religions but isn’t exclusively a religious belief , and can be a way of never losing hope of feeling like things in your life are out of control so can be useful when things are bad. But it can always be used to suppress your free will and take responsibility off of yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No all hope of such things have been stripped away i did once wish on a star and it came true but then life ripped it all away without me getting a say in the matter so fuck karma amd all that positivity drivel its just a way for people to get thru a day without feeling too shitty about it " Did anyone tell you you're just like Pollyanna? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No all hope of such things have been stripped away i did once wish on a star and it came true but then life ripped it all away without me getting a say in the matter so fuck karma amd all that positivity drivel its just a way for people to get thru a day without feeling too shitty about it Did anyone tell you you're just like Pollyanna? " whos pollyanna | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No all hope of such things have been stripped away i did once wish on a star and it came true but then life ripped it all away without me getting a say in the matter so fuck karma amd all that positivity drivel its just a way for people to get thru a day without feeling too shitty about it Did anyone tell you you're just like Pollyanna? whos pollyanna "She's the character in a book who is always full of sunshine and positivity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not very spiritual at all but I definitely believe in Karma and enjoy Yoga classes that involve meditation. So maybe I am a bit?" I think many people believe in what goes around comes around , which Ivan be scientifically proven and isn’t Karma. Karma is something supernatural about continual rebirth in different forms until all negative energies are balanced or something and very different to that. Yoga and meditation is very good for physical and mental well-being even if non spiritual | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I (Luke) am definitely not spiritual. I'm not even totally sure what it means. " So believing in something bigger than yourself , believing you are not fully in control and there are forces, energies and similar that have an impact that science does not yet understand. Believing we are made up of part body, mind/heart and a third thing called spirit, that kind of thing. And then the obvious ones like faith, religion, superstition, ghosts, Santa, bad Luck, Easter bunny and tooth fairly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m very spiritual, it seems to be something that’s growing with age" Does that surprise you ? If knowledge, direct experience and wisdom grows with age it’s actually quite logical that spiritually does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes I am very spiritual. Meditate, mediumship development classes etc Even part of a BDSM spiritual group in the other kinky site your not allowed to mention on here lol. Make a good day folks "Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No all hope of such things have been stripped away i did once wish on a star and it came true but then life ripped it all away without me getting a say in the matter so fuck karma amd all that positivity drivel its just a way for people to get thru a day without feeling too shitty about it Did anyone tell you you're just like Pollyanna? whos pollyanna
She's the character in a book who is always full of sunshine and positivity. " uep thats me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought it said spiteful creature, and was like “yes, yes I am!” Spiritual though? Kind of. I don’t believe in a higher power, but I do believe we have power within ourselves to make things happen." Not sure that’s spiritual unless it’s through mantras, prayers, spells etc. Your will, focus, influencing , problem solving determination isn’t spiritual but just a higher level of creativity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To a certain degree yes. My mum is very spiritual but she has a career in Medicine - it's not the case of Sciences or spirituality. Sometimes we'll do certain things because it feeds a particular part of me that I can't explain but probably wouldn't feel comfortable with doing with anyone else. Oh actually! Myself and Jamie Hants were very much indulging our spiritual side during the solstice - it was beautiful and a night of much joy and connection. There was a shared energy that's hard to explain. I find it a fascinating topic because it feeds into my love of cultural anthropology and the myriad of permutations it appears as. I think that over time I'm less prone to poo-pooing it. A decade ago I was very much against it. What about you OP, would you say you are? " Well I never believed in Santa as a child. In fact I have issue with adults that lie to children about anything like that. At some point they have to apologise about him and the tooth fairly and it probably shatters any trust they had in them and makes them sceptical believing anything they tell them. But from about age 28 I did start becoming gradually more and more spiritual , so yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am spiritual in a natural world and stuff we don't really understand yet, kind of way. Definitely not religious, I abhor organised religion as one of our most hideous creations. However, I am somewhat tempered by cynicism borne of life experience." I'm similar to this. Things like the golden ratio, Fibonacci sequence in nature, and sacred geometry make me think there is some kind of higher power but I don't believe in an omnipotent God. I do meditate but would never pray. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it." That's kinda interesting as scientist. I don't know the answers to the things I look into, so I have a belief that I might work in a certain way. I then go about to test my belief to see if I'm wrong or right. And then I'll believe the data even if I'm wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it." If it’s proven by science tomorrow you are happy to admit you were wrong today ? You wait to be told what to believe by others , when they can be bothered to find out ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it. If it’s proven by science tomorrow you are happy to admit you were wrong today ? You wait to be told what to believe by others , when they can be bothered to find out ? " Yes if someone more intelligent than me can prove something exists that I didn’t believe in then I would admit I was wrong. I’m not being told what to believe I’m being given evidence that it exists. There’s a massive difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it. That's kinda interesting as scientist. I don't know the answers to the things I look into, so I have a belief that I might work in a certain way. I then go about to test my belief to see if I'm wrong or right. And then I'll believe the data even if I'm wrong. " Must be hard to decide which things to look into and how to approach them, ,scientific bias is an interesting subject on its own. Much of science unfortunately just follows the money / funding | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it. That's kinda interesting as scientist. I don't know the answers to the things I look into, so I have a belief that I might work in a certain way. I then go about to test my belief to see if I'm wrong or right. And then I'll believe the data even if I'm wrong. " I’m not a scientist though. I leave that to the experts and once they prove it I will then see the evidence for myself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it. That's kinda interesting as scientist. I don't know the answers to the things I look into, so I have a belief that I might work in a certain way. I then go about to test my belief to see if I'm wrong or right. And then I'll believe the data even if I'm wrong. I’m not a scientist though. I leave that to the experts and once they prove it I will then see the evidence for myself." I got you, it's interesting to see how people view life differently | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it. If it’s proven by science tomorrow you are happy to admit you were wrong today ? You wait to be told what to believe by others , when they can be bothered to find out ? Yes if someone more intelligent than me can prove something exists that I didn’t believe in then I would admit I was wrong. I’m not being told what to believe I’m being given evidence that it exists. There’s a massive difference." Not really unless you can check them, test their evidence and validate it yourself, otherwise you just believe what someone clever wrote in a book. It’s not any different to religion Luckily scientists are clever , don’t lie and aren’t biased by funding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it. If it’s proven by science tomorrow you are happy to admit you were wrong today ? You wait to be told what to believe by others , when they can be bothered to find out ? Yes if someone more intelligent than me can prove something exists that I didn’t believe in then I would admit I was wrong. I’m not being told what to believe I’m being given evidence that it exists. There’s a massive difference. Not really unless you can check them, test their evidence and validate it yourself, otherwise you just believe what someone clever wrote in a book. It’s not any different to religion Luckily scientists are clever , don’t lie and aren’t biased by funding." That’s different though. You’re asking about being spiritual. Astronomical amounts of money has been pumped into proving a lot of these spiritual things and they’ve found nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. If I can’t see/touch it or it hasn’t been proven by science I don’t believe in it. If it’s proven by science tomorrow you are happy to admit you were wrong today ? You wait to be told what to believe by others , when they can be bothered to find out ? Yes if someone more intelligent than me can prove something exists that I didn’t believe in then I would admit I was wrong. I’m not being told what to believe I’m being given evidence that it exists. There’s a massive difference. Not really unless you can check them, test their evidence and validate it yourself, otherwise you just believe what someone clever wrote in a book. It’s not any different to religion Luckily scientists are clever , don’t lie and aren’t biased by funding. That’s different though. You’re asking about being spiritual. Astronomical amounts of money has been pumped into proving a lot of these spiritual things and they’ve found nothing. " I think they spend more money on lucrative drugs tbh. But yes trying to prove something that is by definition supernatural using science tools which is by definition not supernatural is a little bit silly and unlikely to work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. We're both boring old scientists. Aww but don’t you find ; I do at least my academic friends , people in the scientific community , particularly those on the cutting edge of research have huge amounts of faith , not necessarily organised / religious but believe in god. My friend gave lectures on this very topic, interesting what drives people to make those breakthroughs in bio-informatics etc" We work with science types who believe in a god or something higher, yes. I think Mr KC has conflicting feelings on the subject. I'm pretty firm in having no particular spiritual or religious beliefs, despite having been raised by fairly religious grandparents and having attended Sunday School and church until I was an adult. The more shite that happens in my life, the further away I am pushed from being able to accept any kind of higher being/god or whatever. If one exists, then they must fucking well despise me. So yes, I see it within scientific communities but I'm not a religious or spiritual person at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not " Not really. But I try to be a good person incase karma is a thing. My name is Earl. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m very spiritual, it seems to be something that’s growing with age Does that surprise you ? If knowledge, direct experience and wisdom grows with age it’s actually quite logical that spiritually does. " I don’t think it does to be honest. I think I’ve just accepted that it’s me and that is ok. I was always told from being a child it’s wrong, it’s devil’s work. I definitely think experience plays a huge part though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m very spiritual, it seems to be something that’s growing with age Does that surprise you ? If knowledge, direct experience and wisdom grows with age it’s actually quite logical that spiritually does. I don’t think it does to be honest. I think I’ve just accepted that it’s me and that is ok. I was always told from being a child it’s wrong, it’s devil’s work. I definitely think experience plays a huge part though"
You can’t really dispute direct experience. It’s different from reading a book or behind told what to believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. We're both boring old scientists. Aww but don’t you find ; I do at least my academic friends , people in the scientific community , particularly those on the cutting edge of research have huge amounts of faith , not necessarily organised / religious but believe in god. My friend gave lectures on this very topic, interesting what drives people to make those breakthroughs in bio-informatics etc We work with science types who believe in a god or something higher, yes. I think Mr KC has conflicting feelings on the subject. I'm pretty firm in having no particular spiritual or religious beliefs, despite having been raised by fairly religious grandparents and having attended Sunday School and church until I was an adult. The more shite that happens in my life, the further away I am pushed from being able to accept any kind of higher being/god or whatever. If one exists, then they must fucking well despise me. So yes, I see it within scientific communities but I'm not a religious or spiritual person at all. " That’s understandable , the nature & purpose of suffering is a tough thing to try to understand, probably the biggest single barrier. Sending peace | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not " Yes, spirituality is a big part of my life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. We're both boring old scientists. Aww but don’t you find ; I do at least my academic friends , people in the scientific community , particularly those on the cutting edge of research have huge amounts of faith , not necessarily organised / religious but believe in god. My friend gave lectures on this very topic, interesting what drives people to make those breakthroughs in bio-informatics etc We work with science types who believe in a god or something higher, yes. I think Mr KC has conflicting feelings on the subject. I'm pretty firm in having no particular spiritual or religious beliefs, despite having been raised by fairly religious grandparents and having attended Sunday School and church until I was an adult. The more shite that happens in my life, the further away I am pushed from being able to accept any kind of higher being/god or whatever. If one exists, then they must fucking well despise me. So yes, I see it within scientific communities but I'm not a religious or spiritual person at all. " Do you find those who believe in Karma actually have the ignorance and balls to come out and tell you that you must have been an awful person in you previous life? 
OP, no. I believe our brains evolved to recognise agency and giving false positives had a better survival rate than not recognising it. Rustle in the undergrowth? You better believe that was caused by something with purpose not just a random noise else you quickly become dinner. It's a bit like our vision. It has evolved depth perception and colour recognition and all kinds of clever ways to recognise things - really useful for noticing that a particular play of light is actually a tiger waiting for lunch. These days, that same skill makes it simple for us to pass an 'I am not a robot' test and tick every box containing a taxi or a tractor which is a virtually imposible job for a computer to do. However, this ability is also easy to trick, play around with a bit of shading and colour and you can convince our eyes that a 2d drawing is an actual object, or that two identical length lines are in fact not the same length at all.
Unlike our sense of agency though we seem able to recognise that our eyes are being tricked. Hold a ruler up to the two lines and we will understand that despite the seemingly obvious visual information they really are the same length. Sadly the same doesn't work with our sense of agency. For some people, no matter how much evidence to the contrary they're shown, they'll always trust that bit of their brain that tells them this series of events must have some agency, some spirit, some ghost, some god to cause it. For some it seems utterly believable that the future course of their life is predicted by the position in the sky of a handful of stars out of billions in our galaxy. The idea that there is no meaning to the events that happen to them, no agency behind them is a far harder concept to believe with a brain that is designed to find meaning in everything.
Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My lady is a nature worshiper/green witch Any others on here give us a shout as she’d love to meet like minded folks" I’m a bit of a tree hugger (true story). People think I take the p*ss when I say that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. We're both boring old scientists. Aww but don’t you find ; I do at least my academic friends , people in the scientific community , particularly those on the cutting edge of research have huge amounts of faith , not necessarily organised / religious but believe in god. My friend gave lectures on this very topic, interesting what drives people to make those breakthroughs in bio-informatics etc We work with science types who believe in a god or something higher, yes. I think Mr KC has conflicting feelings on the subject. I'm pretty firm in having no particular spiritual or religious beliefs, despite having been raised by fairly religious grandparents and having attended Sunday School and church until I was an adult. The more shite that happens in my life, the further away I am pushed from being able to accept any kind of higher being/god or whatever. If one exists, then they must fucking well despise me. So yes, I see it within scientific communities but I'm not a religious or spiritual person at all. That’s understandable , the nature & purpose of suffering is a tough thing to try to understand, probably the biggest single barrier. Sending peace "What is the purpose? I'm all ears... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope. We're both boring old scientists. Aww but don’t you find ; I do at least my academic friends , people in the scientific community , particularly those on the cutting edge of research have huge amounts of faith , not necessarily organised / religious but believe in god. My friend gave lectures on this very topic, interesting what drives people to make those breakthroughs in bio-informatics etc We work with science types who believe in a god or something higher, yes. I think Mr KC has conflicting feelings on the subject. I'm pretty firm in having no particular spiritual or religious beliefs, despite having been raised by fairly religious grandparents and having attended Sunday School and church until I was an adult. The more shite that happens in my life, the further away I am pushed from being able to accept any kind of higher being/god or whatever. If one exists, then they must fucking well despise me. So yes, I see it within scientific communities but I'm not a religious or spiritual person at all. That’s understandable , the nature & purpose of suffering is a tough thing to try to understand, probably the biggest single barrier. Sending peace
What is the purpose? I'm all ears..."It's because you've been a very naughty girl and must be punished. Or It will make you stronger - the fact that any extra strength you gain will only be sufficient to deal with the issue in hand and won't in fact be a net positive tends to be missed with this argument. Or There's a god who stood on a lego brick when she got up, she went downstairs and no one had tidied up their mess which put her in a stinking mood and for absolutely no reason at all she decided to take all her frustration out on you. Take your pick. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not " With enough research you can find out one encompasses the other i hate the word spiritual as the preconceived notions tend to lean towards pseudoscience.
Heres a question, taking the concepts of quantum mechanics,
(the double slits experiment), and the idea that observation impacts the outcome of an experiment... how many experiments have been impacted by observation? And what really is the difference between science, and faith?
Gun | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not With enough research you can find out one encompasses the other i hate the word spiritual as the preconceived notions tend to lean towards pseudoscience.
Heres a question, taking the concepts of quantum mechanics,
(the double slits experiment), and the idea that observation impacts the outcome of an experiment... how many experiments have been impacted by observation? And what really is the difference between science, and faith?
Gun"Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, to quote St Paul faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Science (or at least good science) is the proposal of ideas that explain the evidence that *is* seen with the understanding that new evidence will disprove the idea. When people ask this question they're confusing the behavoir of individuals (it really is possible for a scientist to have a faith like belief in a theory) with the pursuit of science and using their own confusion to put their faith on the same footing as science. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My lady is a nature worshiper/green witch Any others on here give us a shout as she’d love to meet like minded folks I’m a bit of a tree hugger (true story). People think I take the p*ss when I say that. "That’s right up her street! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not " I believe in science. Spirituality and the belief systems built around it in various forms are (to me) methods through which humans have historically used to teach other humans how to ‘human’ better, and ways of explaining (or just living with) things we don’t understand. Ways to pass wisdom across the generations and share lessons learned, including how to generally feel better about being self-aware without understanding the great existential question — why are we here? Is there a purpose? In the modern context ‘God of the gaps’ is increasingly relevant, I think. As science explores further and provides ever more answers, it also uncovers just as many things we still don’t understand and it’s still convenient to plug the gap with spirituality. I can see science described as a form of empirically based religion, however, and certainly one that feels particularly relevant to our time. Generally, we have derived and constructed a set of tools which - for now - appear to accurately describe the world and universe we live in, and use these in science to reach conclusions and make assertions about what we believe to be true because they fit, with current understanding. In many senses this is not fundamentally different from spiritual explanations for things we don’t understand. The difference, for me, is that science generally accepts where it has previously erred and actively encourages and pursues the continual expansion and changing of our understanding. Ultimately (and for me this is by far the most import part of my rambling!) I don’t think either science or spirituality are really of any importance whatsoever unless it helps you (and/or society at large) to lead a happier, healthier life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ultimately (and for me this is by far the most important part of my rambling!) I don’t think either science or spirituality are really of any importance whatsoever unless it helps you to lead a happier, healthier life. " Exactly this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not I believe in science. Spirituality and the belief systems built around it in various forms are (to me) methods through which humans have historically used to teach other humans how to ‘human’ better, and ways of explaining (or just living with) things we don’t understand. Ways to pass wisdom across the generations and share lessons learned, including how to generally feel better about being self-aware without understanding the great existential question — why are we here? Is there a purpose? In the modern context ‘God of the gaps’ is increasingly relevant, I think. As science explores further and provides ever more answers, it also uncovers just as many things we still don’t understand and it’s still convenient to plug the gap with spirituality. I can see science described as a form of empirically based religion, however, and certainly one that feels particularly relevant to our time. Generally, we have derived and constructed a set of tools which - for now - appear to accurately describe the world and universe we live in, and use these in science to reach conclusions and make assertions about what we believe to be true because they fit, with current understanding. In many senses this is not fundamentally different from spiritual explanations for things we don’t understand. The difference, for me, is that science generally accepts where it has previously erred and actively encourages and pursues the continual expansion and changing of our understanding. Ultimately (and for me this is by far the most import part of my rambling!) I don’t think either science or spirituality are really of any importance whatsoever unless it helps you (and/or society at large) to lead a happier, healthier life. " I like that a lot. In particular that last part. I think for many science has become their religion - people like Dawkins for example - though as above this is a different to saying they're the same thing. I've long argued that religion isn't the source of much of human disagreement, rather than a justification for it and that actually, religion can play a big role in improving people's lives. My issue is I can't believe in something, and certainly can't encourage others to do so, simply because I believe that people having a religious belief is on average better for society than them not. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not I believe in science. Spirituality and the belief systems built around it in various forms are (to me) methods through which humans have historically used to teach other humans how to ‘human’ better, and ways of explaining (or just living with) things we don’t understand. Ways to pass wisdom across the generations and share lessons learned, including how to generally feel better about being self-aware without understanding the great existential question — why are we here? Is there a purpose? In the modern context ‘God of the gaps’ is increasingly relevant, I think. As science explores further and provides ever more answers, it also uncovers just as many things we still don’t understand and it’s still convenient to plug the gap with spirituality. I can see science described as a form of empirically based religion, however, and certainly one that feels particularly relevant to our time. Generally, we have derived and constructed a set of tools which - for now - appear to accurately describe the world and universe we live in, and use these in science to reach conclusions and make assertions about what we believe to be true because they fit, with current understanding. In many senses this is not fundamentally different from spiritual explanations for things we don’t understand. The difference, for me, is that science generally accepts where it has previously erred and actively encourages and pursues the continual expansion and changing of our understanding. Ultimately (and for me this is by far the most import part of my rambling!) I don’t think either science or spirituality are really of any importance whatsoever unless it helps you (and/or society at large) to lead a happier, healthier life. I like that a lot. In particular that last part. I think for many science has become their religion - people like Dawkins for example - though as above this is a different to saying they're the same thing. I've long argued that religion isn't the source of much of human disagreement, rather than a justification for it and that actually, religion can play a big role in improving people's lives. My issue is I can't believe in something, and certainly can't encourage others to do so, simply because I believe that people having a religious belief is on average better for society than them not. Mr"
Great points .
I like” empirically based religion” I would argue that empirical evidence is heavily subject to bias and interpretation and that many areas of science never reach that stage even; they stay at the theory stage , like the big bang theory and theory of evolution , there is no empirical evidence , but they seem to make sense and we have no better answers in the scientific community , so they become truth , but not truth absolute as with the teachings of some faith, we never quite really know what happened a zillion years ago ( those dinosaur costumes in museums for example, totally made up, artists impressions)
Spirituality in my view isn’t a god of the gaps, you don’t even need big questions on purpose or meaning, you are simply connected to your spirit or blind to it.
People only get religion in later life , you aren’t born into it or follow parents, that is just custom and tradition not faith , but as adults in a crisis, pray when desperate, see miracles , get born again, converted, healing etc but in my view still don’t become spiritual , they just swapped the book of science for the bible as a better alternative. It’s the same dogma - read it and choose to believe it , it’s not direct experience | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firm believer there is something out there. Have experienced things when my mum and and also my partner who passed last year. Things I can not explain …… definitely something out there just not sure what x Sassy " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not I believe in science. Spirituality and the belief systems built around it in various forms are (to me) methods through which humans have historically used to teach other humans how to ‘human’ better, and ways of explaining (or just living with) things we don’t understand. Ways to pass wisdom across the generations and share lessons learned, including how to generally feel better about being self-aware without understanding the great existential question — why are we here? Is there a purpose? In the modern context ‘God of the gaps’ is increasingly relevant, I think. As science explores further and provides ever more answers, it also uncovers just as many things we still don’t understand and it’s still convenient to plug the gap with spirituality. I can see science described as a form of empirically based religion, however, and certainly one that feels particularly relevant to our time. Generally, we have derived and constructed a set of tools which - for now - appear to accurately describe the world and universe we live in, and use these in science to reach conclusions and make assertions about what we believe to be true because they fit, with current understanding. In many senses this is not fundamentally different from spiritual explanations for things we don’t understand. The difference, for me, is that science generally accepts where it has previously erred and actively encourages and pursues the continual expansion and changing of our understanding. Ultimately (and for me this is by far the most import part of my rambling!) I don’t think either science or spirituality are really of any importance whatsoever unless it helps you (and/or society at large) to lead a happier, healthier life. I like that a lot. In particular that last part. I think for many science has become their religion - people like Dawkins for example - though as above this is a different to saying they're the same thing. I've long argued that religion isn't the source of much of human disagreement, rather than a justification for it and that actually, religion can play a big role in improving people's lives. My issue is I can't believe in something, and certainly can't encourage others to do so, simply because I believe that people having a religious belief is on average better for society than them not. Mr
Great points .
I like” empirically based religion” I would argue that empirical evidence is heavily subject to bias and interpretation and that many areas of science never reach that stage even; they stay at the theory stage , like the big bang theory and theory of evolution , there is no empirical evidence , but they seem to make sense and we have no better answers in the scientific community , so they become truth , but not truth absolute as with the teachings of some faith, we never quite really know what happened a zillion years ago ( those dinosaur costumes in museums for example, totally made up, artists impressions)
Spirituality in my view isn’t a god of the gaps, you don’t even need big questions on purpose or meaning, you are simply connected to your spirit or blind to it.
People only get religion in later life , you aren’t born into it or follow parents, that is just custom and tradition not faith , but as adults in a crisis, pray when desperate, see miracles , get born again, converted, healing etc but in my view still don’t become spiritual , they just swapped the book of science for the bible as a better alternative. It’s the same dogma - read it and choose to believe it , it’s not direct experience"Your understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory vs the more colloquial/general use of the word "theory" is off kilter. A scientific theory is something for which there is overwhelming evidence. It is not something that is merely postulated or suggested (which is what people use the word for in general conversation). Most people do not understand scientific theory and the scientific method and/or don't try to find out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not I believe in science. Spirituality and the belief systems built around it in various forms are (to me) methods through which humans have historically used to teach other humans how to ‘human’ better, and ways of explaining (or just living with) things we don’t understand. Ways to pass wisdom across the generations and share lessons learned, including how to generally feel better about being self-aware without understanding the great existential question — why are we here? Is there a purpose? In the modern context ‘God of the gaps’ is increasingly relevant, I think. As science explores further and provides ever more answers, it also uncovers just as many things we still don’t understand and it’s still convenient to plug the gap with spirituality. I can see science described as a form of empirically based religion, however, and certainly one that feels particularly relevant to our time. Generally, we have derived and constructed a set of tools which - for now - appear to accurately describe the world and universe we live in, and use these in science to reach conclusions and make assertions about what we believe to be true because they fit, with current understanding. In many senses this is not fundamentally different from spiritual explanations for things we don’t understand. The difference, for me, is that science generally accepts where it has previously erred and actively encourages and pursues the continual expansion and changing of our understanding. Ultimately (and for me this is by far the most import part of my rambling!) I don’t think either science or spirituality are really of any importance whatsoever unless it helps you (and/or society at large) to lead a happier, healthier life. I like that a lot. In particular that last part. I think for many science has become their religion - people like Dawkins for example - though as above this is a different to saying they're the same thing. I've long argued that religion isn't the source of much of human disagreement, rather than a justification for it and that actually, religion can play a big role in improving people's lives. My issue is I can't believe in something, and certainly can't encourage others to do so, simply because I believe that people having a religious belief is on average better for society than them not. Mr
Great points .
I like” empirically based religion” I would argue that empirical evidence is heavily subject to bias and interpretation and that many areas of science never reach that stage even; they stay at the theory stage , like the big bang theory and theory of evolution , there is no empirical evidence , but they seem to make sense and we have no better answers in the scientific community , so they become truth , but not truth absolute as with the teachings of some faith, we never quite really know what happened a zillion years ago ( those dinosaur costumes in museums for example, totally made up, artists impressions)
Spirituality in my view isn’t a god of the gaps, you don’t even need big questions on purpose or meaning, you are simply connected to your spirit or blind to it.
People only get religion in later life , you aren’t born into it or follow parents, that is just custom and tradition not faith , but as adults in a crisis, pray when desperate, see miracles , get born again, converted, healing etc but in my view still don’t become spiritual , they just swapped the book of science for the bible as a better alternative. It’s the same dogma - read it and choose to believe it , it’s not direct experience
Your understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory vs the more colloquial/general use of the word "theory" is off kilter.
A scientific theory is something for which there is overwhelming evidence. It is not something that is merely postulated or suggested (which is what people use the word for in general conversation).
Most people do not understand scientific theory and the scientific method and/or don't try to find out. "I think I understand the words “empirical” and “theory” very well, I’ve done and published scientific research and know the traditional scientific method as well as action / practitioner based research methods | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not I believe in science. Spirituality and the belief systems built around it in various forms are (to me) methods through which humans have historically used to teach other humans how to ‘human’ better, and ways of explaining (or just living with) things we don’t understand. Ways to pass wisdom across the generations and share lessons learned, including how to generally feel better about being self-aware without understanding the great existential question — why are we here? Is there a purpose? In the modern context ‘God of the gaps’ is increasingly relevant, I think. As science explores further and provides ever more answers, it also uncovers just as many things we still don’t understand and it’s still convenient to plug the gap with spirituality. I can see science described as a form of empirically based religion, however, and certainly one that feels particularly relevant to our time. Generally, we have derived and constructed a set of tools which - for now - appear to accurately describe the world and universe we live in, and use these in science to reach conclusions and make assertions about what we believe to be true because they fit, with current understanding. In many senses this is not fundamentally different from spiritual explanations for things we don’t understand. The difference, for me, is that science generally accepts where it has previously erred and actively encourages and pursues the continual expansion and changing of our understanding. Ultimately (and for me this is by far the most import part of my rambling!) I don’t think either science or spirituality are really of any importance whatsoever unless it helps you (and/or society at large) to lead a happier, healthier life. I like that a lot. In particular that last part. I think for many science has become their religion - people like Dawkins for example - though as above this is a different to saying they're the same thing. I've long argued that religion isn't the source of much of human disagreement, rather than a justification for it and that actually, religion can play a big role in improving people's lives. My issue is I can't believe in something, and certainly can't encourage others to do so, simply because I believe that people having a religious belief is on average better for society than them not. Mr
Great points .
I like” empirically based religion” I would argue that empirical evidence is heavily subject to bias and interpretation and that many areas of science never reach that stage even; they stay at the theory stage , like the big bang theory and theory of evolution , there is no empirical evidence , but they seem to make sense and we have no better answers in the scientific community , so they become truth , but not truth absolute as with the teachings of some faith, we never quite really know what happened a zillion years ago ( those dinosaur costumes in museums for example, totally made up, artists impressions)
Spirituality in my view isn’t a god of the gaps, you don’t even need big questions on purpose or meaning, you are simply connected to your spirit or blind to it.
People only get religion in later life , you aren’t born into it or follow parents, that is just custom and tradition not faith , but as adults in a crisis, pray when desperate, see miracles , get born again, converted, healing etc but in my view still don’t become spiritual , they just swapped the book of science for the bible as a better alternative. It’s the same dogma - read it and choose to believe it , it’s not direct experience
Your understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory vs the more colloquial/general use of the word "theory" is off kilter.
A scientific theory is something for which there is overwhelming evidence. It is not something that is merely postulated or suggested (which is what people use the word for in general conversation).
Most people do not understand scientific theory and the scientific method and/or don't try to find out. "But what’s the definition of “ overwhelming‘ it that so much evidence it makes you fall down? I’ve experienced that a few times but not in biology class | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientific theory: A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record. A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory. Many advances in science—the development of genetics after Darwin's death, for example—have greatly enhanced evolutionary thinking. Yet even with these new advances, the theory of evolution still persists today, much as Darwin first described it, and is universally accepted by scientists. (Taken from the American Museum of Natural History site). Gravitational theory is, well, a theory. But there's overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesis. Ergo it's a scientific theory and I'm not aware of any rational or sensible alternative hypotheses. Anyone implying that scientific theories are not solid and backed up with substantial evidence, collected via the scientific method, does not truly understand what a theory is. Irrespective of what they've written or published. We've seen plenty of nonsense pseudoscience published during the past two years, by people who apparently have science degrees. " Basically it’s a structure of ideas, it’s not fact and it’s not the same as laws of gravity etc which can be proven by an experiment It’s what scientists believe when they don’t have a proper answer, until a cleverer one finds a better answer they follow that guy. That’s science constantly, disproving itself. It’s not a bad thing , but that’s what it is. And it’s often driven by money , that is a bad thing, truth doesn’t always follow the money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Basically it’s a structure of ideas, it’s not fact and it’s not the same as laws of gravity etc which can be proven by an experiment It’s what scientists believe when they don’t have a proper answer, until a cleverer one finds a better answer they follow that guy. That’s science constantly, disproving itself. It’s not a bad thing , but that’s what it is. And it’s often driven by money , that is a bad thing, truth doesn’t always follow the money " No, it's not. Scientific theory explains observable facts of phenomena. If new evidence emerges that disproves a previously held theory, then that theory is either updated or rejected in line with the new evidence. E.g. the theory of evolution now bases it's theoretical evidence in modern genetics rather than just in observable phenotypes of organisms. Science isn't constantly disproving itself. It's constantly evolving and adding new evidence to the pile. As above, if substantial new evidence emerges, things are amended/updated but this happens infrequently with fundamental scientific theories. Gravitational theory, evolutionary theory etc have all held firm in the face of the evidence for very long periods of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Gravitational theory is explained by Newton's Laws (for which there is substantial evidence). " Plus other laws and evidence from later than Newton's era provide evidence for gravitational theory | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well American Museum of Natural History site), you do know gravity is law now not a theory errrmm a guy called Newton kind of proved it ? Maybe they need to update their site….." You do realise Newton didn't prove a law of gravity and in fact Newtonian gravity is wrong. The procession of Mercury's orbit (I think this is the correct terminology) was in contradiction to his proposed law and it wasn't until Einstein that we had a theory that explains everything Newton did plus a lot more. Even his theories of special and general relativity are known to not be the whole story - or at least not if the Standard Model is correct. Statements like gravity is a law proved by Newton suggest your scientific knowledge is a little less extensive than you believe. You may also want to reconsider your claims re dinosaur costumes. They're not the figments of imagination you appear to be suggesting. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientific theory: A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record. A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory. Many advances in science—the development of genetics after Darwin's death, for example—have greatly enhanced evolutionary thinking. Yet even with these new advances, the theory of evolution still persists today, much as Darwin first described it, and is universally accepted by scientists. (Taken from the American Museum of Natural History site). Gravitational theory is, well, a theory. But there's overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesis. Ergo it's a scientific theory and I'm not aware of any rational or sensible alternative hypotheses. Anyone implying that scientific theories are not solid and backed up with substantial evidence, collected via the scientific method, does not truly understand what a theory is. Irrespective of what they've written or published. We've seen plenty of nonsense pseudoscience published during the past two years, by people who apparently have science degrees. " The elephant in the room here is that the supporting evidence fits a theory but is not absolute in proving the theory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientific theory: A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record. A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory. Many advances in science—the development of genetics after Darwin's death, for example—have greatly enhanced evolutionary thinking. Yet even with these new advances, the theory of evolution still persists today, much as Darwin first described it, and is universally accepted by scientists. (Taken from the American Museum of Natural History site). Gravitational theory is, well, a theory. But there's overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesis. Ergo it's a scientific theory and I'm not aware of any rational or sensible alternative hypotheses. Anyone implying that scientific theories are not solid and backed up with substantial evidence, collected via the scientific method, does not truly understand what a theory is. Irrespective of what they've written or published. We've seen plenty of nonsense pseudoscience published during the past two years, by people who apparently have science degrees. The elephant in the room here is that the supporting evidence fits a theory but is not absolute in proving the theory. " That's very true. However when you have a theory like the Standard Model that has been extraordinarily successful in not only explaining everything within its domain of applicability, but has also allowed numerous accurate predictions to be made and tested, and you compare this to spiritualist theories that have neither supporting evidence nor are able to make any testifuable predictions, it seems that a rational mind will chose the former as being most likely to be closer to the truth. As someone has said above, spiritualism has become a god of the gaps. Every time science has said this is the limit of our current knowledge, beyond this we don't yet understand what is happening, these are the places people try to squeeze spiritual beliefs. Hence the kind of posts in discussions like this where people with no real understanding postulate quantum descriptions of spiritual beliefs because even the lay person knows quantum mechanics cannot explain how it works no matter how successful it is at explaining pretty much everything else. So these people seek to squash their beliefs into the gaps they perceive to be there. We don't have ultimate answers for what reality is, what gravity is. However we do have incredibly detailed and well studied theories that within their domains explain every single phenomena we have conserved and leave absolutely no room for most mainstream spiritual beliefs. People who talk about theories being unproven tend to ignore the fact that while a theory may not be fully proven in all conceivable realities, it can still have rock solid proof in many of them. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To a certain degree yes. My mum is very spiritual but she has a career in Medicine - it's not the case of Sciences or spirituality. Sometimes we'll do certain things because it feeds a particular part of me that I can't explain but probably wouldn't feel comfortable with doing with anyone else. Oh actually! Myself and Jamie Hants were very much indulging our spiritual side during the solstice - it was beautiful and a night of much joy and connection. There was a shared energy that's hard to explain. I find it a fascinating topic because it feeds into my love of cultural anthropology and the myriad of permutations it appears as. I think that over time I'm less prone to poo-pooing it. A decade ago I was very much against it. What about you OP, would you say you are? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , ….. " I never got the Santa Clause addition to this question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not " Yep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , ….. I never got the Santa Clause addition to this question. "It's like all additional clauses, designed to catch people out! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe that some people are supposed to come into your life. Some stay some go, and a few people really connect and have an impact. I believe that fate deals you a hand and you can choose to accept it or fight against what’s happening and choose your own path. " very true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Spiritual, but also a firm belief in hard science. Yes, I know that I'm full of contradiction." Not really, most of the leading scientists in the world have strong faith. There is no conflict between science and faith. In fact if you talk to someone in medicine or bioinformatics making breakthroughs, you often find it was through faith in something bigger , choosing to believe in spite of the facts and obstacles in thier way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes I do, there has to be meaning and there has to be a reason for 'being' I appreciate nature, I like to meditate and have started practising Nia which is a way of connecting mind body and soul through harnessing natural energies. Celebrating yourself and those around you. I think if more people started looking up and around then we might find more of a balance instead of looking internally into ourselves, that achieves nothing " Introspection is crucial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question, do you have any definitive or vague spiritual belief s in things like faith, the universe, the earth, karma, Santa clause , superstition etc or do you only believe things that can be scientifically proven using todays understanding of science You dont need to say what just interested if you’re spiritual or not " Not superstitious but definitely believe in Karma. See so much evidence that you get back what you put out. There’s just no direct link that a scientific mind requires to call it proof. Definitely spiritual and there’s a great deal of scientific evidence to support an existence of some type after the body dies. The energy that is your mind cannot be destroyed, it can’t die, we just don’t know where it goes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please explain to me this 'type of existence' after the body dies. This is a genuine question. How many deaths do you know of that have resulted in an alternative form of existence ?" Not sure if your question was directed at me but I’ll answer in the best way I can…. How many deaths do I know of that resulted in an alternate for of existence….. all of them. I don’t know what that existence is or ever guess at what it might be. Google the following…. Get a physicist to speak at your funeral. It explains things better than I could. In simple terms, energy can not be destroyed, it only changes form. Your mind is just electrical energy. On a sub atomic level everything in the universe is just energy and information, with the information defining how that energy expresses itself, sometimes into matter and sometimes as a wave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks. It was you I was asking. I don't need to read the physics book - i'm familiar with what you have said. What I need to know now is what YOU mean by existence ? Are my powdered bones an existence? Any energy that leaves my body, ( which I think we agree won't be destroyed ) where does that go ? " None. Supernatural things require faith , naivety or stupidity to believe. There’s nothing wrong with questioning why we believe what we believe e.g. science books, tell us what to believe, we haven’t conduct the experiments ourselves and validated of the results, and much of science disproves itself over time. So we have to sit there and say we believe this because we were told to believe it, and now we don’t believe it because we’ve been told not to believe it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science sent me spiritual " You wouldn’t be the first ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was raised Christian but I woke from the slumber of religion and spiritualism when I was about 9. I disagree with part of the premise of this question though. While I 100% think spirituality is beyond crap, no intellectually honest person would say science has all the answers, or even that we'll never know everything about the universe. However, to attribute that which we don't understand to some sort of god, or magic or sentient 'energy' is completely and utterly bonkers." Not understanding is not the same as understanding in a different way. Someone understand the nature of suffering or find a deep connection to something , I do t think you always need a formulae, Bunsen burner or text book to get there. And your view of spirituality seems quite limited to God, magic and Santa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was raised Christian but I woke from the slumber of religion and spiritualism when I was about 9. I disagree with part of the premise of this question though. While I 100% think spirituality is beyond crap, no intellectually honest person would say science has all the answers, or even that we'll never know everything about the universe. However, to attribute that which we don't understand to some sort of god, or magic or sentient 'energy' is completely and utterly bonkers." Agree 100%. 'Spirituality' is nothing more than soft belief in the supernatural. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was raised Christian but I woke from the slumber of religion and spiritualism when I was about 9. I disagree with part of the premise of this question though. While I 100% think spirituality is beyond crap, no intellectually honest person would say science has all the answers, or even that we'll never know everything about the universe. However, to attribute that which we don't understand to some sort of god, or magic or sentient 'energy' is completely and utterly bonkers. Not understanding is not the same as understanding in a different way. Someone understand the nature of suffering or find a deep connection to something , I do t think you always need a formulae, Bunsen burner or text book to get there. And your view of spirituality seems quite limited to God, magic and Santa. "I don't like the word games but, I'll bite... There are objective realities. How you chose to believe something functions has no bearing on how it actually functions. You can believe fairies push balls of electricity along a wire instead of flowing current but, while.the outcome is the same your "way of understanding it" is fundamentally flawed therefore, you don't actually understand it. God/religion is one form of spirituality, magic pretty much covers everything else. I could go into every specific branch of spiritualism separately but, why would I bother when I hold them all in the same low regard. Santa is different. Children have evidence for santa even if it is false evidence. Thing is, children grow out of those silly beliefs. It's just a shame some adults don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, science all the way here. Magical sky friends need not apply." But you said you loved my fairy wings :,( | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
