95% of Humans are Spiritual

RAARRRRR I'm a Dinosaur! said:
there is no evidence to suggest that believing in god is a prerequisite for the survival of our species. there is evidence however that it has held us back, i.e. idiots being against stem cell research, which can lead to curing disease and impairments.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think there is a mountain of evidence to suggest we would still be grunting in trees in the jungle, if not for spirituality. There is evidence of mankind... the existence of mankind... humanity... everything we have accomplished... everything we have done as a species... and there is the evidence that spiritual belief has been with us for as far back as we can see in our past. What there is no evidence to suggest, is that man could survive without spirituality of any kind.

You FAIL!
 
Ice Dancer said:
Faith is tried and true to the one who possesses it...

If you don't want a response by me don't post to me.
Click to expand...

I said I didnt want a response because in the past you have shown yourself incapable or unwilling to address a point.
Faith by its very nature cannot be true. That's is why you have faith. I am not criticising faith. Simply drawing the distinction.
And because faith cannot be true it must not be allowed in an environment that promotes a scientific education. That might be school.
It is this basic error that has led 45% of Americans to maintaining that creationism is a truth and not a belief.
 
there is no evidence to suggest that believing in god is a prerequisite for the survival of our species.
Click to expand...

Charles Darwin's own theories suggest it.

An animal behavior prevalent in 95% of the species for the entire span of the species existence, is certainly an attribute fundamental for survival of the species. To conclude otherwise, furthermore, to conclude such an attribute is "meaningless" is a direct contradiction of your very own Theory of Evolution.
 
Faith by its very nature cannot be true.
Congrats, you made the sig!! I know Yurt will be pleased!

It's been a long time since someone said something this stupid. Really!!
 
Lowaicue said:
I said I didnt want a response because in the past you have shown yourself incapable or unwilling to address a point.
Faith by its very nature cannot be true. That's is why you have faith. I am not criticising faith. Simply drawing the distinction.
And because faith cannot be true it must not be allowed in an environment that promotes a scientific education. That might be school.
It is this basic error that has led 45% of Americans to maintaining that creationism is a truth and not a belief.
Click to expand...

Creationism is NOT taught in public schools.

You obviously misunderstand faith. Faith in something whether it is a belief or an idea is not something that is formulated in a vacuum. The God of the bible is intelligent and he has purpose. The biblical narrative offers meaning to life in a deeply spiritual, personal, and intelligent way. Those who reject God and his purposes don’t change that.
 
Dixie said:
Faith by its very nature cannot be true.
Congrats, you made the sig!! I know Yurt will be pleased!

It's been a long time since someone said something this stupid. Really!!
Click to expand...

If you believe something to be and you then prove it, it is no longer faith but truth. Is it so hard to grasp?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Creationism is NOT taught in public schools.

You obviously misunderstand faith. Faith in something whether it is a belief or an idea is not something that is formulated in a vacuum. The God of the bible is intelligent and he has purpose. The biblical narrative offers meaning to life in a deeply spiritual, personal, and intelligent way. Those who reject God and his purposes don’t change that.
Click to expand...

You obviously have accepted without rational thought or enquiry the words of a book which contains, in effect, the words of an infinite number of monkeys seated at an infinite number of typewriters.
Are you saying that what you call a god, a concept that cannot be proven but the existence of which must be accepted (in faith), wrote a book in which is written the same violence that exists in the Koran and in which things disobey the proven physics of the universe and then equate what you call the 'spiritual' with what we understand as 'intelligence', is sensible? Logical? backed by evidence that would stand up say in a court of law?
You are one of those 45% aren't you? Incredible!
 
Dixie said:
What? You mean science is ALWAYS TRUE?
Click to expand...

Science is true. It is a word. I can see it, you can see it, I can reproduce it as can you. Of course it is true. The workings of science, which I assume you meant, start by questioning what might be the truth. It is that questioning which has given you everything you value. Your freedom, your government, your cars, your planes, yes... even your guns. god has never, as far as I am aware, invented anything. Belief in a god, whether it be yours of Ali Baba's has never done anything positive to progress man from Ardi (or Lucy if you wish) to Hawking.
Dixie, don't try to be too smart. It doesn't suit you.
 
Lowaicue said:
If you believe something to be and you then prove it, it is no longer faith but truth. Is it so hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

a question, Low......do you suspect that before the speed of light was proven that it traveled at a different rate?......something doesn't BECOME true upon proof....it is merely PROVEN to be true.....
 
If 95% believe in some sort of spirituality, it is because the overwhelming majority of human beings use spirituality to defend against death and death anxiety.

I am a Deist and an existentialist. Truth is pragmatic and there is no inherent meaning in the world, in the sense that each person should ultimately discover the same truth/meaning as a universal syllogism.

That said, each person throughout their entire life, is working to construct meaning and order of the sensory information they encounter, ie their experiences. I think that it is fair to say that most human beings incorporate some sort of spiritual ethos into their worldview, into their construction of meaning. This is primarily in response to the human capacity of futurity - the ability to understand that we all know we will one day cease to exist.

In this sense, I would tend to agree with Dixie, that humans are innately spiritual beings. We are spiritual beings because we are all aware of our own death, and simultaneously desire to reduce the anxiety that this knowledge brings. The self-denial quality Dixie speaks of is actually inextricably linked to why so many include spirituality or religiosity in their worldview - not just for those who reject spirituality. Even the non-believers defend against death, too. They just use different conceptualizations and anxiety defenses against death than do the spirtualists. In effect, both views are similar.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a question, Low......do you suspect that before the speed of light was proven that it traveled at a different rate?......something doesn't BECOME true upon proof....it is merely PROVEN to be true.....
Click to expand...

No, of course I didnt think it travelled at a different speed. I was content not to know.
One difference between believers of religion and those for whom it has no significance in their own lives, is that the latter are quite content not to know and content to continue to ask, whereas those who carry with them the arrogance of believing they are somehow special are not content not to know and so invent a comfort faith. It has been thus since the beginning of man. I have no problem with that. I choose not to be sucked into that particular falsity.
I didnt phrase that as well as I might have done but its getting late.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, it is. For example "Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves – these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness- then do you live acting accordingly."

Sort of a roundabout way of saying, "If it feels good, do it!" :cof1:
Click to expand...
No, that is not even close to the same thing.

What he says there is to use your mind to see whether your actions are moral, blameless, praised by the wise and positive, then do those. He does not say "do anything that makes you feel good", that would not even be close to the Path nor is it conducive to well-being.

Please, don't misrepresent purposefully. It clearly states in your quote to use your mind to see that your actions are moral...
 
Damocles said:
No, that is not even close to the same thing.

What he says there is to use your mind to see whether your actions are moral, blameless, praised by the wise and positive, then do those. He does not say "do anything that makes you feel good", that would not even be close to the Path nor is it conducive to well-being.

Please, don't misrepresent purposefully. It clearly states in your quote to use your mind to see that your actions are moral...
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's in the interpretation. People have different ideas of morality the same way as people have different ideas of who is wise.

We see that, today, in politics. One person feels it's fine to oppose a universal health plan because they don't want to share the cost while another individual feels the "pay or suffer" system is morally inappropriate. The first individual has no moral problem knowing others can and will die, yet they seem happy not sharing their good fortune.
 
apple0154 said:
Perhaps it's in the interpretation. People have different ideas of morality the same way as people have different ideas of who is wise.

We see that, today, in politics. One person feels it's fine to oppose a universal health plan because they don't want to share the cost while another individual feels the "pay or suffer" system is morally inappropriate. The first individual has no moral problem knowing others can and will die, yet they seem happy not sharing their good fortune.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, you are misrepresenting my beliefs. It is not okay in Buddhism to "do what feels good" even if you really really want it to be so. Forcing others to do "good" through government is not necessarily a moral path either, think "keep marriage sanctified" type of government forcing people to be "not sinful" and you may get the idea.

That somebody doesn't agree that government largesse is the best way to handle a medical cost issue doesn't make them more or less moral than somebody who thinks that the government should be used to make people do what is "holy" by helping others. And that person who thinks that others can be forced to do the "right thing" through government programs is no better than the person who thinks that the government should be used to keep their marriage sanctified.

All this ignores the fact that corrupt government creates corrupt institutions, and we can be sure that one place we don't need more corruption is in health care, yet it will be the inevitable result.
 
Damocles said:
No, that is not even close to the same thing.

What he says there is to use your mind to see whether your actions are moral, blameless, praised by the wise and positive, then do those. He does not say "do anything that makes you feel good", that would not even be close to the Path nor is it conducive to well-being.

Please, don't misrepresent purposefully. It clearly states in your quote to use your mind to see that your actions are moral...
Click to expand...

You are begging the question about whether or not we, as animals, have more rights and have more morals than other animals.
If you believe in an omnipotent god then surely it is wrong to behave in a way that is not natural, or as he/she/it made you. Can a dog commit sin? Can a chimpanzee? a cockroach?
I do not think that belief in a deity is, in any way conducive to an existence that depends on rational behaviour. Nothing has changed for the better because of the existence of religion that can be logically shown to have been wholly dependent on that religion. And nothing is likely to.
Now I really am turning in.
 
Lowaicue said:
You are begging the question about whether or not we, as animals, have more rights and have more morals than other animals.
If you believe in an omnipotent god then surely it is wrong to behave in a way that is not natural, or as he/she/it made you. Can a dog commit sin? Can a chimpanzee? a cockroach?
I do not think that belief in a deity is, in any way conducive to an existence that depends on rational behaviour. Nothing has changed for the better because of the existence of religion that can be logically shown to have been wholly dependent on that religion. And nothing is likely to.
Now I really am turning in.
Click to expand...
Only beings with full understanding, with a full scope of decisions that didn't fall within nature, could "sin"... If you want to call it "sin". In order for what the lion does to be a "sin" he would have to have other options that he purposefully chose against.

If you want to try to sum up Buddhist morality in one sentence, "First do no harm" would be a good way to begin that sentence.
 
apple0154 said:
Perhaps it's in the interpretation. People have different ideas of morality the same way as people have different ideas of who is wise.

We see that, today, in politics. One person feels it's fine to oppose a universal health plan because they don't want to share the cost while another individual feels the "pay or suffer" system is morally inappropriate. The first individual has no moral problem knowing others can and will die, yet they seem happy not sharing their good fortune.
Click to expand...

I think you are also misrepresenting why people oppose universal healthcare. I agree that there are some who can't think higher than 'I gotta pay for it', but there are a lot more variables to this equation than just money. I personally will not support our government to take on any new roles until they have learned to clean up the corruption inside our government. It is easily identifiable that our government has lost the 'for the people' idea long ago. You put more power into their hands where their decisions on how things are run, and it's just one more aspect of your life that gets controlled by what the rich decide is best for themselves. Once we have universal healthcare, I guarantee you the big drug corps and medical lobbyists will control the final outcome of the bill. They are not going to lobby for the best interest of us, they are going to lobby for the best interest of themselves. Politicians will not allow a bill to go through without the backing of these people, they provide funding for their campaigns. This is why I will oppose the idea of universal healthcare, because our government can't clean up its act.
 
Lowaicue said:
You obviously have accepted without rational thought or enquiry the words of a book which contains, in effect, the words of an infinite number of monkeys seated at an infinite number of typewriters.
Are you saying that what you call a god, a concept that cannot be proven but the existence of which must be accepted (in faith), wrote a book in which is written the same violence that exists in the Koran and in which things disobey the proven physics of the universe and then equate what you call the 'spiritual' with what we understand as 'intelligence', is sensible? Logical? backed by evidence that would stand up say in a court of law?
You are one of those 45% aren't you? Incredible!
Click to expand...

The violence in the bible is evidence of mans fallen nature, not God's. That God works out history in the midst of mans wickedness should be regarded as grace. Man creates the reasons for conflicts, not God.

I was not taught Creationism in school; I was taught Evolution just like millions of other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top