The Evolution and Spirituality Thread

Maybe we're all Gods/Goddesses ourselves and we all structure the way of the Earth and the Cosmos.

Mostly common sense on my part.  Really.

I've barely read any Philosophy of any kind and when I have tried, I usually have trouble understand it.

stonebeard wrote: James wrote: I think we follow too much and think too deeply.  If that makes sense? I try not follow any tenets and just live my life as I see fit. I will maybe one day read some Philosophical works but I will try not to label myself as anything after reading them.  My views seems to agree with non-religious Existentialism but I won't label myself as that because that then makes Philosophies a kind of religion in their own right.  That is not what I personally want. You can't avoid labels, James. If you read something and agree fully with it's worldview, then it's yours. Subconsciously, at least.

I know.

I'm not avoiding labels.  I just try not to endorse them into my daily thoughts.

I do not need a book on Existentialism to tell me I'm an Existentialist thinker (gosh, I do not even want to be an Existentialist thinker; I just want to be me!).  Indeed, I have my own philosophies and do not really need others.

I think we follow too much and think too deeply.  If that makes sense?

I try not follow any tenets and just live my life as I see fit.

I will maybe one day read some Philosophical works but I will try not to label myself as anything after reading them.  My views seems to agree with non-religious Existentialism but I won't label myself as that because that then makes Philosophies a kind of religion in their own right.  That is not what I personally want.

ExittheLemming wrote: Slightly off tangent to the evolution 'thang' but the world would be a damn site better ordered place without organised (sic) religion and the latter is culpable in the creation of more chaos than a toddler with a pin on a bouncy castle. Yes, you are correct that religion is a control mechanism, but for those who are either unwilling or unable to control themselves. Ask yourself why gruesome serial killers habitually turn to the 'good book' and repent their sins ? It's a cop out for those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices. BTW Satan made me type this post.

Well said.






Whoops.

I'll let things go back to normal now, my apologies for gate crashing.


Edited by James - September 23 2009 at 22:35

Being part of the natural history of this planet allows us to do whatever damage we do, that is the ecology of the system. However artificial and unnatural what we do may seem when compared to the the so-called natural world, it is no different to any other natural cataclysmic "event" that happens on earth or the shaping of the environment by any dominant species of that locality. (Any farmer will tell you that you cannot put sheep and cows in the same field - the sheep cut the grass too short for the cows to feed - from the cow's point of view the sheep have damaged the environment). That we could wilfully or accidentally cause a global catastrophe is no different or unnatural as a plague, a meteor impact or the detonation of Krakatau. The difference is that we know it is wrong, that it is preventable, that by choice we could take another route - some put that knowledge of right and wrong down to some spiritual explanation or a taught morality  - I see it as no different to the pet dog that steals food from the diner table - it knows it is wrong and that there will be consequences - it is simply the instinctive and natural behavioural action of a pack animal, and humans are a pack animal.

Negoba wrote: Thanks so much for joining the conversation visioner.   My original idea that made at least one other poster uncomfortable was talking about cosmology, origin mythology, and personal ideas about philosophy and / or spirituality and lumping both religious and scientific contributions in one discussion.   But given that religion and science are the two major sources we currently use to base those three things, I feel like they must be discussed together. Origin theories based on scientific observation are still very limited and a product of imagination / creative synthesis. What's on the other side of the big bang? As a singularity, it is likely impossible to know. To us it's a dead end in terms of our ability to gather data. But it doesn't mean nothing happened prior to that. Certainly the idea of wave like expansion and contraction of the universe seems very plausible. But even if it consistent with scientific information, it is likely that we will never be able to have data to confirm or deny that. Kind of like Santa Claus? And we are firmly in the territory of current scientific cosmological thought.

Negoba wrote: Thanks so much for joining the conversation visioner.   My original idea that made at least one other poster uncomfortable was talking about cosmology, origin mythology, and personal ideas about philosophy and / or spirituality and lumping both religious and scientific contributions in one discussion.   But given that religion and science are the two major sources we currently use to base those three things, I feel like they must be discussed together. Origin theories based on scientific observation are still very limited and a product of imagination / creative synthesis. What's on the other side of the big bang? As a singularity, it is likely impossible to know. To us it's a dead end in terms of our ability to gather data. But it doesn't mean nothing happened prior to that. Certainly the idea of wave like expansion and contraction of the universe seems very plausible. But even if it consistent with scientific information, it is likely that we will never be able to have data to confirm or deny that. Kind of like Santa Claus? And we are firmly in the territory of current scientific cosmological thought.

Visioner wrote: Dean,   I know people who would disagree with your definition of Christianity. They still consider themselves Christian even though their brand of Christianity does not hinge on a singular belief in one particular tenet, even one you define as necessary--they assign different criteria to ascribing to their faith. The fact that there are so many different denominations shows that the defining beliefs, even core ones, are not agreed upon entirely.

They may consider themselves Christian, but their beliefs would not be shared by the "mother church" - I would be curious to know of Christians that do not believe in the resurrection - the other (non-Christian) religions who accept Jesus as a prophet or saint do not believe in the resurrection (though I think Muslims do believe in the Ascension).

Tony R wrote: BaldJean wrote: stonebeard mentioned that he as an atheist does not see how spirituality enters. that is a very interesting remark indeed; it seems to mean that what atheists really deny is the existence of spirit, not the existence of God. atheists indeed are usually materialists; the believe there is nothing but "solid matter". they could not be more wrong. Stonebeard does not speak for all atheists. Atheists by definition do not believe in God. Your assertion that "atheists are usually materialists etc" is a wild generalisation with nothing to substantiate it whatsoever. Therefore the following is irrelevant... first of all, the so-called "solid matter" is not so solid at all. an atom is mostly empty space, through which lots of virtual particles run this way and that. an atom is a process, and indeed all of matter is nothing but that: a process. a process, however, is not material at all. everything in the world is a process. As for the following  so is our consciousness, of course, or our spirit, to let that word enter the discussion. this spirit is, due to its nature as a process, not material at all. will the spirit somehow survive after we are dead? I don't believe so, since many of the sub-processes which are responsible for its creation end with death. but that does by no means mean the spirit does not exist. it is indeed a stranger notion to say so; how could you utter that statement if it did not exist? one might as well speculate as to how Santa Claus gets all the presents for all the children in the world onto his sleigh...