Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
68 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, xongsmith (3 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,016 Year: 2,662/14,102 Month: 327/703 Week: 148/158 Day: 1/15 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion v Spirituality
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 91 of 161 (450813)
01-24-2008 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by pelican
01-23-2008 6:39 PM


Re: Knowable spirituality
Heinrik writes:

Without us there is no consciousness.

This is about as usefull a statement to a discussion as saying: "without us there would be no one around to understand the concepts we are discussing".

It is an empty statement. But hold on, here comes another.

Larni writes:

You appear to have no real reason to believe there is a 'spiritual' existence.

Heinrik writes:

That is because I haven't given you one.

This is a discussion board, my friend. You cannot come here, assert what you reckon is true without even defining your terms.

You have been asked several times to define 'spiritual' and you have not done so.

Untill you can you will be open to accusations of woo woo, magic and believing in what amounts to an overvalue idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 6:39 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 6:41 PM Larni has responded

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 2235 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 92 of 161 (450819)
01-24-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by pelican
01-23-2008 7:08 PM


Re: What is spirituality?
I learned everything I needed to know of the physical world and it wasn't enough.

The beauty we experience in the physical world is not enough? The amazing dance of interwoven complexities that our knowledge of the physical world reveals to us is not enough? Our relations with other humans and other living things are not enough? Our imaginations and creativity here in the physical world are not enough?

You must be a greedy person indeed if all these are not enough!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 7:08 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 3:07 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 93 of 161 (450831)
01-24-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by pelican
01-23-2008 7:42 PM


Still No Useful Definition of Spirituality
My dear boy, I have made my position perfectly clear, throughout this thread. If I must reiterate, very well.
I contend that spirituality is a meaningless term when used outside of an explicitly religious or supernatural context. When otherwise employed, spirituality becomes a meaningless buzzword, which tends to be used in pseudo-philosophical new-age waffle. Furthermore, everyone seems to have their own meaning for the word, which makes it useless in communicating ideas effectively.
I'm afraid that, as far as I can see, your attempts to define the concept are only helping to prove me right.


Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 7:42 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Fosdick, posted 01-24-2008 7:20 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 101 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 5:54 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4361 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 94 of 161 (450907)
01-24-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Granny Magda
01-24-2008 9:00 AM


Re: Still No Useful Definition of Spirituality
GM writes:

I contend that spirituality is a meaningless term when used outside of an explicitly religious or supernatural context. When otherwise employed, spirituality becomes a meaningless buzzword, which tends to be used in pseudo-philosophical new-age waffle.


Granny, I agree

In the Is bicamerality bullshit? thread I argued that Julian Jaynes' "bicamerality" explained religiosity and spirituality. But I was not very successful. Others argued strongly that there was nothing really bicameral about religious belief; instead it was only a manifestation "group think" or "peer pressure." Now I'm wondering if "spirituality" is really anything different from "school spirit" in the high-school sense, with those attendant cheers and songs and dancing around the bon fire for a common purpose.

In other words, is spirituality anything more than peer pressure for the sake of mass manipulation?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2008 9:00 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Larni, posted 01-26-2008 7:16 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 95 of 161 (450948)
01-25-2008 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Woodsy
01-24-2008 7:03 AM


Re: What is spirituality?
woodsy writes:

The beauty we experience in the physical world is not enough? The amazing dance of interwoven complexities that our knowledge of the physical world reveals to us is not enough? Our relations with other humans and other living things are not enough? Our imaginations and creativity here in the physical world are not enough?

I wasn't speaking on your behalf, only my own. An enquiring mind would have asked why?

You must be a greedy person indeed if all these are not enough!

A misconception on your part. Your assertion came from your judgement of me and you cannot prove it scientifically, so you are wrong mate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Woodsy, posted 01-24-2008 7:03 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4036
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 96 of 161 (451011)
01-25-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by pelican
01-23-2008 7:08 PM


So what is it?
Heinrik writes:

I learned everything I needed to know of the physical world and it wasn't enough. There was and is no meaning to our existence.

That's not what I learned from the physical world. The physical world only taught me that the physical world does not offer a meaning to our existance. This has no bearing on there being one or not. The spiritual world has also taught me that it offers no meaning to our existance (mostly 'cause it doesn't say much). I have not been shown any world that provides meaning to our existance. When I realized this, it was easy to realize that I could give meaning to my existance in any way I'd like. Much more freedom that way. And it's obvious that it takes much more strength to impose a righteous meaning on your own existance than it is to have it given to you from any external source.

However, whilst all the misconceptions you hold on to, for grim death, are actually blocking you from expanding your awareness.

Are you able to unblock this expansion somehow? Are you able to show how to be more aware of any misconceptions? Or can you identify any of these awareness-blocking misconceptions?

Heinrik in Message 87 writes:

Larni writes:

You appear to have no real reason to believe there is a 'spiritual' existence.

That is because I haven't given you one.

Are you able to provide one? What is it? You seem to be very hesitant to expand on giving any information. Is there a problem with sharing this information?

You seem to be saying you have all these wonderful ideas of how to help people break down their misconceptions, or how to help show the reality of a spiritual existance. But then you don't seem keen on providing what the help actually is. Maybe you know you can help, but you don't want to? Is this what your 'down to earth' spiritual existance does? Does it remove your desire to help others? Or maybe it reduces your freedom to only answering direct questions? I hope this message will suffice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 7:08 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 7:30 AM Stile has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 97 of 161 (451038)
01-25-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Larni
01-24-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Knowable spirituality
POST 1
heinrik writes:

Religion is concerned with knowing god and the afterlife.
Spirituality is concerned with knowing self and this life.

larni writes:

You have been asked several times to define 'spiritual' and you have not done so.

larni writes:

This is a discussion board, my friend. You cannot come here, assert what you reckon is true without even defining your terms.

I believe the terms were stated clearly in post 1. Your response to this 'discussion' (post 3)was to dismiss Heinrik's truth and replace it with one of your own. It was totally void of investigation on your part.

larni writes:

post 3.I actually hate the word spiritual. It gets bandied about the place a great deal in the wrong context.
Spirituality implies some etheric 'spirit' that is somehow distinct from the physical world: much like religion implies some deity (in most cases) somehow distinct from the physical world.

Eigther way you cut it both invoke something distinct from the physical world.

Knowing yourself and the world has nothing to do with spirit; it is simply being self aware and having an ability to be minfull of your self and environment.

Neither spirituality or religiousity are required.

larni writes:

Until you can you will be open to accusations of woo woo, magic and believing in what amounts to an overvalue idea.

Heinrik has not mentioned anything about woo woo magic or anything supernatural in his definition of spirituality. The woo woo came from you, my dear.

Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Larni, posted 01-24-2008 3:21 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Larni, posted 01-26-2008 7:31 AM pelican has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 98 of 161 (451095)
01-26-2008 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Fosdick
01-24-2008 7:20 PM


Re: Still No Useful Definition of Spirituality
Hoot Mon writes:

In other words, is spirituality anything more than peer pressure for the sake of mass manipulation?

Yeah, that about somes it up ans this thread has no where to disabuse me of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Fosdick, posted 01-24-2008 7:20 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 99 of 161 (451096)
01-26-2008 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by pelican
01-25-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Knowable spirituality
dameeva writes:

Heinrik has not mentioned anything about woo woo magic or anything supernatural in his definition of spirituality. The woo woo came from you, my dear.

Ya. His definition of spiritual is obviously wrong. What does spiritual mean to you?

Does it mean:

Heinrik writes:

knowing self and this life.

Which I would interpret as self awareness; or does it mean:

Heinrik writes:

There isn't much to say about the religionists compared to the spiritualists but the common bond is the beliving in the 'supernatural.

My bold

Which is most definitly woo woo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 6:41 PM pelican has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 100 of 161 (451303)
01-27-2008 5:57 AM


Bump fo dameeva.
Bump.

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 6:00 PM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 104 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 7:01 PM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 106 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 9:32 PM Larni has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 101 of 161 (451440)
01-27-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Granny Magda
01-24-2008 9:00 AM


Re: Still No Useful Definition of Spirituality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still No Useful Definition of Spirituality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My dear boy, I have made my position perfectly clear, throughout this thread. If I must reiterate, very well.
I contend that spirituality is a meaningless term when used outside of an explicitly religious or supernatural context.

No, I believe this is the 1st time you have made yourself perfectly clear. This is the first clear example of what you believe spirituality is not. When you know what it is not, it stands to reason you must have an idea of what it is.
What is your definition of spirituality WITHIN the religious or supernatural context?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2008 9:00 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Granny Magda, posted 01-29-2008 8:02 AM pelican has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 102 of 161 (451444)
01-27-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Larni
01-27-2008 5:57 AM


Re: Bump fo dameeva.
Bump fo dameeva.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bump.

Larni, these unintelligent, attacking, personal remarks are the reason I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall communicating with you. So I stopped and you move on to someone else. I truly put it down to your mentality age. Young! I hope so anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Larni, posted 01-27-2008 5:57 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Trixie, posted 01-27-2008 6:13 PM pelican has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 103 of 161 (451447)
01-27-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by pelican
01-27-2008 6:00 PM


Re: Bump fo dameeva.
"Bump for dameeva" means that by putting the post on, the topic is bumped up to the top of the list of the "All Topics" list, since posts are listed here in order of when the last post was made, with the most recent being at the top. It's a polite reminder that there is an unanswered question by dameeva.

It's not an attack

It's not a personal remark

it's not unintelligent.

It's standard forum speak for when you post to a topic as a reminder to someone else.
:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 6:00 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 7:59 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 104 of 161 (451455)
01-27-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Larni
01-27-2008 5:57 AM


Re: Bump fo dameeva.
Hi Larni, I had no idea waht the term meant or what you were implying. I THOUGHT you were being unconstructive, offensive and oppressive. Now that I understand the 'jargon' I KNOW you were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Larni, posted 01-27-2008 5:57 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 105 of 161 (451471)
01-27-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Trixie
01-27-2008 6:13 PM


A BIGGER BUMP FOR DAMEEVA
"Bump for dameeva" means that by putting the post on, the topic is bumped up to the top of the list of the "All Topics" list, since posts are listed here in order of when the last post was made, with the most recent being at the top. It's a polite reminder that there is an unanswered question by dameeva.
It's not an attack

It's not a personal remark

it's not unintelligent.

It's standard forum speak for when you post to a topic as a reminder to someone else.

Well, thankyou. I had no idea of this forum jargon or the meaning. I now see that it is an excellent ploy for the unscrupulous, but I am not unscrupulous. Alas, unscrupulous people believe I am.

My post wasn't intended as a reminder just for the sake of it. There was a valid point that was connecting each of the quotes.

However, in my endevours to find the 'bump' rule in the forum rules, I actually, for the first time, read them. I know. Not good that, is it? I thought I already knew the rules as I have debated and discussed issues for many years. We think we know something when in fact, we don't.

I observe that some of these rules are broken consistently, mainly because they are ambiguous BUT there is one rule that definately is not. Because of you, Trixie, I have found that I am consistently breaking this rule.

I thankyou for indirectly putting me into the position of seeing my mistake. I will now correct that mistake. This is the rule I have broken.

RULE 9. Do not participate as more than one ID. You may change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.

I have been participating as two identities. In my defense, I created two identities because I felt I needed some moral support. I also thought it would help to promote some points that I could not do alone.

In view of this obvious breaking of a clearly defined rule, there can be no excuses, no claims of innocence because the truth is:

I did not read the rules.

I prefer to judge myself and implement the consequences myself. I am my own judge and jury. In this case the punishment is a life time ban. I will retire DAMEEVA as from 1.2.08 (just to give myself time to pack my bags) unless a higher authority decides otherwise, in which case authority has the final say.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this forum and have learned a lot that otherwise I would not. :)

Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Trixie, posted 01-27-2008 6:13 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021