Does spirituality exist?

[joyrex]

What does spirituality mean to you? Is it just based on delusions of people and incorrect interpretations of reality? Frankly, to me that's all it's been; I've experienced some phenomena that could've been interpreted in a special manner but at the credulous phase I was in about year ago I didn't realize the power of Occam.. ;)

Edit 1 : Is there such a thing as genuine spirituality -- When it's considered as something outside the actions and behaviours of people?

Edit 2 : ATM I'm drunk as a monk so I hope you get my drift.. I'll explain more later ;)

[Dancing David]

I define spirituality as a product of the human mind, the feeling that all objects are endowed with spirit, the feeling that there is meaning to events and a purpose to life. All are products of the human brain, the power of prayer and creative visualizaion, they are products of the brain.

There are parts of me that respond to wrods and other parts that respond to visualization and emotion. I call them spiritual but they are all within the brain.

[Beleth]

I'd define "spirituality" as the belief that humans are not the pinnacle of consciousness; that there is at least one other entity with a higher consciousness level than humans have, and that this entity or entities is/are interested in what humans do for some reason.

English is one of the few European languages where the words for "spirit" and "breath" do not come from the same root word. To the ancients, a spirit was what made a living being different from a dead being, and the outward sign of the presence of a spirit was whether the being was breathing or not. I think that our definition has advanced beyond that, however.

[DVFinn]

I use the term spirituality to describe an array of related emotional responses to things that inspire me. It's difficult to put into words, but though I am an atheist and a secularist I also consider myself very spiritual.

When I witness, for example, an act of human self selflessness and kindness, or a human being triumphing through an excercise of will in the face of great opposition I feel a certain deep pride in being part of the same species. Every time one of us achieves greatness, every time a Stephen Hawking or a Leon Leaderman unveils a piece of the universe, they elevate the rest of us and we have every right to feel that pride. Even though we ourselves may have had no part in the achievment we can say, "There goes one of us, the same genetic code, the same species and look what we have done! Look what we can rise to! Look what our potential is!"

At the same time, if you take this world view you have share our failures. If I'm going to alow myself to feel that surge of adrenaline and pride when I see one of us excel I have to also recognize the depths to which we often sink. For every Einstein there's a Hitler.

Spirituality to me is found in the wonder of the natural world and our place in it, and in the human potential to achieve beyond our expectations and to become more than we are.

</self indulgent ramble>

[The idea]

Originally posted by joyrex
What does spirituality mean to you? Is it just based on delusions of people and incorrect interpretations of reality? Frankly, to me that's all it's been; I've experienced some phenomena that could've been interpreted in a special manner but at the credulous phase I was in about year ago [...]
Let's start by taking the New Testament at face value. Assume Jesus could do such things as restore sight to an adult who had been blind from birth. Assume that Jesus did not use any visible medical technique, but used some kind of fast-acting, invisible power.

Why is it that those who claim to have some authority to speak for Jesus or at least interpret what Jesus meant and apply it to today's world are unable to demonstrate any special power?

They claim to be in communication with God, but the ideas that God supposedly communicates to them are trivialities. Intellectual work proceeds. Fermat's Last Theorem was proven. There are new developments in mathematics, physics, computer technology, etc. Who has given no thought to some field of study and then solved a series of unrelated problems that had remained unsolved for decades? If God were communicating messages to people, then why wouldn't that happen?

The people today claiming to have spirituality are phony. You can safely ignore them. In fact, it would be unsafe to put yourself in a position where deceivers could influence you.

[Yahweh]

My definition spirituality:

I wouldnt want to limit my definition to strictly those with religious beliefs, so I define "spirituality" as what you need to do to for yourself (on a personal level) to make your life feel anything but useless.

Its vaguely defined, and probably not a very good definition... meh!...

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Beleth
English is one of the few European languages where the words for "spirit" and "breath" do not come from the same root word. To the ancients, a spirit was what made a living being different from a dead being, and the outward sign of the presence of a spirit was whether the being was breathing or not. I think that our definition has advanced beyond that, however.This is an interesting point. In Finnish we have a word 'henki' meaning spirit and 'hengitys' for breathing. Earlier I thought this was an brilliant insight made by the creators of our language but nowadays I think it's more like a setback to liguistic and rational evolution.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by DVFinn
Spirituality to me is found in the wonder of the natural world and our place in it, and in the human potential to achieve beyond our expectations and to become more than we are.I don't know but isn't your position kind of using the word spirituality in the context that already has a label? Like wonder and awe [inspiration, greatness]? Do you maybe think spirituality is somehow transcendent to those simplistic attributes?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

English is one of the few European languages where the words for "spirit" and "breath" do not come from the same root word. To the ancients, a spirit was what made a living being different from a dead being, and the outward sign of the presence of a spirit was whether the being was breathing or not. I think that our definition has advanced beyond that, however. What this suggests then is that we all have a spirit -- or soul -- and that the spirit is the essence of life. Therefore when we die, and the spirit departs, there is nothing left to animate/motivate this bag of bones which lay on the ground. Suggesting that what you identify as yourself (ego, identity, consciousness, soul) is your spirit.

[BillyJoe]

Mine is called Black Douglas.

[max]

THE IDEA
Jesus didn't make blind people see physically, they weren't blind as regarding their eyesight, it was there insight that was blind. He made them see or have another think about life/religion.
My thoughts /beliefs on spirituality are that we are all spirits/souls using bodies to live in whilst we learn and experience life bfore returning to God if there is one or to the universe.
There are a lot of posters on here that believe in their religion but deny that there is an afterlife....strange when religions teach that we shall live in God's house when we die and that it has many rooms.
There is evidence around to let us know there are souls who have departed from this earth but still live in another dimension. but if one is looking for indisputable proof of that, there maybe none. I can only speak on my own experiences of that.
Spirituality to me means the emotions, love,jealousy, hate etc, etc 'conscience'.........does that mean 'with science?'

[DVFinn]

I don't know but isn't your position kind of using the word spirituality in the context that already has a label? Like wonder and awe [inspiration, greatness]? Do you maybe think spirituality is somehow transcendent to those simplistic attributes?

I consider these and other related emotions/attributes to be components of spirtuality. I would never call them simplistic. The idea that there is some underlying mystical component is what I see as simplistic.

This is not meant to insult those that take an opposing view, it's merely my personal opinion.

[DVFinn]

What this suggests then is that we all have a spirit -- or soul -- and that the spirit is the essence of life. Therefore when we die, and the spirit departs, there is nothing left to animate/motivate this bag of bones which lay on the ground. Suggesting that what you identify as yourself (ego, identity, consciousness, soul) is your spirit.

No, what this suggests in the context you were replying to is that ancient cultures may have held beliefs similar to what you describe. They also typically believed that the world was flat. It does not in any way suggest that these beliefs were valid.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by max
There is evidence around to let us know there are souls who have departed from this earth but still live in another dimension.
What kind of evidence?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DVFinn

No, what this suggests in the context you were replying to is that ancient cultures may have held beliefs similar to what you describe. They also typically believed that the world was flat. It does not in any way suggest that these beliefs were valid. Just because the one is easliy verifiable and the other is not (by science) does not ivalidate both simply because they were ancient beliefs.

In fact where does the essence of a person go when he dies? He's obviously not there with the body.

[DVFinn]

In fact where does the essence of a person go when he dies? He's obviously not there with the body.

In the absence of evidence why make the assumption that the person has gone anywhere? This idea of an "essence" is pure conjecture. What flaw is there in the idea that the person simply ceases to exist?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DVFinn

In the absence of evidence why make the assumption that the person has gone anywhere? This idea of an "essence" is pure conjecture. What flaw is there in the idea that the person simply ceases to exist? And yet the fact that something is alive and vibrant and sentient one moment, and entirely bereft of that the next cannot be construed as evidence to the contrary? This is just as good of an indication that it does exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't this sound the least bit plausible? If so, then you do have the evidence to support such a possibility.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet the fact that something is alive and vibrant and sentient one moment, and entirely bereft of that the next cannot be construed as evidence to the contrary? This is just as good of an indication that it does exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't this sound the least bit plausible? If so, then you do have the evidence to support such a possibility.
Its helpful to note that living things are distinguished from non-living things by a few organic properties, there is nothing more remarkable beyond that.

[BillyJoe]

As a materialist, I believe in neither "spirituality" nor "free will"

I think some materialists misuse the word "spirituality" just as some misuse the word "free will". I think both these words should retain their original metaphysical connotations and alternative words should be used by materialists to describe what they mean by "spirituality" and "free will", which is obviously quite different from what believers in the supernatural mean by these words.

Neither do I think that a person's lack of belief in "spirituality" and "free will" need ake any difference to how that person acts.

BillyJoe

[max]

Tricky
I'm getting De ja vu :D

[Iacchus]

Anyone interested in base-twelve? So basically what everyone is saying here is that the only "spiritual commodity" which is available -- hence, the understanding thereof -- is through the "word" of science. And, that basically for anyone to suggest otherwise really has no opinion in the matter -- or, at least this seems to be the "recurring theme" I'm up against ... And what were you saying about the name Yahweh adding up to the number 666?

So let's just say that such a thing as spirituality does exist, however the "rule of thumb" -- through science -- suggests otherwise. Wouldn't that in effect be the same as usurping the "office" and, the "name" of that which preceded it? ... Yahweh?

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. - Revelation 13:17-18 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+13)For more information here, where I substitute a chapter for a month and a verse for a day, please refer to Chapter 6 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68) of my book ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68

Also, please note that I'm merely noting a "coincidence" here.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet the fact that something is alive and vibrant and sentient one moment, and entirely bereft of that the next cannot be construed as evidence to the contrary? This is just as good of an indication that it does exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't this sound the least bit plausible? If so, then you do have the evidence to support such a possibility.

Iacchus: I will note to you that the body does not die simulatneously and en masse, when the heart stops beating, the cells continue to live until they suffer anoxia and expire, this is not a phenomena that occurs in a single instant.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by joyrex
What does spirituality mean to you? Is it just based on delusions of people and incorrect interpretations of reality? Frankly, to me that's all it's been;

Could you be kind enough to reveal to us the correct interpretation of reality?

Thanks.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Anyone interested in base-twelve? So basically what everyone is saying here is that the only "spiritual commodity" which is available -- hence, the understanding thereof -- is through the "word" of science. And, that basically for anyone to suggest otherwise really has no opinion in the matter -- or, at least this seems to be the "recurring theme" I'm up against ... And what were you saying about the name Yahweh adding up to the number 666?

So let's just say that such a thing as spirituality does exist, however the "rule of thumb" -- through science -- suggests otherwise. Wouldn't that in effect be the same as usurping the "office" and, the "name" of that which preceded it? ... Yahweh?

For more information here, where I substitute a chapter for a month and a verse for a day, please refer to Chapter 6 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68) of my book ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68

Also, please note that I'm merely noting a "coincidence" here. In case anybody missed it, I'm referring to January 17-18 here. And, much in the way 1 O'clock is referred to as 13:00 hours in military time (in base-twenty four then I guess?), January is also the 13th month ... as it no doubt follows the 12th month.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Iacchus: I will note to you that the body does not die simulatneously and en masse, when the heart stops beating, the cells continue to live until they suffer anoxia and expire, this is not a phenomena that occurs in a single instant. Yes, but where does consciousness go, almost immediately I might add, when certain vital functions have expired?

[DVFinn]

And yet the fact that something is alive and vibrant and sentient one moment, and entirely bereft of that the next cannot be construed as evidence to the contrary?

I would say that it is in fact evidence against the contrary. the fact that when the body ceases to function the consciousness disappears indicates that consciousness is a function of the physical body.

You seem to be saying that you take the fact that sentience disappears after death as evidence that it exists separate from the body. Why? Where do you get that conclusion? If you want to show that consciousness is in any way independent of the physical body you must demonstate evidence of consciuosness operating independent of the body. You do that and I know someone with $1,000,000 for you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DVFinn

I would say that it is in fact evidence against the contrary. the fact that when the body ceases to function the consciousness disappears indicates that consciousness is a function of the physical body.

You seem to be saying that you take the fact that sentience disappears after death as evidence that it exists separate from the body. Why? Where do you get that conclusion? If you want to show that consciousness is in any way independent of the physical body you must demonstate evidence of consciuosness operating independent of the body. You do that and I know someone with $1,000,000 for you. Does the radio signal not exist independently from the radio? And what happens when you crash the radio to bits, does it not also give up "the signal?"

[DVFinn]

Does the radio signal not exist independently from the radio? And what happens when you crash the radio to bits, does it not also give up "the signal?"

A silly and invalid comparison. We can detect a radio signal independently of the transmitter that produces it. How does this relate to sentience? Can you detect sentience independently of the body? Have you discovered a consciousness wave? If you want people to take your arguments seriously you will have to construct them using at least remedial logic.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DVFinn

A silly and invalid comparison. We can detect a radio signal independently of the transmitter that produces it. How does this relate to sentience? Can you detect sentience independently of the body? Have you discovered a consciousness wave? If you want people to take your arguments seriously you will have to construct them using at least remedial logic. Are you saying it's not possible to control a computer remotely (via radio waves) and detail to all of its "peripheral entities" -- in our case it would be "our senses" -- what to do? It's all accomplished through electro-magnetic vibration by the way.

And why should I have to hook myself up to an oscilloscope when in fact I own a piece of the original equipment? And why do "you" wish to reduce the fact that we're human beings down to a bucket of bolts and a few electrical impulses? Is it possible that you've become lopsided in your neurotic over-analytical view? To where you can't even see the forest from the trees?

[DVFinn]

Are you saying it's not possible to control a computer remotely (via radio waves) and detail to all of its "peripheral entities"-- in our case it would be "our senses" -- what to do? It's all accomplished through electro-magnetic vibration by the way

No, I'm saying that you have not in any manner shown the similarity between controlling a computer via radio signals and the relationship between the human body and human sentience.

Yes it's possible to control a computer by radio if you have the necessary hardware. It's also possible to fly a kite by a string andpound a nail with a hammer.

You have made the comparison between the two things but not demonstrated any relationship between them. I ask again, what do radio waves and computers have to do with human consciousness? You have yet to make a single valid point in this line.

You refer to me as neyurotic and overanyltic. I don't see what's neurotic about calling someone on their arguments, especially when it would take more effort to overlook the ridiculous inconsistencies.

To where you can't even see the forest from the trees?

As far as I can tell your forest has no trees.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DVFinn

Can you detect sentience independently of the body? How does anyone other than you have proof of your sentience?


Have you discovered a consciousness wave?
Would you agree that the network of interacting boson fields associated with a lifeform would be different when it was alive rather than dead?

Bergson's elan vital, anyone? That could suffice for me as "spirit".

[DVFinn]

Would you agree that the network of interacting boson fields associated with a lifeform would be different when it was alive rather than dead?

I would have to look into it before answering. I have a rudimentary understanding of quantom physics and I know what a boson is, but beyond that i can't claim to have adequate knowledge to address you question.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DVFinn

A silly and invalid comparison. We can detect a radio signal independently of the transmitter that produces it. How does this relate to sentience? Can you detect sentience independently of the body? Have you discovered a consciousness wave? If you want people to take your arguments seriously you will have to construct them using at least remedial logic. Would you say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, much as music is the emergent property of a radio? In other words is the brain (like the radio) just a receptacle of which the emergent property -- consciousness -- is the medium?

Or, perhaps it would be better to compare consciousness to the software (or medium) of a computer, and the brain to the hardware or, the computer itself. Indeed, if in fact there is any truth to the matter, then we need to ask ourselves where does consciousness come from?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but where does consciousness go, almost immediately I might add, when certain vital functions have expired?

The consiousness is what it is when the body begins to expire, it is contained in the living anatomy of the brain. There is something that happen Lifegazer called anoxia, similar to a stoke, where the brain cells are depreived of oxygen. The brain looses it's ability to be consious, begins to suffer damage and if it continues and if blood flow is not restored then the brain and consiousness die.
I am sure you wish to feel that NDEs are some sort of proof that the consiousness goes somewhere, they aren't they are proof of 'confabualtion' by the brain. (Just my belief, some evidence)

And I am sure that just as in other cases you will say that it is damage to the radio, in which case I ask you about the nature of memory. Why in functioning brians that are knocked uncounsious does thier memory get all messed up. The brain/reciever is still functiong normally (albeit traumatized) if it is just recieving a signal, why is the signal incomplete when the brain/radio is turned back on?