Who is the most spiritually advanced member of Sciforums?

[wynn]

Bull. If it was that easy, you'd have figured a few things out by now. You'd have accepted clear evidence and let go of personal beliefs by now. If that was true, you'd stop rationalizing and justifying beliefs.

You'd stop worrying about whether your life has meaning or not and just live it.

It's not clear what what you say has to do with what you're replying to.

 

[The Marquis]

It's a simple matter of consistency.
Ie.: If one is to matter at all, one has to matter in the Grand Scheme of Things.

Not really. From an evolutionary standpoint, the ego is essential.
The "Grand Scheme of Things", by whatever means you might personalise it, is simply a means by which one applies a rational basis to their own desire to survive.

Humans don't really understand death, in the main, but they understand enough about it to want to conquer it. Spirituality and religion are both means by which this might be accomplished; and for those who do not believe in such things, there is as a resort the leaving of a legacy of some sort, in the form of children or accomplishments which might be remembered.
Really, though, the replacement of God with Man as a spiritual end in himself is no more rational than religion, for all that it might seem to be at first glance.

The truth is that man is an essentially and neccessarily complex being, due in no small part to his intelligence.

Where the struggle for relevance co-exists with a nihilistic belief pattern (with all due consideration to the notion that a "nihilistic belief" might be interpreted as an oxymoron), it is easy to feel antipathy toward such a one as being "inconsistent".
However, it is simply one manifestation of the basic conflict between instinct and intelligence. Our instinct is to live. Our intelligence might be enough in some cases to convince one that there is no reason to.
Regardless of belief, the Id is not easily dismissed.

Humanity cannot be confined within terms of consistency for the simple reason that we have an intelligence which is often at odds with our base animal instincts, and individuals reconcile the two in varying and sometimes contradictory ways. In some cases, that ongoing attempt to reconcile the two is a reason for life itself.
Humanity thrives on conflict. It really is as simple as that.


I think your mistake here, Wynn, is to be looking at things without considering an evolutionary perspective, and trying to rationalise everything. You can't.

 

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by The Marquis

However, it is simply one manifestation of the basic conflict between instinct and intelligence. Our instinct is to live. Our intelligence might be enough in some cases to convince one that there is no reason to.

Discussions not infrequently arise around 'the reason for life.'

When one is quite young, often this thought is not of paramount concern for one is busy experiencing life, not questioning or validating. The reasons why people continue to strive for existence, even in the most challenging of circumstances, must lie within life itself, in my opinion.

Logic frequently questions 'why persist' when the outcome (death) seems unavoidable.

Life serves it's own purpose, I'm thinking, and arrives at it's destination by many routes, with continuance as it's objective. Not all persons are required for procreation yet we all play a role in the overall success of our species.

Any 'reward' lies in the experience itself and in how we perceive our circumstances and our ability to have effect upon same.

 

[wynn]

Not really. From an evolutionary standpoint, the ego is essential.
The "Grand Scheme of Things", by whatever means you might personalise it, is simply a means by which one applies a rational basis to their own desire to survive.

Humans don't really understand death, in the main, but they understand enough about it to want to conquer it. Spirituality and religion are both means by which this might be accomplished; and for those who do not believe in such things, there is as a resort the leaving of a legacy of some sort, in the form of children or accomplishments which might be remembered.
Really, though, the replacement of God with Man as a spiritual end in himself is no more rational than religion, for all that it might seem to be at first glance.

The truth is that man is an essentially and neccessarily complex being, due in no small part to his intelligence.

Where the struggle for relevance co-exists with a nihilistic belief pattern (with all due consideration to the notion that a "nihilistic belief" might be interpreted as an oxymoron), it is easy to feel antipathy toward such a one as being "inconsistent".
However, it is simply one manifestation of the basic conflict between instinct and intelligence. Our instinct is to live. Our intelligence might be enough in some cases to convince one that there is no reason to.
Regardless of belief, the Id is not easily dismissed.

Humanity cannot be confined within terms of consistency for the simple reason that we have an intelligence which is often at odds with our base animal instincts, and individuals reconcile the two in varying and sometimes contradictory ways. In some cases, that ongoing attempt to reconcile the two is a reason for life itself.
Humanity thrives on conflict. It really is as simple as that.


I think your mistake here, Wynn, is to be looking at things without considering an evolutionary perspective, and trying to rationalise everything. You can't.

This is cowardly, Marquis, I expect better from you.

You have settled for a popular version of Freudianism along with the just-trust-science-and-don't-think dogma.

 

[scheherazade]

The thing is, Sche, that you do not discuss. You have a history of refusing to actually discuss things.
You say something, but then instead of actually discussing your view, or offering counterarguments when someone challenges your view, you take it personally or claim there is no point in discussing stuff.

For millennia, philosophers, theologians, politicians and others have discussed this topic of "the meaning of life."
But then you march in with your dogmatic views. Perhaps it is a mark of a "spiritually advanced person" to be a dogmatist - just claim something and refuse to engage. Is such dogmatism is an act of will, a result of deliberate action - or is it something that either comes naturally, or not at all ...

I am not one to debate or 'discuss', and this may be the result of my early conditioning. If and when one's opinion was consulted, one had best be able to state it concisely.

Interesting that you now describe me as 'dogmatic' when previously you criticized me for not stating any clearly defined opinion or position.

In my observation, there are several who find your 'discussions' to be entertaining and informative and at least an equal number who post this :wallbang: For myself, I can only say that direct conversation with you most often leaves me frustrated because I don't perceive that you interpret what I post in the manner of the meaning I intend. This is interesting to me as I participate on four science forums and the majority of respondents comment that my posts are very easy for them to understand. In 'real life' my services are frequently requested as a mediator.

Yet you and I do seem as oil and water.

I apologize that my lack of engagement is seemingly frustrating to you and I was both hurt and perplexed when you broke off our forum friendship which you had been the one to extend.

Your words and actions have been confusing to me and for that reason I have frequently left threads that you seemed to take an interest in. There's more than enough cyberspace for all and I would have no quarrels with any where there is no conclusion to be arrived at though the topics have been debated to exhaustion.

 

[Bells]

Because of consistency:

A part is relevant only if the whole of which it is part, is relevant.
If the whole is relevant, all its parts are relevant.
A part derives its relevance from the relevance of the whole.

The Universe is relevant.
A human is part of the Universe.
Therefore, a human is relevant.

It cannot be that the whole would be relevant, but not its part.


But you are welcome to present otherwise.

The Universe is relevant because we deem it to be relevant. The Universe is not a thinking mass. We have given it that quality and that is solely to make ourselves relevant.

Whether we exist or not is of no relevance to the Universe.

That sounds more like a political statement, rather than a logical one.

Examine your comment about how relevant you are, for example, and tell me that is not political.

This is based a culturally-specific premise that all there is to a human is the body.
This premise is not universally held.

Does not mean it is untrue.

We cease to exist upon our death. That is it. Final..

Marquis brings up an important and valid point (I know Marquis, hell just froze over), which you appear to have dismissed in your general dismissal of his post:

Humans don't really understand death, in the main, but they understand enough about it to want to conquer it. Spirituality and religion are both means by which this might be accomplished; and for those who do not believe in such things, there is as a resort the leaving of a legacy of some sort, in the form of children or accomplishments which might be remembered.

We want to conquer it because we fear it, because we cannot begin to imagine that that is all there is to the human body. That we are born, live and then die. So we strive to survive. We fight to survive.

That is our instinct and while we will act the same as any animal when faced with death (fight it), we know that for our species, we are fighting the possibility of there not being anything after.. that this is possibly the end.

I watched my uncle die. It was what they called a peaceful death, surrounded by his loved ones, in the comfort of a hospital room. He was a religious man and a believer. And his death, to me, was anything but peaceful. The sheer terror in his eyes as he drew those last gasping breaths was awful. He was fully aware of what was happening to him and he was terrified. And it was a harrowing experience watching him fight to get those last breaths so that he did not face his final moments. To the last breath, he fought it and there was nothing anyone could have done to help him. His heart simply could no longer keep going. And he fought to the end. As much as people may believe there is an afterlife, when faced with actual death, they will fight to conquer their death and survive. It is instinct. And it is also natural.

This seems to suggest that if a person truly would be significant, the Earth would stop spinning and the Sun would stop shining; and since upon a person's death, this doesn't happen, it must be that the person is insignificant.

That seems an odd way to measure a human's significance. Almost like "Unless you're (like) God, you're nothing."

When a person dies, the sun does stop shining and the Earth does stop spinning for that individual.

We are only important because we deem ourselves important. We are only significant because that is how we view ourselves.

You've been operating with it all along. Without assuming that there is a "Grand Scheme of Things," it is impossible to claim that

I wasn't applying it as if the Universe has a purpose or that we have a purpose in it.

There is no Grand Scheme of things Wynn. We just tell ourselves that so that we can sleep at night and aren't afraid of what happens when we die.

Do theists have an exaggerated sense of self-worth?

You wouldn't be posting in this thread and others in the Religion forum if you did not.

 

[Bells]

This is cowardly, Marquis, I expect better from you.

You have settled for a popular version of Freudianism along with the just-trust-science-and-don't-think dogma.

As opposed to following a religious dogma that has no factual basis but relies solely on faith?

 

[wynn]

The Universe is relevant because we deem it to be relevant. The Universe is not a thinking mass. We have given it that quality and that is solely to make ourselves relevant.

We are only important because we deem ourselves important. We are only significant because that is how we view ourselves.

There is no Grand Scheme of things Wynn. We just tell ourselves that so that we can sleep at night and aren't afraid of what happens when we die.

So you are saying that we lie to ourselves like that? Human existence as a sham, life's a stage, and all that?

That kind of lying is psychotic!

I watched my uncle die. It was what they called a peaceful death, surrounded by his loved ones, in the comfort of a hospital room. He was a religious man and a believer. And his death, to me, was anything but peaceful. The sheer terror in his eyes as he drew those last gasping breaths was awful. He was fully aware of what was happening to him and he was terrified. And it was a harrowing experience watching him fight to get those last breaths so that he did not face his final moments. To the last breath, he fought it and there was nothing anyone could have done to help him. His heart simply could no longer keep going. And he fought to the end. As much as people may believe there is an afterlife, when faced with actual death, they will fight to conquer their death and survive. It is instinct. And it is also natural.

Perhaps you should see more people die, to get a statistically relevant and representative sample.

 

[wynn]

As opposed to following a religious dogma that has no factual basis but relies solely on faith?

If this is how you see religion, then you are within a self-confirming prophecy ...

 

[wynn]

We cease to exist upon our death. That is it. Final..

Or: This is what you tell yourself, in order to avoid the horrible thought that there might be more to life, and that you are wasting it.



Many people are intuitively horrified by karma and reincarnation, as these make them think of having to be reborn and suffer all over again.
A one-lifetime conception avoids this concern.

 

[Bells]

So you are saying that we lie to ourselves like that? Human existence as a sham, life's a stage, and all that?

We do not like what we do not know. We think so highly of ourselves that we cannot contemplate the thought that we cease to exist when we die. Hence why, as Marquis states, we attempt to conquer death and failing that, we have a God and heaven so that we can in essence, continue to exist. Death is the one thing we cannot control, so we attempt to make it into something it is not... The chance to go to a happy place where we then live forever..

That kind of lying is psychotic!

Why? I mean the amusing thing is that this accusation comes from you of all people. But why are you so uncomfortable with the thought that death is final?

Perhaps you should see more people die, to get a statistically relevant and representative sample.

Speaking of psychotic. It's good to see you back to your usual form.

Really, Wynn?

Really?

I have seen people die. Some violently after car accidents, some after being attacked. I have seen children be pulled off life-support after they were raped and beaten so violently that they became vegetables. I don't make light of death. Watching someone die stays with you forever, and not in a good way.

If this is how you see religion, then you are within a self-confirming prophecy ...

Should I ask you to try and confirm what is theism and religion again? I kind of feel like a chuckle today..

Or: This is what you tell yourself, in order to avoid the horrible thought that there might be more to life, and that you are wasting it.

Why would it be a horrible thought that there is "more to life"?

Do you know what would be a worst thought? Believing that there is "more to life" and that there is life after death and realising, just seconds before you die, that there is nothing.. No white light, nothing. That would be worse and that would make death more terrifying. Because you would be unprepared for that eventuality.

Many people are intuitively horrified by karma and reincarnation, as these make them think of having to be reborn and suffer all over again.
A one-lifetime conception avoids this concern.

Which means that people are not being altruistic or good people because that is what they are. It means they act that way for purely selfish reasons.. to avoid karma and to avoid suffering when they are re-born again.

 

[spidergoat]

A one-lifetime conception avoids this concern.

Yeah. Good thing it's also true.

 

[quadraphonics]

Or: This is what you tell yourself, in order to avoid the horrible thought that there might be more to life, and that you are wasting it.

This doesn't make sense to me. If there is eternal life after death, how am I "wasting it" by failing to believe in it before I die? Won't I still be just as alive-after-death either way? In which case, I'll have ample opportunity to figure out how to best use my eternal life when that point comes. No?

Many people are intuitively horrified by karma and reincarnation, as these make them think of having to be reborn and suffer all over again.

Many talking weasels, you mean?

Or: go ahead and show me an example of people who are horrified by the prospect of reincarnation. I've never encountered this assertion, that people who disbelieve in life after death do so out of fear of what that entails. Looks like a cutesy reversal of the usual implication, that believers adopt said beliefs out of fear of death, nothingness and the unknown.

A one-lifetime conception avoids this concern.

But even in conceptions including karma, your actual memory of past lives doesn't persist, right? So I don't see what would terrify anyone about it - it isn't like "you" actually undergo all of the eternal suffering, in the sense of there being any one actual consciousness that experiences all of it.

 

[Neverfly]

Perhaps you should see more people die, to get a statistically relevant and representative sample.

If this is your response to someones personal account, it does not strike me as Spiritually Advanced.
In fact, it strikes me as cruel.
I find it ironic, I admit.
But even so, to take a persons painful memory and try to use it against them in a debate is lowly and despicable.

How can you expect anyone to take your 'spiritual arguments' seriously after you've been stooping to such depths?
If you ever had a shred of respect on the board- you just lot every bit of it from me.

 

[Kittamaru]

Perhaps you should see more people die, to get a statistically relevant and representative sample.

Mod Hat

Wynn -

That was inappropriate, uncalled for, uncouth, and, if I may be frank, a total dick move, not to mention an absolutely disgusting and horrifying comment to even suggest. Honestly, I agree with Neverfly here 100% - how can you expect ANYONE to take you seriously when you stoop to such a level. Such memories are not tools to be used against a person - they are a constant reminder, that they live with, about just how frail life truly is. Colour me biased if you wish, but your comment was WAY out of line.

Not to mention it's a variant "appeal to emotion" fallacy...

 

[keith1]

I "observed" the the spirit as a Phosphene (ultra-weak bioluminescent photon) emission, released at birth from the host mother...
Therefore I disqualify myself from the competition of being spiritually advanced...how about bio-illumination advanced instead....?)
I can however pass a lie detector test to the validity of what I observed:

I was very young, (as young as one could be). It was 1955 (I date myself), and the good doctor wished to not have to birth me in my parent's car, a long ways from the hospital.
The family lore goes that a drug was administered to arrest the contractions, and a new experimental drug was administered to restart the contractions once we reached the hospital (police escort no less!). All very safe and tested for no after-effects...

I recall the interior hospital, the doctor, the nurses, the hallways of the hospital, room details, etc--a long memory duration up to the circumcision.
And yes, I have some pre-birth memories...I seem to have been born twice...

I claim silence on the matter, as the doctor is long aged and gone, as are my parents, and I wish not to alarm the hospital with litigation.

I have made myself available for testing at certain facilities, and I await those interests to avail as the summer progresses.

I am off the charts intelligent, and I have at this site, for good or bad, divulged my dilemma, which has taken these decades to "self-fathom".

It was not my intention to start a religious movement, but to have some simple ease of confession on this personal matter. I will not mention it further, and will remain at this site, if you'll oblige me to do so.

Thank you, and stay thirsty my friends.

 

[The Marquis]

Mod Hat
Wynn -
That was inappropriate, uncalled for, uncouth, and, if I may be frank, a total dick move, ....Colour me biased if you wish, but your comment was WAY out of line.

Not to mention it's a variant "appeal to emotion" fallacy...

Well, to be fair, Kittimaru, it was actually Bells who used an "appeal to emotion" in her preceeding post regarding her father, yet you chose not to censure her. So you are indeed to be accused of bias.
I would also add that I think Bells' skin is a little thicker than you might think; in some cases, perhaps intervention may be warranted, but in others it really isn't. This is not a court of law, and as such perhaps a little judgment should be exercised on occasion as to who might welcome intervention and who might not.

To add to that, I'm more than a little tired of this "logical fallacies" thing. As I have mentioned above, it was actually Bells who began it; and yet her post made sense and reinforced a point. While the list of logical fallacies might be valid in many cases, they are surely more a guide than the solid set of rules most seem to take them to be.

I, certainly, do not.
It becomes far too easy to dismiss another's argument when it should instead be taken in and considered, simply because it is perceived to be a logical fallacy. Particularly in the case of an appeal to emotion. The list of logical fallacies is far too often used a little more than a tool enabling one to dismiss anything they don't particularly like out of hand... which is rather ironic, considering they were designed to prevent that very kind of behaviour to begin with.

What Bells actually did was to enhance the impact of a point through the use of emotional appeal.

One of our greatest assets is our imagination.

Lawyers use it arguing a case, and without it there are a great many defendants who might not be free today, or at least would have been enduring far tougher sentences. I'll save the thought that the pendulum in the case of sentencing might actually swing too far in the other direction for another day. Politics thrives on it. The Americans, in particular, have made an art form of promting the emotional appeal of a presidential candidate. I'm not even going to begin on political commentary and journalism.

There are many examples of emotional reasoning which, should we deprive the world of it, would make for a far more boring planet than the one we have.

The only question is balance. Judgement. Don't use the excuse of a logical fallacy so dismissively.
It's boring.

 

[Stoniphi]

I remain flattered, thank you very much. I also appreciate confirmation of my hypothesis.

Much to-do about nothing, again. :shrug:

Hmmm, I note he has been banned...I must have missed something, sorry.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR (AGAIN) * * * *

* sigh *

Once again all of us have received a complaint about a post on this thread. (Frankly I can't figure out which one it was but as I'll explain in a moment that doesn't matter.)

As I said earlier in this thread the first time this happened, as far as I'm concerned the "About the Members" subforum is a free-for-all. The only rules I would bother enforcing here are the basic ones such as stalking, advertising, advocacy of pedophilia, etc.

In other words, this subforum by its very nature is bound to be full of off-topic trolling, trash-talk and pointless rambling. Heck, even racism might come up: if you're going to tell us who you are and what you think, and you happen to be a racist who doesn't want to live next to people with purple skin and feathers on their kneecaps, should you perhaps be allowed to tell us this? Inquiring minds want to know, if only to put you on Ignore.

So what does that say about this particular thread? One that asks us to compare the members to each other? It's an invitation to post personal insults!

You can be a lifelong member in good standing of SciForums, learn a wealth of information both useful and silly, and contribute to the betterment of civilization, without ever logging onto the About The Members subforum.

So if you don't want to be involved in the mud-slinging, take my advice and stay away. That's what I do until I get an e-mail that requires me to drop in.

Besides, at least two moderators are participating in this discussion. You hardly have to register a formal complaint to get their attention. And if you're thinking of complaining about a moderator, think twice before voluntarily placing yourself on every other moderator's radar screen! We're all perfect so anyone who complains about one of us must be an idiot.

 

[kx000]

Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality; an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the "deepest values and meanings by which people live."
-Wiki

I'm interested in seeing the self proclaimed spiritual leaders on Sciforums respond to this.

(Not this, but you can )Does a man have to live morally to live spiritually?