Thoughts from a Simple Man

[Pogo]

I didn't refer to a any book, so regardless of any organized religion, let's leave that out of it and focus on the concept. Even though choosing to believe or not believe, to appreciate or condemn, to obey or dismiss a 'book' is also based on our sense of value regardless of the source of that sense.

So in a purely objective anaylsis, is reward or punishment via karma all that different than reward or punishment via heaven or hell? In both cases, something unknowable and intangible drives the belief, as well as the outcome, does it not?

What 'seems more meaningful' to you or what 'makes more sense to me' in such matters is also driven by value based concepts.

Where does a believe in karma come from?

But the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" or if you like "reward" and "punishment" must come from a book, or at this point in history several versions of a book... the concept is not a given. It comprises one view but not the only one. This goes back to the "good/evil" dichotomy, which again is one view, not the only one and certainly not one I subscribe to.

Where does a belief in karma come from? Other than centuries of thought/philosophy by mystics, it's just what makes sense to me; what "feels right". And it serves my needs.

Okay, trying to drag the train back onto the track here and very much appreciate Pogo and Wonky and some others who I believe have grasped the spirit of the exercise Wake intended. . . .I appreciate not at all attempts to make this yet another Christian bashing thread.

Wonky and I are pretty much on the same page. . . .though we haven't explored the concept of where the sense of right and wrong, good and evil originate. . . .we are in agreement that it seems to exist regardless of what religious influences or lack thereof exist.

Now to Pogo. . . the concept of heaven and hell existed long before there was any book, before the Phoenicians developed a crude means of writing that the Hebrews adapted and finally, after generations of oral tradition, began writing down their thoughts, experiences, stories, understandings.

So where did the concept of heaven and hell, reward and punishment, come from? Where did you receive your notion of karma? Is that not too written down somewhere so that you could read it or be taught it by somebody?

You say karma makes sense to you and 'feels right'. But could not heaven and hell have made sense to them and 'felt right' which is why it eventually made it into the 'book'?

(The 'book' is a relative term as it consists of thousands of writings written over many generations and eventually collected and edited together into one source. It developed from their cumulative experience and what they came to understand and believe--those who wrote those manuscripts, most from fragments rather than from any single work, created 'the book' rather than being informed by it.)

So where did their notions come from?
Where does you sense of karma come from?

Where does a sense of what 'feels right' come from?

Thanks Foxy. I took a couple of daze off so to resume, first when I refer to "the book" above I'm not referring to any specific book, but the idea of there being any book that presumes to set the world down in black and white terms and rote rules, so that's all that means. And yes, those dichotomous concepts existed far back to human antiquity, prolly to the beginning of thought, and no doubt those of our own ancestry we call "primitive" and "simple" to some extent needed those fantasies to augment the ignorance of the vast parts of the universe that didn't make sense in any other way (cf. Hobelim's Thor example, post 116). I simply feel that by now it may be time to move past that simplistic monsters-under-the-bed thinking, turn the light on and see that what we thought was a monster is simply imagination.

Where I get a sense of karma I guess is two sources, the first being empirical observation -- as Wonk noted, to those with eyes to observe, positive (work) attracts positive. The second source is when one grows up, investigates religions and philosophies, learns the word and meaning of karma and simply now has a word for the natural play of energies that one is already observing. And a certain affirmation, in that somebody else somewhere else has noticed the same thing. As long as it continues to work, it continues to 'feel right'. Of course it cannot be quanifited or proven, which makes it a simple matter of faith.

However I don't need to make a leap to anthropomorphize some being must exist to make it work that way; I can accept that it simply is. Since I have absolutely no reason to believe my species is the be-all and end-all of life in the universe, I feel anthropomorphizing deities -- making gods (or devils) in our own image -- is at the very least specistically presumptuous, if not downright arrogant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Boss's observation that human beings are the only species to DEMONSTRATE an understanding of spirituality, and that this understanding cannot be explained via natural selection or any other scientific theory is spot on.

(I'm ignoring the mild food fight that ensured in the wake of that.)

But this is at the very core of the whole point of the OP isn't it? While all other creatures on earth will exhibit mostly predictable behavior, and even humans will demonstrate certain instinctive reactions to what is around them, only humans will vary, have ability to CHOOSE what their culture will be. And those cultures are myriad and vary widely across the continents which also flies in the face of the theory of natural selection.

The animals seems to have no inate sense of right and wrong but only impulse, based on instinct, to behave in specific ways. Take a tiny kitten soon after birth and raise it without any exposure whatsoever to other felines, and it will behave unmistakably as a cat can be predicted to act.

But all humans ever known to exist in history have developed some sense of the divine, and some religious concept to recognize and address whatever deity. I think this arises, as Boss suggested, out of the human's unique ability to connect with something out there that is not tangible or provable in our material world.

And it would also explain how concepts of right and wrong, something apparently only humans can conceive, come to be.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Boss's observation that human beings are the only species to DEMONSTRATE an understanding of spirituality, and that this understanding cannot be explained via natural selection or any other scientific theory is spot on.

(I'm ignoring the mild food fight that ensured in the wake of that.)

But this is at the very core of the whole point of the OP isn't it? While all other creatures on earth will exhibit mostly predictable behavior, and even humans will demonstrate certain instinctive reactions to what is around them, only humans will vary, have ability to CHOOSE what their culture will be. And those cultures are myriad and vary widely across the continents which also flies in the face of the theory of natural selection.

The animals seems to have no inate sense of right and wrong but only impulse, based on instinct, to behave in specific ways. Take a tiny kitten soon after birth and raise it without any exposure whatsoever to other felines, and it will behave unmistakably as a cat can be predicted to act.

But all humans ever known to exist in history have developed some sense of the divine, and some religious concept to recognize and address whatever deity. I think this arises, as Boss suggested, out of the human's unique ability to connect with something out there that is not tangible or provable in our material world.

And it would also explain how concepts of right and wrong, something apparently only humans can conceive, come to be.

Only partly true. Studies of a few mammals have shown that they do appear to have a sense of right, wrong, and even fairness. However, these traits have been observed only in other primates and some canines. All very social animals, of course.

These observations can (at least conceivably) be thought of as having evolved from natural selection, because the behaviors preserve harmony within the group.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Boss's observation that human beings are the only species to DEMONSTRATE an understanding of spirituality, and that this understanding cannot be explained via natural selection or any other scientific theory is spot on.

(I'm ignoring the mild food fight that ensured in the wake of that.)

But this is at the very core of the whole point of the OP isn't it? While all other creatures on earth will exhibit mostly predictable behavior, and even humans will demonstrate certain instinctive reactions to what is around them, only humans will vary, have ability to CHOOSE what their culture will be. And those cultures are myriad and vary widely across the continents which also flies in the face of the theory of natural selection.

The animals seems to have no inate sense of right and wrong but only impulse, based on instinct, to behave in specific ways. Take a tiny kitten soon after birth and raise it without any exposure whatsoever to other felines, and it will behave unmistakably as a cat can be predicted to act.

But all humans ever known to exist in history have developed some sense of the divine, and some religious concept to recognize and address whatever deity. I think this arises, as Boss suggested, out of the human's unique ability to connect with something out there that is not tangible or provable in our material world.

And it would also explain how concepts of right and wrong, something apparently only humans can conceive, come to be.

That is not universally true, Foxy. What Boss alleges to be a "spiritual connection" is merely a trance state that is found in other mammals too. Mankind has adapted this into religions and religions, in turn, have used the trance state for the purposes of prayer and meditation. What is true about the trance state is that it most certainly does enable one to reach a sense of "inner peace" and a "feeling of connectivity" however there is no evidence that this is actually making a connection with anything "divine". That still requires faith on the part of the believers.

One further point, animals do have a sense of "right and wrong". There are animal studies that demonstrate this to be the case.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well guys, I'm not at all convinced Boss was speaking to any 'trancelike' state in his comments re connection to something larger than ourselves. I think he was seeing that much in the same way that I do, but I'll let him speak to that as he certainly doesn't need me to speak for him.

As for animals having a sense of right and wrong, don't confuse remorse or guilt with a sense of right and wrong. Our friends have expressed a desire that they want to come back as our dog or cat. This after observing how much we make our furry friends members of the family with all the privileges. And they do come to understand and sense our moods, our frame of mind, and they rejoice and mourn with us at different times.

But a sense of right and wrong? Yes they exhibit remorse or guilt when caught doing something inappropriate, but is that based on a moral value? Or simply a trained response to being conditioned to not engage in certain behaviors? Do they have a sense of fairness? Or simply ability to know when something that hasn't earned the right is taking the lion's share? All animals descend from a heritage of survival of the fittest and to the victor go the spoils and all that.

Our Vietnamese neighbors, freshly immigrated to the United States, had to be gently instructed that eating dog was not acceptable here. They understood and desisted from that practice. A moral decision? Not at all as it was completely okay where they came from. I am pretty sure I never had that discussion with my own children, nor did anybody ever have it with me prior to the Vietnamese incident.

Yet it never occurred to me or to my children that dogs would be good to eat. And the thought of it turned our stomachs.

Why?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well guys, I'm not at all convinced Boss was speaking to any 'trancelike' state in his comments re connection to something larger than ourselves. I think he was seeing that much in the same way that I do, but I'll let him speak to that as he certainly doesn't need me to speak for him.

As for animals having a sense of right and wrong, don't confuse remorse or guilt with a sense of right and wrong. Our friends have expressed a desire that they want to come back as our dog or cat. This after observing how much we make our furry friends members of the family with all the privileges. And they do come to understand and sense our moods, our frame of mind, and they rejoice and mourn with us at different times.

But a sense of right and wrong? Yes they exhibit remorse or guilt when caught doing something inappropriate, but is that based on a moral value? Or simply a trained response to being conditioned to not engage in certain behaviors? Do they have a sense of fairness? Or simply ability to know when something that hasn't earned the right is taking the lion's share? All animals descend from a heritage of survival of the fittest and to the victor go the spoils and all that.

Our Vietnamese neighbors, freshly immigrated to the United States, had to be gently instructed that eating dog was not acceptable here. They understood and desisted from that practice. A moral decision? Not at all as it was completely okay where they came from. I am pretty sure I never had that discussion with my own children, nor did anybody ever have it with me prior to the Vietnamese incident.

Yet it never occurred to me or to my children that dogs would be good to eat. And the thought of it turned our stomachs.

Why?

The studies are about wild animals knowing right from wrong.

Animal Morality Research Suggests We All Have Complex Emotions

 

[Foxfyre]

Well guys, I'm not at all convinced Boss was speaking to any 'trancelike' state in his comments re connection to something larger than ourselves. I think he was seeing that much in the same way that I do, but I'll let him speak to that as he certainly doesn't need me to speak for him.

As for animals having a sense of right and wrong, don't confuse remorse or guilt with a sense of right and wrong. Our friends have expressed a desire that they want to come back as our dog or cat. This after observing how much we make our furry friends members of the family with all the privileges. And they do come to understand and sense our moods, our frame of mind, and they rejoice and mourn with us at different times.

But a sense of right and wrong? Yes they exhibit remorse or guilt when caught doing something inappropriate, but is that based on a moral value? Or simply a trained response to being conditioned to not engage in certain behaviors? Do they have a sense of fairness? Or simply ability to know when something that hasn't earned the right is taking the lion's share? All animals descend from a heritage of survival of the fittest and to the victor go the spoils and all that.

Our Vietnamese neighbors, freshly immigrated to the United States, had to be gently instructed that eating dog was not acceptable here. They understood and desisted from that practice. A moral decision? Not at all as it was completely okay where they came from. I am pretty sure I never had that discussion with my own children, nor did anybody ever have it with me prior to the Vietnamese incident.

Yet it never occurred to me or to my children that dogs would be good to eat. And the thought of it turned our stomachs.

Why?

The studies are about wild animals knowing right from wrong.

Animal Morality Research Suggests We All Have Complex Emotions

Yes I've seen that piece, DT--those of us on AOL don't get to miss much offered by Huffpo --but I remain unconvinced. In play, animals learn how to control their 'play fights' because hurting their playmate causes the playmate to stop playing and therefore the fun stops. It is a cause and effect kind of thing. Critters raised without benefit of playmates are usually not socialized and therefore have no such restraint built into social conditioning.

Morality has to be more than reward and punishment, cause and effect or even selflessness to save that which you love or are trained to protect or a protective instinct kicking in from somewhere.

It is based on a sense of what is right or wrong regardless of cause or effect related to ourselves and/or reward and punishment. And I believe humans are the only creature on Earth with that capacity.

 

[Boss]

No. Everything is not just a word. I am sitting in a chair. The word "chair" may be just a word but the chair itself is not. You can see it, touch it and even sit in it. I can show it to you and we can agree on its attributes regardless of what word we apply to it. Now do the same thing with spirituality. Show it to me. Define it exactly and then back up that definition with objective evidence. Then you might be in a place to tell me other animals don't have it or even that we do. Until then, it is just a word.

Yes. Everything is STILL just a word. "Chair" can not be agreed on, it depends on context. If a group selects you to be the "chair" of their committee, that's a good thing... while, if you are a convict who gets the "chair" it's not so good. You can tell me you are sitting in a chair, but I have no way of confirming this, it depends on how much faith I have that you are being honest. You might be sitting on a stool that you mistake for a chair? You could be sitting on the head of a committee chair, as you peck away, I have to assume context.

"Show it to me" is you asking me to give you physical confirmation you can evaluate with one of your five senses. Spiritual nature doesn't conform to physical nature that way. If it were "seeable" then it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. "Objective evidence" is again, you asking me for physical evidence you can objectively evaluate with your five limited human senses, and spirituality doesn't conform.

We do have spiritual connection, we've been spiritually connecting as long as man has existed, as far as we can tell through archeology. It takes on many different forms, and is the basis for many a religion, some good and some bad, but this attribute is our most defining attribute as a species.

 

[Boss]

[That is not universally true, Foxy. What Boss alleges to be a "spiritual connection" is merely a trance state that is found in other mammals too. Mankind has adapted this into religions and religions, in turn, have used the trance state for the purposes of prayer and meditation. What is true about the trance state is that it most certainly does enable one to reach a sense of "inner peace" and a "feeling of connectivity" however there is no evidence that this is actually making a connection with anything "divine". That still requires faith on the part of the believers.

One further point, animals do have a sense of "right and wrong". There are animal studies that demonstrate this to be the case.

No, it's not "merely a trance state" as you put it, spirituality involves much more than trance, and anyone with a brain can comprehend this. But while we are on the topic of this "trance state" you acknowledge is present in other animals, and the tacit admission that things do seem to reach a sense of "inner peace" through it, how do you explain this? You say it's not "divine" but the fact that something about it makes you better than without it, pretty much shoots that to hell, doesn't it? (divine; 2. supremely good) ...and yes, one does have to believe in pretty much anything, to realize the results of it.

As far as animal studies on right and wrong, this is very highly subjective, not something that is proven scientific fact at all, many dispute the findings, read the data differently, and reject the idea entirely. But you want to pretend that science has drawn a conclusion-- other animals have a sense of 'morality.' To some degree, that may be true, it depends on how you would define "morality" to something that isn't a human. Or... even something that IS human, in some cases. (I think it's immoral for someone to have an abortion.) All this amounts to, is another straw man. We should be intelligent enough and honest enough, to admit that humans have a moral behavior that is quite distinctly different from other animals. This is the result of spiritual connection.

Through our spiritual connection, we realize a moral obligation to humankind. It transcends pack obligation, sometimes found in nature, when sacrifice is made for the greater good. We don't see the lions and tigers of Africa joining together to do something about the endangered Doe-eyed Giselle's declining population. Doesn't happen in nature...only in humans. We don't see radical beavers protesting the damming up of the wetlands of Louisiana... only humans do that kind of thing. So we can PRETEND that this is not the case, and some study you dredged up, backs your point... we all know this isn't the truth, don't we?

 

[hobelim]

Stop it already. Every pack animal, schooling fish, herd animal, flock of birds, teeming creature or ant has the ability to connect with something greater than self.

What is not apparent in nature and exclusive to humans is obstinate stupidity.

People saw something fall from the sky and kill everyone for a thousand miles so they connected with something greater than themselves, Thor, and made up stories about his fearful hammer but the reality is such a so called spiritual connection is nothing more than a fabrication, a misidentification of a reality that rocks fall from the sky, not evidence of any spiritual reality or spiritual connection to something greater than self except one of pure fantasy and shared delusions inspired by fear, ignorance, and unrestrained imaginations.

If you honestly have convinced yourself that humans are mentally disturbed to this degree, and we've been mentally disturbed our entire existence, it is probably a defense reaction.

Everyone is born mad, Some remain that way. It is indeed a rare individual who escapes a life of madness. Praying to trees, statues, the stars, etc, is just evidence of that alone, madness. And yes, if you were around 5000 years ago and saw burning hail fall from the sky having no way of knowing Santorini just exploded you would have struggled to explain it too without resorting to a wild imagination fueled by fear. That is not spirituality.

You need something to explain why you are so fucked up, and this seems logical to you. If every human who ever lived is delusional mental nutcases, then it's no big deal that you are too. It's what enables you to stumble in here, as if on cue, to perform your little act. :

LOL... My scenario of the 'spiritual' connection to Thor is not an attempt to explain why I am so fucked up, it shows that you are fucked up to think such beliefs are evidence of anything except superstition which is simply a failed attempt to explain the unknown not evidence of any spiritual reality..

There has never been a civilization of humans to exist more than 100 years, without spirituality. The most non-spiritual civilization ever, is found in modern-day Sweden, where 6 of 10 claim to be Atheists. Oddly though, when asked specifically if they believed it was not possible for anything spiritual to exist, only 3 of 10 believed this. All kinds of factors play into history, wars are fought, freedoms taken, religions rise and fall, rulers come and go, but the thing that seems to remain consistent through it all, is the ratio of spiritually inclined, to nihilistic, is about 95:5 or better. So you can continue to spew ignorance... blind ignorance... and show everyone what a retard you are, and hey... you've got the perfect alibi, every man is mentally unstable! We all suffer from obstinate stupidity!

People having irrational practices and superstitious beliefs now know beyond any doubt to have always been absolutely false that have caused wars to be fought, freedoms taken, religions to rise and fall, rulers to come and go is evidence of that madness not spirituality.

If people have always been praying for peace they were always actually praying for sanity.

You had better say your prayers.

 

[Pogo]

Well guys, I'm not at all convinced Boss was speaking to any 'trancelike' state in his comments re connection to something larger than ourselves. I think he was seeing that much in the same way that I do, but I'll let him speak to that as he certainly doesn't need me to speak for him.

As for animals having a sense of right and wrong, don't confuse remorse or guilt with a sense of right and wrong. Our friends have expressed a desire that they want to come back as our dog or cat. This after observing how much we make our furry friends members of the family with all the privileges. And they do come to understand and sense our moods, our frame of mind, and they rejoice and mourn with us at different times.

But a sense of right and wrong? Yes they exhibit remorse or guilt when caught doing something inappropriate, but is that based on a moral value? Or simply a trained response to being conditioned to not engage in certain behaviors? Do they have a sense of fairness? Or simply ability to know when something that hasn't earned the right is taking the lion's share? All animals descend from a heritage of survival of the fittest and to the victor go the spoils and all that.

Our Vietnamese neighbors, freshly immigrated to the United States, had to be gently instructed that eating dog was not acceptable here. They understood and desisted from that practice. A moral decision? Not at all as it was completely okay where they came from. I am pretty sure I never had that discussion with my own children, nor did anybody ever have it with me prior to the Vietnamese incident.

Yet it never occurred to me or to my children that dogs would be good to eat. And the thought of it turned our stomachs.

Why?

The studies are about wild animals knowing right from wrong.

Animal Morality Research Suggests We All Have Complex Emotions

Yes I've seen that piece, DT--those of us on AOL don't get to miss much offered by Huffpo --but I remain unconvinced. In play, animals learn how to control their 'play fights' because hurting their playmate causes the playmate to stop playing and therefore the fun stops. It is a cause and effect kind of thing. Critters raised without benefit of playmates are usually not socialized and therefore have no such restraint built into social conditioning.

Morality has to be more than reward and punishment, cause and effect or even selflessness to save that which you love or are trained to protect or a protective instinct kicking in from somewhere.

It is based on a sense of what is right or wrong regardless of cause or effect related to ourselves and/or reward and punishment. And I believe humans are the only creature on Earth with that capacity.

Sorry, I don't see any basis at all for that conclusion. Other than arbitrary anthropocentricism.

Yes they exhibit remorse or guilt when caught doing something inappropriate, but is that based on a moral value? Or simply a trained response to being conditioned to not engage in certain behaviors?

I'm not sure there's a distinction between those two.

 

[Derideo_Te]

[That is not universally true, Foxy. What Boss alleges to be a "spiritual connection" is merely a trance state that is found in other mammals too. Mankind has adapted this into religions and religions, in turn, have used the trance state for the purposes of prayer and meditation. What is true about the trance state is that it most certainly does enable one to reach a sense of "inner peace" and a "feeling of connectivity" however there is no evidence that this is actually making a connection with anything "divine". That still requires faith on the part of the believers.

One further point, animals do have a sense of "right and wrong". There are animal studies that demonstrate this to be the case.

No, it's not "merely a trance state" as you put it, spirituality involves much more than trance, and anyone with a brain can comprehend this. But while we are on the topic of this "trance state" you acknowledge is present in other animals, and the tacit admission that things do seem to reach a sense of "inner peace" through it, how do you explain this? You say it's not "divine" but the fact that something about it makes you better than without it, pretty much shoots that to hell, doesn't it? (divine; 2. supremely good) ...and yes, one does have to believe in pretty much anything, to realize the results of it.

As far as animal studies on right and wrong, this is very highly subjective, not something that is proven scientific fact at all, many dispute the findings, read the data differently, and reject the idea entirely. But you want to pretend that science has drawn a conclusion-- other animals have a sense of 'morality.' To some degree, that may be true, it depends on how you would define "morality" to something that isn't a human. Or... even something that IS human, in some cases. (I think it's immoral for someone to have an abortion.) All this amounts to, is another straw man. We should be intelligent enough and honest enough, to admit that humans have a moral behavior that is quite distinctly different from other animals. This is the result of spiritual connection.

Through our spiritual connection, we realize a moral obligation to humankind. It transcends pack obligation, sometimes found in nature, when sacrifice is made for the greater good. We don't see the lions and tigers of Africa joining together to do something about the endangered Doe-eyed Giselle's declining population. Doesn't happen in nature...only in humans. We don't see radical beavers protesting the damming up of the wetlands of Louisiana... only humans do that kind of thing. So we can PRETEND that this is not the case, and some study you dredged up, backs your point... we all know this isn't the truth, don't we?

Your self admitted creationist agenda obstructs your ability to perceive reality and deal with scientific facts on a rational basis. Have a nice day.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. Everything is not just a word. I am sitting in a chair. The word "chair" may be just a word but the chair itself is not. You can see it, touch it and even sit in it. I can show it to you and we can agree on its attributes regardless of what word we apply to it. Now do the same thing with spirituality. Show it to me. Define it exactly and then back up that definition with objective evidence. Then you might be in a place to tell me other animals don't have it or even that we do. Until then, it is just a word.

Yes. Everything is STILL just a word. "Chair" can not be agreed on, it depends on context. If a group selects you to be the "chair" of their committee, that's a good thing... while, if you are a convict who gets the "chair" it's not so good. You can tell me you are sitting in a chair, but I have no way of confirming this, it depends on how much faith I have that you are being honest. You might be sitting on a stool that you mistake for a chair? You could be sitting on the head of a committee chair, as you peck away, I have to assume context.

"Show it to me" is you asking me to give you physical confirmation you can evaluate with one of your five senses. Spiritual nature doesn't conform to physical nature that way. If it were "seeable" then it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. "Objective evidence" is again, you asking me for physical evidence you can objectively evaluate with your five limited human senses, and spirituality doesn't conform.

We do have spiritual connection, we've been spiritually connecting as long as man has existed, as far as we can tell through archeology. It takes on many different forms, and is the basis for many a religion, some good and some bad, but this attribute is our most defining attribute as a species.

Of course we can agree on a chair. Otherwise, you would never sit down. As to the rest, just words and assumptions on your part. That doesn't make you wrong, but it also doesn't make you right.

 

[Boss]

[That is not universally true, Foxy. What Boss alleges to be a "spiritual connection" is merely a trance state that is found in other mammals too. Mankind has adapted this into religions and religions, in turn, have used the trance state for the purposes of prayer and meditation. What is true about the trance state is that it most certainly does enable one to reach a sense of "inner peace" and a "feeling of connectivity" however there is no evidence that this is actually making a connection with anything "divine". That still requires faith on the part of the believers.

One further point, animals do have a sense of "right and wrong". There are animal studies that demonstrate this to be the case.

No, it's not "merely a trance state" as you put it, spirituality involves much more than trance, and anyone with a brain can comprehend this. But while we are on the topic of this "trance state" you acknowledge is present in other animals, and the tacit admission that things do seem to reach a sense of "inner peace" through it, how do you explain this? You say it's not "divine" but the fact that something about it makes you better than without it, pretty much shoots that to hell, doesn't it? (divine; 2. supremely good) ...and yes, one does have to believe in pretty much anything, to realize the results of it.

As far as animal studies on right and wrong, this is very highly subjective, not something that is proven scientific fact at all, many dispute the findings, read the data differently, and reject the idea entirely. But you want to pretend that science has drawn a conclusion-- other animals have a sense of 'morality.' To some degree, that may be true, it depends on how you would define "morality" to something that isn't a human. Or... even something that IS human, in some cases. (I think it's immoral for someone to have an abortion.) All this amounts to, is another straw man. We should be intelligent enough and honest enough, to admit that humans have a moral behavior that is quite distinctly different from other animals. This is the result of spiritual connection.

Through our spiritual connection, we realize a moral obligation to humankind. It transcends pack obligation, sometimes found in nature, when sacrifice is made for the greater good. We don't see the lions and tigers of Africa joining together to do something about the endangered Doe-eyed Giselle's declining population. Doesn't happen in nature...only in humans. We don't see radical beavers protesting the damming up of the wetlands of Louisiana... only humans do that kind of thing. So we can PRETEND that this is not the case, and some study you dredged up, backs your point... we all know this isn't the truth, don't we?

Your self admitted creationist agenda obstructs your ability to perceive reality and deal with scientific facts on a rational basis. Have a nice day.

Now wait a minute, all I did was quote you. I've not admitted ANY kind of agenda. All I have ever said about ID, is that I don't discount the possibility of it. And let's talk about these "scientific facts" on a rational basis... where is your scientific case for the belief that man created spiritual nature? Let's see the peer-reviewed evidence? All I see here, is OPINIONS! Loads and loads of OPINIONS! Some of these opinions contradict known science. Who is being irrational? Not I!

 

[Boss]

No. Everything is not just a word. I am sitting in a chair. The word "chair" may be just a word but the chair itself is not. You can see it, touch it and even sit in it. I can show it to you and we can agree on its attributes regardless of what word we apply to it. Now do the same thing with spirituality. Show it to me. Define it exactly and then back up that definition with objective evidence. Then you might be in a place to tell me other animals don't have it or even that we do. Until then, it is just a word.

Yes. Everything is STILL just a word. "Chair" can not be agreed on, it depends on context. If a group selects you to be the "chair" of their committee, that's a good thing... while, if you are a convict who gets the "chair" it's not so good. You can tell me you are sitting in a chair, but I have no way of confirming this, it depends on how much faith I have that you are being honest. You might be sitting on a stool that you mistake for a chair? You could be sitting on the head of a committee chair, as you peck away, I have to assume context.

"Show it to me" is you asking me to give you physical confirmation you can evaluate with one of your five senses. Spiritual nature doesn't conform to physical nature that way. If it were "seeable" then it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. "Objective evidence" is again, you asking me for physical evidence you can objectively evaluate with your five limited human senses, and spirituality doesn't conform.

We do have spiritual connection, we've been spiritually connecting as long as man has existed, as far as we can tell through archeology. It takes on many different forms, and is the basis for many a religion, some good and some bad, but this attribute is our most defining attribute as a species.

Of course we can agree on a chair. Otherwise, you would never sit down. As to the rest, just words and assumptions on your part. That doesn't make you wrong, but it also doesn't make you right.

I guess you didn't bother to read the rather clever illustration I presented, to show you that "chair" can most certainly mean different things. I don't require a chair to sit down, so again... we disagree, fundamentally. Words are just words, they have meaning in context we place on them, and there are very few words which can't have difference in context. The word "set" for example, can mean about 100 different things.

Now, I am not making an assumption when I state that every ancient civilization of humans we've ever uncovered, shows indications of human spirituality. That is a known FACT. How humans may interpret their spiritual connection, is an entirely different argument, that they HAVE one, is not debatable.

 

[Boss]

Stop it already. Every pack animal, schooling fish, herd animal, flock of birds, teeming creature or ant has the ability to connect with something greater than self.

What is not apparent in nature and exclusive to humans is obstinate stupidity.

People saw something fall from the sky and kill everyone for a thousand miles so they connected with something greater than themselves, Thor, and made up stories about his fearful hammer but the reality is such a so called spiritual connection is nothing more than a fabrication, a misidentification of a reality that rocks fall from the sky, not evidence of any spiritual reality or spiritual connection to something greater than self except one of pure fantasy and shared delusions inspired by fear, ignorance, and unrestrained imaginations.

If you honestly have convinced yourself that humans are mentally disturbed to this degree, and we've been mentally disturbed our entire existence, it is probably a defense reaction.

Everyone is born mad, Some remain that way. It is indeed a rare individual who escapes a life of madness. Praying to trees, statues, the stars, etc, is just evidence of that alone, madness. And yes, if you were around 5000 years ago and saw burning hail fall from the sky having no way of knowing Santorini just exploded you would have struggled to explain it too without resorting to a wild imagination fueled by fear. That is not spirituality.

Again, we see you poisoning the well here... ALL humans are crazy, so that gives you a perfect excuse to be a nut! Aside from the fact this contradicts Darwinism, I simply don't believe you have any scientific peer-reviewed evidence to back it up. I think this is just your OPINION, and it flies in the face of known science.

Yes, our imaginations do run wild sometimes, like the imagining of humans inventing spiritual connection, which is the catalyst behind all human achievement. The fact that ancients may have attributed a volcanic eruption to a God, is just more evidence that humans have a spiritual connection. The fact that, after science explained volcanic eruptions, humans continued to spiritually connect, is evidence it is intrinsic to humans.

You need something to explain why you are so fucked up, and this seems logical to you. If every human who ever lived is delusional mental nutcases, then it's no big deal that you are too. It's what enables you to stumble in here, as if on cue, to perform your little act. :

LOL... My scenario of the 'spiritual' connection to Thor is not an attempt to explain why I am so fucked up, it shows that you are fucked up to think such beliefs are evidence of anything except superstition which is simply a failed attempt to explain the unknown not evidence of any spiritual reality..

Oh, but it IS evidence that humans have a spiritual connection. We've covered "superstition" in the other thread, and spirituality is not superstition. You can continue to lie about that, but you've not presented peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your idea, so this is your OPINION.

There has never been a civilization of humans to exist more than 100 years, without spirituality. The most non-spiritual civilization ever, is found in modern-day Sweden, where 6 of 10 claim to be Atheists. Oddly though, when asked specifically if they believed it was not possible for anything spiritual to exist, only 3 of 10 believed this. All kinds of factors play into history, wars are fought, freedoms taken, religions rise and fall, rulers come and go, but the thing that seems to remain consistent through it all, is the ratio of spiritually inclined, to nihilistic, is about 95:5 or better. So you can continue to spew ignorance... blind ignorance... and show everyone what a retard you are, and hey... you've got the perfect alibi, every man is mentally unstable! We all suffer from obstinate stupidity!

People having irrational practices and superstitious beliefs now know beyond any doubt to have always been absolutely false that have caused wars to be fought, freedoms taken, religions to rise and fall, rulers to come and go is evidence of that madness not spirituality.

If people have always been praying for peace they were always actually praying for sanity.

You had better say your prayers.

Okay, so men have used their spiritual connection in terrible ways. They have allowed their imaginations to run wild, and used the human attribute of spirituality for nefarious purposes. This only confirms mankind's intrinsic connection to something spiritual, by demonstrating how other men have exploited that fact.

You can show us all kinds of things through the ages which man has mistakenly attributed to spiritual nature, but what you've failed to show me, is scientific peer-reviewed evidence that spiritual nature doesn't exist, or that it is mere superstition. Those are your OPINIONS, and they aren't based in science of any kind.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. Everything is STILL just a word. "Chair" can not be agreed on, it depends on context. If a group selects you to be the "chair" of their committee, that's a good thing... while, if you are a convict who gets the "chair" it's not so good. You can tell me you are sitting in a chair, but I have no way of confirming this, it depends on how much faith I have that you are being honest. You might be sitting on a stool that you mistake for a chair? You could be sitting on the head of a committee chair, as you peck away, I have to assume context.

"Show it to me" is you asking me to give you physical confirmation you can evaluate with one of your five senses. Spiritual nature doesn't conform to physical nature that way. If it were "seeable" then it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. "Objective evidence" is again, you asking me for physical evidence you can objectively evaluate with your five limited human senses, and spirituality doesn't conform.

We do have spiritual connection, we've been spiritually connecting as long as man has existed, as far as we can tell through archeology. It takes on many different forms, and is the basis for many a religion, some good and some bad, but this attribute is our most defining attribute as a species.

Of course we can agree on a chair. Otherwise, you would never sit down. As to the rest, just words and assumptions on your part. That doesn't make you wrong, but it also doesn't make you right.

I guess you didn't bother to read the rather clever illustration I presented, to show you that "chair" can most certainly mean different things. I don't require a chair to sit down, so again... we disagree, fundamentally. Words are just words, they have meaning in context we place on them, and there are very few words which can't have difference in context. The word "set" for example, can mean about 100 different things.

Now, I am not making an assumption when I state that every ancient civilization of humans we've ever uncovered, shows indications of human spirituality. That is a known FACT. How humans may interpret their spiritual connection, is an entirely different argument, that they HAVE one, is not debatable.

We also disagree on the word "fact". You are free to believe as you wish, but all you are doing is expressing your belief - not stating fact.

 

[editec]

My perspective of the world is a bit different.

Humans are incredibly interesting creatures. Homo sapiens the scientific call us. We make up ideas and concepts for us and everyone else to live by. Laws, beliefs, and morals don't exist without us. People argue to make them. The words we use were created by those who came before us, as well as the meanings these people attached to them. There's something about humans that is incredibly difficult to understand. Although we're born on some random rock in space, and our existences have no objective purposes, we seem to feel that our lives have some meaning. Then again, others feel (or understand?) that life has no real point. We're just, well, odd.

The above is vaguely existentialist..the purpose of life?

From my perspective asking the purpose of life is a silly question.

Why?

LIFE NEEDS NO EXCUSE

We have created everything unnatural in this world we currently live in. This includes language, morality, concepts, beliefs, religion, laws, everything. Words are created and given meaning by different peoples. The existence of multiple languages adds credence to this notion. Language morphs and evolves due in part to changing norms and the passage of time.

Communication is built right into our genetic structure. Language is NOT unnatural.



The concepts of right and wrong, too, were created by us. Like what we call "gods," we create all of these things that we live by. Out of the convoluted depths of what we call our "hearts," "minds," or "souls," we make all of these things, and learn about them in our own time. What is particularly fascinating is etymology, because it, too, shows how words originated (were created) in the past and morphed and changed over time. Perhaps the creation of language by humans was necessary, because what came before language, grunting and other sounds, was likely not helpful.

Then again, the very fact that animals do have ways to communicate may lend weight to the argument that all language, though created by humans, is naturally inevitable. What I do know is that all of these intangible notions and ideas require humans to "exist." If humans were wiped off of the face of the Earth, in that no humans exist in the untamed wilderness, none of these immaterial things can exist.

Sientists now believe that we also shared a language with our Neandethal cousins, amigo.

I argue that there is no right and wrong. Laws have no meaning, because laws are fabrications. Morals, too, are made, not existing by themselves. We raise our offspring to have certain morals and values. This is true for atheists to the religious... every single human out there (I suppose). Morals and values, which are created, are the building blocks of all beliefs.

Our species is a social species. Moral and values are all offshoots of the necesssity for social creatures to get along.

All primates (hell probably all social species) have rules

Feelings are the result of chemicals in the brain, as well as all of the things we think and do. I don't understand how feelings exist, or what the triggers are. I'm inclined to believe that there is a scientific explanation for the existence of feelings. It may very well be the inability of the brain to cope with certain situations.

Emotions are a kind of knowing, too. They existed before rational thinking.

Amigo, even your stomach has a kind of intelligence that informs us about the state of our being. Why do you suppose we use the term GUT INSTINCT? But instinct (knowing) actually exists. SometimesGIT INSTINCT a better judge of circumstances than our rational (ffrontal lobes)

Or empathy? If so I wonder what the scientific underpinnings of empathy itself would be (pinning down the material atoms and chemicals involved).

Empathy is a necessary aspect of a social species.

When I think of humans I think of them as individuals in a strange and cruel world where they're expected to behave under the expectations and designs of those humans who lived before them. Humans are naturally scared; all have a certain level of fear deep within the unconscious mind. They are likely fearful of disobeying the orders their parents tell them, or the peculiar and unnatural laws society dictates for them. I have no regard for the law, because laws aren't real.

Not real? Depends on how one is using the word "real".

Any person in a state of power, where others fear him/her, can scribble down some words and call it a law. Think back to any of the bizarre laws you've ever heard of; you may know of at least one. You may wonder to yourself, "Why would a law like that exist?" I think that people find certain laws to be natural because they feel that it resonates with their feelings, perspectives, and morals/values.

You would benefit from a study of anthopology, gropup psychology and philosophy..in fact you would enjoy the whole canon of Social Sciences, Wake

Why do we do this? For example most of us believe murder is wrong. Why? Because we don't like the thought of it happening to us. Our parents taught us to despise it? It just seems that people think murder is wrong because they feel it is, or because they were told it was from a young age. I question every single notion of right and wrong, and first and foremost I hold in my mind that absolutely nothing is right and wrong, good or evil. That may sound very odd to you.

Not so odd...somewhat EGOCENTRIC though.

My reasoning is because science has not ascertained the physical, objective existence of morals, laws, etc.

Sure it has. That's what the SOCIAL SCIENCES are all about.

All of these notions cannot be discerned by any of the five senses. You can't touch a moral, smell a law, taste a belief, see a god, or hear evil. There is no scientific basis towards the objective existence of these things.

I think you're a tad confused about what the world SCIENCE actually means.

Humans make all of these things in the hopes of binding people together to create societies. Imagine what may happen if man lived wildly and freely like the wolves and deer in nature? There would likely be wanton killing, raping, fighting, etc. In nature male wolves fight each other for the females, and then mount their "prize." No mating or civility, there. Likewise, these wolves, both males and females, hunt down other animals and kill and eat them. Society may not work so well if all of us mildly hairy mammals did the same.

I think you might also benefit from a study of pack animinals. They ALSO have rules they adhere, too.

But then, there are other things to consider. Quite a few creatures have ways to communicate with themselves. Other animals create their own, unique societies. Ants, for example, have the ability to signal meanings to fellow ants. If ants can have their own societies and means to communicate, maybe there is some natural sense in what humans have done, too. It could be true that humans have a society far more unique and "better" than other species because humans are bigger, more adaptable, and have far more intelligence. Wouldn't it be a scary thought if ants were as big as us, could walk upright, and had double our average intellect? They may very well have had greater cities and constructs than we could ever hope to create. It would be quite interesting if we learned that we weren't the only highly intelligent, humanoid species in the universe.

I don't think we ARE the only highly intelligence species on this planet.


I think you are so species-centric that you cannot imagine that intelligence takes many forms and that some species have a different understanding of the world that is no less REAL than ours.


Okay, I'm tired now...too many subject too broad to discuss.

My advise is that you limit you musings to one or tow subjects so they can be discussed rationally in this venue.

I look forward to that.

 

[Boss]

We also disagree on the word "fact". You are free to believe as you wish, but all you are doing is expressing your belief - not stating fact.

My statement of "fact" was: Every human civilization we've discovered, shows signs of human spirituality. Unless you can show evidence that I am incorrect, it's an indisputable fact. Now, maybe there were human civilizations devoid of spirituality, and we've not discovered them? I don't know, I can't prove something we don't know. But my statement was a fact, and not subject to your opinion to the contrary. Your opinion simply contradicts the known fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

We also disagree on the word "fact". You are free to believe as you wish, but all you are doing is expressing your belief - not stating fact.

My statement of "fact" was: Every human civilization we've discovered, shows signs of human spirituality. Unless you can show evidence that I am incorrect, it's an indisputable fact. Now, maybe there were human civilizations devoid of spirituality, and we've not discovered them? I don't know, I can't prove something we don't know. But my statement was a fact, and not subject to your opinion to the contrary. Your opinion simply contradicts the known fact.

This is my understanding too. There is no civilization discovered in the entire archeological, anthropological, and historical record in which there is no indication of belief in or worship of or recognition of some sort of higher power or deity.

Obviously there have been hugely differing perspectives and conclusions drawn about who and what such dieties are and what the human response to them should be, but however poorly understood, every civilization has had that sense of the divine or supernatural just the same.