Evolution vs. Creationism

IndigoSensor said:
Yeah, that was a outlandish example. Blarg I need to stop trying to explain myself.
Click to expand...

Sure the example may look silly, but that's the point, when religious people take these great intuitive/faith leaps into the unknown that's what it looks like to the rest of us.

So if a spirit = the energy of life, well everyone believes life has energy so everyone is spiritual. :thumb:
 
Duty said:
Why must we introduce superstition and untruth in order to "improve ourselves?"
Click to expand...

Why is it a superstition or untruth?

Because it could be something explained by natural processes? If the spirit is natural, then it could be explained by natural processes.

Because there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that it exists? If there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that it doesn't exist, then it makes no more sense to proclaim it an "untruth" than it does to proclaim it the truth.

Ask yourself what all living things ultimately need to survive, and the answer is energy. All life on this planet is possible because of an intricate exchange of energy. Energy which travels from the sun, through the autotrophs, through the heterotrophs, through the decomposers, and back through the food cycle again until it is all eventually lost as heat. It does no one any harm to see the energy that exists within a human being, such as that which is stored in the chemical bonds of the molecules that make up their cells, the electrical impulses within their brains, and even the residual heat given off their bodies, as a natural, driving force of their existence as a living being. In fact, it isn't hard to see how energy within living beings is invested in their growth and continued survival. But for some reason, if you call that a "spirit" people get pretty upity and start making judgments about "superstitions" and "untruths" without really contemplating the nature of the natural world around them. Perhaps you might want to ignore and scorn it, but I prefer to find beauty and appreciation for that which that makes life possible, links all life together, and that drives us as individuals and a species to continue living and growing. And that is what spirituality is all about.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
Why is it a superstition or untruth?

Because it could be something explained by natural processes? If the spirit is natural, then it could be explained by natural processes.

Because there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that it exists? If there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that it doesn't exist, then it makes no more sense to proclaim it an "untruth" than it does to proclaim it the truth.
Click to expand...

Ok, then why must we introduce a bunch of stuff we know nothing about? Why is it necessary to take things, which are at best hypotheses, as being truth? Why then go and tell others that we know these things as being truths when they're not truths, but only conjecture?

Satya said:
Ask yourself what all living things ultimately need to survive, and the answer is energy. All life on this planet is possible because of an intricate exchange of energy. Energy which travels from the sun, through the autotrophs, through the heterotrophs, through the decomposers, and back through the food cycle again until it is all eventually lost as heat. It does no one any harm to see the energy that exists within a human being, such as that which is stored in the chemical bonds of the molecules that make up their cells, the electrical impulses within their brains, and even the residual heat given off their bodies, as a natural, driving force of their existence as a living being. In fact, it isn't hard to see how energy within living beings is invested in their growth and continued survival. But for some reason, if you call that a "spirit" people get pretty upity and start making judgements about "supersititions" and "untruths" without really contemplating the nature of the natural world around them. Perhaps you might want to ignore and scorn it, but I prefer to find beauty and appreciation for that which links all life together, that makes life possible, and that drives us as individuals to continue living and growing. And that is what spirituality is all about.
Click to expand...

I think you're the first person I've conversed with that refers to a spirit as being the set of physical processes that take place within an organism. "Spirit", when used in a more common version of the word, and as a noun, typically implies one of these:
1. Certain types of alcohol (obviously doesn't apply here)
2. A supernatural entity such as a ghost (not what we're talking about either)
3. The immaterial essence that is the driving force behind consciousness in organisms.

But if you really want to call the set of physical processes that take place within an organism a "spirit," then that's ok too...it's only a collection of letters representing sounds.
 
Duty said:
Ok, then why must we introduce a bunch of stuff we know nothing about? Why is it necessary to take things, which are at best hypotheses, as being truth? Why then go and tell others that we know these things as being truths when they're not truths, but only conjecture?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've done any of those things.

I think you're the first person I've conversed with that refers to a spirit as being the set of physical processes that take place within an organism. "Spirit", when used in a more common version of the word, and as a noun, typically implies one of these:
1. Certain types of alcohol (obviously doesn't apply here)
2. A supernatural entity such as a ghost (not what we're talking about either)
3. The immaterial essence that is the driving force behind consciousness in organisms.
Click to expand...
I think the definition I presented falls under the third option...

"A spirit is not necessarily a supernatural entity. In fact, I would say it is highly unlikely that it is. It could be understood as the energy of a living thing; the spark of life so to speak. Religion may be concerned with transcendence in death and the supernatural, but spirituality is typically more akin to growth in life and the natural force that drives it."

But if you really want to call the set of physical processes that take place within an organism a "spirit," then that's ok too...it's only a collection of letters representing sounds.
Click to expand...
The "physical processes that take place within an organism" is a gross oversimplification of what I said. I defined a spirit as "the energy within a living thing", and physical processes are a but a part of that energy and its nature. For some reason you chose to ignore the exchange of energy that links life together, or how that energy is invested in growth, or how it is the very driving force of life. But as you said, a word is just a collection of letters representing sounds. And to me, the word "spirit" can't even begin to express the natural beauty of the energy within a living being.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
And to me, the word "spirit" can't even begin to express the natural beauty of the energy within a living being.
Click to expand...

Well, we had to have a word or a sound to label it, but I agree wholeheartedly with you, my friend.
 
Quinlan said:
GO this sounds very much like you are projecting from an INFJ point of view, "primal knowledge" sounds a lot like Ni so I can see why an INFJ would find it attractive. What about those of us who are content with simply experiencing the natural world, with no need for supernatural meaning or explanations, are we soulless? I'm very content, have a love for the natural world and don't think I'm overly critical or logical, infact non-spiritual people often have the most zest for life and love of nature, because we see this life as the only chance we've got.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I'm actually not projecting anything. The idea of the primal knowledge is not even my own; it's been discussed before. The way I described it was my personal experience with it, but mostly because I have actively searched for that. The idea of the primal knowledge is that is an essence of everyone; it is the driving force behind the search for the unknown via spiritual means, such as organized religion.

I'm not trying to say that if you don't try to have a spirituality that you are soulless, or that your life is meaningless. There's a certain amount of spirituality in everyday life, such as emotions and love (at least in my opinion). But there's a difference between zest for life and spiritual contentment, in a way.

It's difficult for me to explain over the internet; I'd need more of a connection to really explain this stuff. It's not logical; it's definitely an emotional thing. I'm a pretty logical person, but I've come to understand that there is more than just logic in this world. Science is wonderful, but it was never meant as an institution that would disregard the need for emotional and spiritual fulfillment.

PsilocinProject said:
Nobody said a critical and logical person can't be happy. Nobody said they can't have a love for nature.
Click to expand...

No one ever did say that. A logical person can be happy.

However, a logical person that analyzes themselves into a corner without allowing themselves to feel might wind up finding themselves very unhappy. I've seen it happen, many many times; it's okay to be logical, but sometimes there's more than logic.

I'm not saying logic is evil or a pathway to personal destruction. I'm saying that to be balanced is to understand both the logical and the spiritual side. And I'm saying to be balanced is to be more stable, and therefore less likely to suffer from extremes such as depression.
 
Sorry for the late response; I typically stay out of these kinds of threads.

Duty said:
(some people are going to find this post offensive, because it's true; if you have counterpoints, please feel free to give them, but don't get mad...)

Except religion/spirituality doesn't:

  1. Make accurate predictions about the future.
  2. Improve upon itself.
  3. Explain newly discovered phenomena in the world.
  4. Give us rational basis for believing what it says to be true, but expects one to believe its premises on base assertions or similar.
  5. Most of all, it doesn't produce results like science has. Religion doesn't invent airplanes or cure disease (even though it likes to claim it cures disease...wonder why God has never answered the prayers of an amputee...)
So, these facts naturally lead me to the conclusion that religion is not yet a viable answer to the world's problems. In fact, what religion HAS produced are mostly problems of its own:

  1. Crusades
  2. Inquisitions
  3. Witch hunts
  4. Silly superstitions
  5. Cultural traditions that people so desperately hold on to that they retard political, educational/social, and scientific progress so as to hang onto these traditions.
  6. And I'd be unfair if I didn't name the positive things religion has done, which happens to be summed up in one point: It gives emotional solace and emotional security to those that look to it for such. Unfortunately for religion, these things can be found in more productive activities.

I know some of you will probably rage at this. That's fine, I'm just explaining my point of view on the deal. Religion has produced pretty much nothing, and is far from being a solution to the world's problems. In fact, it's been a prime aggregate of trouble. What's worse is these things are not isolated incidents (with the exception of the inquisition). Religious wars are constantly raging on the Earth (Israel/Palestine for one...), religion is constantly retarding progress, and silly superstitions are still rampant (I've read a crazy stat that went something like: 50% of Americans think the rapture will be in the next 10 years...). Even witch hunts are still propagated by religious interests (why do you think all the "terrorists" are Muslim?). Ok, that last one may be a small stretch, but the rest are reasonable.

Religion has been a constant block on reason and progress. It's not isolated and corrupt "once in a while."
Click to expand...

My experience is with Christianity/Judaism. With that in mind:

  1. The Bible made predictions about several things, such as the Hebrews being imprisoned in Egypt, and later Israel being defeated and the Israelites taken into captivity in Babylon. Those predictions were written hundereds of years before the events actually took place.
  2. Actually, it doesn't go around slaughtering others in an attempt to conquer different cities. It also has stopped (for the most part) condemning homosexuals. I see much improvement, slow though it may be.
  3. That's not its aim; that's science's aim. The aim of religion is for a good/peaceful life now and a better life afterward.
  4. Read Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis. He makes great arguments - both from within and external to Christianity and religion in general.
  5. Again, not the aim of religion. It's aim is spiritual, and it in fact does produce spiritual results. I know this from my own life, and the lives of others.
You left out some major things that religion has accomplished - schools, hospitals, hospice... These were started because religious/spiritual people believed in the betterment of the mind and body, and not just the soul/spirit. Not only that, but non-religious groups have caused their own share of bloody mayhem. Consider the Nazi regime. Or remember Columbine - the kids thought they'd be merely scattering molecules by killing people. Poor examples I know, and there are better examples out there, but I'm out of time now.
 
Hello Jess from NZ. Why not start a thread of your desires? I feel discussing evolution will sooner or later impel someone to mention creation or God. Maybe use your statement as the title to your thread. Join the fun.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
Believe it or not, I'm actually not projecting anything. The idea of the primal knowledge is not even my own; it's been discussed before. The way I described it was my personal experience with it, but mostly because I have actively searched for that. The idea of the primal knowledge is that is an essence of everyone; it is the driving force behind the search for the unknown via spiritual means, such as organized religion.

I'm not trying to say that if you don't try to have a spirituality that you are soulless, or that your life is meaningless. There's a certain amount of spirituality in everyday life, such as emotions and love (at least in my opinion). But there's a difference between zest for life and spiritual contentment, in a way.

It's difficult for me to explain over the internet; I'd need more of a connection to really explain this stuff. It's not logical; it's definitely an emotional thing. I'm a pretty logical person, but I've come to understand that there is more than just logic in this world. Science is wonderful, but it was never meant as an institution that would disregard the need for emotional and spiritual fulfillment.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, I think. I'm just wondering why I seem to have no need for primal knowledge, I have no drive towards that, I don't care for exploring the unknown through spiritual means I want to explore the real world, the concrete one. I love that word concrete, if your hand gets crush under a block of concrete it is going to hurt no matter how much you believe it won't. Perhaps I'll never understand the spiritual world, unless god comes down and takes the form of Morgan Freeman and starts giving me insight directly I can't imagine having any reason to bother with it.
 
Quinlan said:
I get what you're saying, I think. I'm just wondering why I seem to have no need for primal knowledge, I have no drive towards that, I don't care for exploring the unknown through spiritual means I want to explore the real world, the concrete one. I love that word concrete, if your hand gets crush under a block of concrete it is going to hurt no matter how much you believe it won't. Perhaps I'll never understand the spiritual world, unless god comes down and takes the form of Morgan Freeman and starts giving me insight directly I can't imagine having any reason to bother with it.
Click to expand...

Careful Quinlan, your S is showing! :photo:

For me the physical world is just... boring, for lack of a better word. Well, ok that is not intirely true. I find chemistry endless facenating, but you can't exactly see reaction mecanisms. The spiritual world is obvioulsly very abstract, and takes alot of leaps of imagination to sort of make sense of it. I love doing that kind of thing, and I do that on a day to day basis. Of course, to be able to experince the spiritual plane on a physical level would be an experince! However, I am content not being able to do that.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Careful Quinlan, your S is showing! :photo:
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah I know. It's interesting though, I can see the link between intuitiveness and spirituality, the funny thing is "religion" as opposed to spirituality seems like a very SJ thing.

I wonder if when spirituality becomes dogmatic religion, is when the SJs start getting a hold of it. :D
 
I gain access to my spiritual side through nature and the physical world :D No one said you had to be in a church or praying to feel spiritual. The freedom of travel, the beauty of nature, and the oneness of relating to people even in cultures vastly different than our own--that's intensely spiritual to me.

Don't assume you have to be spiritual in a traditional sense ;) Do whatever connects you to your spirituality; it's a personal venture. If you want to explore the physical world and that gets you in touch with your inner spirituality, then have at it!

I think that's where SJ's come up short with spirituality; it's much more personal and much less traditional/conformist than normal organized religion.
 
Last edited:
gloomy-optimist said:
I gain access to my spiritual side through nature and the physical world :D No one said you had to be in a church or praying to feel spiritual. The freedom of travel, the beauty of nature, and the oneness of relating to people even in cultures vastly different than our own--that's intensely spiritual to me.

Don't assume you have to be spiritual in a traditional sense ;) Do whatever connects you to your spirituality; it's a personal venture. If you want to explore the physical world and that gets you in touch with your inner spirituality, then have at it!

I think that's where SJ's come up short with spirituality; it's much more personal and much less traditional/conformist than normal organized religion.
Click to expand...

Do we even have any SJ's in the forum? If not we should recruit some, would be interesting to see their take on the world.
 
Oh lord, I think they would run in terror if they had to put up with us all the time...
 
I could have sworn(not really) we had an E last night in there somewhere....
 
*de-lurks and pounces on just me*

Here for your amusement just me, not religious debates... I stay well clear of them :yo:

*re-lurks*
 
Yeah, I was taught to stay clear of religion and politics when discussions started.........good for you, and good to know you are there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top