bencook2 wrote:
I can't fathom a reason for multiple supreme beings....but I don't deny the possibility.

You seem to be a reasonable sort; how do you rationalize the contradiction inherent in multiple supreme beings each of which claims to be the one true god? if they're all supreme, they can't all be right, can they? It's gotta be confusing.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
You seem to be a reasonable sort; how do you rationalize the contradiction inherent in multiple supreme beings each of which claims to be the one true god? if they're all supreme, they can't all be right, can they? It's gotta be confusing.

mjr.

Not a contradiction, really... more like:

"Oxy-Clean is better than Tide!"
"Four out of Five Dentists recommend Crest!"
"Your Soul Will Burn In Eternal Damnation If You Don't ORDER NOW! Butwaitthere'smore: with each purchase made in the next 15-to-20 centuries, you get THE HOLY LAND as your free GIFT! Operatives... uh... OPERATORS are standing by... call now"

jeffgreen wrote:
Well good.  So one theory is allowed while another theory is barred.  [snip]  If one is barred, why not both?

You are assuming that "Intelligent Design" is actually a scientific theory, and it's not.  A theory starts with observation, and there is no known observation to suggest that there is an intelligence involved in creation.  On the other hand, the theory of evolution is based on observations of similarities of existing species & the examination of fossil records.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

You seem to be a reasonable sort; how do you rationalize the contradiction inherent in multiple supreme beings each of which claims to be the one true god? if they're all supreme, they can't all be right, can they? It's gotta be confusing.

mjr.

I find it strange that I should be defending BenCook here, but I harken to Joseph Campbell. To paraphrase some ideas, the great spiritual mystery of the universe (i.e. God, Budha, the Gods, her Goddessness, whatever) manifests itself in various ways according to the cultures and hostories of the people in any given region. I think Ben might join me in the belief that there is and/or may be a higher power at work in our lives and it is an idea that brings guidance and solace. It is also quite possible to see reason in one being and not multiple beings, if you are so inclined.

Me, personally, I see multiple beings as being a reflection of the multiple natures that can be found in any one being. I also think that it's a healthy and good thing to find your comfort wherever you see fit as long as you don't step on other people's comfort in the process (Hence keeping religious ideas and practices out of schools and government).

I have family members who are big time believers in I.D. and want it taught in schools. They also want "quiet moments of reflection" in schools, and the ten commandments in courthouses. They don't have their gaurd up around me and it is SCREAMINGLY obvious, that these tactics are all steps on the path to "bring God back to the U.S.A." and specifically that God is a conservative, protestant, thou shalt fear and obey me, fire and brimstone sort of God.

Me...I'm a little less orthodox. I heard David Byrne and Natalie Merchant sing a song about it once (apparently written by Iris Dement) lyrics are...

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever, and some say you're gonna come back.
Some say you rest in the arms of the Saviour if in sinful ways you lack.
Some say that they're comin' back in a garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Instrumental break.

Some say they're goin' to a place called Glory and I ain't saying it ain't a fact.
But I've heard that I'm on the road to purgatory and I don't like the sound of that.
Well, I believe in love and I live my life accordingly.
But I choose to let the mystery be.

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

kickfight wrote:
That's utterly inane. The belief in a Personal God (or Gods, or Creator) has been the bedrock of human civilization, not just 'Western' civilization, in that it is the one consistent and observable thing that is common to all human kind.
To abandon such a belief would be to become less human. It wouldn't be the end of the world by any means, either; it would just result in an incomplete (and therefore impaired) human. The Wedge's core statement is as clueless and wrong-headed as stating that the belief in a Creator implies adherence to religion, or stating that science and belief in a Creator are incompatible concepts.

This is one big inflated argument from ignorance. Ruling by power and warmongering is also a human precedent (both biologically and in reference to early civilization). That something has accompanied the human species in the birthing centuries of organized groups and lack of technological and scientific knowledge does no make it logical or sensible (necessary, is perhaps another issue...but that is more psychologically based, concerning myriad emotion-based issues with personality types).

Anyhow...that this encompasses all humanity or not is irrelevant. You are arguing against a point not even brought up by Pigliucci. Because the parallel of Soviet scientific decline due to ideologies replacing critical scientific endeavor is not erased because you're trying to make it sound as a prerequisite for being human (which IS inane...unless you care to start an argument on why I, or any other non-theist, isn't human).

It is the intellectually impaired human who is unable to both sustain the notion of a creative source *and* acknowledge scientific evidence.

This is a vacuous statement. Your sole support for this nonsense, apparently, is:

"Well look at all the people in history that have had a god concept. It must be true."

One of the most reliable tests of fundamentalism is the persecution of or attack on knowledge, and one of the most reliable tests of academic dullardism is the ever-failed exercise of making God 'disappear' in a puff of 'reason'.

Which makes no sense because most thinking atheists aren't concerned with an imaginary being who was made to 'appear' in a puff of (flawed) reason. Truthfully, though, I could deconstruct the entirety of the deity concept to it being either a subservient quality in the believer, an immature status of personal imagination or an inability to come to grips with emotionally detrimental parts of their life. But that's best not done here.

Unfortunately, Pigliucci fails to convince in the end, because he makes the error of assuming that the problem of ID is specific to the United States, and he also forgets that the situation is more easily correctable in the US than in most other countries (evidenced by his own example of the non-collapse of the US economy after its most important cornerstone --slavery-- was made illegal). All we need is the resolve to stop voting puppets of the good ol' boy network into office.

Again, I think you're missing his point or taking it to a further step that isn't in his essay. The zealous right-wing mentality in this country is not something to be taken lightly. We'd like to think that a civilized mindset and more 'upgraded' set of modern ethics and sensibilities are part of this self-fluffing nation, but it's the very presence of things like ID making its way into classrooms that shows quite the contrary.

Nihilus wrote:

kickfight wrote:
That's utterly inane. The belief in a Personal God (or Gods, or Creator) has been the bedrock of human civilization, not just 'Western' civilization, in that it is the one consistent and observable thing that is common to all human kind.
To abandon such a belief would be to become less human. It wouldn't be the end of the world by any means, either; it would just result in an incomplete (and therefore impaired) human. The Wedge's core statement is as clueless and wrong-headed as stating that the belief in a Creator implies adherence to religion, or stating that science and belief in a Creator are incompatible concepts.

This is one big inflated argument from ignorance. Ruling by power and warmongering is also a human precedent (both biologically and in reference to early civilization). That something has accompanied the human species in the birthing centuries of organized groups and lack of technological and scientific knowledge does no make it logical or sensible (necessary, is perhaps another issue...but that is more psychologically based, concerning myriad emotion-based issues with personality types).

Anyhow...that this encompasses all humanity or not is irrelevant. You are arguing against a point not even brought up by Pigliucci. Because the parallel of Soviet scientific decline due to ideologies replacing critical scientific endeavor is not erased because you're trying to make it sound as a prerequisite for being human (which IS inane...unless you care to start an argument on why I, or any other non-theist, isn't human).

It is the intellectually impaired human who is unable to both sustain the notion of a creative source *and* acknowledge scientific evidence.

This is a vacuous statement. Your sole support for this nonsense, apparently, is:

"Well look at all the people in history that have had a god concept. It must be true."

One of the most reliable tests of fundamentalism is the persecution of or attack on knowledge, and one of the most reliable tests of academic dullardism is the ever-failed exercise of making God 'disappear' in a puff of 'reason'.

Which makes no sense because most thinking atheists aren't concerned with an imaginary being who was made to 'appear' in a puff of (flawed) reason. Truthfully, though, I could deconstruct the entirety of the deity concept to it being either a subservient quality in the believer, an immature status of personal imagination or an inability to come to grips with emotionally detrimental parts of their life. But that's best not done here.


Again, I think you're missing his point or taking it to a further step that isn't in his essay. The zealous right-wing mentality in this country is not something to be taken lightly. We'd like to think that a civilized mindset and more 'upgraded' set of modern ethics and sensibilities are part of this self-fluffing nation, but it's the very presence of things like ID making its way into classrooms that shows quite the contrary.

I'm wrapping my IDmas presents ... but wanted to say, very well said.  Happy IDmas ... /tim

Tim Baker wrote:

I'm wrapping my IDmas presents ... but wanted to say, very well said.  Happy IDmas ... /tim

Dude that would be Happy Son-Of IDmas.

Mike Cummings wrote:

Dude that would be Happy Son-Of IDmas.

ID had a son? When will this fairy tail end? Happy holidays ... merry IDmas.  /tim

Tim Baker wrote:

ID had a son? When will this fairy tail end? Happy holidays ... merry IDmas.  /tim

Yes ID had a Son, but the Son was part of ID, then you have the Spirit of ID.

Merry IDmas to you too. Hope you have a bunch of presents under the IDtree.

Mike Cummings wrote:
Yes ID had a Son, but the Son was part of ID, then you have the Spirit of ID.

Merry IDmas to you too. Hope you have a bunch of presents under the IDtree.

'

Mike, I hope you have a merry Christmas. /tim

Mike Cummings wrote:
Dude that would be Happy Son-Of IDmas.

Not a bad comeback at all MC... that deserved a chuckle...at least we can have a sense of humor in the midst of our differences... that's a good thing...

Merry Christmas!

Tim Baker wrote:

'

Mike, I hope you have a merry Christmas. /tim

Merry Christmas Tim... keep up the fight!

RStephenT wrote:
I have a question:  What role do many of you feel that spirituality (not necessarily a specific religious viewpoint) has in the development of mankind and people in general, or should we rely completely on the scientific approach to discover the complete nature of our world (i.e universe)?

This shoud be phrased as 2 questions:

What role do many of you feel that spirituality (not necessarily a specific religious viewpoint) has in the development of mankind and people in general

and

should we rely completely on the scientific approach to discover the complete nature of our world (i.e universe)?

The first question has no 'real' answer. Spirituality is a personal choice that every individual should be permitted to practice and believe to their hearts content so long as it is not causing harm to someone else. Being a personal choice, too, involves a mature undersdtanding. That is to say, you realze the nature of your spirituality is strictly yours and that it belongs in someone else's life only to the extent they wish to make it so. This personal spirituality also does not need to abide by laws of logic...however, understand that you cannot force it into an arena where logic is the modus operandi of function and information gathering without putting it through logical tests.

Then, another entirely different topic is how necessary spirituality is as a psychological apendage for some people, depending on their personality types, disposition and many other emotional and habitual personal characteristics.

The second question's answer is a resounding "yes". We've already dipped into why...because the scientific approach to obtaining information about our world begins with the discounting of any measurement method that does not involve universal human senses. It's like asking why you can't use an oar to play in a baseball game. "But, it's obvious that this oar would increase the chance of hitting a pitch....". Those are not the parameters of the game. Go ahead and take the oar anyways, but you're no longer playing baseball.

As far as arguing that 'intuition' or 'spirituality' is an equally valid sense...I already mentioned that it is, primarily, "personal" and does not belong in someone else's face unless you want to make it subject to those tests and, unfortunately, by it;s very nature, it cannot be tested physically because it claims to be 'beyond that'.

So....damn that was long winded. One day I'll learn to be more succinct. Oh well...

RStephenT wrote:
I have a question:  What role do many of you feel that spirituality (not necessarily a specific religious viewpoint) has in the development of mankind and people in general, or should we rely completely on the scientific approach to discover the complete nature of our world (i.e universe)?

It plays a huge role in society and the development of mankind.  If we take a strictly scientific approach in our society and rule out spirituality you have no morals.  You have no right and wrong, just a simple animalistic survival of the fittest.  Killing to provide for your family would be a good and just thing.  The lowly who are keeping society down get left behind and killed.  All these things and many more are a result of spirituality so it is a necessary thing to have in society.

jeffgreen wrote:
It plays a huge role in society and the development of mankind.  If we take a strictly scientific approach in our society and rule out spirituality you have no morals.  You have no right and wrong, just a simple animalistic survival of the fittest. Killing to provide for your family would be a good and just thing.  The lowly who are keeping society down get left behind and killed.  All these things and many more are a result of spirituality so it is a necessary thing to have in society.

Nevermind that this is an argument from adverse consequences, it's utter bollocks. Ethical structure comes from the degree of retrospective thinking capacity we have, not from the fear of an imaginary friend spanking us.

Nihilus wrote:

Nevermind that this is an argument from adverse consequences, it's utter bollocks. Ethical structure comes from the degree of retrospective thinking capacity we have, not from the fear of an imaginary friend spanking us.

These are not mutually exclusive events. Our society, as it has 'evolved' consists of both. One can have science and be spiritual, as well.  Merry IDmas   /tim

Tim Baker wrote:

These are not mutually exclusive events. Our society, as it has 'evolved' consists of both. One can have science and be spiritual, as well.  Merry IDmas   /tim

'lo Tim!

The point above, though, is that spirituality is not necessary to create an ethical/moral structure. Obviously, the more usual scenario is one where ideologies have played a substantial role, only because spirituality is so commonplace...but that is not a prerequisite for it.

Nihilus wrote:

'lo Tim!

The point above, though, is that spirituality is not necessary to create an ethical/moral structure. Obviously, the more usual scenario is one where ideologies have played a substantial role, only because spirituality is so commonplace...but that is not a prerequisite for it.

It's not? If it wasn't for the holiday ... my ID would kick your ID's butt!   Merry IDmas

Nihilus wrote:

RStephenT wrote:
I have a question:  What role do many of you feel that spirituality (not necessarily a specific religious viewpoint) has in the development of mankind and people in general, or should we rely completely on the scientific approach to discover the complete nature of our world (i.e universe)?

This shoud be phrased as 2 questions:


and


The first question has no 'real' answer. Spirituality is a personal choice that every individual should be permitted to practice and believe to their hearts content so long as it is not causing harm to someone else. Being a personal choice, too, involves a mature undersdtanding. That is to say, you realze the nature of your spirituality is strictly yours and that it belongs in someone else's life only to the extent they wish to make it so. This personal spirituality also does not need to abide by laws of logic...however, understand that you cannot force it into an arena where logic is the modus operandi of function and information gathering without putting it through logical tests.

Then, another entirely different topic is how necessary spirituality is as a psychological apendage for some people, depending on their personality types, disposition and many other emotional and habitual personal characteristics.

The second question's answer is a resounding "yes". We've already dipped into why...because the scientific approach to obtaining information about our world begins with the discounting of any measurement method that does not involve universal human senses. It's like asking why you can't use an oar to play in a baseball game. "But, it's obvious that this oar would increase the chance of hitting a pitch....". Those are not the parameters of the game. Go ahead and take the oar anyways, but you're no longer playing baseball.

As far as arguing that 'intuition' or 'spirituality' is an equally valid sense...I already mentioned that it is, primarily, "personal" and does not belong in someone else's face unless you want to make it subject to those tests and, unfortunately, by it;s very nature, it cannot be tested physically because it claims to be 'beyond that'.

So....damn that was long winded. One day I'll learn to be more succinct. Oh well...

I always enjoy reading your postings on these type of subjects.

It appears that you feel the only role for spirituality is at a personal level and that it has no application outside of that... you seem very certain of that... were all of the great mystics simply deluding themselves when they attempted to apply their spirituality to everyday living, and tried to guide others in their particular path?

If you live by a certain set of spiritual values and that is the basis for your style of living... in the absence of that guidance what do we find in the scientific arena that would provide that kind of guidance, i.e for lack of a better example let's take basic moral values, sense of right and wrong etc.

Please don't think I am trying to set you up in any way, just curious what would apply for you in the absense on any spiritual foundation... and how you learned those values?

What role does the mind play into this discussion... does spirituality play a role there?

RStephenT wrote:
I always enjoy reading your postings on these type of subjects.

Thank you.

It appears that you feel the only role for spirituality is at a personal level and that it has no application outside of that... you seem very certain of that... were all of the great mystics simply deluding themselves when they attempted to apply their spirituality to everyday living, and tried to guide others in their particular path?

Oof. Even though it may be applicable in a sense, deluding is such a harsh word. Do I delude myself, when becoming attached in a new relationship, of the ephemeral nature of most them? I think the one inescapable universal quality to every human is the desire to be happy...whatever that word may mean to each person. And what it means is birthed from what we've learned habitually or what we (as thinking creatures) have envisioned for ourselves (which is the complex web of personal psychology).

People who are firm in a belief system are so because they happen to have found a way of life that "fits". In the end, that is the trump card above all other sensibilities and rationalities in the world. I may even say, it's more 'true' than reducing one's self to the materialistic level because it's (in a zenlike sense) the pure nature of the beast.

Where the apparent delusion comes in, is that what we believe...what moves us to that happiness...can often supercede the boundaries of logic and physical fact. In that sense, it cannot serve us if we seek to find out basic information about the world we live in. It does, however, play the key role in the kind of life we live.

If you live by a certain set of spiritual values and that is the basis for your style of living... in the absence of that guidance what do we find in the scientific arena that would provide that kind of guidance, i.e for lack of a better example let's take basic moral values, sense of right and wrong etc.

I do so enjoy questions like these...probably because some demented, sadistic part of me is enamored with the painful irony of our existence. As humans, we are a curious mutation. We have the intellectual capacity to understand the concepts of value/morality/worth and yet are powerless in the face of a universe that is not concerned with giving it to us. In that sense, no...the universe does not grant us a morality code...but our biology does. Does X theist refrain from killing people, truly, because he's afraid of his deity punishing him? Or is he simply an animal that lives in a civilized structural group where it would be socially detrimental for him to do so? Or maybe he just doesn't go around killing people because it's not a normal prerequisite for happiness.

Please don't think I am trying to set you up in any way, just curious what would apply for you in the absense on any spiritual foundation... and how you learned those values?

The core of any ethical foundation, I should think, starts with the understanding of what you would not like done to you. Calling it the 'golden rule' and attributing it to a particular religious source is irrelevant to the fact that any human can understand this.

What role does the mind play into this discussion... does spirituality play a role there?

The latter (as a personal construct) affects the former to a certain degree. It's all a varying degree of personal delusion, yes...to the degree that what we've put unmoving personal investment in is needed for the pursuit of our happiness and therefore sometimes discounts logical contradictions. For at every turn, it is more natural for a human to embrace a happy dream than to wallow in disappointing reality. At least, if we can afford to do so.

Nihilus wrote:

RStephenT wrote:
I always enjoy reading your postings on these type of subjects.

Thank you.

It appears that you feel the only role for spirituality is at a personal level and that it has no application outside of that... you seem very certain of that... were all of the great mystics simply deluding themselves when they attempted to apply their spirituality to everyday living, and tried to guide others in their particular path?

Oof. Even though it may be applicable in a sense, deluding is such a harsh word. Do I delude myself, when becoming attached in a new relationship, of the ephemeral nature of most them? I think the one inescapable universal quality to every human is the desire to be happy...whatever that word may mean to each person. And what it means is birthed from what we've learned habitually or what we (as thinking creatures) have envisioned for ourselves (which is the complex web of personal psychology).

People who are firm in a belief system are so because they happen to have found a way of life that "fits". In the end, that is the trump card above all other sensibilities and rationalities in the world. I may even say, it's more 'true' than reducing one's self to the materialistic level because it's (in a zenlike sense) the pure nature of the beast.

Where the apparent delusion comes in, is that what we believe...what moves us to that happiness...can often supercede the boundaries of logic and physical fact. In that sense, it cannot serve us if we seek to find out basic information about the world we live in. It does, however, play the key role in the kind of life we live.

If you live by a certain set of spiritual values and that is the basis for your style of living... in the absence of that guidance what do we find in the scientific arena that would provide that kind of guidance, i.e for lack of a better example let's take basic moral values, sense of right and wrong etc.

I do so enjoy questions like these...probably because some demented, sadistic part of me is enamored with the painful irony of our existence. As humans, we are a curious mutation. We have the intellectual capacity to understand the concepts of value/morality/worth and yet are powerless in the face of a universe that is not concerned with giving it to us. In that sense, no...the universe does not grant us a morality code...but our biology does. Does X theist refrain from killing people, truly, because he's afraid of his deity punishing him? Or is he simply an animal that lives in a civilized structural group where it would be socially detrimental for him to do so? Or maybe he just doesn't go around killing people because it's not a normal prerequisite for happiness.


The core of any ethical foundation, I should think, starts with the understanding of what you would not like done to you. Calling it the 'golden rule' and attributing it to a particular religious source is irrelevant to the fact that any human can understand this.


The latter (as a personal construct) affects the former to a certain degree. It's all a varying degree of personal delusion, yes...to the degree that what we've put unmoving personal investment in is needed for the pursuit of our happiness and therefore sometimes discounts logical contradictions. For at every turn, it is more natural for a human to embrace a happy dream than to wallow in disappointing reality. At least, if we can afford to do so.

Interesting observations, thanks for taking the time to answer.  I won't continue to bombarde you with questions except for this last series in regards to consciouness. 

What do you think the various levels of consciouness represent?  What are folks really doing when they use mediatation techniques to reach (or try to reach) some of those levels?

jeffgreen wrote:

It plays a huge role in society and the development of mankind.  If we take a strictly scientific approach in our society and rule out spirituality you have no morals.  You have no right and wrong, just a simple animalistic survival of the fittest.  Killing to provide for your family would be a good and just thing.  The lowly who are keeping society down get left behind and killed.  All these things and many more are a result of spirituality so it is a necessary thing to have in society.

Spiritual people do not hold the moral high ground!  Morals do not arise from spiritual values alone.  I know a large number of atheists that would never think of stealing, hurting or killing anyone.  Their value system is based upon doing what is right for living with other people.  Not God given rules. 

Jails are loaded with religious people.  Most of the prisoners know that parole boards are much more lenient with someone who has found "God".  They get out, meet up with their old friends, and erase "God" until they need him to get out after getting caught again.

It all comes down to a simple basic rule, I treat my neighbors the way I want to be treated and if they reciprocate, Life is good for all.  That rule holds true regardless of whether my neighbors have the same "God" as me (they don't share mine or each others).

Habenero Photography wrote:
Spiritual people do not hold the moral high ground!  Morals do not arise from spiritual values alone.  I know a large number of atheists that would never think of stealing, hurting or killing anyone.  Their value system is based upon doing what is right for living with other people.  Not God given rules.

Okay, now who decided what was right for living with other people?  I didn't EVER say that spiritual people are the only moral people because, as you pointed out, the jails are full of "spiritual" people.  What I AM saying is that spirituality played an important part in determining what was moral and immoral.  Obviously animals are not moral or immoral, they just do what is natural... to the point of killing of the slowest to further themselves.  So where did morals come from?  If we evolved from animals we would have the same "thought" structure. 

So back to my original point, spirituality played a HUGE role in developing morals in this society as well as others.  We can also see that when spirituality is taken out of the mainstream that morals tend to slip.... Las Vegas anyone??

jeffgreen wrote:
We can also see that when spirituality is taken out of the mainstream that morals tend to slip.... Las Vegas anyone??

This makes absolutely no sense unless you are referring only to your brand of 'spirituality. Otherwise, to support this statement, the burden is on you to provide sensible proof that habitual gamblers and brothel workers are, across the board, less 'spiritual' than people elsewhere...or simply to prove that people in Las Vegas are less spiritual.

You're using circular logic here.

Nihilus wrote:
This makes absolutely no sense unless you are referring only to your brand of 'spirituality. Otherwise, to support this statement, the burden is on you to provide sensible proof that habitual gamblers and brothel workers are, across the board, less 'spiritual' than people elsewhere...or simply to prove that people in Las Vegas are less spiritual.

You're using circular logic here.

That's the only reason that one particular religon (I assume spirituality = religion) is correct in the sense of adoption of that religion by the particular faith that believes in it's dogma. 

Question: How do you know that Christ was the son of God?
Answer: It says so in the Bible
Question: How do you know Christ existed?
Answer: It says so in the Bible
Question: How do you know the Bible is correct?
Answer: It says so in the Bible
Question: How do you know Santa Clause is real?
Answer: Ummm...well, my mother and father told me he was real ... and I belived them until I could think for myself...
Question: Who told you the Bible was correct?
Answer: My mother and father and my pastor told me ..... ummmm .... can I get back to you, I need to pray to Santa.

/tim

jeffgreen wrote:
We can also see that when spirituality is taken out of the mainstream that morals tend to slip.... Las Vegas anyone??

Spanish Inquisition anyone?  Those people were very spiritual.  So spiritual that they arrested, tortured, exiled and/or executed anyone they even suspected didn't share their spirituality.  At least if you don't like Vegas [I hated the place], you can just leave...It's hard to walk away when you're staked to the top of a burning pyre.

And don't get me started on Salem...More proof that spirituality and public administration just don't mix.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Spanish Inquisition anyone?  Those people were very spiritual.  So spiritual that they arrested, tortured, exiled and/or executed anyone they even suspected didn't share their spirituality.  At least if you don't like Vegas [I hated the place], you can just leave...It's hard to walk away when you're staked to the top of a burning pyre.

And don't get me started on Salem...More proof that spirituality and public administration just don't mix.

Nice post. /tim

jeffgreen wrote:

Okay, now who decided what was right for living with other people?  I didn't EVER say that spiritual people are the only moral people because, as you pointed out, the jails are full of "spiritual" people.  What I AM saying is that spirituality played an important part in determining what was moral and immoral.  Obviously animals are not moral or immoral, they just do what is natural... to the point of killing of the slowest to further themselves.  So where did morals come from?  If we evolved from animals we would have the same "thought" structure. 

So back to my original point, spirituality played a HUGE role in developing morals in this society as well as others.  We can also see that when spirituality is taken out of the mainstream that morals tend to slip.... Las Vegas anyone??

And it sure played a part in another part of the world. Who defines "spirituality?"

Foxnews:  A father, angry that his eldest daughter had married against his wishes, slit her throat as she slept and then killed three of his other daughters in a remote village in eastern Pakistan, police said Saturday. Gul said the man's 25-year-old daughter, Muqadas Bibi, had married the man of her choice against her father's wishes some weeks ago. Ahmad contacted Bibi this week, saying he was ready to forgive her, Gul said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179701,00.html

Tim Baker wrote:

And it sure played a part in another part of the world. Who defines "spirituality?"

Foxnews:  A father, angry that his eldest daughter had married against his wishes, slit her throat as she slept and then killed three of his other daughters in a remote village in eastern Pakistan, police said Saturday. Gul said the man's 25-year-old daughter, Muqadas Bibi, had married the man of her choice against her father's wishes some weeks ago. Ahmad contacted Bibi this week, saying he was ready to forgive her, Gul said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179701,00.html

Actually, this isn't happening only in the Middle East.  It's going on more and more in Western Europe too, especially in Germany, which has a large expatriate Turkish population.  Basically male family members are murdering sisters and daughters for "acting western," -- often the "offense" is little more than wearing earings or makeup.  Traditionally, the youngest male in the family is ordered to carry out the murder, partially because laws are slightly less stringent for minors.  The NY Times Magazine had a great piece on it about a month ago.

jeffgreen wrote:
Morality came from spirituality.

You've proven no such thing. You've only proved your morality comes from spirituality. That you are incapable of fathoming the construct of someone else's being of a different source is not proof of your theory.

Tim made the silly post comparing Santa Claus and the Bible and trying to oversimplify the Bible in hopes of diminishing it.

He reduced both ideas to circular logic and a priori assumptions. It was accutrate.

How do I know that the Bible is accurate?  NOT because my parents told me or the preacher told me.  I was taught, by my father (a preacher for over 25 years) to question everything and only then can you obtain the truth.  What is the evidence that Jesus Christ existed?  The writings of the New Testament match up perfectly with historical facts that we know.  Most of it was written a very short time after Christs death.  Far more compelling evidence that Christ actually existed than that Santa ever did.

Who told you "the New Testament match up perfectly with historical facts that we know," and "Most of it was written a very short time after Christs death" ??

I challenge you to support these comments with evidence that is more solidly tied together than what you could receive from a Nostradamus believer about his 'predictions'.

Nihilus wrote:

jeffgreen wrote:
Morality came from spirituality.

You've proven no such thing. You've only proved your morality comes from spirituality. That you are incapable of fathoming the construct of someone else's being of a different source is not proof of your theory.

Tim made the silly post comparing Santa Claus and the Bible and trying to oversimplify the Bible in hopes of diminishing it.

He reduced both ideas to circular logic and a priori assumptions. It was accutrate.


Who told you "the New Testament match up perfectly with historical facts that we know," and "Most of it was written a very short time after Christs death" ??

I challenge you to support these comments with evidence that is more solidly tied together than what you could receive from a Nostradamus believer about his 'predictions'.

I would suggest you watch the History Channel's "In The Footsteps of Jesus". I am sad to say does not look like they will be running it again until next year. Anyhow they showed supporting evidence for Jesus and the other people mentioned in the Bible. It was a pretty good show. I think it is pretty clear that Jesus did exist and was crucified. Now if you don't want to believe He was the Son of God, that is your business, but so far the Bible and historical fact line up.

Mike Cummings wrote:
...but so far the Bible and historical fact line up.

Which is why there are no solid non-religious based historical documents that support the happenings in the book? Perhaps because individual recounts in the book itself differ from (gospel) author to author.

I never saw the TV show, so I can't truly comment, but I suspect they might have trudged out older external 'references' to Jesus that are normally used (Tacitus, Suetonius, Testimonium Flavianum...).

Nihilus wrote:

Which is why there are no solid non-religious based historical documents that support the happenings in the book? Perhaps because individual recounts in the book itself differ from (gospel) author to author.

Well the problem is that the only evidence that you will accept as proof that Jesus was who the bible says he was is actually videotape of miracles being performed.  The same evidence is not required by you, however, to "prove" evolution.  I would suggest you read a book written by a journalist who was an athiest until he started investigating Jesus life.  The author is Lee Strobel and the book is "The Case for Christ".  It includes a LOT of proof that can not be argued.  Some of it I don't agree with.  Some of it can be inconclusive, but the majority of it is fact.  Of course if you aren't interested in facts...

Nihilus wrote:

Which is why there are no solid non-religious based historical documents that support the happenings in the book? Perhaps because individual recounts in the book itself differ from (gospel) author to author.

I never saw the TV show, so I can't truly comment, but I suspect they might have trudged out older external 'references' to Jesus that are normally used (Tacitus, Suetonius, Testimonium Flavianum...).

No they were using archeology evidence, documentation and comparing the finds to scripture. They showed that some of the traditional "haunts" of Jesus were wrong based on archeology evidence. It was a pretty good show. I wish I had the $$ to buy the DVD. In any case the existence of Jesus is not in much dispute and the historical data is lining up with the Bible accounts.

Yes the Gospel accounts do differ on minor details, two angels or three.. etc. They were written by different people from looking from different prospectives. There have also been assumptions made that similar events were the same event and not seperate events.

RStephenT wrote:
I have a question:  What role do many of you feel that spirituality (not necessarily a specific religious viewpoint) has in the development of mankind and people in general, or should we rely completely on the scientific approach to discover the complete nature of our world (i.e universe)?

Spirituality and religion-based warfare and oppression has killed more people than any other cause except the bubonic plague.

So it has made a valuable contribution by helping control the population. Maybe the currrent resurgence of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism is going to solve our population growth problem as we go into the 21st century. Oh, great.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Spirituality and religion-based warfare and oppression has killed more people than any other cause except the bubonic plague.

So it has made a valuable contribution by helping control the population. Maybe the currrent resurgence of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism is going to solve our population growth problem as we go into the 21st century. Oh, great.

mjr.

Well I would probably argue with you that religious dogma has been the culprit more than spirituality... of course many would say(rightfully so) that religious dogma comes from a specific interpretation  of spirituality.  I was hoping for a more generic evaluation strictly with science as the other side.  I would not defend religous dogma and in particulater the fundamentalism that appears to be prevailing in both Islam as well as Christianity... but both are actually in the minority.