• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does spirituality exist?

joyrex

shaven wookie
joyrex
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
698
What does spirituality mean to you? Is it just based on delusions of people and incorrect interpretations of reality? Frankly, to me that's all it's been; I've experienced some phenomena that could've been interpreted in a special manner but at the credulous phase I was in about year ago I didn't realize the power of Occam.. ;)

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

Edit 2 : ATM I'm drunk as a monk so I hope you get my drift.. I'll explain more later ;)
 
I define spirituality as a product of the human mind, the feeling that all objects are endowed with spirit, the feeling that there is meaning to events and a purpose to life. All are products of the human brain, the power of prayer and creative visualizaion, they are products of the brain.

There are parts of me that respond to wrods and other parts that respond to visualization and emotion. I call them spiritual but they are all within the brain.
 
I'd define "spirituality" as the belief that humans are not the pinnacle of consciousness; that there is at least one other entity with a higher consciousness level than humans have, and that this entity or entities is/are interested in what humans do for some reason.

English is one of the few European languages where the words for "spirit" and "breath" do not come from the same root word. To the ancients, a spirit was what made a living being different from a dead being, and the outward sign of the presence of a spirit was whether the being was breathing or not. I think that our definition has advanced beyond that, however.
 
I use the term spirituality to describe an array of related emotional responses to things that inspire me. It's difficult to put into words, but though I am an atheist and a secularist I also consider myself very spiritual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its vaguely defined, and probably not a very good definition... meh!...
 
Beleth said:
English is one of the few European languages where the words for "spirit" and "breath" do not come from the same root word. To the ancients, a spirit was what made a living being different from a dead being, and the outward sign of the presence of a spirit was whether the being was breathing or not. I think that our definition has advanced beyond that, however.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point. In Finnish we have a word 'henki' meaning spirit and 'hengitys' for breathing. Earlier I thought this was an brilliant insight made by the creators of our language but nowadays I think it's more like a setback to liguistic and rational evolution.
 
DVFinn said:
Spirituality to me is found in the wonder of the natural world and our place in it, and in the human potential to achieve beyond our expectations and to become more than we are.
Click to expand...
I don't know but isn't your position kind of using the word spirituality in the context that already has a label? Like wonder and awe [inspiration, greatness]? Do you maybe think spirituality is somehow transcendent to those simplistic attributes?
 
Beleth said:

English is one of the few European languages where the words for "spirit" and "breath" do not come from the same root word. To the ancients, a spirit was what made a living being different from a dead being, and the outward sign of the presence of a spirit was whether the being was breathing or not. I think that our definition has advanced beyond that, however.
Click to expand...
What this suggests then is that we all have a spirit -- or soul -- and that the spirit is the essence of life. Therefore when we die, and the spirit departs, there is nothing left to animate/motivate this bag of bones which lay on the ground. Suggesting that what you identify as yourself (ego, identity, consciousness, soul) is your spirit.
 
THE IDEA
Jesus didn't make blind people see physically, they weren't blind as regarding their eyesight, it was there insight that was blind. He made them see or have another think about life/religion.
My thoughts /beliefs on spirituality are that we are all spirits/souls using bodies to live in whilst we learn and experience life bfore returning to God if there is one or to the universe.
There are a lot of posters on here that believe in their religion but deny that there is an afterlife....strange when religions teach that we shall live in God's house when we die and that it has many rooms.
There is evidence around to let us know there are souls who have departed from this earth but still live in another dimension. but if one is looking for indisputable proof of that, there maybe none. I can only speak on my own experiences of that.
Spirituality to me means the emotions, love,jealousy, hate etc, etc 'conscience'.........does that mean 'with science?'
 
I don't know but isn't your position kind of using the word spirituality in the context that already has a label? Like wonder and awe [inspiration, greatness]? Do you maybe think spirituality is somehow transcendent to those simplistic attributes?
Click to expand...

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

This is not meant to insult those that take an opposing view, it's merely my personal opinion.
 
What this suggests then is that we all have a spirit -- or soul -- and that the spirit is the essence of life. Therefore when we die, and the spirit departs, there is nothing left to animate/motivate this bag of bones which lay on the ground. Suggesting that what you identify as yourself (ego, identity, consciousness, soul) is your spirit.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't this sound the least bit plausible? If so, then you do have the evidence to support such a possibility.
 
Iacchus said:
And yet the fact that something is alive and vibrant and sentient one moment, and entirely bereft of that the next cannot be construed as evidence to the contrary? This is just as good of an indication that it does exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't this sound the least bit plausible? If so, then you do have the evidence to support such a possibility.
Click to expand...
Its helpful to note that living things are distinguished from non-living things by a few organic properties, there is nothing more remarkable beyond that.
 
As a materialist, I believe in neither "spirituality" nor "free will"

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

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

BillyJoe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom