Is There A Point

[ilw]

Is there any point in life at any level, ie at the individual, species or all life level?

Personally i don't think there is one. I believe in evolution ie in my view life came from nothing and exists only because it tries to exist and perpetuate itself, this makes its hard to see any good reason to exist. Without a reason to exist, life doesn't seem to have any real value.
If life has no value or point why is killing other people wrong? Why is suicide a bad thing?







yes my project write up is boring & depressing and no i'm not in a bell tower with a rifle.

[protak]

Originally posted by ilw@19 November 2003 - 11:58
Is there any point in life at any level, ie at the individual, species or all life level?

Personally i don't think there is one. I believe in evolution ie in my view life came from nothing and exists only because it tries to exist and perpetuate itself, this makes its hard to see any good reason to exist. Without a reason to exist, life doesn't seem to have any real value.
If life has no value or point why is killing other people wrong? Why is suicide a bad thing?







yes my project write up is boring & depressing and no i'm not in a bell tower with a rifle.
Um.. Sound's a wee bit suicidal!! :lol:

[ilw]

the write up isn't going that badly..........................yet
:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@19 November 2003 - 12:58
Is there any point in life at any level, ie at the individual, species or all life level?



Personally i don't think there is one. I believe in evolution ie in my view life came from nothing and exists only because it tries to exist and perpetuate itself, this makes its hard to see any good reason to exist. Without a reason to exist, life doesn't seem to have any real value.
If life has no value or point why is killing other people wrong? Why is suicide a bad thing?







yes my project write up is boring & depressing and no i'm not in a bell tower with a rifle.
Yes, ilw-

There are many "points"; perpetuation of species, pursuit of happiness, to "make a contribution"-all that sappy crap.

It sounds trite, but it means everything to everybody (well, almost everybody).

Life has much meaning, on many levels, to many people.

Your conclusion about the value of life and the killing/suicide issue is, I would imagine, the one those who commit suicide or kill usually reach.

Hopelessness sucks donkey-dick.

Glad to hear your doldrums are temporary. ;)

All this because a paper is going badly? :huh:

[I.am]

You are leaning towards Existentialism and there is nothing wrong thinking about it. After existentialism became popular many people actually commited suicide because they thought there is no meaning to their life. In US people were exposed to existentialism through Sartre and Camus.

If you come to think, is it that the only reason why you are not killing people or committing suicide is because you think you might go to heaven and yours acts might be punished? Everyone knows thats BS.

Philosophy evolved into what is right and what is wrong. Laws are somewhere in between to benefit everyone. Murder is wrong, it was ever since. These principles were made laws. Unfortunately, they were not well translated by the "literate fools" and hence so many problems.
The whole point of Sartre was taken wrong by many to commit suicides. People never had their so called special meaning of their lives. They wished and always hoped. On exposure to existentialist thoughts their hopes turned into despair and they commited suicide.
Meaning of your life is what you make of it. Not what others make of it.
Murder is wrong, on individual as well as at species level. Suicide, its upto you :) Although I am totally against the thoughts. But have to admit that the thoughts have come to my mind many times. I guess its the strength thats get you going. but for how long... :rolleyes:

[protak]

There's alot in life's meaning's...I have Kid's, that's the best part of my life, I wonder how there life would be affected if, I went and shot my neighbour, or if they found me hangin in the garage? Thoughts are exactely that, the subconcious wandering into unfamiliar territory. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem How about travelling the World, your first kiss, the first car you owned, going to the cottage.....did'nt any of these, and many other event's have some meaning?? Maybe your to young wright now to understand that life, indeed, has its up's and down's. But could you imagine if you were terminally ill, I don't think you would be asking this question, I think you would be trying to relish every last moment... ;)

Cheers,
Tim B)

[I.am]

Points well made protak. This is exactly what I meant to say. Meaning of your life is what you make of it ;)

[protak]

Originally posted by I.am@19 November 2003 - 17:44
Points well made protak. This is exactly what I meant to say. Meaning of your life is what you make of it ;)
Thank's I.am!!! :D
Just trying to clarify some issues..... ;)
Cheers,
Tim :)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by protak@19 November 2003 - 21:27
There's alot in life's meaning's...I have Kid's, that's the best part of my life, I wonder how there life would be affected if, I went and shot my neighbour, or if they found me hangin in the garage? Thoughts are exactely that, the subconcious wandering into unfamiliar territory. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem How about travelling the World, your first kiss, the first car you owned, going to the cottage.....did'nt any of these, and many other event's have some meaning?? Maybe your to young wright now to understand that life, indeed, has its up's and down's. But could you imagine if you were terminally ill, I don't think you would be asking this question, I think you would be trying to relish every last moment... ;)

Cheers,
Tim B)
This is a great post. Life can be harsh, but is still precious.

[Alex H]

I don't think there is a "point", but you DO have to fill in the time before you die somehow, so try to cram as much stuff as possible.

Start by getting drunk with some mates and having a good time.

:D :D :D :D :D

[I.am]

Originally posted by Alex H@19 November 2003 - 23:03
I don't think there is a "point", but you DO have to fill in the time before you die somehow, so try to cram as much stuff as possible.

Start by getting drunk with some mates and having a good time.

:D :D :D :D :D
now thats pointless :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by I.am+20 November 2003 - 02:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (I.am @ 20 November 2003 - 02:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@19 November 2003 - 23:03
I don&#39;t think there is a "point", but you DO have to fill in the time before you die somehow, so try to cram as much stuff as possible.

Start by getting drunk with some mates and having a good time.

:D&nbsp; :D&nbsp; :D&nbsp; :D&nbsp; :D
now thats pointless :lol: [/b][/quote]
That depends&#33; :D

[Barbarossa]

If you look at life in the broadest sense (i.e. not just homo sapiens) then the point of living is clearly to pass the genetic parcel on to the next generation, etc, etc, etc...

For self-aware, advanced, sentient beings such as ourselves ( :blink: ) then we lucky folks have the opportunity to define our own purpose.

Some people like to go out and have fun, some people like to control other people, some people live for their kids and their families, some live for their work, some people just simply like doing nothing better than watching TV.

Life is what you make it&#33; ;)

[imnotanaddict]

Hello all, A while back I posted a topic on nanotechnology (under bondjamesbond I believe). Now because its related to this topic I can post more. (I love this topic and very much believe in all its potential. Sorry its so long.

What’s the purpose of life?

Nanotechnology might provide the answer.

By Ronald Bailey



Two different types of cutting-edge technology are promising (or threatening, as the fearful might see it) to radically change human abilities and capacities -- and even our identities. One – already the subject of plenty of political maneuvering -- is the biotechnological revolution. The other, not yet of major political significance, is nanotechnology -- the ability to manipulate matter precisely on the atomic level.

The Foresight Institute, an organization dedicated to nanotech, sponsored a meeting in Palo Alto over the weekend featuring around 100 of the industry’s leading doers and speculators. Attendees heard from Zyvex’s Ralph Merkle, inventor Ray Kurzweil, futurist author Stewart Brand of the Long Now Foundation and Long Bets Foundation, and Neil Jacobstein of the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, among others.

The meeting featured a colorful debate on the relative importance of nanotech and biotech between Ray Kurzweil and Gregory Stock. Kurzweil is an inventor of note and the author of a number of books, including The Age of Spiritual Machines. Stock is the director of the program on medicine, technology, and society at UCLA, and author, most recently, of Redesigning Humans. Billed as the "Debate of the Decade: ‘BioFuture or MachineFuture?’" their discussion ranged from gee-whiz gadgetry to the question that bedevils most human beings: "What is the purpose of life?"

Stock began by challenging Kurzweil’s brisk timetable for the cyborgization of humanity -- which Kurzweil sees happening within a few decades. "I know some of you are eagerly anticipating transmogrification into some sort of cyborg chipheads," said Stock. "I know biological enhancement sounds so stodgy compared to some of the things talked about by Ray. But I don’t think that a migration to a non-organic substrate is going to happen any time soon."


Stock foresees instead that rapid advances in biological research will soon change how we manage our emotions, how we have children, and how long we live. New psychoactive drugs will enable us to short-circuit the emotional pathways that have evolved to reward behaviors that increase our chances of surviving to reproduce. These new side-effect-free drugs will allow us to feel really happy and fulfilled all the time. "Are you going to be able to resist that?" Stock wonders.

"I know that many of you are thinking, ‘why talk about biology when we’re going to achieve personal immortality by joining a superconsciousness that is nonbiological?’" noted Stock. He admitted that he found that vision "very seductive, but even with exponential advances in technology, we are still not going to become cyborgs." Why not?

Because trying to meld biology and machinery is incredibly complex. So for the next few decades, until all the bugs in nano are worked out, biotech will be the technology that will boost life expectancy and expand our physical capacities. Given the relatively primitive state of electromechanical technology, "why would we bother to implant computers?" asked Stock. "I’m not going to have brain surgery in order to install the moral equivalent of an electronic toaster."

Kurzweil thinks the future will be both biotech and nanotech. The first two decades of the 21st century will be the golden age of biotechnology, featuring tissue engineering, the immortalization of cells and organs using telomeres, rational drug design, simulations replacing animal testing, and the repair of genetic defects. The third and fourth decades will be the golden age of bionanotechnology, in which biology and nanotechnology will meld. "Nanotech is behind biotech, but consider the law of accelerating returns. We will make progress equivalent to that of the whole 20th century in the next 15 years," Kurzweil predicts. "Progress in the 21st century will be equivalent to 20,000 years of progress at today’s rate of progress."

By 2030, electronics will utilize molecule-size circuits and be organized in three dimensions instead of the two dimensions used today. Also by 2030, nano-electromechanical systems combining computational power and the ability to manipulate matter at the molecular level will be common. The accelerating rate of progress will make human-level intelligence available in a &#036;1,000 computer by 2029. Humans will incorporate nano-scale electromechanical devices in their bodies because "we are not going to be able to expand our biological abilities. There are profound limitations on biology, but nanotechnology is infinitely expandable." Kurzweil foresees the replacement of the nuclei of cells with nanotech structures that contain genomic information and can make the proper proteins. (Of course, cell nuclei are already, in a sense, bionanotech devices.)

Kurzweil also outlined his vision of the increasingly intimate and gradual inclusion of machines in the human body. He suggested that people’s notions of machines have to be revised – we will grow to see them not as merely cold, inflexible, and brittle gadgets, but as helpful and necessary devices, as soft and subtle as human tissues. Kurzweil is convinced that a person’s computationally powerful nonbiological components will eventually overwhelm his biological remnants. Perhaps a person’s biology would then become simply superfluous.

Kurzweil also suggested that nanotechnology will succeed because it is not controversial. He pointed out that biotech is already politically and ethically controversial. Kurzweil asked, "We’re already putting computers in people’s brains and are there any people protesting against them? Is there any controversy over that?"

The dialogue took a philosophical, even theological, turn. Stock said, "If your goal is to feel good, to feel happy, new biotech drugs without side effects will be able to hijack neural circuits and mimic those feelings."

"I don’t think that the purpose of human life is just to feel good," Kurzweil responded. "Creating knowledge, appreciating a jazz riff, a good conversation -- they are really the most profound and satisfactory experiences. It really comes down to, what is the purpose of life? Is it to create knowledge and new patterns of information?"

Stock wondered, "What is the purpose of life when nonbiological intelligences of the sort you’re talking about are more creative than we are?" Kurzweil answered, "As we become more intimate with our machines, biology does become trivial. The nonbiological part will accelerate and become a million trillion times more powerful than biology. Because it is the nature of the nonbiological intelligence to grow exponentially, it will eventually dominate. This whole period of transhumanism is just an interim period." Although humans as such may disappear in the nanotechnological future, that which will endure beyond our biology will be an expression of our civilization, Kurzweil asserted.

Stock noted, "There is this strange urge in us to transcend our biology. If you can’t buy Christianity, there is a strong desire to create those same visions of heaven and transcendence through our technologies." Kurzweil admitted that the technological future he projects has similarities to the Christian vision of heaven.

"Isn’t there something better than people sinking into being chemically inspired couch potatoes and letting the machines get on with the future?" asked an audience member. Kurzweil responded that there are always dead ends, and new technologies will create new dead ends. But he believes that despite the temptation to become nanotechnological couch potatoes, many humans will continue to expand their horizons.

Asked if he was worried about rising hostility to technology, Kurzweil noted that the luddite movement has always been there, but that it had not appreciably slowed down technological progress. "All of these ethical concerns are focused on biology. You don’t see demonstrations against computer technologies," he declared.

Kurzweil may be declaring the "all clear" on nanotech prematurely. After the debate, Leon Fuerth, Al Gore’s former national security advisor, led a session to discuss its policy implications. Fuerth quickly punctured Kurzweil’s complacent claim that there is no political and ethical controversy over nanotechnology.

"These guys talking here act as though the government is not part of their lives. They may wish it weren’t, but it is," said Fuerth. "As we approach the issues they debated here today, they had better believe that those issues will be debated by the whole country. The majority of Americans will not simply sit still while some elite strips off their personalities and uploads themselves into their cyberspace paradise. They will have something to say about that. There will be a vehement debate about that in this country."

Indeed, there are activist groups like the Funders Group on the Emerging Technologies and the ETC Group mobilizing against nanotechnology. Fuerth made it clear that the government will want to meddle in the coming nanotech revolution. The future is bright, either biotech or nanotech, but as always it is imperiled by those who would strangle it in its crib.
Source
click here&#33; (http://reason.com/rb/rb050102.shtml)

[titey]

Originally posted by ilw@19 November 2003 - 11:58
If life has no value or point why is killing other people wrong?
Why is suicide a bad thing?

ilw, I don&#39;t believe there&#39;s a "greater purpose" or "grand scheme" to life either.
But I don&#39;t think that means we have carte blanche to go round knocking other people off willy-nilly.

I feel a person&#39;s life is their own and shouldn&#39;t be forfeit at anyone else&#39;s choice but their own.
(Though capital punishment may be an exception - I don&#39;t have a set opinion on that.... but that&#39;s another topic I suppose.)

So far as suicide.... as I said.... their life - their choice.




Ok.... enough seriousness for me.... back to the Lounge&#33; http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/eekout.gif

[imnotanaddict]

Oh yeah my views,
The pupose of life to me is to be, to feel, to learn, to love, to know accomplishments, to know defeat, to learn from mistakes, to try and be the best we can be.

[ilw]

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@20 November 2003 - 13:15
Oh yeah my views,
The pupose of life to me is to be, to feel, to learn, to love, to know accomplishments, to know defeat, to learn from mistakes, to try and be the best we can be.
Just curious as to why? wouldn&#39;t it be more interesting to try and experience everything you can, so you can say on your deathbed you&#39;ve lived life to the full? Oh and what does best mean?

Personally I have a vague desire to see advancement in all aspects of humanity: genetic, technological, sociological and philosophical and a desire to understand this reality as much as possible, but i don&#39;t see any point in doing so, cos in the end we&#39;re all still wormfood. Any joy, sadness or emotions we had are gone, our existence is like a stone chucked in a pond, there are ripples as we affect people around us, who affect others etc, but eventually the change we&#39;ve made is zero, its as though we never existed. Whats the point.



You are leaning towards Existentialism and there is nothing wrong thinking about it. After existentialism became popular many people actually commited suicide because they thought there is no meaning to their life. In US people were exposed to existentialism through Sartre and Camus.
I think i&#39;m more of a nihilist, but the mass suicides thing is interesting, it was actually a question i was gonna ask in the original post. (i.e. if everyone came to terms with no afterlife, no purpose etc would lots of people just kill themselves) I thought that sounded too depressing though, still interesting that it actually happened.

[imnotanaddict]

Originally posted by ilw+20 November 2003 - 14:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 20 November 2003 - 14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-imnotanaddict@20 November 2003 - 13:15
Oh yeah my views,
The pupose of life to me is to be, to feel, to learn, to love, to know accomplishments, to know defeat, to learn from mistakes, to try and be the best we can be.
Just curious as to why? wouldn&#39;t it be more interesting to try and experience everything you can, so you can say on your deathbed you&#39;ve lived life to the full? Oh and what does best mean?

Personally I have a vague desire to see advancement in all aspects of humanity: genetic, technological, sociological and philosophical and a desire to understand this reality as much as possible, but i don&#39;t see any point in doing so, cos in the end we&#39;re all still wormfood. Any joy, sadness or emotions we had are gone, our existence is like a stone chucked in a pond, there are ripples as we affect people around us, who affect others etc, but eventually the change we&#39;ve made is zero, its as though we never existed. Whats the point.



You are leaning towards Existentialism and there is nothing wrong thinking about it. After existentialism became popular many people actually commited suicide because they thought there is no meaning to their life. In US people were exposed to existentialism through Sartre and Camus.
I think i&#39;m more of a nihilist, but the mass suicides thing is interesting, it was actually a question i was gonna ask in the original post. (i.e. if everyone came to terms with no afterlife, no purpose etc would lots of people just kill themselves) I thought that sounded too depressing though, still interesting that it actually happened. [/b][/quote]
I take you don&#39;t believe in god? OK fair enough (if that is the case). But I sense a lack of spiritualism and thats not good (in my opinion). Below are two very long articles, but atleast skim over some of it and you&#39;ll mabe get the gist of the point I&#39;m trying to make.


Just curious as to why? wouldn&#39;t it be more interesting to try and experience everything you can, so you can say on your deathbed you&#39;ve lived life to the full?

Exactly could&#39;nt have worded it better. But I&#39;ve also learned (excuse the cliche&#39;) it&#39;s the little things in life. Holding your newborn son or daughter in your arms after there born. A walk on beach, in the woods, getting in tune with nature, the smell of ozone after a storm, the company of some you enjoy being with, eating a good meal, etc. etc.


http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/spiritual_reality.html

Spiritual Reality
By Vexen Crabtree 2002 Sep 16
This essay
What believers call &#39;spiritual reality&#39; appears to be inconsistent with most single God religions. Christianity and Islam appear to be inconsistent when they deny the reality of personal reincarnation.

Introduction: Assumption that experience is true
Reincarnation
Spiritualism without God
Experience of God
Conclusion: Popular monotheistic religions are wrong

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Assumption that experience is true
Spiritual Warfare is a term that implies that Human Beings have souls, and that we are in spiritual battle against evil spirits, Jinn or Demons, and there are also good spirits. Principally the religions we are interested in state that Demons and Jinn come from Satan, and good spirits and Angels come from God but such distinctions are not relevant in this essay. I have used the word "Materialists" instead of "atheists" as there are branches of atheism that believe in a spirit world.

Friction
Theists find it provocative when atheists deny that there is a spiritual world and call it &#39;deluded&#39;. Theists feel this is a self righteous insult by science-obsessed materialists. Materialists find it provocative when theists call it a "spiritual reality" and say "materialists deny spiritual reality". Materialists find this is an arrogant and self-righteous insult. Occasionally I feel that each side of this argument purposefully uses words that the other finds annoying. But much of the time it is best to ignore it as they are simply the terms people are brought up to use and they are not necessarily insults. I use the word "spiritual world" in place of "spiritual reality" as I feel "spiritual reality" primarily points to souls, whilst modern theories hold that spirits can exist without the need for souls. Hence the term "Spiritual world" for the type of existence these spirits lead.

Consensus and Experience
Muslims and Christians who believe in a spirit world tend to state that because so many people have experience of entities like this that they must, reasonably, be based on some kind of truth even if it is a truth we don&#39;t understand.

People who do not agree that there is an alternative spiritual reality will reject the above argument readily saying that all such occurences can be explained in terms of culture, psychology, biology and the subconscious. But this results in a stand off: Where materialists and spiritualists are simply assuming that they&#39;re each correct. Materialists are assuming that science will not, in the future, discover that Spirits could be true. Spiritualists are assuming that science is wrong: Spirits are not all caused by Human subconscious. Atheists will claim that because we all share common biology and our minds are structured in similar ways that similar kinds of illogical beliefs will surface and that common experiences are results of a common physiological response to normal events. Theists will assume that behind this there is actual spiritual warfare between our own souls and good and evil spirits.

Both sides of the argument feel they are more rational. It cannot be shown which is the correct view. Both sides argue from experience. Materialists say that because they do not assume that such things exist they do not interpret events in spiritual terms and therefore do not experience any spirits, "because they do not exist". Spiritualists say that because they "acknowledge the existence" of spirits that they really do experience them. Both parties experiences are based on their own assumptions and neither will be able to sway the other through logical argument over whether experience is true or not.

This essay, from here, assumes that Human Beings do experience events that can be classified as "spiritual". I would like to show that although monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam are wrong in their beliefs, scientists would also be wrong to deny the possibility of the supernatural. Finally, I explain how such phenomenon can be explained even in a scientific and atheistic universe. I conclude that because the phenomenon are explainable without God that they are not proof that God exists even if there is a spiritual world.

Reincarnation
When are souls created? How are they created? Monotheistic religions do not believe in re-incarnation and their adherents have not reported pre-birth memories. Therefore, in Christianity, our souls are created and used only once rather than being recycled.

The Birth Process of Life
Egg. Sperm. You know the basics. During fusion, a series of carefully controlled molecular reactions fuse the 2 gamete nuclei together inside the egg after a single sperm has penetrated. The process is well documented. At what point during this process does the soul get created or inserted?

It seems quite ridiculous to pinpoint a particular point in the process and say &#39;here - this is where the soul is created&#39; as the process is slow and there is no particular or pronounced jump from gamete to stem cell. The chromosomes are mixed gradually. It is not normal for people to say a single cell is conscious or has a soul.

If souls are created when egg and sperm meet then it is logical to assume that all species have souls. This would mean that billions upon billions of souls are wasted, their bodies dying well before any of them get a chance to live any kind of life. This would appear to imply that either continual reincarnation occurs, or life itself is pointless. This is why:

Life is useless
If souls exist and there is no rebirth then it implies that life is useless. At some point the soul will appear. People die during all stages of life. I will mention those who die a very brief moment after their soul appears. If it possible for these beings to reach their fate (heaven or Paradise) in the same way as living souls after only having exist for a brief moment it implies that all of life is pointless and without meaning or worth. This is because the final destination is the same for very short lived lives and drawn out ones. In fact in many religions those who die very young are in a better position and according to some Christians babies go immediately to heaven. We might as well all start off dead, and not bother with life at all. It would be humane to kill all of our children in order to ensure their entrance to Paradise. This is not an acceptable conclusion.

or

Reincarnation occurs
If resurrection was true, souls would not be pointless and fleeting. These quick deaths would be insignificant compared to the grand scheme.

Related pages:

Killing babies
Spiritualism without God
God can save us without souls
Souls are unnecessary. Consciousness can come from flesh. God can simply revive and restore our consciousness without the need for souls. To claim God needs souls is to deny God&#39;s omnipotency. God can do it without souls, it is possible for monotheists to not believe in souls. It seems this would be a valid way to accept science and God simultaneously and will most likely be a liberal belief.

"Souls" were simply the way of expressing "conscious self + unconscious self" by pre-Freud, pre-Science minds. If the Koran and The Bible use the word "Soul" it was because they had no other word, they certainly could not conceive of pseudo-scientific concepts such as the Quantum Soul.

Supernaturalism without souls
Quantum soul, carnal Will power, even life after death and spirits could be explained through (occult) science without the need for a God to exist. God is not an automatic assumption merely because spirits exist.

Magic can be explained through two separate methods both of which do not require either good or evil forces.

Solipsistic explanation of supernatural magic
Quantum physics explanation
Ghosts and communication with the dead can be explained in terms of electromagnetic patterns, Chaos theory and Quantum Physics (aside from the normal explanation of delusion).

There are many ways of explaining the world and God only need exist if you assume it does. Except for the assumption there is no reason that God needs to exist: Everything seems to be explainable without God. The added assumption that God exists adds complications and complexities to reality that are necessary. God has all the hallmarks of something that doesn&#39;t exist.

Arguments against souls
I believe that souls are not a tenable belief. I have two essays on the subject:


Body Soul Problems goes into the practical side of the soul and it&#39;s problems and concludes that there are insurmountable problems about the concept of a soul. So much so that it is unlikely they exist.

The Soul and The Emotion Self go into our emotions and feelings and concludes that there is no room for a soul, that they are so pointless they might as well not exist at all.
Experience of God
I believe that when people feel they are in touch with God, they are in touch with themselves and nothing more. I have an essay called "Abstract Man" that touches on this, the first three paragraphs of the section "God and Worship" read:

"Abstract thought allows us to take things to extremes. We can feel love for people who we have never seen based on their personality and communication alone. The communication medium is irrelevant. Due to our increasing capacity for empathy, we feel that others love us in return and feel we are in touch with their emotions. This is based on the feelings we have towards them, based on our own abstract thought and these are all in turn all based on our assumptions on the relationship between what is real and what is abstract.
It is possible to create an abstract personality, based on abstract thought processes, like politics and religion, but based around a concept or idea. Frequently, the conclusion we feel when we do this is that we are looking at God himself.

Our need for unconditional love, our abstract philosophical minds and the way our very emotions and world view are led by our abstract representations of what we think is real can conspire to create in our minds an abstract source of love. Something we want and need since youth, and something that can frequently be lacking. The all-loving abstract god, the all-knowing and all-powerful being that we create in our minds matches all of those abstract ideas we attribute with our parents while young "

From Abstract Man by Vexen Crabtree 2002 Mar 31

Conclusion: Popular monotheistic religions are wrong
If we accept experience of God by ordinary people as we accept experience of Reincarnation of ordinary people then the result is a non-Christian, non-Islamic religion. If there are Christian sects that accept reincarnation then they are certainly not common ones: But they would seem to make more sense than mainstream Christianity. Christians do not derive reincarnation from the Christian Bible and a belief in reincarnation would discredit the Bible. I look forward to the day when the Bible is not seen as the end-all of Christian spiritualism. I am happy to bring readers to an acceptance of reincarnation (even though it is not something I believe in) if it draws people away from fundamentalism and organized religion.
Conclusion on God
If we reject reincarnation and the experiences people have of reincarnation/past lives and explain them away using psychology and chemistry then exactly the same principle should be used on the experience of Good and Evil spirits: The conclusion is that based on the evidence either Reincarnation is true or monotheism is false. It is unlikely we can accept one set of experience and reject the other as the amount of records for both beliefs are very great. As spirits and the supernatural can be explained in an atheistic universe, using the Quantum Soul, Solipsism or Chaos Theory, it seems that God is not necessary for even the parts of the supernatural that may be true.

Conclusion on reincarnation
Reincarnation, without God, requires the existence of souls. With God, it does not. If we accept that science refutes the existence of souls then if reincarnation is true God(s) must exist.

If we accept that spiritual experience is a result of Human nature and physiology then we can reject any argument from experience that there is a spirit world as we accept that such experiences are scientifically dismissible.

If we accept that souls and reincarnation exist, but God does not, we are accepting some extreme and occult Quantum Soul theories that have yet to be taken seriously in the academic world.

In my mind I accept that out of the two conclusions:


There is a spiritual reality including reincarnation and good and evil spirits
or

Experience of spiritual beings is due to our subconscious desires
I know that my reasons are emotional rather than intellectual. My emotions and Occam&#39;s Razor tell me the second is more likely.


http://rbest.ethicalmanifold.net/archives/000100.html

Spirituality without God
Is “Spirituality Without God” an oxymoron?

This is what I propose to explore.


I recognize myself as “Spiritually Challenged”. In light of this self-awareness, I decided that I needed something really basic - so I chose the book: "Spirituality for Dummies" by Sharon Janis. It seemed appropriate. It presents a general overview of Spirituality, informed mostly by Hinduism.

I also read two books recommended by friends:

Maryanne Savage recommended: "Awakening to the Sacred" by Lama Surya Das; a book with a popularized Buddhist perspective; and,

Ellen McBride recommended: "The Sacred Depths of Nature" by Ursula Goodenough. It explores Spirituality through Science and Nature.

From my earlier readings I dredged forth:

William James’ "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and a story that I used to read to my Children, "The Velveteen Rabbit" by Margery Williams.

I also went on an accidental Pilgrimage of sorts, to a nearby sacred site that attracts Spiritual Seekers – I went to Ashville, North Carolina.

Even after completing my studies I have some reservations about my qualifications to undertake this talk on Spirituality.

I am biased. I am grounded in philosophical naturalism – a view that is skeptical of unseen forces. Yet I believe that insight and wisdom can be gained through exploring the thoughts and experiences of others – especially when they are radically different from my own. I found this to be true with Spirituality.

In "Awakening to the Sacred" Lama Surya Das wrote about Spiritual Seekers:

"As spiritual wayfarers what do we think about? Divine Presence, God, spirit, soul, reality, truth, self-knowledge, mystical experience, inner peace, enlightenment. The spiritual life is concerned with issues such as these.

As seekers, we intuitively believe that the visible world we live in is part of a greater spiritual universe. We aspire to somehow experience a more palpable connection with that sacred universe. We sincerely believe that it is possible to become part of that universe by actualizing the divine light or spirit that is found within each of us.

As seekers, you and I search for illumination and guidance. We want understanding – not only of our immediate problems but also of the great mysteries of the universe. We want to be able to move from murky illusion and confusion to wisdom, certainty, and clarity. We want to go from delusion to truth; we want the promise that we will be able to escape the darkness of the soul’s infernal regions and make it to a place of infinite luminous peace, contentment, and divine unconditional love. We want to leave ignorance and unconsciousness as well as semiconscious behavior behind. We know that the antidote to ignorance isn’t just more information. We know that our spiritual life depends on our being able to cultivate a higher consciousness – a mindful consciousness – as well as greater awareness. We know that our spiritual life depends on cultivating our own capacity to love."

Since I am not a Spiritual Seeker, much of what motivates Surya Das does not speak to me. I am not looking for a connection to the divine or a glimpse of the true reality that lies behind this veil of illusion. I am not drawn to prayer and ritual. Perhaps my naturalism prevents me from absorbing these ideas. However, I share the Lama’s desire to cultivate mindfulness, greater awareness and my capacity to love.

If I do not accept the dualism inherent in the concept of the soul and something more real than my day-to-day experience – what is left for me to form my spirituality?

Felix Adler, who founded the Ethical Culture Movement, said that:

"Spirituality is consciousness of infinite interrelatedness."

Adler believed that we were all spiritually connected to each other.

For me, Spirituality is experience and Spirituality is mystery.

Have you ever experienced a profound feeling of transcendence when everything seems to fall perfectly into place? … a transforming moment of empathy and connection to someone or a blissful apprehension of nature, music, or art?

I know that, on rare occasions, I have experienced such transcendent moments.

Albert Einstein said:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, his eyes are closed."

William James talked about mystical states in his book "The Varieties of Religious Experience". He wrote:

"To the medical mind these ecstasies signify nothing but suggested and imitated hypnoid states, on an intellectual basis of superstition, and a corporeal one of degeneration and hysteria. Undoubtedly these pathological conditions have existed in many and perhaps all the cases, but that fact tells us nothing about the value for knowledge of the consciousness which they induce. To pass a spiritual judgment on these states, we must not content ourselves with superficial medical talk, but inquire into their fruits for life."

After a meeting of Ethical Culture Leaders two years ago that included a mini-workshop on spirituality, I came up with the following definition of Humanist Spirituality:

A feeling of inter-connectedness in which we transcend ourselves and experience a profound connection to Nature, the Human Community, or the Universe.

My thinking has changed some since I penned my this definition.
I now see Humanist Spirituality, at its’ best, as centered in Human Relationships; in empathy sympathy, and compassion. Encountering this human connection can be a transforming – even a transcendent experience.

Martin Buber, the philosopher, scholar and social activist, identified such a connection in his philosophy of Dialogue, described in his work, “Ich und Du”, translated as “I and Thou.”

Buber postulates two qualitatively different types of relationship: I-Thou and I-It.

I-It relationships are characterized by relating to things as objects for your use. Utility, causality, or social and economic forces govern I-It relationships.

In contrast to this, Buber presents the model of an I-Thou relationship.

I-Thou relationships are characterized as a relationship, between oneself and the world, of mutuality, openness, and directness - a true dialogue – a deep sense of personal involvement. The I confronts its Thou not as something to be studied, measured, or manipulated, but as a unique presence that responds to the I in its individuality.

Buber rejects the idea that people are isolated, autonomous agents operating according to abstract rules. Instead, reality arises between agents as they encounter and transform each other.

Martin Buber took his I-Thou philosophy one step further. He believed that we could ultimately approach everything as a sacred I-Thou relationship. He wrote:

"In every sphere in its own way, through each process of becoming that is present to us we look out toward the fringe of the eternal Thou. In each we are aware of a breath from the eternal Thou; in each Thou we address the eternal Thou."

Martin Buber believed that each thing we encounter could be a Thou if we choose to see it as such. His I-Thou philosophy introduces a Spiritual dimension to human relations. This type of relational Spirituality is not dependent on God.

Another type of Spiritually without God is found in Ursula Goodenough’s book, "The Sacred Depths of Nature".

As a Biologist, Professor Goodenough finds profound awe and wonder in the complexities of evolution, DNA replication, bio-diversity, and the human brain. Her book includes descriptions of these processes and her reflections about them. In her reflection on the brain and awareness she writes:

"Throughout religious history, mystical experiences have often been interpreted as the apprehensions of the Divine within or the numinous Other, and they are actively sought in prayer and ritual. In western traditions we say that we are aware of a Spirit, that we are comprehended by something much larger, deeper, more valuable and more enduring than ourselves and the finite universe. The encounter is inward, intensely personal, and described, if at all, with halting tongue. In Asian traditions the religious person seeks in meditation an emptying out, a receptivity, in order to experience an at-one-ness, a spiritual communion with the universe, Enlightenment.

So we raise our eyes to the heavens and we ask, Is this Other? Is this God? Is this the Perfection of Understanding? Or are these overwhelmingly powerful mental experiences, with Immanence a particularly intense form of self-awareness and Enlightenment a detachment from self-awareness so that all else can penetrate? How can we tell? And then: Does it matter?

As a non-theist, I find I can only think about these experiences as wondrous mental phenomena. But in the end it doesn’t matter: All of us are transformed by their power."

I do not deny the existence or power of mystical, spiritual experience. However, in my mind it is less important than a spirituality based on caring and interaction with others.

This sentiment was borne out in my pilgrimage to Asheville.

I find that when I am working on a topic for a talk, everything that I experience is seen through this lens.

While wandering around Asheville, a magnet for all manner of seekers, I stopped into a small shop and found a back room with Hindu and Buddhist altars, incense and flowers.

While having lunch at the Food Co-op, I eavesdropped on a conversation at a neighboring table. Rip van Winkle was talking with Pipi Longstocking about which part of the Maya world creation cycle we were in, astrology, and the points made at a recent talk by a guru that they attended. This contrasted with an article that I picked up at a coffeehouse earlier in the day.

It was a guest column in the Asheville Citizen Times from Wednesday, November 11, 1998:

True spirituality easier said than done -By Richard Puia

"As the owner/operator of a coffeehouse in downtown Asheville, I have had the opportunity of meeting and serving a diverse group of customers. Our clientele includes everyone from executives in suits to tourists and homeless wanderers wearing whatever they can find. Over the years, I have been approached, on occasion, by customers who ask why I permit people that they deem undesirable in my establishment. One regular customer, after seeing a group of "skin heads" sitting at a table, told me that he would not come back unless I stopped them from coming in again. My response was that even though I did not agree with their bigoted views, I would be just like them if I did as he said.

Which brings me to the subject of spiritualism. Asheville has a lot of people talking about how spiritual they are. I agree that this is a special place and that there are many people here who are on the spiritual road. However, it&#39;s easy to hold the banner of religion or spirituality over your head while saying or doing things that are in no way spiritual.
If your spirituality does not manifest itself into a life that is guided by the "Golden Rule" and dedicated to bringing love, encouragement, optimism, joy and acceptance to those around you, then, you may be "talking the talk" but, you are surely not "walking the walk."

Those who have reached a higher Spiritual level do not have to proclaim their spirituality. You know them by their actions. They do not have to walk in your shoes to feel your pain or to know what to do or say to bring joy into your life. They praise your accomplishments no matter how small and lift your spirits when they fall. They are nice people who enter your life without any preconceived attitudes or judgments.

A spiritual person does not abide by the saying "if you can&#39;t say something nice, don&#39;t say anything at all" because, if you come from a place of love, you can always find the words to honor another&#39;s choices.

Those who have reached a higher level of wisdom and spirituality have overcome the fear that holds others hack from the truth that comes only from within. They do not have to look to external sources for spiritual guidance, for they are the guides. They are there to help others overcome the fear and negativity that keeps them searching, but never finding, the meaning of their existence.

Spiritual people find more joy in a life of giving than in receiving. They find hope and optimism where others find doubt. They honor your life as well as that of all living things. They feel good about themselves so they can honor and accept your choices without having to criticize or find fault in order to make themselves feel better.

True spirituality is easy to achieve once you dig deep enough to find that place of love that you had as a child. A place that over the years has been covered over by doubt, pessimism, negativity, prejudice and fear.

Spirituality is a mother kissing a child and saying that it&#39;s OK. It&#39;s a teacher taking the time to encourage a student who is having a hard time in class. It&#39;s praising an artist for his effort rather than criticizing because it is not your style. It&#39;s making another person feel special. It&#39;s being honest with yourself and ethical in your dealings with others.

People who come from a place of spirituality and love find beauty in all of nature&#39;s creation and would never intentionally hit, hurt or destroy another living creature unless they were protecting themselves or another loved one.

They know that we are all connected and they honor and cherish the planet that has given life to all of us.

Spirituality is standing up for the rights of others to speak their views, even those you do not agree with. It&#39;s knowing that you are no better or worse than anyone else because of your color, religious belief, position in life or life style.

Spirituality is unconditional love and acceptance in its truest form.

I, too, am trying to get there."

This article reminded me of the story of another Spiritual Seeker that I encountered in my research, "The Velveteen Rabbit".

The Velveteen Rabbit longed to become real, truly real – not merely functional, like the mechanical toys. In the end of this story, the Velveteen Rabbit does become real, with the help of the Nursery Magic Fairy. This transformation was made possible by the love of a child who came to see the Velveteen Rabbit as real – by the transforming power of a child’s love.

I see the transforming power of our caring relationships as the highest expression of Humanist Spirituality – and I too am trying to get there.

[titey]

Does there need to be a "point" to make living worthwhile?

Can&#39;t people just enjoy themselves without thnking they have to make some kind of contribution to the future?

Is it necessary to believe theres something beyond our insignificant selves to make us want to wake up the next day?

I think we should just be thankful that we exist in the first place and be happy with that.






The Lounge beckons. http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/eekout.gif

[ilw]

Originally posted by titey@20 November 2003 - 14:52
Can&#39;t people just enjoy themselves without thinking they have to make some kind of contribution to the future?

sounds like the perfect carte blanche to me :rolleyes:

As for imnotanaddict, I read pretty much the first half of that and skimmed the rest, as you pointed out i don&#39;t really have a spiritual side, I&#39;m agnostic leaning to the side of atheism and have no belief in souls. Imo people who think that what they experience must be reality haven&#39;t done enough drugs. I&#39;m not an existentialist because i do believe that other people exist and that this reality exists, and unlike existentialism I don&#39;t believe that reality is whatever you experience, individual visions, pain, feelings aren&#39;t real they&#39;re all in your head ;)

[titey]

Originally posted by ilw@20 November 2003 - 10:23
sounds like the perfect carte blanche to me :rolleyes
Not sure what you meant by that. :huh:

But I think you&#39;ll need to give your defenition of "real" before I can interpret the rest of your post.

___________

Oh.... and when did you start smoking? http://galleries.vinyamar.com/ps/show.php?id=tm521wQqR9QXCOyGtw8VIeJ2c&ext=.gif

[imnotanaddict]

"Spirituality is consciousness of infinite interrelatedness."

Adler believed that we were all spiritually connected to each other.

For me, Spirituality is experience and Spirituality is mystery.

Have you ever experienced a profound feeling of transcendence when everything seems to fall perfectly into place? … a transforming moment of empathy and connection to someone or a blissful apprehension of nature, music, or art?

I know that, on rare occasions, I have experienced such transcendent moments.

Albert Einstein said:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, his eyes are closed."


Well if you only skimmed the second article just wanted to make sure you read that.

[dwightfry]

There are 3 things that people believe happen to them when they die.

----------
If you are of the Catholic persuasion, then you believe when you die you go to heaven or you go to hell. In this case some people have amazing faith and believe that they are of the correct religion and will do there best follow the rules to go to heaven. But other&#39;s don&#39;t feel a pull into organized religion, they never feel the warmth of faith knowing they are doing the right thing. If someone believes that this is the way it works but doesn&#39;t have faith, then it is impossible for them to be happy never knowing for sure. This could cause people to say &#39;what&#39;s the point of trying&#39; and kill themselves.

--------
If you are a spiritualist you believe when you die your spirit can live in heaven or wherever, or it can come back and try life again. I think this is the easiest to believe, and the most comforting. It relieves the fear of dieing, but it turns life into a video game, just press reset. If you don&#39;t like how your life is going, kill yourself, learn from your mistakes, and try again.


--------
If you are a full athiest, you believe that when you die you are gone forever. This scares the people who are happy, but soothes those who are depressed.

People say to look for the good in life. Good is just the absence of bad. If you buy a lottery ticket and lose, that&#39;s bad, if you win your money back or more then that&#39;s good. If you get a job you like it is good only because you didn&#39;t not get the job.

For some people, no matter how good things are, it still isn&#39;t worth the bad, even if it&#39;s hearing a Brittany Spears song one too many times. Therefore, if you kill yourself, you will never have to put up with the bad again....and that&#39;s good.
--------

I guess my point is no matter what you believe, suicide can be justified.

(For some reason I started thinking about all this before I got out of bed this morning, when I started reading this post, I thought that it fit)

[ilw]

Originally posted by titey+20 November 2003 - 15:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 20 November 2003 - 15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@20 November 2003 - 10:23
sounds like the perfect carte blanche to me :rolleyes
Not sure what you meant by that. :huh:

But I think you&#39;ll need to give your defenition of "real" before I can interpret the rest of your post.

___________

Oh.... and when did you start smoking? http://galleries.vinyamar.com/ps/show.php?id=tm521wQqR9QXCOyGtw8VIeJ2c&ext=.gif [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m just saying that knocking people off willy-nilly sounds like fun :rolleyes: so that might be someones idea of just enjoying themself and not worrying about contributing to the future. It was just a silly point, ignore me :blink:

I only started smoking cos of all the peer pressure to look cool, notice i don&#39;t inhale B)


As for my definition of real, hmmm, thats kinda hard, I suppose what i was really talking about in the post before was objective reality, as opposed to experiences that are restricted to just you (not anything else physically) which are imo a subjective reality.

As for spiritualists, if they had a spiritual experience on lsd is it any less meaningful than one experienced clean of drugs? imo no they are both meaningless, because the processes in your brain are to a certain extent random and various imbalances can cause different effects, for instance i think its frontal (might be temporal) lobe epilepsy is known to cause intense religious experiences/visions. Maybe a spiritualist might say that visions or experiences from this are still valid, but to me thats just bs.

[protak]

Originally posted by hobbes+19 November 2003 - 20:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 19 November 2003 - 20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-protak@19 November 2003 - 21:27
There&#39;s alot in life&#39;s meaning&#39;s...I have Kid&#39;s, that&#39;s the best part of my life, I wonder how there life would be affected if, I went and shot my neighbour, or if they found me hangin in the garage? Thoughts are exactely that, the subconcious wandering into unfamiliar territory. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem How about travelling the World, your first kiss, the first car you owned, going to the cottage.....did&#39;nt any of these, and many other event&#39;s have some meaning?? Maybe your to young wright now to understand that life, indeed, has its up&#39;s and down&#39;s. But could you imagine if you were terminally ill, I don&#39;t think you would be asking this question, I think you would be trying to relish every last moment... ;)

&nbsp; Cheers,
Tim B)
This is a great post. Life can be harsh, but is still precious. [/b][/quote]
Thank&#39;s hobbes, life is both "harsh and precious".

Cheers,
Tim ;)

[titey]

Originally posted by ilw+20 November 2003 - 13:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 20 November 2003 - 13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I&#39;m just saying that knocking people off willy-nilly sounds like fun [/b]

I&#39;ll be watching the headlines for yer name then. :ph34r:


<!--QuoteBegin-ilw@20 November 2003 - 13:19
As for my definition of real, hmmm, thats kinda hard, I suppose what i was really talking about in the post before was objective reality, as opposed to experiences that are restricted to just you (not anything else physically) which are imo a subjective reality.&nbsp; [/quote]

I see.... so in order for something to be "real", it must be experienced by more than one person. Kinna like the ol&#39; tree falling in the woods analogy then.

But since everyone&#39;s experience is unique, then wouldn&#39;t that mean that all experiences are singular and therefore "unreal"? :huh: