Life From Dirt?

[RestlessSoul]

But the only place the "spiritual" is known to exist is as a set of concepts and attitudes in individual brains, surely? From the observer's view, the universe is divided into two parts ─ what we might call the self ─ the observer ─ as against everything external to the self, which the self knows about through the senses.

And certainly no "spiritual" alternative universe can be found in reality, surely? Just self, and external reality.

I would argue that the dualistic paradigm is inadequate and incomplete, and that our nature is essentially tripartite. There is a reason why the concept of trinity - mind body and spirit; rajas, sattva, tamas; father, son and holy ghost etc, are found in many cultures and many cultural traditions. And there’s a reason why the triangle enclosed in a circle (the circle representing unity) is an ancient symbol which endures. The spiritual is as essential an aspect of reality as the mental and the physical. It may be more difficult to apprehend, but it is every bit as fundamental.

 

[Audie]

There is plenty of physical evidence for God but atheists don't see it as evidence or the type of evidence that they require.
So now I'm not only a liar but am really stupid.

Suit yourself on that.
I do think you lie, as such.
You say things as if they were true
tho, in a most reckless way.

As for how you could think anyone
can prove God, welo. I offered two
possible ways to do i. Maybe you
know another.

You really have a very low opinion of your fellow humans, don't you.

Nope.
Address the post.

Attacking poster with falsehoods about their
character may be philosopny but it's not rf
material.

 

[PureX]

Certainly there are times in a life where one might wish others to forgive one's past deeds or attitudes. Those are a normal part of human regret. But the idea of dying in order to be "cleansed" can only be applicable to the living who remain to deem the cleansing accomplished, surely? Ecclesiastes 9:5 puts it succinctly ─ "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost." That seems exactly right to me.

I think that the death being referred to is the death of the self. Of our selfish desires and the fear that we won't achieve what we want and need in life. The fear that pits us all against each other. As this is what drives us to 'sin'. Once we are able to let go of that 'self' as our master, we can be healed and saved and 'redeemed'. And when enough of us are finally willing to do this, the whole world will be healed and become the "Eden" it was originally intended to be (heaven on Earth).

Well, I was with you till the last seven words.

It's just that you don't need supernatural beliefs in order to want to be a better person, or to become one.

You don't get to decide what other people need to set themselves free of their self-centered fear and the 'sins' that result from it. And why would you even want except for your own selfishness? Why not support whatever other people need to be set free? Is your godless self-righteousness really that important to you that you would deny others redemption just to maintain it?

 

[Audie]

There is plenty of physical evidence for God but atheists don't see it as evidence or the type of evidence that they require.
So now I'm not only a liar but am really stupid.

Like smallpox is "evidence of God ".

Only to someone who chose that
" interpretation" in advance.

 

[Audie]

That sounds like a value judgement by you.
And of course many so called science deniars have finished high school and multiple science degrees.

Value iudgement?

As for those who claim ToE is false

It's impossible to be a well informed and
intellectually honest ToE denier.

I would not be bragging on or allowing
myself with such people.

And it's pathetic that it's the best shot creationionism has.

 

[blü 2]

I think that the death being referred to is the death of the self.

What else is death? The irreversible failure of the body's life support systems means no more thoughts, feelings, memories, perceptions, reactions, no more of anything the brain used to do, ergo no more self.

Once we are able to let go of that 'self' as our master, we can be healed and saved and 'redeemed'.

I think I understand what you're saying, and on that basis I totally disagree. It is one's self, the you, the me, that may err, may react to the error with guilt, or defiance, or excuses, or incomprehension, but it all starts and ends with the you, the me, the self of the relevant person.

And when enough of us are finally willing to do this, the whole world will be healed and become the "Eden" it was originally intended to be (heaven on Earth).

I express my morality ─ like all good intentions, sometimes not living up to it myself ─ as, do no harm, and treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense. That would be my recipe for Gens Una Sumus. If it ever happens, I won't live to see it, but at least I had the thought.

You don't get to decide what other people need to set themselves free of their self-centered fear and the 'sins' that result from it.

Well, we raised three kids, so your statement isn't wholly correct, but we never told them they were sinners, or that they had to be redeemed, and they've gone on to be decent people and good citizens nonetheless. And on the evidence available to me, I think my grandkids will be along the same lines.

And why would you even want except for your own selfishness?

If the claim and the observable result are the same, why would I want to indeed.

Why not support whatever other people need to be set free?

I don't know what you mean by 'set free'. Set free of themselves? That's a contradiction in terms.

Is your godless self-righteousness really that important to you that you would deny others redemption just to maintain it?

As I said, redeemed from what that matters, redeemed how? And if people are decent people, I don't deny them their religious beliefs, their non-harmful religious observances, their personal non-harmful philosophies at all. However, I can vouch for the non-harmful effects of never teaching children that they're sinners, or that they were born with a guilt debt, or that an imaginary being is watching and judging them and will send them to hell forever if they get out of line.

 

[blü 2]

I would argue that the dualistic paradigm is inadequate and incomplete, and that our nature is essentially tripartite. There is a reason why the concept of trinity - mind body and spirit; rajas, sattva, tamas; father, son and holy ghost etc, are found in many cultures and many cultural traditions. And there’s a reason why the triangle enclosed in a circle (the circle representing unity) is an ancient symbol which endures. The spiritual is as essential an aspect of reality as the mental and the physical. It may be more difficult to apprehend, but it is every bit as fundamental.

What you say about ideas of trinity is correct ─ there are many examples. But of course there are also all the non-trinities.

In the end, no objective test can distinguish the supernatural, the spiritual, from the conceptual / imaginary. If it could, we'd all have only one religion, or at least only one frame for religious beliefs. But instead we have great numbers.

 

[PureX]

What else is death? The irreversible failure of the body's life support systems means no more thoughts, feelings, memories, perceptions, reactions, no more of anything the brain used to do, ergo no more self.

The body is irrelevant. Death is the death of the self. And that is the death that this poetic language is referring.

But people interpret it according to their own bias and desires. As are you and I. That's how poetic language works.

I think I understand what you're saying, and on that basis I totally disagree. It is one's self, the you, the me, that may err, may react to the error with guilt, or defiance, or excuses, or incomprehension, but it all starts and ends with the you, the me, the self of the relevant person.

That is the idea that Christianity is offering to transcend. By allowing that selfishness to "die", we can be freed from it. And in that freedom we can finally become a brotherhood of man. We can live for and serve each other's well being instead of our own. We can love and appreciate others as reflections of ourselves, and revel in their joy and success as we would our own. This is the challenge and promise of the way of Christ.

It doesn't matter if or what gods one believes in. Jesus happened to be a Jew, but Jews then and now are not evangelical. They do not believe anyone else needs to become a Jew or believe as Jews believe about God. Christianity was about choosing a way of being. Not choosing a religious dogma. The religious dogma got added later by people that needed a dogma to believe in.

I express my morality ─ like all good intentions, sometimes not living up to it myself ─ as, do no harm, and treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense. That would be my recipe for Gens Una Sumus. If it ever happens, I won't live to see it, but at least I had the thought.

Perhaps the problem is that you are still trying to do it your way. And so have not let go of that selfishness. I am the same. It's very hard to just let go of that self-judgment and control. But I still find that the message and promise of this way of being stands as valid. It makes sense and it works to the degree that I can do it.

Well, we raised three kids, so your statement isn't wholly correct, but we never told them they were sinners, or that they had to be redeemed, and they've gone on to be decent people and good citizens nonetheless. And on the evidence available to me, I think my grandkids will be along the same lines.

You don't know what they might have done with the additional spiritual information. Or for that matter, what you might have done differently with it in yourself.

If the claim and the observable result are the same, why would I want to indeed.

We don't have the vision to know what the "other" results would have been.

I don't know what you mean by 'set free'. Set free of themselves? That's a contradiction in terms.

Yes, it is. And yet as an artist, I can tell you that it does work. And many other artists will agree. There is a lot more to us than that idea of "self". And often it's more wonderous, wiser, and better than we know. But to discover those depths, we have to be willing to let go of our limited and often inaccurate idea of self, of who we think we are, and should be, to discover that deeper, truer, more holistic being that we really are.

As I said, redeemed from what that matters, redeemed how?

Redeemed meaning restored to our full and true selves by letting go of those fear and ego-driven ideas of self that currently govern our thoughts and actions. And do so badly much of the time.

And if people are decent people, I don't deny them their religious beliefs, their non-harmful religious observances,

You don't have that power, anyway. You're engaging in impotent ego-judgment. Presuming that you know better how others should behave. Why even bother?

However, I can vouch for the non-harmful effects of never teaching children that they're sinners, or that they were born with a guilt debt, or that an imaginary being is watching and judging them and will send them to hell forever if they get out of line.

No, you really can't. None of us can. None of us knows where the path not chosen would have led us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are here saying that theistic scientists who see evidence of God in nature are not scientists but are theologians. Maybe you misunderstood what I said.

What the heck is a "theistic scientist"? It would be fine if a scientist saw evidence of god in nature. Of course that would have to mean that that that particular god would have to be testable. How would you test your god? What possible test could refute his existence? If you say none then you have admitted to no evidence for your god. At least from a scientific perspective.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ideas and concepts are mental, entities are physical.

Mind is an epiphenomenon of matter. Everything that exists is physical, meaning that everything that exists occupies time and space and is able to interact with the rest of reality. This is self-evident and wouldn't be an issue except for the billions of people who have been taught that matter is the byproduct of mind and object to the idea that mind arises from matter, and that it is only seen in association with matter. This is contrary to religions that teach about disembodied spirits and souls existing.

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

Psalm 14, verse 1.

The fool is the man who takes life advice from an ancient book written by people who didn't know where the rain came from.

Have you seen the rest of that bigoted scripture? "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" Are you proud to carry that around in your Bible? Let's just change that from unbeliever to Christian so that you can appreciate the love in those words: Christians are corrupt, their deeds are vile, and there is not one who does good. Not one of them. The whole lot are corrupt. And vile.

That's what your religion teaches about unbelievers, and you are happy to serve as its vector propagating its bigotries.

Being seen to be right often takes precedence over willingness to learn.

And this is how the believer sees others who disagree with him and himself. Unbelievers are simply corrupt. Their purpose is to fan their egos. And the believer sees himself as having truth. I've seen what the faithful call truth - anything they want to believe. Their problem is that they want their beliefs respected by people who don't respect belief by faith and don't equate belief by faith with truth, and so they phrase it like you did. But try to get such people to share a few nuggets of what they are calling truth that unbelievers in their corrupt pursuit to be right at all costs refuse to learn, and guess what you get? Fluff.

You really have a very low opinion of your fellow humans, don't you.

Most people think poorly.

I said that factuality is not what myth is about. The myth of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is not a recitation of historical facts. It was never intended to be.

That's incorrect. The story has been told as literal history from the start.

Jesus may have been an actual person. But the story is mythical. Some events depicted may have actually happened, but the story is mythical. Meaning that it's purpose is to represent a new spiritual ideology. Not present historical facts.

The purpose of myth is to explain observed reality using guesses about how it got to be that way, just like science does, except that science uses evidence and has sound criteria for belief. These stories last for millennia, and eventually become untenable. With extinct religions, we call their creation myths wrong guesses, and don't teach that the Mesopotamians or Vikings offered their myths as symbolic cultural vehicles, but with the ones people still believe, nobody is going to call them errors or wrong guesses. They do what you did.

Life is more that chemistry.

No, it is not.

it is easy to say that consciousness is a different nature than the material universe.

But so far, impossible to support. Consciousness arises in a brain sufficiently complex to model itself as a conscious agent ("I am here now") in a theater of conscious phenomena ("That is there now"). The possibilities for self-referential thought are endless - thinking about oneself in a theater of consciousness containing one thinking about oneself ad infinitum. It's how matter behaves when organized into brains.

The material universe produces machines without the magic spark.

The magic spark isn't magic. It's inherent in matter. Everything we need to build this universe is right here in it now. I've mentioned the metaphor of the candle flame, which isn't a magic substance that enters candles as they are lit and goes to heaven when they burn out. It's an emergent phenomenon of matter doing what it does and revealing latent properties within the matter.

There is no proposed scientific mechanisms accounting for abiogenesis or for creation.

That is half correct. We have a proposed mechanism for naturalistic abiogenesis. It just needs to be fleshed in better and confirmed.

God having given man a spirit, breathed from God to change him from an animal to human.

That's a religious belief. Remove the god and spirit parts, and we see that man is just another animal.

The gospel story is good evidence for me even if I cannot prove it.

If the evidence doesn't support the belief for all competent thinkers, it is not supporting evidence, just something evident to the senses.

 

[PureX]

The story has been told as literal history from the start.

So are the Star Wars stories, and they "take place" in the future. All stories are told as "literal history".

The purpose of myth is to explain observed reality using guesses about how it got to be that way,

That is not the purpose of myth, at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, the physical side is necessary, but is it sufficient to explain the everyday world?

It explains a lot of things to me (except the final question of existence), but I know it does not explain all to you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What you say about ideas of trinity is correct ─ there are many examples. But of course there are also all the non-trinities.

In the end, no objective test can distinguish the supernatural, the spiritual, from the conceptual / imaginary. If it could, we'd all have only one religion, or at least only one frame for religious beliefs. But instead we have great numbers.

Yeah, spiritual experiences are by definition subjective, though they can be undertaken collectively; which is the purpose really of religious ritual.

The material world is easily observed, calibrated and defined, while the qualities of the mind are more elusive. Matters of the spirit are bewildering, unworldly, difficult to describe and communicate; which may explain why Jesus and The Buddha, for example, mostly spoke in riddles (and wrote nothing down themselves).

 

[Jimmy]

It explains a lot of things to me (except the final question of existence), but I know it does not explain all to you.

So is the swastika to get a rise outa people or does it actually hold spiritual significance for you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is the swastika to get a rise outa people or does it actually hold spiritual significance for you?

It gets a rise out of people that were affected by WWII. It was a religious symbol in India for thousands of years.

 

[YoursTrue]

how about life from a couple of cells that may have come from dirt or water?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So is the swastika to get a rise outa people or does it actually hold spiritual significance for you?

Hindu swastika stands for the welfare of all.

Dyauh Shāntir-Antariksham Shāntih
Prthivii Shāntir-Aapah Shāntir-Ossadhayah Shāntih |
Vanaspatayah Shāntir-Vishvedevaah Shāntir-Brahma Shāntih
Sarvam Shāntih Shāntir-Eva Shāntih Saa Maa Shāntir-Edhi |
Shāntih Shāntih Shāntih ||

May peace radiate there in the whole sky as well as in the vast ethereal space everywhere. May peace reign all over this earth, in water and in all herbs, trees and creepers. May peace flow over the whole universe. May peace be in the supreme being Brahman. And may there always exist in all peace and peace alone.

Swasti Na Indro Vriddhashravah Swasti Nah Pusha Vishva-Vedah।
Swasti Nastarkshyoarishta-Nemih Swasti No Brihaspatirdadhatu॥

May Indra who is provided with great speed do well to us, May Pushan who is knower of world do good to us and May Tarkshya who devastates enemies do good to us! May Brihaspati, the Lord of the Vedic knowledge or speech give us spiritual delight got from the light of knowledge and wisdom.

Shanti Patha Mantra | Swasti Vachan Mantra

This page provides lyrics of Shanti Patha Mantras which is chanted at the end of the sacrificial (Yajna) rituals. This Mantra is recited to bring peace, happiness and prosperity in everyone's life. Shanti Patha Mantra is also known as Swasti Vachan Mantra.

www.drikpanchang.com

 

[Valjean]

I can still see possibilities in the idea of the human body and mind having evolved but God having given man a spirit, breathed from God to change him from an animal to human.
I guess that is something that sees the human spirit as more than just a spark of life however.

What evidence is there for this spirit? What evidence that my cat doesn't have it, as well?

 

[Brian2]

They are not facts. You claim these things,
that don't ring true to me, and as for examples,
you have none, sooo...i figure you made it up.

Just because they don't ring true for you, that does not make them wrong.
Do you think these claims are substantiated?
Science has shown that God is not needed or that science has shown that naturalistic abiogenesis is true or that science has shown that naturalistic evolution is true.

 

[Brian2]

Did I say that? I said, it is an addendum to an older book. The whole of the older book was pilfered by Christians.

The whole of the older book belongs as much to the Jews who became Christians, as to those who did not.
And the whole of the New and Older books are from God to all people.

They exist because of physical energy, otherwise they would not have been there.

How do you know beauty, love and consciousness don't exist without physical energy?
You presume they don't because of your worldview, but they are not physical things.
Does a falling tree make a noise if someone is not there to hear it?