spiritual life/god.

College Confidential Community
181

<p>I guess I have never been a person to fully discredit anything without my own study, research, and reflection. So far this process has not lead to believe that no God exists and that we just live and then our existence disappears into thin air. I think spirituality, more than any other topic, should be discussed more. If life has no purpose, what is the point of living? Why have energy in motion if there is no purpose for it to be in motion?</p>

<p>Conspiracy theories. I am a big fan of those. And like treesus said, many conspiracy theories about our government being involved in certain crimes are true or at least partially true. I would be okay to know for a fact that 9/11 was caused by a few terrorists. I would be very worried and concerned if our government was involved. I would also be okay if the drug trafficking problem in America was solely the work of illegal cartels. Unfortunately, I think our government (or certain govt agencies and private institutions) has a lot of control of the trafficking. I am more comfortable with random people commiting random acts of crime than I am with a system of government and corporations working together to run a system of crime and deception because then everyone gets sucked into it.</p>

182

<p>treesuss: I thought you took the position that science did not know what happens after death. You speak as if you have been dead and have returned.</p>

<p>In regards to you claiming this isn’t about science, I disagree. I think you’ve taken the side that says only things you can observe can possibly exist. This is where we are different. I think the absence of evidence is not evidence for nonexistence.
Caution: If I detect even an iota of disrespect I will ignore you from this point forward. The only reason I’m addressing you is because you seem to be willing to talk like a human being now.</p>

<p>Smallz3141: When I brought up sleep I meant to use it as an example of an altered state of mind. What I’m saying is that you can not prove what reality is without stepping above one level of consciousness. For example, have you ever woken up from a dream and told yourself, “that seemed like a very realistic dream.” However, the only reason you believe it to be false is because you are no longer in that state of mind. If you accept this premise, then I will go on to my point. I’m saying that there may be a state of consciousness that is greater than this reality, which I would argue is in the “spirit”. If what I’m saying sounds highly unobservable, it is because it is in fact that. This may be the reason why there is so much disagreement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think treesuss only believes in the observable. But I think there is a possibility for something else other than the physical. Therefore, if someone were to ask the question: “is this it?” treesuss would say yes. I would say maybe not.</p>

183

<p>theslowclap has a good point. I do a lot of reading of material from various authors and religious groups. One such author characterizes the spiritual realm as existing in a wavelength of energy that we can not detect. There are certain wavelengths of energy that can not be detected without the use of certain man-made tools. For many years humans have not been able to detect certain things until technology was available to do so. Does this mean that prior to the creation of these tools that the undetectable did not exist? The spiritual world is something that we can detect. The spiritual world has been a focal point for humanity’s entire existance. If the spiritual world was something that could not be detected and experienced at some point in time, how and why would people talk about it? Experiencing the spiritual world is so difficult because most of us have not prepared ourselves well enough to do so. It takes a lot of work. Back in the days that the Garden of Eden symbolizes, being in the spiritual realm was an easy task that would eventually become difficult after mankind succumbed to the prison of consciousness in a material world. Humans decided to separate themselves from the spiritual world and live in the material world. This “fall” is also known as the original sin, eating from the tree of knowledge.</p>

184

<p>

</p>

<p>Um, since when? This is news to me.</p>

<p>And about experiencing death. If you take death to mean not being alive, then we’ve all already been “dead” before we were born. I’m pretty sure its a safe bet to guess that being dead will be much the same as being before we were born and everyone has experienced that. And since it was not such a bad experience not being alive for me, I’m not too worried about being dead.</p>

185

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you are under the impression that evidence is based on observation alone you are incorrect. The argument that scientists claimed things didn’t exist because the technology wasn’t there is absurd. The simplest example I can give you is radio waves. True, we did not have observable evidence for radio signals until 1887, that does not mean we claimed they didn’t exist before that, just the opposite: Maxwell’s equations showed the existence of an electromagnetic spectrum, ranging in high to low energies. That’s evidence. It wasn’t observed until years later, but we knew, as science, before any observations were taken. It’s the same for quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, etc etc. You are mistaken in your claim. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But that is not true. As I already discussed, even if you’re, at the most basic level, unaware, your brain (and therefore “you” by extension) is aware of the difference in realities. What’s more, you said "the scientific literature explains that dreams and reality are indistinguishable. " and I am saying: show me. Show me this literature, give me a brief synopsis of what it said. Did you just make this up to try and better your argument? This is what I mean: people twist (or make up) science that seems to support their claims.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But you can’t say the absence of evidence is evidence for existence. I mean, justinmeche is doing just what I said: he is trying to find scientific evidence, a study of the natural order, to explain, heighten, and reason the existence of a higher power, the supernatural. Not only is this supposed science ridiculous, and made up, but our laws can’t possibly be used to prove the existence of something that, by definition, is above natural law.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again…show me. Give me a link to the scientific journal that discusses the observations, mathematics, etc for this “spiritual wavelength”. Or how about give me this person’s credentials: is he a professor of physics, math? Let me guess, he is in no way an expert on anything science related. Again, just because we can’t detect doesn’t mean it’s impossible to have evidence on the matter. Some person who is trying to sell books created this “science”: it certainly sounds like science: energy, wavelength, etc. And, how convenient, it is something we can’t detect or garner evidence of any kind.</p>

186

<p>

</p>

<p>We make our own purpose. A lot of people like the idea of having their purpose, moral code, and world view handed to them by an all-knowing, benevolent being, but it’s just not that simple. We’re on our own.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the abscence of evidence of leprechauns and invisible unicorns is evidence for their nonexistence.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>By the same logic, Hogwarts and Middle Earth exist.</p>

187

<p>Smallz: If you are trying to make me give you evidence that science is based on observation all you need to do is a simple google search or Wikipedia search for the “scientific method.” It is observational. I didn’t think this would be an area we would have disagreement. I also don’t think you understand the point I’m trying to make. It almost seems like you are making a conscious effort to misconstrue what I’m saying. If this is not the case, I apologize for the misinterpretation. In case you are being sincere I will try my best to clarify.</p>

<p>For science: it is in fact observational. I never claimed that scientists only make claims based on what is observed. In fact, they do keep the possibilities open until more evidence is found. I don’t understand how EM waves disputes my claim. I actually think it supports my claims that absence of evidence is not evidence for the absence of something. This idea comes directly from science, so I don’t know why we are disagreeing on this here.</p>

<p>Well, I did a quick google scholar search for “why do dreams seem so real” and the first result was this: [Consciousness</a>, dreams and virtual realities - Philosophical Psychology](<a href=“Taylor & Francis - Harnessing the Power of Knowledge”>Taylor & Francis - Harnessing the Power of Knowledge)
Abstract
In this paper I develop the thesis that dreams are essential to an understanding of waking consciousness. In the first part I argue in opposition to the philosophers Malcolm and Dennett that empirical evidence now shows dreams to be real conscious experiences. In the second part, three questions concerning consciousness research are addressed. (1) How do we isolate the system to be explained (consciousness) from other systems? (2) How do we describe the system thus isolated? (3) How do we reveal the mechanisms on which this system is based? I suggest that empirical dream research combined with other empirical approaches can help us to sketch answers to all of these questions. I argue that the subjective form of dreams reveals the subjective, macro-level form of consciousness in general and that both dreams and the everyday phenomenal world may be thought of as constructed “virtual realities”. A major task for empirical consciousness research is to find out the mechanisms which bind this experienced world into a coherent whole.</p>

<p>The reason I mentioned it was because I remember my psychology teacher Professor Maas say something along the lines that the mind has no way of distinguishing between dreams and reality DURING the dream. But this is beside the point. In fact, I didn’t need to provide you with any scientific evidence at all because this is a philosophical argument. Again, you took a philosophical argument and argued a minor detail to try to invalidate my larger point I was trying to make about reality and how we perceive it.</p>

<p>I don’t understand how you are trying to lump me together with justinmeche. We are different people with different opinions.</p>

<p>What I was trying to get at was that science is a very strict discipline with a very specific set of guidelines to follow. Ideas such as parsimony, repeatability, and observable come to mind. However, when it comes to spiritual experiences, you can not apply these things because they are subjective experiences. If you think this invalidates it, then so be it. But I believe that not everything in the universe has to fit scientific constraints to exist.</p>

<p>Let me finish this post by posing a question for you: Let’s say you are a bacterium that has the thinking capacity of a human being. I (a human) decide to spray cologne around you (the bacterium). Do you smell it? Let’s also say that I decide to turn on the light. Do you see it?</p>

188

<p>as the bacteria, you do not smell nor see those things because you’re senses are not developed to the point that a human’s is. if yours were, then you would.</p>

<p>as for the death problem, the connection to the time before you were born is a good analogy. when you die, your heart stops and your brain dies. without your brain, you slowly drift out of consciousness as it gets flooded with DMT so your last moments are dilated and filled with trippy oddities (the ultra-religious might see things that comfort them, etc, others might get flashbacks to important memories, etc). but once your brain is totally done, you stop being able to percieve anything. once you can’t percieve or think, you are just as you were before you were born - non existent. not alive. no longer human, if you will. you are just a collection of organic material that will soon decompose with the help of time and some specific organisms or perhaps just whats floating around in the air.</p>

<p>to me, its really that simple and the slight unknowns about the whole thing certainly do not warrant believing in any of the fanciful stories of yesteryear. they in fact enrich the explanation because NDEs are fully explained.</p>

<p>in this ultimately value-less world, humans want to attach meaning or value to anything that they can. their rationality is telling them not to, but their yearning for an explanation is overpowering. its not easy to take comfort in the explanations of pure observational fact. but its the only way that we are going to move this world forward peacefully and without major conflict.</p>

189

<p>Death is a weird concept and none of us really know what it is like. I have often thought about my consciousness going to nothing because I have no memory prior to me being born. But there is another part to this ordeal. When I go to sleep at night I often wake up the next morning with no memory of dreams. It is like I went to sleep and woke up the next instance. There is no time during which I experience the nothingness of sleep because the transition from falling asleep to waking up is so fast. My consciousness turns off and turns right back on. It is impossible for me to imagine my consciousness turning off forever since I am fully conscious now. </p>

<p>Also, the fact that I have no memory of anything prior to being born does not disturb me either. I have family pictures and testimony of my parents about when I was born and life as a baby. However, I have absolutely no memory of my life prior to age of 3 or 4 and even that memory is sketchy. Scientists will simply say that my brain was not mature enough to remembers those years of my life and those memories aren’t necessarily important to remember since my brain is busy learning the life skills, such as speech and language. The point I am trying to make is that existing and not having the memory of existing is something all of us have in common, unless some of you out there remember getting your diapers changed and crying for your bottles. So the thought of having lived in another life prior to this one is not such a foreign idea. But if you believe that physical life and death is like “here now and then gone forever,” this argument won’t make any sense to you. </p>

<p>And if life was really as simple as humans living and dying with their consciousness being erased, why would we need to focus on a spiritual world? Did nature mess up when it created us? Nature could prevented all of the religious stuff if it instilled in humans that no spiritual world existed and that when you die you are gone forever.</p>

<p>PURPOSE: People make the mistake of thinking that God is like a ruler sitting up in heaven and handing down demands on humanity and not letting us choose our own purpose in life. The fact is that everything in this world is connected by a commong fabric and everything is created for a purpose. Everything that happens has a purpose behind it or else there was no reason for it. Reasons can be good, bad, unclear, but there are reasons nonetheless.</p>

190

<p>

</p>

<p>We don’t.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If I was created for a purpose, then I certainly didn’t have any say in what that purpose was. That adds up to God not letting us choose our own purpose.</p>

191

<p>

</p>

<p>“Nature” didn’t “mess up.” Look at the arguments for the evolution of culture in human beings and you can see that ideas about religion can easily be passed down even if they are not beneficial to the individual subscribing to them. Unlike natural selection, which primarily passes down traits that benefit reproduction, memes or ideas can come from many different places not necessarily just your parents. </p>

<p>This means that they can be passed down a number of different ways and that the most successful ones most likely won’t be ones that increase reproductive success but rather are just ones that people decide to remember for one reason or another. Religion is pretty much an example of this, people believe it because other people believe it and it’s essentially a chain from wherever the ideas started. The basic ideas for religion could have been thought up thousands of years ago and with the advent of human culture, it could be passed down from uncles/aunts/neighbors/friends/parents even if it was not beneficial to reproductive success. This can continue and I could see how it would get the way it is today. This is probably a terribly worded argument but if you do a quick search for memes with respect to human culture you will most likely find a better argument than I have written here.</p>

<p>The basic idea is that not all things that humans believe and that are a part of human culture are actually beneficial to the individuals practicing that meme and this can in part include religion.</p>

<p>And like StellaNova said, we don’t need to focus on a spiritual world. I haven’t for a while now and I seem to be doing just fine. </p>

<p>Justinmeche, why do you feel the need to explain the unexplained with religion or god instead of just saying “I don’t know”? Is it a fear that if you say “I don’t know” that you’ll end up going to hell because you didn’t choose a specific god to believe in? Or do you tell yourself that you’re having an intimate relationship with a specific god to make yourself feel better that you’ll go to a heaven after death?</p>

<p>People use religion to fill the gaps in their knowledge when it is just as easy to say “I don’t know”. I’m quite fine with saying “I don’t know how the universe started, but instead of going straight to god, I look at the pattern of human discoveries and realize that hey, we might actually have a full explanation in the future”</p>

192

<p>“as the bacteria, you do not smell nor see those things because you’re senses are not developed to the point that a human’s is. if yours were, then you would.”</p>

<p>This is exactly my point. If you can imagine this for the bacterium then why can’t you imagine this for humans? As I’ve pointed, this is where we are different and you have to come to learn to respect differences instead of calling people stupid. I definitely think there is more to this universe than meets the eye.</p>

<p>On death: I totally understand your point of view. But with all due respect, I still don’t think your understanding of NEAR-death experiences have much support for AFTER-death experiences, which is what we’re talking about here.</p>

<p>“but once your brain is totally done, you stop being able to percieve anything. once you can’t percieve or think, you are just as you were before you were born - non existent.”</p>

<p>To me, it doesn’t make much sense to say something can come from nothing. But I would understand your argument if you said we are nothing that came from nothing and that reality is a biochemical delusion. I like to think humans are something, however. Perhaps we are even more special – animate beings. Basically you are assuming that there is nothing before birth and nothing after birth. I’m saying that there is no way to verify that and you are unwilling to accept these differences in our views.</p>

<p>“in this ultimately value-less world, humans want to attach meaning or value to anything that they can. their rationality is telling them not to, but their yearning for an explanation is overpowering. its not easy to take comfort in the explanations of pure observational fact. but its the only way that we are going to move this world forward peacefully and without major conflict.”</p>

<p>I was avoiding this topic of morality and ethics on purpose. I don’t even know how this is relevant to what we were talking about. All I have to say is this is another place we will disagree. I think that religion and morality are independent of each other. However, I think your worldly set of moral values would be those of efficiency, survival of the fittest, and a lust for the material. I think religious ethics has been good for the world. I just want to point out that your last statement sounds a lot like what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were thinking. I want to ask you a few questions (not to be confrontational, just because I’m curious):
Tell me why murder is wrong. Why not kill the ill and poor in a society to help human kind as a whole move forward? My view of your type of world is one where you should do anything that would improve your genes from passing on as long as you don’t get caught and you don’t feel too bad about doing it.</p>

193

<p>imrightuarewrong,</p>

<p>I don’t feel the need to explain the unexplained with religion and God because what you are referring to as unexplained has been explained for centuries.</p>

194

<p>

</p>

<p>If I simply say a magical unicorn sneezed and the universe came into existence, that is as much a valid explanation as the explanation that “god did it”. So in that sense, no, it has not been explained for centuries. Simply saying something is an explanation does not make it a valid explanation.</p>

195

<p>murder is wrong because every human being has the right to be free from the possibility that they will just be randomly murdered on some other human being’s whim. if that weren’t the case, building an advanced society would be fundamentally impossible.</p>

196

<p>Murder is wrong because it is stripping another of their right to “be”. People ask “if you don’t believe in God, who do you answer to with your actions?”</p>

<p>My answer? Myself. Society. Family. I don’t need there to be a God to know that hurting another isn’t right. i don’t need God to know that it is the right thing to help out others, donate to charity, and clean lakes and rivers. Are you telling me that the only reason you don’t commit murder is because God deemed it’s wrong? I mean, that doesn’t speak highly of your own mental acuity. </p>

<p>Lack of random-killings is evolutionarily advantageous. Humans are pack animals, like dogs. Even canines “know” not to just kill off each other because that would destroy the hierarchy, and leave them alone, which is definitely a disadvantage.</p>

197

<p>smallz…thats not to say that destroying or at least shuffling up the heirarchy wouldn’t do this species a lot of good…but yeah, i agree and you said it better than i myself did.</p>

198

<p>

</p>

<p>Bingo. That’s all you really need to say to someone who believes that atheists don’t have morals and are bound to go out and kill everyone because they don’t believe in a god.</p>

199

<p>Not necessarily. There’s a huge difference between morals that are socially accepted and morals that are absolute. My original question was along the lines of asking you why murder is wrong fundamentally on your evolutionary, reductionist, idealism. You say you get it from family, yourself, and society, but I’m not asking where you get it from. Like you said previously, just because a bunch of people agree on it doesn’t make it true. Now I want to hold you up to the same standard of scrutiny.</p>

<p>“Are you telling me that the only reason you don’t commit murder is because God deemed it’s wrong? I mean, that doesn’t speak highly of your own mental acuity.”</p>

<p>Are you telling me that the only reason you don’t commit murder is because society deemed it’s wrong? I mean, that doesn’t speak highly of your own mental acuity. See how ridiculous that sounds? I don’t think this has anything to do with mental acuity. It has a much deeper implication on what morality is and how people define “good” and “evil.”</p>

<p>Furthermore, I already stated that I believe morality can arise independently from religion. Independent means you don’t need religion to have morality. Read that one more time just so we’re on the same page. Please. Thanks. I said your morality would be very different from the morality we hold sacred today if there was a significant atheistic social influence in the Western culture.</p>

<p>I’ve noticed something during debates with atheists. They always seem to have a didactic arrogance to them. Look man, I’m trying to have a productive conversation with you and you’re insulting my intellect?</p>

<p>I’m asking why you consider it wrong. I think the only way you can answer this in a way that makes sense is if you say that right and wrong are relative to what benefits the species from passing on its genes. Your god is a nihilistic, minimalist. You guys were the ones claiming to “rise above” and “move on” from religion with the scientific knowledge we’ve accumulated. Why don’t you liberate yourselves from these bonds of society and do what’s best for yourselves? So now we come back to the question: why not do what’s best for yourself now that you’re enlightened about what’s “holding us back.”</p>

200

<p>You were going pretty good until the last two paragraphs, then you just basically tried to label atheists as murderers and went over the deep end. And what god are you referring to exactly when you say “your god”? </p>

<p>And of course right and wrong are relative. You’re telling me that if your family is starving and the only way you can get food to eat so that you don’t die is by stealing it, you would still deem that “wrong” and not do it?</p>

<p>Muder is “wrong fundamentally” because it’s not beneficial. The advantages of being in a social group outweigh the advantages obtained by murdering someone else in that social group. If you murder someone, you’re gone from the group and lose all of those benefits and you have to fend for yourself. </p>

<p>I like how your original question is “why is murder fundamentally wrong” but in your last sentence you restate it to be “why not do what’s best for yourself” implying that murder is somehow the best thing for an individual. That is clearly not the case.</p>