It depends. If someone believes the earth is flat, while we can prove with empirical evidence that it's round, you can make him believe otherwise by saying he's wrong and showing him the proof. If someone says knowledge derived from human logic, observation and statistics (science) isn't necessarily true because every brick of the house of human knowledge was built by humans, and humans have no means of understanding the "actual" truth because our minds are too limited, the discussion veers off into metaphysics and you can't argue with him. Same goes for someone who believes in something religiously/philosophically abnormal, since those branches can't be empirically (dis)proved. It's all a gut feeling.
It's all good haha, I didn't realize he had and not you, jumped to an assumption there because I didn't completely remember.
I agree with the OP. It gets so old and tiring listening to the nonsense some people spew. The worst is when this type of person claims to be open minded and anyone who challanges them is arrogant, close-minded, etc. Excuse some of us for SUBMITTING to the facts, yes I said SUBMITTING.
Haha ok. I thought I was losing it for a second there... I was worried I took some drugs and posted mean things while I was nodding out lol. I agree with Herb by the way. I think that sums it all up. A lot of spiritual people don't disagree with science, we just see science and spirituality as co-existing and even see science as a part of spiritual existence. You don't have to prove anything to us.... because we've heard it all before, many of us are educated in the fields of science and philosophy, and still believe what we do. Actually I can only speak for myself... I understand that there are some pretty ignorant spiritual people out there (you may even consider me to be one of them), but still, treat them as you would want yourself to be treated if you were ignorant.
By the way, I'm going off topic. This will have nothing to do with criticizing beliefs. Sorry, I have a short attention span. There's actually nothing wrong about this, once you excuse the metaphysical baggage that comes with a word like "spirituality". Especially the last part, about science being a part of spiritual existence. I hope we're talking about the same thing here, as you can probably tell, this is usually a problem when people who are interested in having meaningful discussion talk about things like spirituality. I want to quickly note that this is usually not a problem when a group of people(their beliefs can run the gamut) talk about spirituality or God. It's always just silently agreed upon that everyone knows what they're talking about as sort of an unspoken rule. I would suspect you don't see this to be a problem, and maybe I'm wrong, but it's a problem. Assuming you care about getting somewhere through discourse, I mean. It's not a problem if the goal of the discussion is just to confirm each other's beliefs which are most likely held on bad or no evidence, and supported by wishful thinking and self deception, and other non-rigorous modes of thought. I really appreciate however that you approach the idea of science being applied to spirituality. I would take it further, of course, and say that if there are truths to be known about us, and the universe, the best way to discover them is to apply the modes of thinking found in science: openness to evidence(despite it being contradictory to currently held notions), logical consistency, shedding of bias, and so on. If there is a form of human well-being that is not contingent on merely reiterating ones pleasures and avoiding ones pains, it can be discovered through science. This is a claim about the state of the brain. Why do we have to pretend we know things we have not demonstrated right now, or act like we do not need to? Or add metaphysical baggage to these ideas with concepts like the soul, for which there is as much evidence, as there is for unicorns? If something profound, spiritual, if you will, is to be found, it is not going to be Christian. Or Muslim. Or Hindu. Not in any way resembling how these religions operate right now, at least. There is no Christian physics or Muslim mathematics, even though these religions are bound culturally on some level to these fields. Live and let live type attitudes will get us nowhere except hasten the end of our species. I'm not sure if you agree, but we are faced with the task of convincing a myth-infatuated world, that love, curiosity and honesty are sufficient for understanding reality and that you don't have to delude yourself and frighten yourself with iron age fairy tales. This is a monumental task. I don't think there is an intellectual struggle more worthy of our efforts. This is a future absolutely worth fighting for, it may in fact be the only future compatible with our survival as a species. And this will be a world simply where people cease to praise one another for believing things, or pretending to believe things, for which they have no evidence. But the only path between now and then that I can see, is for us to be unremittingly honest, and advocate intellectual honesty.
I understand what you are saying Argo. I think that "spirituality" is an incredibly broad word, and often times two spiritual person can be as different as a theist and an atheist. I am "spiritual", but I accept science as truth. Science is very special because it is objective, there is no question about it. It is our only hope in terms of technological and intellectual advancement, and it is an incredibly useful tool, a true blessing. I have relatives who are fundamentalist southern baptists who still don't believe in evolution and who take the Bible word for word literally and damn if I don't want to just yell "WAKE UP! How the fuck do you believe this shit!!!?!!!?" at them.... Some of the things they say make me sick... Unfortunately they are defined as "spiritual" just as I am defined as "spiritual". I am not exactly proud of being in the same category of beliefs as these people, and often times I completely forget that when I say I am "spiritual" that the reader who doesn't know me instantly connotates me with ignorant religious beliefs. I can't blame someone for seeing spirituality in that light, because unfortunately mainstream spirituality has become bastardized today into an atrocity.
Are you stupid for quoting that question??? Anything that comes out negative, painfully, emotional, hateful, violent, and ego-based i just find STUPID
Sorry I disagree with your premise to an extent. While I do believe there are stupid things being said on these forums on a daily (minute by minute actually) basis, you do not have the right nor is it cool to denigrate said folks by calling them stupid or their ideas stupid. Why? It's against the forum rules - and it creates a hostile environment. We're ACTIVELY attempting to create a harmonious environment, which is why the rules exist in the first place. By you saying that it's OK to disrespect others opinions, however dumb YOU Might feel they are, you're putting yourself on a pedestal by judging others where you don't have the right to do so. SO yeah, disagree all you want, but do so RESPECTFULLY and without flaming and negativity
Everything is relative, but that doesn't make it meaningless. It's just important to realize that depending on your general viewpoint of the nature of the universe, your entire perspective on the smaller details change. You'll hear writers talk about the "upside-down" world... it's kinda like that. It feels like that anyway. No one's trying to be vague or confusing, but the bigger the concepts your mind starts to dive into, the harder it gets to spell out verbally. But an example of what I mean about perspective is this whole meaningless/meaningful thing. Which is it? It's both. Don't get mad that that sounds like a bullshit answer. It's bullshit, but it's the truth. lol You can say that everything is an illusion, a manifestation. And people who get stuck on that idea alone say the world is meaningless. But these people don't ask themselves why the manifestations are here to begin with. I'd have to ramble on a lot more to get into all that. The only issue with this is you view the majority opinion as the "right" opinion, particularly because you are of the same persuasion. However, for some of us, our perspective seems much more conscious and aware of the nature of things than those whose minds have limited themselves to examining small details in a big universe instead of big details in an INFINITE universe. Also, I'd argue that though you are unaware of it, the ideas many of us communicate here on these forums are also being communicated to you through film, music, television shows, art, etc. If you're in my general age group, they've been doing this Eminem Takeover on Fuse for freakin' ever. When Eminem started, his songs were pretty crazy and messed up. I think there was more depth to them than he realized at the time that can be seen now in hindsight. But the point is, Eminem went through a spiritual awakening when he got clean. Since he came back, he's been a man on a mission. And his songs are fucking brilliant. Listen to his lyrics, his messages. Listen to what he has to say about himself and his songs in interviews and whatnot. Listen to what other celebrities have to say about him. You can also listen to Jay Z, Beyonce, Kanye West, Katy Perry, Christina Perri, OneRepublic, Postal Service, and many others I'm sure I'm not aware of. Listen to some of their latest songs, and watch the videos as well. I don't really know very many people who think that everyone should be treated as equally intelligent. lol In fact, I don't think I know any. However, many people are aware of small ideas that are fractals of larger ideas, and so intelligence comes in different shapes and sizes. You argue that destruction is necessary to encourage growth. I say you're wrong. I believe in construction. I can constructively assist people in elevating their thinking, understanding without resorting to destructive means. Journey doesn't care whether or not you understand him. He simply leaves bread crumbs of his own understanding. You can read them and then twist your own panties in a bunch over them or simply read them and contemplate what sort of meaning the statements might inspire. Your argument here is that it is right and good to disregard that which, upon a necessarily limited contemplation of the idea, becomes a "nonsensical notion." You argue that one's initial reaction to an idea often leads to the truth of its sense. You believe that your "sense" is the "common sense" and the "right sense." I argue that the common sense of humanity is retarded in its fixation with limits despite the fact that written documents on the nature of polarity and degrees and infinity exist all over the place. There are no limits, but there are patterns. When viewed from the common sense of the universe, which is fantastic, the "common sense" of humanity isn't so common at all. The problem with speaking to people briefly in the style of, "You're dumb" doesn't provide intellectual growth for either party. Someone who speaks their mind provides insight that may serve as inspiration for other minds. Do we sometimes feel that the thought conveyed is "inaccurate" or what some circles would call "harmful"? Yes. However, if we feel the need to fight against the propulgation of that thought in that form, we can do it not by killing the thought, but by transforming the thought into what it can and should be. There's nothing wrong with making, forming, and sharing ideas, but if you spot an idea that seems harmful or inaccurate in nature, take the time to encourage its elevational growth to promote understanding and thus independently capable decision making. Sheesh, that was a lot. Now I'm hungry.
Isn't that kind of a negative comment? Is it name-calling to label ignorant/dumb ideas as what they are? Some dumbness is demonstrably dumb.
Actually it was a sarcastic comment. I made the stupid in caps and all bold. But yes, it contradicts itself on purpose. Me labeling anything/anyone as stupid is negative/stupid in itself
Yes, people don't understand that from our perspective we CAN'T be negative. You can only perceive us as being negative. Negativity is a concept we find silly
Well, positive is a nice way of putting what is. If you see "positive" and "negative," then yes, we choose only positivity