Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Science vs. Spirituality.

NHA

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 10:18:03 PM
It can kill people and i think corpses can fertilize soil. Lets double check with Thor.


Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 11:34:59 PM
This is because we live in a era where science is in its infancy and we're still stuck to pre-science spiritual traditions which are now inherently flawed and obsolete in most forms due to the new found understanding and self awareness brought to us by science.

That's backwards.  It is new enhancements that are untested and therefore more prone to flaws.  New enhancements are essentially being given trial runs to see if they aren't, in fact, obsolete.  The "old" enhancements have already stood the test of time and have survived because they were useful.  They are tried and true and more reliable.  In 1000 years many aspects of science might be obsolete because they have not proven useful for all we know.

When lightning comes crashing out of the sky, whether it was caused by charged particles in the atmosphere and magnetism or whether it was cause by Thor battling Giants in the clouds is irrelevant insofar as lighting come crashing out of the sky either way.  All that matters is how we relate to reality, not how "accurately" we can describe it.

We can never unknow what we know now. Our science and spirituality have to balance with each other. Old spirituality is obsolete. We should learn from it, find it what worked and why and begin the new age of men.
Lettin' nillas know.

I hope our aryan overlords will emerge form their l secret base below antartica and wipe all of those under 500 of IQ And don't have the ability to mindtravel into the Xerces Galaxy.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 12:05:46 AM
You can begin this new age of men by unknowing what you 'think' you know.
Yes, it can be done.
Squawk!

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 01:00:37 AM
This is because we live in a era where science is in its infancy and we're still stuck to pre-science spiritual traditions which are now inherently flawed and obsolete in most forms due to the new found understanding and self awareness brought to us by science.

That's backwards.  It is new enhancements that are untested and therefore more prone to flaws.  New enhancements are essentially being given trial runs to see if they aren't, in fact, obsolete.  The "old" enhancements have already stood the test of time and have survived because they were useful.  They are tried and true and more reliable.  In 1000 years many aspects of science might be obsolete because they have not proven useful for all we know.

When lightning comes crashing out of the sky, whether it was caused by charged particles in the atmosphere and magnetism or whether it was cause by Thor battling Giants in the clouds is irrelevant insofar as lighting come crashing out of the sky either way.  All that matters is how we relate to reality, not how "accurately" we can describe it.

We can never unknow what we know now. Our science and spirituality have to balance with each other. Old spirituality is obsolete. We should learn from it, find it what worked and why and begin the new age of men.

Here's a practical point that you can learn from old spirituality:  science doesn't make for good aesthetics.  Particles and magnetism don't make for good aesthetics.  Gods make for good aesthetics.  Thor makes for good aesthetics.  Poetry makes for good aesthetics.  Now, a religion is not solely its aesthetics, of course.  But how are we going to communicate our "new spirituality" without indulging in some form of expression?  Many atheists get it wrong, in fact, by making this exact confusion.  They take the representation for the reality (Thor isn't actually fighting giants in the clouds).  I once read something that claimed the way to understand mythology is that Thor is not the cause of Thunder.  Rather, he is the cause and the effect, he is the cause of Thunder and the Thunder itself.  The way I see it, it is the militant atheists that need to stand down and stop picking fights with religion on the basis that there is not actually a man in the sky.
His Majesty at the Swamp / Black Arts Lead to Everlasting Sins / Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism / Oath of Black Blood / Privilege of Evil / Dawn of Possession / In Battle There is No Law / Thousand Swords / To Mega Therion

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 01:10:09 AM
Great comment. I enjoyed that.
That, dear readers IS art.
Science can never hope to read as well.
Squawk!

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 01:15:53 AM
This is because we live in a era where science is in its infancy and we're still stuck to pre-science spiritual traditions which are now inherently flawed and obsolete in most forms due to the new found understanding and self awareness brought to us by science.

That's backwards.  It is new enhancements that are untested and therefore more prone to flaws.  New enhancements are essentially being given trial runs to see if they aren't, in fact, obsolete.  The "old" enhancements have already stood the test of time and have survived because they were useful.  They are tried and true and more reliable.  In 1000 years many aspects of science might be obsolete because they have not proven useful for all we know.

When lightning comes crashing out of the sky, whether it was caused by charged particles in the atmosphere and magnetism or whether it was cause by Thor battling Giants in the clouds is irrelevant insofar as lighting come crashing out of the sky either way.  All that matters is how we relate to reality, not how "accurately" we can describe it.

We can never unknow what we know now. Our science and spirituality have to balance with each other. Old spirituality is obsolete. We should learn from it, find it what worked and why and begin the new age of men.

Here's a practical point that you can learn from old spirituality:  science doesn't make for good aesthetics.  Particles and magnetism don't make for good aesthetics.  Gods make for good aesthetics.  Thor makes for good aesthetics.  Poetry makes for good aesthetics.  Now, a religion is not solely its aesthetics, of course.  But how are we going to communicate our "new spirituality" without indulging in some form of expression?  Many atheists get it wrong, in fact, by making this exact confusion. 


I relate to what your saying. I think we're going to have to find ways to romanticize the scientific process. If an old religion could be rewritten to fluff up a naturalist perspective while offering sound moral guidance then we'd be in business. That is ideal in fact.

Quote
The way I see it, it is the militant atheists that need to stand down and stop picking fights with religion on the basis that there is not actually a man in the sky.

Not when half the country doesn't believe in evolution and a third believe protecting Israel is the will of jebuz.

Mods around here used to advocate fresh church burnings, now we're not even supposed to be mean to Christians?
Lettin' nillas know.

I hope our aryan overlords will emerge form their l secret base below antartica and wipe all of those under 500 of IQ And don't have the ability to mindtravel into the Xerces Galaxy.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 01:36:06 AM
Regarding logos, a few of you are making really weak and stale academic type arguments for spirituality. None of them get to the heart of the matter.

Regarding ethos, a few of you are egotistical and haughty... it just shines through very clearly in your words.

So, you're only reinforcing Wolfgang's worldview and mindset.

Shahabudin Suhrawardi put it best:

"If the spiritual advisor be not perfect and excellent, the student wasteth his time. He will seek relief in doubting all that he hath heard or read; and regarding as fable the accounts of holy men who have reached truth."
"It is not the language of painters but the language of nature which one should listen to, the feeling for the things themselves, for reality, is more important than the feeling for pictures." - Van Gogh

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 12:46:26 PM
The main problem with science is that people don't understand its limitations.  Also it opens up possibilities which humanity is incapable of using constructively.

"I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 01:09:06 PM
Science and spirituality should always be in agreement. The problem here is not the religious people, it's those using science for their agenda. Which group frequently mentions science as a positive thing? That's your manipulator.
but i'm not sure if i can tinkle in front of a crowd.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 04:25:13 PM
Science appears, on the face of it, to be a good thing.
But it is not a replacement for spirituality.

Science takes a thing, manipulates it, 'understands' it, and exploits it.
This process, far more often than not, results in the destruction of whatever science is applied to.
Whereas spirituality appreciates a thing, for what that thing is, perceives it, makes use of it, while not destroying it.

Science seeks always to 'understand'. And of what use is 'understanding'?
Once labeled, known, put in a box and organized, what is that thing, then?
It's life, its magic, its uniqueness, has been taken from it, and it is, henceforth, taken for granted.
Used up.

Spirituality makes use of.
Science uses up.
The former reveres, appreciates, and benefits from.
The latter demeans, diminishes, and destroys.



Science, like "spirituality" is simply a tool, a method, a technique.  Do you blame the sword for the hand that wields it?

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 04:35:46 PM
Spirituality is not a tool.
It is a baseline, reference-point, from which to live life.
Not having a baseline, one is able to say things like: "spirituality is simply a tool".

In fact a life that lacks spirituality is not a life at all.
I know this because I used to have no spirituality.
I had no way of knowing it was essential to life.
Now that I do know, I do what I can to share the revelation.

People often take the position of: "Hey, get off my back; I'm dead and I like it".
Which is fine with me. I understand that the dead have no concept of what it is to be alive.
But being dead, in such large numbers, has a huge effect upon society at large.
Most will agree that there is a problem, with society, that nobody seems able to fix.
I have identified the problem.
It's hardly surprising, is it, that I would be interested in communicating it?
Squawk!

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 04:44:38 PM
Crow's sentiment is very interesting. I'm just starting to explore some traditionalist thought, but I believe Evola states that a civilization is flawed without a reference to the transcendent and spiritual side of life. A king is flawed without a direct connection to God.

Even though I don't know personally if it is true, the fact that my liberal professors wanted to automatically dismiss any myths/beliefs/religions of ancient peoples as simply "oh they were just doing it to secure power, or for the money, or for the bitches" certainly makes me curious to explore alternative theories. According to Marxist theory, rappers who focus entirely on money and hoes would be the most realist religious leaders of them all.
I don't know about you guys, but I love my under-120s. They're so cute and funny. Just yesterday one stole my GPS unit and another one took a dump in my yard. Ha ha, they're such cards.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 05:00:24 PM
Spirituality is power. It's as simple as that.
Science is the illusion of power, and a double-edged sword, too often used to destroy, rather than create.
A spiritual adept has no need of science: it is a poor substitute for the real thing, which needs no hardware, no instruments, no infrastructure, no physical manifestation.
Try to imagine being everything, everywhere, always. Can science provide that?
Spirituality can.

Science is a way to harness what exists, and turn it to human purpose. Which is sometimes useful.
Spirituality is a way to make use of what exists, while allowing what exists to go on existing, as it was intended to exist.

I have a rabbit. It turned up, one day, out of the forest, and set up camp.
It is a very beautiful rabbit, and it eats my garden.
I could insist on keeping my garden as a garden, and eat the rabbit.
But I would rather enjoy experiencing the rabbit being a rabbit, than keep my garden as it was before the rabbit showed up.
The rabbit is very, very happy, and so am I. It comes indoors, when it wants, and chases the cats. And the raccoons.
The garden, meanwhile, undergoes a re-balancing, as it adapts to being partially eaten by the rabbit, while it gets fertilized with rabbit turds.
It is too soon to tell what the net result will be, but in the meantime, I gaze upon an evolving paradise that I did not manipulate to my own desires.
This brings me satisfaction, and depth of experience, and that, probably, is what spirituality is about.
The rabbit, I am sure, is as happy with this arrangement as I am.
It knows I am its friend.




Squawk!

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 09:03:26 PM

Quote
The way I see it, it is the militant atheists that need to stand down and stop picking fights with religion on the basis that there is not actually a man in the sky.

Not when half the country doesn't believe in evolution and a third believe protecting Israel is the will of jebuz.

Mods around here used to advocate fresh church burnings, now we're not even supposed to be mean to Christians?

Christianity's problem is its slave morality.  Criticize it on that basis.  Atheists never do this.  Humanist atheists cling to slave morality worse than Christians.
His Majesty at the Swamp / Black Arts Lead to Everlasting Sins / Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism / Oath of Black Blood / Privilege of Evil / Dawn of Possession / In Battle There is No Law / Thousand Swords / To Mega Therion

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 11, 2012, 09:20:50 PM
I've often pondered churches.
What magnificent structures they almost always are.
Americans wouldn't be so familiar with that.
Churches, in North America, lately, are often previously used warehouses.

Burning real, old-world churches, would be sacrilege.
Of the architecture and love, alone, without whatever else might be considered.

Squawk!