Meaningless ???

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes of course they are not. We think of music in terms of spirituality, its certainly superfluous to our survival, as is appreciation of art, literature, history etc. Spirituality has to do with the flow of consciousness, this was my meaning and intent.

I do not accept that 'spirituality' and 'consciousness' are one in the same. Overlapping or interrelated in certain ways, sure. But you cannot equate one with the other.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I do not accept that 'spirituality' and 'consciousness' are one in the same. Overlapping or interrelated in certain ways, sure. But you cannot equate one with the other.

i just did 🙂

Originally posted by vishvahetu
And that is the one thing that separates us from the animals, and if a human doesn't question his existence and seek God, his human birth is wasted, and he is on the same level as an animal.

You are free to 'seek God'. And I am free not to. And yet we are both humans and not "on the same level as animals". Seeking God is not what makes us human, just as declining to seek God does not makes us animals. There are countless things that set us apart from animals besides the propensity of some humans to 'seek God'. Perhaps exercising "the ability and freedom to seek or not to seek God" is a defining characteristic of humans.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because the only thing which separates us from squiggly the red squirrel is spirituality, in other words, without it, we are essentially the same, we build nests, we have children, we gather nuts for winter, we grow old and we die.

I must point out Agers that i am keen to distance myself from any type of we are meaningful and you're existence is ...[text shortened]... rship a deity, type of approach, I dont like it, it reeks to the high heavens of condescension.

I won't revisit ground already covered in JB's responses to this, but why should I be so concerned that if we remove 'spirituality' I become (not that I believe you here of course) indistinguishable from Squiggly?
Indeed I could ask what differentiates me from anyone else were I to assume we all possessed "spirituality", how does this demarcation differ in any tangible sense from that between me and squiggles?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i just did

Well if you have any curiosity about the ideas and approach of people who disgree with you and your self-fulfilling converging of words and concepts - which you evidently do have - then you will need to get your head round "consciousness" and "spirituality" not being one in the same - albeit temporarily and merely for the purposes of discussion.

Clearly, in this context of meaning and meaninglessness, and theism and atheism, the sense of "spirituality" in play is the one pertaining to the supernatural and the relationship between humans and a purported God figure.

The sense of "spirituality" that means 'the vital principle or animating force within living things or the fundamental emotional and activating principle determining one's character' - which clearly overlaps with "consciousness" - is surely not the sense of the word that applies when theists are telling atheists that their lives have no meaning without 'spirituality' as it would instantly undermine the vocabulary they need to deliver their condescending assertions.

Originally posted by Agerg
I won't revisit ground already covered in JB's responses to this, but why should I be so concerned that if we remove 'spirituality' I become (not that I believe you here of course) indistinguishable from Squiggly?
Indeed I could ask what differentiates me from anyone else were I to assume we all possessed "spirituality", how does this demarcation differ in any tangible sense from that between me and squiggles?

well the question would be, if it were not for your consciousness which i equate with spirituality despite Mr Booths reservations, how would you differ from squiggles? Perhaps you might cite language, the ability to form thoughts and express them in words so that others may grasp them, yet even this is based upon what, your consciousness. Your ability to replicate an image, to enjoy Escher, is based upon what, your consciousness. These things it appears to me are distinctly human, what separates you from squiggles, for you are able to reason, whereas squiggles has an innate sense of life, a purely instinctive sense if you like. He does not reason that he needs to find a Mrs Squiggly, he does not reason that he needs to build a nest, to gather food for winter, to procreate, he just does it based purely on instinct, you on the other hand have a different level of consciousness and are able to reason, to appreciate art, beauty, purely abstract thought, to reflect on your past, to mould your future by what you are doing at present, to love and to cherish, in other words to be spiritual!

Originally posted by John W Booth
Well if you have any curiosity about the ideas and approach of people who disgree with you and your self-fulfilling converging of words and concepts - which you evidently do have - then you will need to get your head round "consciousness" and "spirituality" not being one in the same - albeit temporarily and merely for the purposes of discussion.

Cle tly undermine the vocabulary they need to deliver their condescending assertions.

sorry Mr Booth i reread your text, yes i agree that it could be perceived that way, and yes it would undermine their propensity for condescension 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well the question would be, if it were not for your consciousness which i equate with spirituality despite Mr Booths reservations, how would you differ from squiggles? Perhaps you might cite language, the ability to form thoughts and express them in words so that others may grasp them, yet even this is based upon what, your consciousness. Your abili ...[text shortened]... future by what you are doing at present, to love and to cherish, in other words to be spiritual!

Well I suppose I'd have to accept your notion of "spirituality" here with the expectation that I'll be adopting another notion of it when some other theist chimes in; it certainly doesn't appear to be a standard usage of the word.

That said, now I know what *you* mean by "spirituality" (independent as it is from anything "godly" ) I don't disagree with you. I'm not sure what part of my OP you've tried to address though.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are free Mr Booth to disagree, to define your own terms, to state the differences between what you feel spirituality and consciousness are, you are not free to project. If you feel that its the animating force etc etc , then that is up to you, within or without the context of atheism/theist discussion, i need not acquiesce, however, if you would ...[text shortened]... he fundamental differences, i will readily read your words, with pleasure, but i will not argue.

I am not defining my own terms. I am using the conventional definitions of those terms. And I am doing so in the context of this thread, this OP and in the context of the current atheism/theist discussion spanning several threads.

Here are the two definitions at issue:

1. "spirituality" pertaining to the supernatural and the relationship between humans and a purported God figure. >> This clearly is not synonymous with "consciousness" although it may play a key role in the consciousness of theists.

2. "spirituality" pertaining to the animating force within living things or the fundamental emotional and activating principles determining one's character. >> This is clearly synonymous with "consciousness" to some degree, i.e. a cognitive state in which we are aware of ourselves and our situation and which facilitates our autonomy of action and thought.

Now, quite clearly (again!), "spirituality" definition number 2 is NOT the one that the likes of epipheneus and josephw are employing when they assert that a life without God and spirituality is meaningless etc. etc. IF they meant No.2 and not No.1 then their assertions would be nonsensical.

Originally posted by Agerg
That said, now I know what *you* mean by "spirituality" (independent as it is from anything "godly" ) I don't disagree with you. I'm not sure what part of my OP you've tried to address though.

With his 'limited' and somehwt pleasingly incongruous definitions (in the context of the current atheism/theism thing on this forum), robbie is obviously saying that all atheists for him are "spiritual" beings because they have "consciousness" regardless of their rejection of God or religiosity. He has made it quite clear that he disagrees with the theists' assertions that the lives of atheists are "meaningless".

Originally posted by John W Booth
Yes indeed, spirituality has got something to do with all the things I mentioned. But, at the same time, all the things I mentioned do not necessarily have something to do with spirituality. Quite clearly, as demonstrated by the rich and meaningful lives lived by countless non-believers and non-religionists all across the world, the existence and enjoy ...[text shortened]... s, specualtions, personal growth [and so on], are not dependent on a belief in the supernatural.

Firstly all things, and I mean everything in existence has its foundation in the spiritual, because without the spiritual the material does not manifest at all.

Secondly, the rich and rewarding lives of atheists, and persons who follow false religion are but an illusion, here today gone tomorrow.

Wise men know that for something to be genuine, it has to be permanent, and material life for all persons are but temporary and dust in the wind.

How is dust in the wind rewarding.

At the death of the material body, everything you cherished is disconnected from you forever, and then in the future, all those things you cherished are gone also forever,....so how is this satisfying.

In the spiritual world everything is permanent and there is no death, so everything is actually fore filling and wonderful.

This world is just a dream, and your rich life you talk of, is also just a dream meaning nothing.

Everything is dust.... your wife is dust, you are dust, your friends are dust, your home is dust and so on.

How could one bundle of dust have a rewarding experience with another bundle of dust....it cant, but only in a dream. or an illusion.

The soul is real, and when the spiritual beings have their eternal relationships together in their real home with God, then that is truly rewarding and permanent, which makes it reality.

This world is non reality. (so dont worship it)

While you worship the things of this world (the illusion) .....you will have to come back to this world of suffering time and time again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i equate [consciousness] with spirituality despite Mr Booths reservations

One can define "consciousness" without mentioning the supernatural. But I think almost all theists in this meaningfulness v meaninglessness dialogue would define "spirituality" in terms of the supernatural. It is refreshing that you choose not to.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Firstly all things, and I mean everything in existence has its foundation in the spiritual, because without the spiritual the material does not manifest at all.

Secondly, the rich and rewarding lives of atheists, and persons who follow false religion are but an illusion, here today gone tomorrow.

Wise men know that for something to be genuine, it ha ...[text shortened]... d (the illusion) .....you will have to come back to this world of suffering time and time again.

I don't accept anything that you are asserting. None of it. Your beliefs are not relevant to me and have no bearing on my mindmap. I am at a loss as to how to converse with you.

Originally posted by John W Booth
With his 'limited' and somehwt pleasingly incongruous definitions (in the context of the current atheism/theism thing on this forum), robbie is obviously saying that all atheists for him are "spiritual" beings because they have "consciousness" regardless of their rejection of God or religiosity. He has made it quite clear that he disagrees with the theists' assertions that the lives of atheists are "meaningless".

He has made it quite clear that he disagrees with the theists' assertions that the lives of atheists are "meaningless".

Is that conclusion based on the following?

I must point out Agers that i am keen to distance myself from any type of we are meaningful and you're existence is meaningless unless you worship a deity, type of approach, I dont like it, it reeks to the high heavens of condescension.

If so, that's not what I got out of it. Seems to me that here he disagrees with the "approach" for appearances sake and not necessarily the assertion itself.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I am not defining my own terms. I am using the conventional definitions of those terms. And I am doing so in the context of this thread, this OP and in the context of the current atheism/theist discussion spanning several threads.

Here are the two definitions at issue:

1. "spirituality" pertaining to the supernatural and the relationship between h ...[text shortened]... etc. [/i] IF they meant No.2 and not No.1 then their assertions would be nonsensical.

i revised my text Mr Booth, as you can see, sorry for the inconvenience and i agree that they can be perceived in those ways.