|
| Thread: the HC's necessary religion thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted April 18, 2010 04:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The statement aknowledges an existent meaning for the word "god," but would seem dismissing of deities and omniscient supermen. By that defintion, wouldn't art be a subsection within god?
Do you mean to say that art rises above intellectual thought?
(I've been working twenty minutes on this reply, FYI.)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 04:55 PM |
|
|
Well, one might say that art regresses below intellectual thought due it being a phenomenon more based on emotion but yeah, I guess that's what I implied. At this moment I'm not sure if I was thinking straight back then. 
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 05:21 PM |
|
|
It depends, because art is a very wide concept.
Art can be a representation of reality (these art styles later become known as "unimportant, cus any hack can take a pretty picture nowadays)
they can be a representation or an attempt to reach something higher. I was afraid you were going to talk about dadaists or something, because that would be horrible to argument against.
And, well, we can grasp emotions intellectually. The field of study is called psychology.
Though, you know, some people would call some forms of art divine.
and, of course, the denial of all-knowing supermen and deities can be called universalism of sorts. People who define reality as god-like.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 05:41 PM |
|
|
Yeah, you're right.
Is rising above intellectual thought relative to the thinker or some kind of an universally applicabe altitude?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 05:50 PM |
|
|
Well, I think it's assuming there's a limit to human comprehension and that whatever's above that would be God, so I don't know actually. Probably, the bar is set by the most insightful human. Or maybe there is a universal limit that some can barely scratch.
EDIT: I assume there's a limit we can reach with our perception of reality and time. I have been told that through abstract reasoning and countless observations we can theorise there are more dimensions than we can perceive, but we cannot imagine them, so... Basically, that's the limit to what we grasp intellectually, right?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 05:57 PM |
|
|
God is an incredible subjective term, I think. The question, do you believe in God, is often aksed in the idea of how the questioner views God. If the questioner would claim, God is a male, then the questioner have already, most likely, applied this definition of God in the question, without telling so.
Give an objective definition of God, and it should be easy to answer if your definition holds true as well. The problem with this though, is that might not everyone would agree with such a definition.
That's also why I, back in the religion thread (the previous one), asked for such definitions at first, as it to me wouldn't make sense to continue any discussion without it. (I did so anyway though, YAY ME!).
Quote:
EDIT: I assume there's a limit we can reach with our perception of reality and time. I have been told that through abstract reasoning and countless observations we can theorise there are more dimensions than we can perceive, but we cannot imagine them, so... Basically, that's the limit to what we grasp intellectually, right?
Let me come with an analogy on that matter, because it depends...
There's a limit to what we can sense, because our senses are merely chemical reaction defined in certain areas. That means there's a limit to what we can observe and as our imagination and thereby sense of logic is highly dependent of observations (I don't think we could imagine the colour yellow, had we never seen it), then sure, there's a limit to our perception.
However that limit only exists if we don't tamper with our ways to measure reality itself, there may be ways to tamper with what we can observe to any unknown degree, meaning all I can answer to your question is there might be a limit, there might not, it depends on the laws of nature, if it's a "circular shield" (a loop) or if there's no limit if we just use the tools we pocess and evolve through that correctly.
[If you ever took a creature, only percieving 2 dimensions, and moved it along the 3. dimension it doesn't see, the creature would to other similar creatures, I believe, dissapear, because it moves along a way that's not only invicible to the other creatures, but also a way they cannot in any way react with (they can't observe it). However since the world is 3D (or how many it may be) they DO live in a 3D world, but as they've never percieved the third dimension, they cannot imagine it. If you changed these creatures way to observe the world, they'd be able to percieve the third dimension, and basicly it'd give them an infinite amount of space, assuming they're truely 2D creatures and not just 3D creatures that can't see the third dimension).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 06:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However that limit only exists if we don't tamper with our ways to measure reality itself, there may be ways to tamper with what we can observe to any unknown degree, meaning all I can answer to your question is there might be a limit, there might not, it depends on the laws of nature, if it's a "circular shield" (a loop) or if there's no limit if we just use the tools we pocess and evolve through that correctly.
To me, it seems our perception cannot be altered to a higher dimention, because our brains can't even imagine it, so that's where we need to change (and, really, that's either a job for evolution or futuristic technology out of sci-fi novels). Or maybe it's our very eyes that suck. Which might be easier...
Ugh, better not think about this soft science we're throwing around here.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 06:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ugh, better not think about this soft science we're throwing around here.
Why not, after all, that's pretty much the basis of any religion thread? 
Quote:
To me, it seems our perception cannot be altered, because our brains can't even imagine it
Let's divide perception into two stages.
The observation, i.e. some event. If your senses are correctly made for the observation, you'll observe it. If it exists and interacts with you somehow, it's possible to observe. So that's just a question of alteration.
Then there's the observer (the true you) who "sees" all these observation displayed, however what observation can be seen is indepent of "he who sees", but rather on "the way he sees". (A blind man isn't blind, because he's a jerk, is just an example of such).
So if it has any type of effect on you, then it can be sensed and if it can be sensed, then it can be observed by proper modification by you, and if it can be observed, then it can be imagined.
That's assuming there're no loops somewhere that prevents the effect, but not observable part, which might be possible, but is somewhat hard to imagine, and would probably require direct manipulation of the observer in the first place, but that in turn would just be a measure of bad observation method/gear.
If there should exist a region of unpercieveable (not observable, i.e. something that exist and completely aren't reacting with us in any way), then I think we won't be able to imagine and thereby percieve it. If true for all times, then we won't ever be able to do so.
However since this won't have any effect on us, as to us, there's no difference of the world where it exists and where it doesn't exist (exact same world from our view), one can claim that it's as much an uninteresting question as to why the existance of God is uninteresting.
(If you can't measure it, there's not much to describe).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why not [think about soft science], after all, that's pretty much the basis of any religion thread?
First of all, your grammar is all wrong and second I imagine corribus crying after reading this.
I have trouble following your reasoning, so I'll dissect it for a moment:
Quote:
Let's divide perception into two stages.
All right, you divide it into the observation and the observer.
The observation:
You clarify observation as " i.e. some event" and I thought the observation was just the act of observing! Then you say: " If your senses are correctly made for the observation, you'll observe it." which is true and then you say: "If it exists and interacts with you somehow, it's possible to observe. So that's just a question of alteration." and I don't quite understand how you made this leap of logic.
This is how I understand it:
"1) If you are fit to see it, you will see it.
2) Anything that exists and interacts with you is observable.
1) + 2)= So all we have to do is change the way we perceive things in order to perceive it."
However, you state 2) as a given fact and i'm not sure it is a given fact.
All right,
The observer:
SIDE NOTE: By the way, when you said "the true you" between brackets I was immediately reminded of schopenhauer's definition of "the subject".
Anyway, I don't understand anything of what you are saying.
Anyway, you restate what you said in the first paragraph:
Quote:
1) So if it has any type of effect on you, then it can be sensed and if it can be sensed, 2) then it can be observed by proper modification by you, 3) and if it can be observed, then it can be imagined.
I don't agree with 1), simple as that.
Remember, your eyes are just an extention of the brain and I think both would have to be modified. Well, put it like this:
Maybe we could perceive it, if we understood it or
Maybe we could understand it, if we perceived it.
I lean towards the school of thought that maybe it's just impossible for us to grasp it without enhancing the brains AND the eyes.
Listen, if only our eyes were insufficient, then our brains should have been able to have an understading of its intricacies, shouldn't it? And I don't think the eyes could be sufficient and the brains not, because are nothing but an extention of the brains.
Anyway, I THINK your next paragraph talks about the method of perceiving and it's semi-abstract, which is just a rotten way of talking to someone who can't look inside your brain directly. 
Quote:
If there should exist a region of unpercieveable (not observable, i.e. something that exist and completely aren't reacting with us in any way), then I think we won't be able to imagine and thereby percieve it. If true for all times, then we won't ever be able to do so.
I don't think I understand. It's as if you're talking about things that exist in a 3D world. I'm not talking about things in a 3D world! Region? What region? Where? There what we can't imagine? An extra dimension would be rather all-encompassing, don't you think?
Your second to last paragraph I didn't understand
and your last sentence is funny: I can't measure confusion, so there's no point describing it.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 07:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
however what observation can be seen is indepent of "he who sees", but rather on "the way he sees". (A blind man isn't blind, because he's a jerk, is just an example of such).
Stopped reading right there.
Rephrase your argument in a way that's clear and without metaphysical and epistemological nonsense.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 09:07 PM |
|
|
I think that he is trying to say that there are multiple ways in wich one can percieve "the same thing."
To demonstrate in an imaginary way, let us take a man, a bat, a rat and have them percieve a wall in front of them.
The man will be able to see the light bouncing off the wall with his eyes and ends up percieving the wall.
The bat will cry and hear the sound bounce off the wall back to him and ends up percieving the wall.
The rat feels the wall with his whiskers and ends up percieving the wall.
How does this contribute anything to the discussion? Consider a monster attacking someone from another dimension, causing the person's death. Your average guy won't be able to percieve the monster coming, but to another the mysterious death of the person is observable. Compare it to cosmic rays shining down on earth and causing skin cancer and a nice looking tan. You don't see the rays coming, but you can percieve the effects.
You could apply the same thinking to something like the pentecostal thing about the holy spirit filling up the believers.
If the lovecraftian monsters do not interact with things wich are within the limits of human perception, they are of no consequence.
I think that's what Ohforf was trying to tell us. I hope this was a bit clearer than Ohforf's initial ramblings.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 18, 2010 09:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the lovecraftian monsters do not interact with things wich are within the limits of human perception, they are of no consequence.
And that's all there is to it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 19, 2010 09:35 AM |
|
|
@DG
Maybe we understand the term of soft science differently? I understand it as theorising upon the world without valid data to back it up. It goes for both science fields that hope to, in the future, be able to predict outcomes, out of their developed theories upon some "basic" ideas, as well as religion.
And I don't hope that you've anything against that it make me reply to every tidbit to make myself clear.
Well, I suppose you got it right (can't really remember the details of my thought back then), anyway, I do however know that I wrote about assuming no looping in the laws to prevent 2) (such as memory alteration to provide causality) and no kind of manipulation as well (which I guess is basicly the same thing), so I think it's a misunderstanding that you think I stated 2) without questioning that there could be events preventing 2).
Here's what I wrote:
Ohforf wrote:
Quote:
That's assuming there're no loops somewhere that prevents the effect, but not observable part, which might be possible, but is somewhat hard to imagine, and would probably require direct manipulation of the observer in the first place, but that in turn would just be a measure of bad observation method/gear.
I went on that road, because you wrote the brain, so I decided to seperate it into the parts of the brain that brings the observation (tools I call them) and the part of the brain that observes the observation (what I think is what defines someone to be alive and not just a complex machine, I don't know if machine needs defining though).
Btw., you meant this: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Philosophy-1361/2008/5/Schopenhauer-object-subject-1.htm?
Not sure I understand his reasoning, it seems like he claims that the soul, or whatever you wanna call it, is nothing physical and is not part of this world, which I think is jumping to conclusion without observations to be based upon. Even if true, it would be weird to claim such a world to be "not this world", as world, or universe, pr. definition, afaik, means everything, so it'd not go against the laws of nature, rather it'd be an observation (if true) that'd maybe require an alternative field.
You mean the blind man part? Just trying to make clear, that on the matter of what we can imagine, whatever defines us, is not what decides this, if groups are properly made. That is, if we manage to seperate consciousness, thoughts, memory, senses, etc. and look at them each by themselves, then we can remove certain aspects of the brain (I guess), and thereby only focus on fewer on them in the matter of what is required to be able to imagine something. All I claim/guess is, that consciousness, as least as I understand it, is independent of this, but of course without an observer in the first place, it makes little sense to talk about the observation (but it doesn't define the observation, the outside world and the transport into consciousness does this).
Well, there might be situations, where it's not possible to seperate, but under the assumptions that one can isolate effects, without being manipulated somehow, one can at the very least sense the effect, or there'd be no effect.
What causes the effect, is often not very interesting though, as it's more interesting to describe the effect and find connections with events, in my opinion.
It might be true, but I think you misunderstand it when I use the term observation.
Observation consists of both the event, the method to gain the event into the brain and the interpretation of the brain all the way to the consciosuness. I however like to just call the way to get the observation into the brain and the interpretation by the brain before reaching consciousness for the senses and I think that's maybe where you confusion happened?
Now, "understand" is not the word I think we were discussing, I thought it was imagining it. If one would replace understand with imagine, I'm of the second line of thought. About understanding it depends on if you mean how or why, if how, then I think it's a matter of describing and thereby again the second line of thought, if it's about why, then I think neither lines are sufficient.
Well I agree, but that's what I call enhancing the senses. I wrote all the parts before, because you write enhancing the brain I wanted to show that it's probably not about enhancing consciousness, but rather enhancing the tools, i.e. the mechanisms that interpretates data and presents it to the consciosuness.
Not certain I understand you here, but if I do, then the brain might have the system required to imagine data of much broader area than what the usual person have, but to build the image, one might need to percieve it first.
I wonder, will a person who've never experienced a given colour be able to imagine it? Or if a person have been blind all life and gets vision back, would it the world percieved be something said person ever could have imagined?
If the brain is capable, but lacks a triggering mechanism, it basicly mean that it should be possible to construct cells for certain images that we've never seen, I'd think.
An example of this: Let whatever parts of the brain that defines the images we imagine now make random assemblies to produce random images, unless these parts that construct the images themselves needs a trigger, and unless this isn't provided for, then I'd imagine we would be able to imagine stuff without percieving it first.
Though until then, it's my own everyday experience (and guess) that one cannot imagine what one have not seen (at least a part of, e.g. you can construct new things through parts of older things).
Quote:
And I don't think the eyes could be sufficient and the brains not, because are nothing but an extention of the brains.
I completely agree.
If it's the paragraph between your two quotes, then it's exactly where I write that what you object to (first called 2) later called 1), I believe), is based upon assumptions of no looping laws in nature that prevents this and no manipulation (which probably basicly can be seen as the same thing because it might be impossible to seperate).
Maybe if I had written subset in stead of region (i.e. the set of all things, percieveable and unpercieveable, and then the subset of all unpercieveable).
Also, an example of not observeable physical things: It takes infinte energy to accelerate something to the speed of light, but if something have always been at a speed beyond the speed of light (or equal I suppose), then there's no laws hindering this, to my understanding (though it'd probably be massless).
Anyway, such objects are to my understanding not observable, though they might exist, they might not. So this would be something that exists (if it exists) that doesn't react with us in any way. I claim as we can't percieve such objects, they can look a way (if they could be observed by us) which we aren't able to imagine, because we've never seen it.
There I try to make it somewhat relevant to the thread of religion. That's the view of the agnostic, or at least my view, that if we can't observe it, we can't describe it, whereby it makes little sense to talk about it, as there, to us, is no difference of a world where it exist and where it doesn't.
The same thing about God, unless defined properly, one can say there's no difference of a world with God and without God, all effects that one would claim God responsible of, can be claimed responsible of anything else, heck even going to the extreme of the all powerful spaghetti monster that is not God, but have high enough power to explain whatever observation you'd make.
However, if someone defines God as a feeling, etc., then to them God is real (and I'd say they're slave of that feeling, but whatever).
You can measure confusion, or you'd not be aware of being confused. Sure it might be hard to find an objective scale, but unless you don't think there's such a term confusion, then everytime you're confused, you're measuring confusion. You can then describe your confusion, i.e. something you don't understand, or similar.
When I write measure, perceive and observe, it basicly means the same thing.
@Mvass
It just means that consciousness, which is part of the brain, probably is independent of our ability to observe (i.e. it doesn't matter who observes, it's the method of observation that defines what's to be observed).
One can of course go the other way and talk about the possibility of the entire world being false, and we live in some kind of matrix, but I don't think that's relevant until measureable.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 19, 2010 07:16 PM |
|
|
The last post is a good example for the "downgoing" of most of the threads in the OSM.
378 quotes in 1 post.......
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted April 21, 2010 12:51 PM |
|
|
1) how do you let Religion affect your day to day life. friends, work, family, etc, etc.
in a religous country such as my own,it affects every part of life,however i don't let it get to me
2) How did you choose you're religion, and if you didn't, are there any others that you admire or respect? being an atheist in such country it sometimes makes me specile
3) How does religion affect you're oppinions, politics, and social ideals? when debating with extreamly religous people,make me feels stupid,due to the lack of decent argument,however it should be noted that i respect religouse people even if i consider them blind sheep.
4) How do you think you're religion has contributed towards getting society where it is today? for both ways,planty!
It made our laws and taboo's and it also coused alot of lifes.
5) what do you think we did before religion? there ware alot less morals and laws placed,so chaos was in a metter of speech,but i think we would change it anyway... i do like to say to secrifice childern to greek god ares to annoy extreamly annoying people sometimes,(pagen is a curse imo!).
6) where would you place your religion?
in mount olympus of course!
7)What is your current religion? the holy pole
8) what is your definition of religion? not using wikipedia or googling it, your own words to decribe it, please.
a code of rules that is sole ideal is to controll the messes and exploit them while having there undying support,and legitimacy to do horrific crimes.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 22, 2010 09:33 AM |
|
|
Anti, welcome to the thead
Quote:
1) how do you let Religion affect your day to day life. friends, work, family, etc, etc.
in a religous country such as my own,it affects every part of life,however i don't let it get to me
2) How did you choose you're religion, and if you didn't, are there any others that you admire or respect? being an atheist in such country it sometimes makes me specile
3) How does religion affect you're oppinions, politics, and social ideals? when debating with extreamly religous people,make me feels stupid,due to the lack of decent argument,however it should be noted that i respect religouse people even if i consider them blind sheep.
4) How do you think you're religion has contributed towards getting society where it is today? for both ways,planty!
It made our laws and taboo's and it also coused alot of lifes.
5) what do you think we did before religion? there ware alot less morals and laws placed,so chaos was in a metter of speech,but i think we would change it anyway... i do like to say to secrifice childern to greek god ares to annoy extreamly annoying people sometimes,(pagen is a curse imo!).
6) where would you place your religion?
in mount olympus of course!
7)What is your current religion? the holy pole
8) what is your definition of religion? not using wikipedia or googling it, your own words to decribe it, please.
a code of rules that is sole ideal is to controll the messes and exploit them while having there undying support,and legitimacy to do horrific crimes.
1) just out of interest, which country do you live in?
3) yeah, it's very hard to debate some of the more conservative ones. Although, I've had rather pleasant chats with priest of a good many faiths, hinduism, christianity, Islam, judaism, even pagan priests. and I commend that you're respect for others, even if you think otherwise.
4) about the laws, it's actually interesting. Yes, most religious authorities dictated the laws in ancient times, but most of the laws of "no stealing, no killing, etc" pop up in all cultures. scientist have now theorised the laws we make based on values come from pack animal instinct, rather than a supernatural force.
5) Ah, but the greek gods are still a religion. (smarmy smarm-smarm) and there are no records of any kind of baby sacrifice in pagan societies. the most you could get to with that would be in roman societies, who left babies they didn't want on rubbish dumps, and that was purely familial politics, not religious ones. human sacrifice hardly ever happened in pagan societies, as far as we know, and when it did, it was more due to the justice system (like if someone had killed the cheif). In celtic society, the druids would have a number of ways to kill the convict, drowning, stoning, burning and hanging (sound familiar to those who have studied the witch trials?).
8) wow... thats... dark... I suppose in the wake of the catholic nonce scandal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7bWwORLzc4 (just a fun little song, I hope it doesn't offend anyone) that it's a perfectly justifable
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2010 10:02 AM |
|
|
New questions - new answers.
Quote:
6) where would you place your religion?
7)What is your current religion?
8) what is your definition of religion? not using wikipedia or googling it, your own words to decribe it, please.
6. To the layman, I would say "atheist". To a more discerning person, I would say "agnostic atheist".
7. I follow no religion. I am an atheist and a materialist.
8. "A systematic belief in something beyond the material world."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted April 22, 2010 01:12 PM |
|
|
If you'd take alook in my profile you'd see im from israel,a country of everything jewish.
and trust me,secrifcing babys is the way!  of course there are those among people online who take me sirously ,and then go spreading that jews secrifice babys and we drink humane blood,were not cool enought to be vampires than you very very much,for those young antisemites who wants an opening..
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted April 22, 2010 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
6. To the layman, I would say "atheist". To a more discerning person, I would say "agnostic atheist".
7. I follow no religion. I am an atheist and a materialist.
8. "A systematic belief in something beyond the material world."
I find this a great place to make a point at.
When it comes to a discussion on religion and beliefs there usually comes up the religious affiliations of the participating people. Someone says that he is a christian, another says that she is jewish and so on, these are some quite clearly eshtablished systems of belief on wich you can have quite intricate discussions on about the communities, their history etc. When it comes to someone saying that he is an atheist, you might run into the problem of atheism not being a well eshtablished system of belief but rather a very vague and sporadic bunch of individuals with the biggest thing in common being that they do not believe in a god. There is not alot to talk about when it comes to not believing in a god and you might end up knowing very little about the individual ahteist's beliefs if the discussion at hand is about atheism.
I would like to define spirituality as: "Finding coherence and purposefulness in life and finding life worth living through a medium of choice (i.e. religion and philosophy)." Religion is usually regarded as having an element of community in addition to the spirituality. But with many people, particularily some of those who like to call themselves atheist, it's more about an individual level of spirituality less dependent on external sources and strong community.
What I'd like to do, would be to stretch the concept of religion to also include this individual spirituality. This would allow us to perhaps have a better view on what do atheists and individual believers believe in and what makes them tick.
What do you think?
Also @mvass: By that definition of religion, wouldn't the ancient greek religion be in fact the ancient greek non-religion? For it is strongly implied that places like the river Styx and underworld are very material places indeed and so are the deities. What about certain atheistic denominations of Buddhism?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2010 11:37 PM |
|
|
Buddhism and the Greek religion both believe in things beyond the material world - for example, souls.
Oh, and I would define spirituality completely differently. Spirituality to me means, "belief in something beyond the material world" - like religion, but not necessarily being systematic. It does not necessarily have anything to do with finding one's purpose in life.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
