nirvnail

If spirituality is defined as 1. How one defines it's relation with the universe. or 2. A being's quest for the "ultimate" truth. ", isn't science "spiritual"?

If reincarnation is simply the energy of your body being transferred to another conscious configuration, Isn't decomposition of organic matter (which is then recycled into a new being) scientifically feasable reincarnation?

If energy is never destroyed or created (modern physics) Isn't the energy used to construct your being your true immortal soul?

For those who consider morality important, what is the most effective, realistic "spiritual" philosophy for creating a moral society? Is there only one path, or are there many? What are your opinions on Nonsuperstitious Buddhism?

Corona688

Perhaps, depending on your definition. Don't try and tell me it's a religion, though. No, it's not...

I suspect you're using the definition of energy in a different way from science. Energy is energy - a strictly measureable and very real quantity. Souls don't qualify as energy by virtue of their not existing.

Energy is conserved... the particular arrangement that makes up living, breathing humans is not. Death is the end. Many of the atoms in my body came from the core of a star that went supernova, supernovas being the process that produces elements heavier than carbon... however, I am not a star. Likewise, whatever happens to my atoms after I die, they will never again form "me". Very big question... it starts with the Golden Rule in my opinion, but obviously doesn't stop there.

sweep

if you want

yes, but it wouldn't constitute you. That is a more complicated dilemma. The most common misconception is that we actually become dead. Thereby our non existence is a contingency only because we are alive. Think of the opposite for the moment. Think of the youngest person you know. Before that person was born you wouldn't begin by suggesting (person you know) will be born in a year. In other words there aren't any people waiting to live. non-existence is not a contingency for life, yet neither is life truly a contingency for non-existence. Technically, when we take away all differences, or the essence, the fundamental poser that makes people rub their chins, is consciousness. Consciousness doesn't go anywhere; It becomes during the course of our lives and it evolves. wouldn't it be absurd to pity the newborn that dies at birth? What a bummer, they never got a chance for life. In fact we are so incomprehensively insignificant that existence is inevitable.

the funny thing is, everyone will still be saying the same thing for countless years: 'shit, I'm going to be dead'

no, it is impersonal, in my opinion. That which is beyond mortal is that, which may or may not realise its only true immortality rests in its destruction. The fact that pain ends, is only one good reason for the cessation of awareness.

(HERE IS THE MORAL BIT)

If I rely upon your own definition then I must define my relation to the universe as any human would separate two grains of sand on the beach. In other words I have to work with the many to form part of a cohesive society. The fact that people become restless and curious rules out absolute rule by only a handful of people, even if this isn't the case (at the moment) Really, some people are so power hungry and/or ignorant that they are setting the stage for the demise of our species on this planet.

We usually do have a choice. On a personal level there are people who will try to take advantage of me. When some people realise that we don't all just bend over and take it up the ass, they are more likely to refrain from actions that will compromise their well being. Fortunately we also have a judicial system that creates a relatively 'chaos free' mode of existence

it doesn't exist