Evolution is often linked to Atheist and Pagans (Sensationalist and Materialist) imo their trying to convert (pervert) the world to Apathy and total destruction -they're cunning and conniving - DO NOT TRUST THEM (he-he) there are many who try to establish a link between science and religion (that's why they're in this tribe).
Evolution, which in scientific terms means biological evolution represented specifically by Darwin’s theory of evolution, is loosely used by many to refer to the growth of information and knowledge that is then wrongly presumed to lead to an expanded consciousness, spirituality or enlightenment in time. (it leads to only death and then more death)
This is also misrepresented by some as the “Evolutionary Consciousness” (Witches), wherein the biological consciousness (mind or ego) is mistaken as the spiritual or universal consciousness. I describe it as "the masquerade ball for the ego soul"
There are some serious flaws in these misrepresentations based upon a lack of understanding of the integrated, non-paradoxical, and universal scientific as well as spiritual concepts. The differences between the two - evolution and enlightenment need to be understood to develop a thorough understanding of the secular or genuine spirituality.
The term “Evolution” in the following refers to Darwin’s theory of evolution:
Evolution is of the body (genetic mutations/adaptations); enlightenment is of the mind (psyche).
Evolution (change) creates time; enlightenment dissolves time.
Evolution is translation; enlightenment is transformation.
Evolution is the struggle for outer bodily survival; enlightenment is love for inner revival.
Evolution is relative to the environment (duality); enlightenment is absolute Oneness (non-duality).
Evolution enhances ego or bodily identity; enlightenment dissolves ego.
Evolution is domination over others; Enlightenment is union with others.
Evolution is to attain superiority; enlightenment is to cultivate humility.
Evolution is of the species (crowd); enlightenment is of the individual.
Evolution promotes knowledge; enlightenment cultivates wisdom.
Evolution generates information; enlightenment cultivates awareness.
Evolution enhances intelligence; enlightenment nurtures intuition.
Evolution creates complexity; enlightenment creates simplicity.
Evolution resides in fragmentation/multiplicity; enlightenment resides in unity.
Evolution creates entropy (suffering); enlightenment dissolves entropy.
Evolution is driven by the fear of extinction; enlightenment is driven by the joy of eternity.
Evolution enhances bodily consciousness; enlightenment nurtures universal consciousness.
Evolution is driven by hostile environment; enlightenment is friendly free-will.
Evolution may bring temporary happiness; enlightenment brings contentment.
Evolution may bring material rewards; enlightenment brings meaning.
Evolution is rooted in sex; enlightenment is rooted in love.
Evolution is of the primate being; enlightenment is being human.
Evolution is fighting for a prolonged survival; enlightenment is being of the eternal existence.
Well, all this tells us that the so-called “Evolutionary Consciousness” and “Evolutionary Enlightenment” are nothing but oxymorons defying the universal understanding of the genuine science as well as spirituality.
The above facts are not to suggest that evolution as a science is not relative, but it just doesn't understand the underlying of its causes of things, this is to make others aware that those proponents of SCIENTISM i.e. Atheist and Satanist do not fall for their trickery and language deception - Evilution as a path, is not the road to follow for spiritual enlightenment or universal consciousness
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
-
Re: Evolution versus Enlightenment or Consciousness
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 5:27 PM> DO NOT TRUST THEM
You don't have to trust us. The evidence speaks for itself. The rest of your post is meaningless white noise, as usual.
Evolution and enlightenment are no more at odds than exercise and mathematics. One is a scientific theory based on observation, the other is a personal spiritual goal.
You might as well be comparing gravity and love.
Gravity is of the body, love is of the mind
Gravity creates chaos, love creates order
Gravity is driven by falling, love is driven by rising
So, DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENTISTS who claim that their "theory" of gravity explains falling. If that's true, how can they explain...FALLING IN LOVE? They CAN'T therefore whatever I'm on about is somehow a point. -
-
Re: Evolution versus Enlightenment or Consciousness
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 7:42 PM
Empirical Science an Impractical ideology
WHERE SCIENCE WENT WRONG
this article is important because it shows how Scientism has manipulated Science to the public, with lies and deceit, so much more so than religion ever could or did… people.tribe.net/chaz/blog...c331c84534
“Thus, Science is a means of conditioning the masses to accept future visions that the elite wish to tangibly enact. This process of gradual and subtle inculcation is dubbed "predictive programming." …"Predictive programming works by means of the propagation of the illusion of an infallibly accurate vision of how the world is going to look in the future"…
Materialistic Scientism - by E.F. Schumacher -
-
Re: Evolution versus Enlightenment or Consciousness
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 5:51 AM"Scientism" LMFAO!
Is that even a Word? It sounds like some Freak Branch of a Faith! -
-
Re: Evolution versus Enlightenment or Consciousness
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 11:05 AMIs there a branch of a faith that is not freakish?
Function: noun
Date:1870
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of a perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions.
Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless.
The opposite of evolution is not creative design. They are potentially headed for a merger though. Where science proceeds to become the enabler for each to be their own creative designer, that acts in concert with evolution. Basically nothing more than, don't fix what is not broke and fix what is.
It has never been the survival of the fittest, it has always been survival of the best and the luckiest. And if one thinks that every available tool is not necessary, then they better be very lucky indeed.
-
Re: Evolution versus Enlightenment or Consciousness
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 11:07 AMIs there a branch of a faith that is not freakish?
Function: noun
Date:1870
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of a perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions.
Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless.
The opposite of evolution is not creative design. They are potentially headed for a merger though. Where science proceeds to become the enabler for each to be their own creative designer, that acts in concert with evolution. Basically nothing more than, don't fix what is not broke and fix what is. -
-
Re: Evolution versus Enlightenment or Consciousness
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 1:57 PM"Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. "
Yeah, this is an old topic and mostly a red herring at this point. I've met very few scientists who claim that only scientific or mathematical statements have any meaning. I've met plenty who claim that only scientific or mathematical statements have any meaning TO THEM, but that's a different thing.
See Logical Positivism and Karl Popper's objection to same.
The problem with "scientism" is the confusion generating wordplay, because one who proclaims "scientism" would be a "scientist" but very few actual scientists hold this worldview. It's a straw man attack on the idea that the scientific worldview is the MOST VALID way to sort evidenciary knowledge (which it is) by accusing it of claiming exclusive hold on all quests for truth (which it does not) or by accusing it of claiming that any non-evidenciary pursuit is inherently meaningless (which it isn't.)
So, this is just another piece of confusing colored smoke. Like when people say evolution is "just" a theory (fine, but then ID isn't even a theory) or that it's "based on random chance," instead of incorporating observed random chance in an information-preserving framework.
I mean, Britney Spears may be a bad mother, but she's most certainly NOT a black private dick who's a sex machine for all the chicks. -
-
Re: Evolution versus Enlightenment or Consciousness
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 12:28 AM
I'm not asking you to stop the scientific method, l only that you step back up off that microscope of logic a little bit and read between the lines and expand meditate dance shake it off Breath! and feel a knowiness of wholeness of all who know, there's always two sides to a divided mind you can never Know the truth, you have to experience it ...we evolved from the stars
Scientist should be open and receptive, but if you already know...
"Schumacher (A real Scientist) uses the term scientism because he argues that many people, including some philosophers of science, have misunderstood the theory behind instructional science and believe that it produces truth. But the instructional sciences are based on induction; and as David Hume famously points out induction is not the same as truth. Furthermore, according to Schumacher, instructional sciences are primarily concerned only with the parts of truth that are useful for manipulation, i.e. they focus on those instructions which are necessary to reliably produce certain results. But this does not mean that an alternative instruction set won't work, or indeed an alternative instruction set based on quite different principles. For Schumacher, instructional sciences therefore produce theories which are useful not true, they produce pragmatic truths. By contrast, Schumacher argues that the descriptive sciences are interested in the truth in the wider sense of the word."
-
-
-
-
-
