(January 3, 2014 at 9:54 am)enrico Wrote: Spirituality is not something new really but it is new to those who never practice it.
Blind faith does not search for the truth on the other hand spirituality is a constant work to bring the knowledge within up to the surface.
It is with the practice that it is possible to know whether there is something behind this physical world or not but how would you know if you never bother to investigate by practicing?

This is what I mean. You make a bunch of claims and that's it. Many of us "practiced spirituality" at some point in our lives (in my case, most of my life). When we point out that we found nothing you will respond with some variation of "you did not search properly" or "you did not search long enough" or "you searched in the wrong place" or whatever it takes to protect your beliefs. Your belief system requires that you reject anything that doesn't confirm it, which leads to grasping at straws and making up explanations that are unconvincing. We're not the ones trapped in dogma.

(January 3, 2014 at 9:54 am)enrico Wrote: It is with the practice that it is possible to know whether there is something behind this physical world or not but how would you know if you never bother to investigate by practicing?

Perhaps because the proposed methodology is flawed?

(January 3, 2014 at 9:54 am)enrico Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 9:34 am)Tonus Wrote: But you're not showing us anything new. You're simply repeating claims that men have been making for centuries, with nothing to back them up aside from blind faith. Which is to say that "there is nothing new in your analysis."

Spirituality is not something new really but it is new to those who never practice it.
Blind faith does not search for the truth on the other hand spirituality is a constant work to bring the knowledge within up to the surface.
It is with the practice that it is possible to know whether there is something behind this physical world or not but how would you know if you never bother to investigate by practicing?

---

(January 3, 2014 at 9:47 am)Severan Wrote: Enrico, you've ignored this statement. I know you're trying to come up with excuses for every other fallacy you have, but I've conveniently posted this again for your convenience.

Please do not ignore this time:

Talk to someone that was dead (had a heart attack or something) and was brought back to life. After flashing through memories and going through that tunnel thing, usually there is nothing after that, just unconsciousness. Quit talking about near-death experiences. Ask people who have been dead, not almost dead. Second, talk to medical researchers. Usually, there is an explanation. There are millions of possible explanations, yet you still pick one non-likely scenario that fits your beliefs. Just like that "Sword in the field" video.

Are you saying that people who were declared dead by a qualified doctor were not really dead?

No...
I'm saying that people declared dead by doctors were dead, but were brought back to life.

For instance a man had a heart attack a while back was technically dead, but modern technology brought him back

---

Also, enrico, answer this: Do you not claim that these "thousands" experienced something supernatural during their NDE?

And he has ignored me again, fancy that!

(January 3, 2014 at 8:24 am)enrico Wrote: You may find strange but i do believe you.
In fact it is all as i already said many times.
Anyone who build up a good relationship with anyone else will soon or later find that sentiment reciprocated.
On the other hand if you are not interested in building up a relationship with that person or entity then it is quite natural that that person or entity will not reciprocate.
As far as you are not interested in knowing God it is quite natural that in your NDE (if you ever had one) you will see or perceive absolutely NOTHING.

And now you're being a sanctimonious, goalpost-shifting arsehole. How dare you even presume to tell me what I believe and how sincerely I hold those beliefs.

"You're not interested in knowing the truth of my assertions, therefore that proves them to be true" is the final refuge of one who has nothing to offer escept noise and a flatulent stench.

And please stop winking at me; even if I were to swing that way, I certainly wouldn't be interested in you.

(January 3, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And he has ignored me again, fancy that!

Spamming is the only way he will answer.

(January 3, 2014 at 6:30 pm)Severan Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And he has ignored me again, fancy that!

Spamming is the only way he will answer.

He doesn't know how form a coherent sentence so I think it might be a bit much asking him to reply properly.

(January 3, 2014 at 9:38 am)enrico Wrote: I already mention the ........
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Book-Near-...1571745475 .............but i guess you don't bother to read previous post before you come up with the usual stupid claims.

I've said this every time Enrico posts a link to this book, but the only qualifications that the author actually has is an honorary degree that has nothing to do with science, and a degree from a college for psychics and spirit mediums. Not exactly a leading expert in science, nor one with any real education such that he claims should be taken seriously.

It's interesting, then, that enrico can ignore that and repeat his already debunked claim about the evidence in that book, while at the same time castigating someone else for not reading things and repeating themselves.

But then, intellectual integrity would be somewhat beyond him, being that he has no intellect to speak of.

My local library has a copy of this book, and I have requested it sent to my branch. We'll see if it contains the so-called "veridical NDEs" which enrico claims are described in it, and I will see if these accounts have "the right stuff."

You know I'm not a yogini because I quote Wikipedia? Really? If I quoted false information from Wikipedia, you might fault my scholarship, but anyone who quotes a popular work on NDEs by a non-specialist is the last person to be smearing me on account of my choice of sources. Whenever I did quote Wikipedia, I sourced the information from multiple sources. Only idiots shriek impotently about using quotes from Wikipedia if the information is legitimately valid. But then, simpletons like to grab at any straw, such as the patently absurd, "It's from Wikipedia, therefore there's something wrong with it!" What a douche you are.

I am. And I sunder worlds. You just make stupid noises. What on earth are you doing here that is of value to anyone? Nothing.

(January 2, 2014 at 6:44 am)Tonus Wrote: It's no wonder that enrico can keep these threads going for dozens of pages.

You can't grasp it yet so let me explain to you why.
When a business is not finished people tend to go on and on until it is finished.
This is a natural thing.
As i already said you guys so far had a field day dealing with religious dogmas as dogmas are easy to knock down being based on false truth.
But enrico beliefs are not based on dogmas so every time you try to knock them down you only knock your head on a hard brick wall and your pursuit get nowhere but because of your blind faith in your dogmas you keep on insisting hoping to finish the business.
All at no avail.

---

(January 3, 2014 at 10:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 9:38 am)enrico Wrote: I already mention the ........
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Book-Near-...1571745475 .............but i guess you don't bother to read previous post before you come up with the usual stupid claims.

I've said this every time Enrico posts a link to this book, but the only qualifications that the author actually has is an honorary degree that has nothing to do with science, and a degree from a college for psychics and spirit mediums. Not exactly a leading expert in science, nor one with any real education such that he claims should be taken seriously.
It's interesting, then, that enrico can ignore that and repeat his already debunked claim about the evidence in that book, while at the same time castigating someone else for not reading things and repeating themselves.
But then, intellectual integrity would be somewhat beyond him, being that he has no intellect to speak of.

It may sound strange to you but many of the most successful people in all field of life are school dropouts.
I usually judge by the achievement not by the qualification.
The best knowledge is achieved by intuitional science which is not taught at the uni but of course you are free to believe the opposite.

---

(January 4, 2014 at 4:51 am)rasetsu Wrote: My local library has a copy of this book, and I have requested it sent to my branch. We'll see if it contains the so-called "veridical NDEs" which enrico claims are described in it, and I will see if these accounts have "the right stuff."

You know I'm not a yogini because I quote Wikipedia? Really? If I quoted false information from Wikipedia, you might fault my scholarship, but anyone who quotes a popular work on NDEs by a non-specialist is the last person to be smearing me on account of my choice of sources. Whenever I did quote Wikipedia, I sourced the information from multiple sources. Only idiots shriek impotently about using quotes from Wikipedia if the information is legitimately valid. But then, simpletons like to grab at any straw, such as the patently absurd, "It's from Wikipedia, therefore there's something wrong with it!" What a douche you are.

I am. And I sunder worlds. You just make stupid noises. What on earth are you doing here that is of value to anyone? Nothing.

Actually i didn't really said that the information you took from wiki was wrong.
I instead said that someone knowledgeable in yoga would express his-her opinion without the need to take tips from other sources as the knowledge within is the best source.
Again you fail and demonstrate your usual falsehood.

---

(January 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 6:30 pm)Severan Wrote: Spamming is the only way he will answer.

He doesn't know how form a coherent sentence so I think it might be a bit much asking him to reply properly.

Eh, what you expect from a school dropout like me?
I realize that i am not very good in forming COHERENT SENTENCES and in many other things that is why i need your help in understanding few things.
1) What is the difference between spirituality and religion?
2) Where philosophy eventually lead to?
3) Can real progress happen within this physical world?
I know how busy you are but please enlighten me if you can.
Thanks.

---

(January 3, 2014 at 10:05 am)Severan Wrote: Also, enrico, answer this: Do you not claim that these "thousands" experienced something supernatural during their NDE?

Supernatural can be a misleading word.
For the creator nothing is supernatural but for the creation everything that does not go along with the physical laws it is.
Now when the consciousness loose the parallelism with the dying body and separate then it is no longer bound by physical laws and the previous supernatural become natural so it does experience what we call supernatural that in reality is natural.