(December 11, 2014 at 10:00 am)robvalue Wrote: I really cannot figure out for the life of me what most theists are doing here. I don't mind at all, I'm glad it's an open forum. Just can't grasp what they are trying to achieve.

Yeah, that's pretty confusing at times, but they can bring a fair amount of entertainment with them...well, some of them do.

(December 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 6:36 am)Riketto Wrote: I only got few minutes before i have to go so i will only answer the last question and leave the rest for tomorrow.
When you say.................It doesn't matter how many people follow exactly what Buddha says. The Buddhist religion says the ultimate goal is to rid oneself of wants. It's all internally focused. So your imaginary seperation between spiritualism is internal and religion is external is bullshit................is not the Buddhist religion that say this.
Buddha has really nothing to do with religion.
Buddha teach spirituality not religion so it is Buddha spiritual message that say that not Buddhism religion that came later.
Religion is all about worship while spirituality is all about self knowledge which eventually lead to God realization.
Those who practice only yoga exercises have really nothing to do with not only spirituality but even with religion because as i just said religion imply worship.
There is no worship in asanas or yoga exercises so these people have nothing to do with either spirituality or religion while 99% of the so called Buddhism follow religion and have nothing to do with spirituality.

I have already address this. The difference between spirituality and religion is NOT interval vs external focus. The difference is touchy-feely bullshit vs organized-written bullshit. Nothing is preventing spiritualist from worshipping Gaia, and nothing is preventing religion on focusing the betterment of themselves.

Christians that don't follow all the rules in their holy book do not stop being Christians. Buddhist that don't adhere to everything in their doctrine do not stop being Buddhist. Yoga praticiners that don't adhere to everything in yoga do not stop being yoga praccticiners. So please that your marriage of the appeal-to-population falacy and no-true-scotsman falacy and throw it away. Falacies only convince the ignorant.

Your analysis is faulty.
You say.............Christians that don't follow all the rules.........or............Buddhist that don't adhere................and so on......
Now these people in a way pretend to follow the original message but they don't because they transform Buddha or Christ message into something else in order to please their own interests so it is a mistake to be called Christians or Buddhist.
Those who follow only yoga exercises (asanas) are also not yogi and even less spiritualists or religious as the so called Buddhists or Christians people so any comparison with one another doesn't make any sense.
You called practicioned but what are they practicing?
Not Christianity, not Buddhism and not yoga.
They practice their own interpretation of the original message which has nothing to do with the real thing.
Suppose i pretend to follow your philosophy but i do not really follow it properly as i change your ideas with my own interpretation and i go around saying that i am a Surgenator.
Wouldn't you think that i am a nutcase?

---

(December 10, 2014 at 6:25 am)Tonus Wrote:

(December 10, 2014 at 5:36 am)Riketto Wrote: Ok. so let me ask you one thing.
Suppose you are in love with somebody.......i pop up and ask you to give me evidence that you really are in love with someone.
How do you think you can prove to me that your love is real and such love produce a nice feeling?

So if someone tells you they are in love with someone, you automatically must assume it is true, since it cannot be proven, correct?

Time and time again i said that your experience belong to you and no one else.
It is like working hard and saving money in a physical sense.
What you earn belong to you.
While physically speaking you can give your money away spiritually speaking you can't.
The feeling stay with you and that is it, that is why it is so hard to give evidence that the thing is real.
So put it in this way.
Materially speaking it is possible to give evidence.
Physically and mentally speaking it is a bit more difficult and spiritually speaking it is very very hard but not impossible.
When someone will invent some sort of sensor machine that will be able to go through the glands like the pineal gland similar to the X rays that are able to go through the bones then everything will be much easier.
At the moment the only way is to experience by yourself.

---

(December 11, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Elskidor Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 10:00 am)robvalue Wrote: I really cannot figure out for the life of me what most theists are doing here. I don't mind at all, I'm glad it's an open forum. Just can't grasp what they are trying to achieve.

Yeah, that's pretty confusing at times, but they can bring a fair amount of entertainment with them...well, some of them do.

Nothing is really free these days.
Now that i know that we provide entertainment i will start charging you a fee everytime you read my posts.

---

(December 10, 2014 at 7:36 am)robvalue Wrote: I think you'll find some claims require evidence, and some don't, depending on whether you want the claim to be true or not.

In other word you say that if you can't give evidence that you are in love and your love make you feel good your so called love doesn't exist at all?

---

(December 10, 2014 at 8:33 am)Stimbo Wrote: What, as opposed to a complete nutcase who refuses to change his views no matter what reality says?

Stim, i really need your help.
I do understand that we are not mates anymore but please forget and try to help me.
Now you say ........WHAT REALITY SAYS.
You must know very well what the reality is so please enlighten me and tell me what the reality says and where can be found.
Don't forget that i still hold that precious KUDO for you which i am quite ready to give you as soon as possible.

(December 12, 2014 at 8:48 am)Riketto Wrote: Time and time again i said that your experience belong to you and no one else.

Then it cannot be used as a reliable way to confirm anything, can it?

(December 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I prove my love with my actions and my intentions to the person of interest.

You are not answering the question.
I also can prove my love with my actions and my intentions to the person of interest in this case with God but what about give evidence to me that the thing that you claim is real?
You guys asked me to give evidence that a different world or dimension exist that is why i challenge you to explain how it is possible to give evidence of something that is not material.

Quote:LOL. The distiction you're trying to wedge in doesn't exist because the resulting NDEs are the same. For example, if you drove to Las Vegas using highway 93 and I used highway 95, we would still arive at Las Vegas. The method doesn't matter if the effects are the same.

How do you know that the effects are the same?
If an hypothetical God exist he may NOT allow a masturbation to have the same effect as something which occur only naturally.

Quote:Please address Sherman's arguments and not waste time assisinating his character.

So if you would have to employ someone you wouldn't bother to look at his-her references?
But again this guy can not prove that an after life does not exist.
He only rely on somebody else belief which again goes without any evidence.

---

(December 12, 2014 at 9:39 am)Tonus Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 8:48 am)Riketto Wrote: Time and time again i said that your experience belong to you and no one else.

Then it cannot be used as a reliable way to confirm anything, can it?

In a way yes if you pretend to experience the feeling by doing nothing.
In an other way no because you have the possibility to experience by yourself so everything is relative to your intentions.

(December 12, 2014 at 8:48 am)Riketto Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I have already address this. The difference between spirituality and religion is NOT interval vs external focus. The difference is touchy-feely bullshit vs organized-written bullshit. Nothing is preventing spiritualist from worshipping Gaia, and nothing is preventing religion on focusing the betterment of themselves.

Christians that don't follow all the rules in their holy book do not stop being Christians. Buddhist that don't adhere to everything in their doctrine do not stop being Buddhist. Yoga praticiners that don't adhere to everything in yoga do not stop being yoga praccticiners. So please that your marriage of the appeal-to-population falacy and no-true-scotsman falacy and throw it away. Falacies only convince the ignorant.

Your analysis is faulty.
You say.............Christians that don't follow all the rules.........or............Buddhist that don't adhere................and so on......
Now these people in a way pretend to follow the original message but they don't because they transform Buddha or Christ message into something else in order to please their own interests so it is a mistake to be called Christians or Buddhist.
Those who follow only yoga exercises (asanas) are also not yogi and even less spiritualists or religious as the so called Buddhists or Christians people so any comparison with one another doesn't make any sense.
You called practicioned but what are they practicing?
Not Christianity, not Buddhism and not yoga.
They practice their own interpretation of the original message which has nothing to do with the real thing.

Restating your position is not an argument against mine. There are many christian denominations out there, being one vs another does NOT make you less of a christian. The same applies to buddhist, and yoga praticiners. The important part is the core principles are the same.

Quote:Suppose i pretend to follow your philosophy but i do not really follow it properly as i change your ideas with my own interpretation and i go around saying that i am a Surgenator.
Wouldn't you think that i am a nutcase?

Thats a strawman if I ever seen one. There is a big difference between changing principles and interpreting the principle. For example, lets take the principle "thou shalt not commit harm to another." If you then give your child a flu shot, you indirectly commited harm against your child when the needle pierce her skin. However, you prevented her harm from the flu that she would of contrated giving her more harm. So did you follow the spirit of the principle, YES.

Plus, you're ignoring the falling-of-the-wagon affect. People will try to follow the teachings, and will sometimes fail. Espically with a principle to remove oneself's of wants, they will fail a lot of times.

(November 19, 2014 at 9:09 am)Riketto Wrote: WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OR SAY IF YOU DIE AND FIND OUT THAT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL AND GOD IS THERE?

1) Would you say.........oh, well there was no evidence that you existed that is why i never believe that you exist.

Number one comes closest to what my response would most likely be.

(December 12, 2014 at 9:47 am)Riketto Wrote:

(December 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I prove my love with my actions and my intentions to the person of interest.

You are not answering the question.
I also can prove my love with my actions and my intentions to the person of interest in this case with God but what about give evidence to me that the thing that you claim is real?
You guys asked me to give evidence that a different world or dimension exist that is why i challenge you to explain how it is possible to give evidence of something that is not material.

??? I don't think you understand what people are asking you then. Noone is doubting you believe. We are doubting the existence of God, afterlife, etc... Your belief is not evidence that a Go d, afterlife, etc.. exist. So we want something that is not subjective.

Quote:

Quote:LOL. The distiction you're trying to wedge in doesn't exist because the resulting NDEs are the same. For example, if you drove to Las Vegas using highway 93 and I used highway 95, we would still arive at Las Vegas. The method doesn't matter if the effects are the same.

How do you know that the effects are the same?
If an hypothetical God exist he may NOT allow a masturbation to have the same effect as something which occur only naturally.

The pilots described the same experiences. That is how we know they're the same.

Until there is a difference in the stories, why should be believe they're different? So you add your God in there?

Quote:

Quote:Please address Sherman's arguments and not waste time assisinating his character.

So if you would have to employ someone you wouldn't bother to look at his-her references?
But again this guy can not prove that an after life does not exist.
He only rely on somebody else belief which again goes without any evidence.

Are Sherman's arguments so well done that you can only attack his character and not his arguments?

Burden of proof lies on the person that is making the claim. The claim is "NDE's are evidence for the afterlife." Sherman's arguments are not to disprove the existence of an afterlife, but the claim that NDE's are evidence for an afterlife.

(December 12, 2014 at 1:59 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Restating your position is not an argument against mine. There are many christian denominations out there, being one vs another does NOT make you less of a christian. The same applies to buddhist, and yoga praticiners. The important part is the core principles are the same.

Theory doesn't take you anywhere.
These people say that they are Christians, Buddhist or whatever they like but in practice they are not because they do not follow the original message.
The core principles are only there in theory not in practice so it would be like holding in your hands a tiger made of paper and pretend that what you hold is the real tiger.
Sorry surgen you too got nothing in your hands to make any point.
All you got is a paper tiger pretending instead that your argument is a real tiger.

Quote:Thats a strawman if I ever seen one. There is a big difference between changing principles and interpreting the principle. For example, lets take the principle "thou shalt not commit harm to another." If you then give your child a flu shot, you indirectly commited harm against your child when the needle pierce her skin. However, you prevented her harm from the flu that she would of contrated giving her more harm. So did you follow the spirit of the principle, YES. Plus, you're ignoring the falling-of-the-wagon affect. People will try to follow the teachings, and will sometimes fail. Espically with a principle to remove oneself's of wants, they will fail a lot of times.

You keep on diverting the real issue with all your intellectual jargon.
Let us take religious people.
The original message was not to harm not to be greedy to live a healthy life to help those in need to elevate ourself spirituality and so on.
Today most of these principles have gone to be replaced by materialistic ideals so when the principles are only in theory there is no more value in them.
This to me is the real end of the story.

---

(December 12, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Surgenator Wrote: ??? I don't think you understand what people are asking you then. Noone is doubting you believe. We are doubting the existence of God, afterlife, etc... Your belief is not evidence that a Go d, afterlife, etc.. exist. So we want something that is not subjective.

The very reason why i make an example of something that it is very hard to demonstrate (like to give me evidence that you are in love with someone) is because in the mental and even more in the spiritual arena to give demonstration get more and more difficult compared to demonstrate materially.
You didn't get it didn't you surgen?

Quote:The pilots described the same experiences. That is how we know they're the same.
Until there is a difference in the stories, why should be believe they're different? So you add your God in there?

To me it all depend whether the NDE is caused by a natural death or an accident like in the case of this pilot or they are caused by induced reasons in which case i don't think they are real NDE.

Quote:Are Sherman's arguments so well done that you can only attack his character and not his arguments? Burden of proof lies on the person that is making the claim. The claim is "NDE's are evidence for the afterlife." Sherman's arguments are not to disprove the existence of an afterlife, but the claim that NDE's are evidence for an afterlife.

If Sherman disprove that NDEs are not evidence for an afterlife he should come up with evidence that NDEs do not constitute evidence for an afterlife.
Has he done so?
No, he hasn't done so that is why he can't say that NDEs are NOT evidences for an afterlife.
The day he will be able to do so i will clap my hands and pat on his back and say to him....BRAVO Mik.
To disprove someone idea you need evidence that point to the contrary.
Where is his evidence?

(December 13, 2014 at 9:09 am)Riketto Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 1:59 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Restating your position is not an argument against mine. There are many christian denominations out there, being one vs another does NOT make you less of a christian. The same applies to buddhist, and yoga praticiners. The important part is the core principles are the same.

Theory doesn't take you anywhere.
These people say that they are Christians, Buddhist or whatever they like but in practice they are not because they do not follow the original message.
The core principles are only there in theory not in practice so it would be like holding in your hands a tiger made of paper and pretend that what you hold is the real tiger.
Sorry surgen you too got nothing in your hands to make any point.
All you got is a paper tiger pretending instead that your argument is a real tiger.

Mine is all theory? Well, what about the different denominations of christianity. All of them identify as followers of christ. All of them believe that through Jesus they can recieve everlasting life, a core belief of christianity.

You are the one who wants to redifine the definitions of religion and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirituality to support your claim. The definitions of the two are strongly linked and do not have an internal vs external distinction you desire.

Quote:

Quote:Thats a strawman if I ever seen one. There is a big difference between changing principles and interpreting the principle. For example, lets take the principle "thou shalt not commit harm to another." If you then give your child a flu shot, you indirectly commited harm against your child when the needle pierce her skin. However, you prevented her harm from the flu that she would of contrated giving her more harm. So did you follow the spirit of the principle, YES. Plus, you're ignoring the falling-of-the-wagon affect. People will try to follow the teachings, and will sometimes fail. Espically with a principle to remove oneself's of wants, they will fail a lot of times.

You keep on diverting the real issue with all your intellectual jargon.

??? Explanations are not diversions.

Quote:Let us take religious people.
The original message was not to harm not to be greedy to live a healthy life to help those in need to elevate ourself spirituality and so on.

And you got the original from where?

I didn't mentioned that spirits have not been shown to exist. That includes our own spirit. I was interpretting spirit = mind. So "elevate ourself sprirituality" doesn't make any sense to me.

Quote:Today most of these principles have gone to be replaced by materialistic ideals so when the principles are only in theory there is no more value in them.
This to me is the real end of the story.

So people weren't worried about food, money, social status at some golden age in the past? Your view is so simplistic that I can't take it seriously.

Quote:

(December 12, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Surgenator Wrote: ??? I don't think you understand what people are asking you then. Noone is doubting you believe. We are doubting the existence of God, afterlife, etc... Your belief is not evidence that a Go d, afterlife, etc.. exist. So we want something that is not subjective.

The very reason why i make an example of something that it is very hard to demonstrate (like to give me evidence that you are in love with someone) is because in the mental and even more in the spiritual arena to give demonstration get more and more difficult compared to demonstrate materially.
You didn't get it didn't you surgen?

The difficulty of obtaining evidence is not the same as no evidence. You are still working with no evidence. Also, if it is getting more and more difficult to demonstrate, doesn't that mean it was easier to demonstrate at some other time? That is how make belief works, not evidence.

FYI, "spiritual arena" is non-sensical jargon.

Quote:

Quote:The pilots described the same experiences. That is how we know they're the same.
Until there is a difference in the stories, why should be believe they're different? So you add your God in there?

To me it all depend whether the NDE is caused by a natural death or an accident like in the case of this pilot or they are caused by induced reasons in which case i don't think they are real NDE.

There is your bias. You want there to be some difference (even though none have been found). In my Las Vegas trip example, it doesn't matter which highway someone takes as long as they still end up in Las Vegas. It's the same concept for NDE's, "natural death" or induced makes no difference.

Quote:

Quote:Are Sherman's arguments so well done that you can only attack his character and not his arguments? Burden of proof lies on the person that is making the claim. The claim is "NDE's are evidence for the afterlife." Sherman's arguments are not to disprove the existence of an afterlife, but the claim that NDE's are evidence for an afterlife.

If Sherman disprove that NDEs are not evidence for an afterlife he should come up with evidence that NDEs do not constitute evidence for an afterlife.

You should really understand what the burden of proof means. The person contering your claim doesn't have to prove the opposite claim. The person just has to show your claim doesn't hold up.

Quote:Has he done so?
No, he hasn't done so that is why he can't say that NDEs are NOT evidences for an afterlife.

You didn't read the article at all. You didn't even read the title, "Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven." The title itself contradicts your statement.

Quote:The day he will be able to do so i will clap my hands and pat on his back and say to him....BRAVO Mik.
To disprove someone idea you need evidence that point to the contrary.
Where is his evidence?

Is there a way to disprove the existence of any spiritual entity? This is very important question, and I want you take some time to think it through.

(December 13, 2014 at 2:09 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Mine is all theory? Well, what about the different denominations of christianity. All of them identify as followers of christ. All of them believe that through Jesus they can recieve everlasting life, a core belief of christianity.
You are the one who wants to redifine the definitions of religion and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirituality to support your claim. The definitions of the two are strongly linked and do not have an internal vs external distinction you desire.

The people who define what religion and spirituality is haven't got a clue what religion and spirituality are.
They don't practice spirituality so how the hell would they know what it is.
It really doesn't matter whether their definition is published here or there.
Spirituality is the effort to realize who you really are and this effort involve self awareness which increase the consciousness.
It is like to get the hidden part of the iceberg of consciousness up, visible and part of you.
Does the rosary the mass or the paternoster or the recitation of old mantras can bring this awareness up?
Of course they can't, that is why it is next to impossible for religious people to understand what Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Krishna and other were talking about.

Quote:And you got the original from where?

From a real Guru like P.R.Sarkar.

Quote:I didn't mentioned that spirits have not been shown to exist. That includes our own spirit. I was interpretting spirit = mind. So "elevate ourself sprirituality" doesn't make any sense to me.

We don't have spiritS.
We only have our own spirit within and the spirit is not the mind.
Beside it is natural that it doesn't make any sense to you.
Since when you show any interest in getting the iceberg of consciousness up?

Quote:So people weren't worried about food, money, social status at some golden age in the past? Your view is so simplistic that I can't take it seriously.

This is one more diversion of yours.
The issue was about the original spiritual message that got lost and therefore is related to people that pretend to follow such original message.
How can they when in fact their mind has become materialistic?
St Francis show how to follow such message but who is following that message anymore?

Quote:The difficulty of obtaining evidence is not the same as no evidence. You are still working with no evidence. Also, if it is getting more and more difficult to demonstrate, doesn't that mean it was easier to demonstrate at some other time? That is how make belief works, not evidence.

One more diversion.
I didn't mean that in the past it was easier to demonstrate. (you should have understood this). I rather refer to the fact that it is more difficult to demonstrate a spiritual or mental feeling compared to a physical one.

Quote:FYI, "spiritual arena" is non-sensical jargon.

Arena is a space or situation so spiritual arena is the space or situation in which spirituality take place.
That is NOT a jargon surgen. hock:

Quote:There is your bias. You want there to be some difference (even though none have been found). In my Las Vegas trip example, it doesn't matter which highway someone takes as long as they still end up in Las Vegas. It's the same concept for NDE's, "natural death" or induced makes no difference.

Real NDEs got most of the things in common like.......yes there is God, yes there is reincarnation, yes there is a beautiful place up there, yes death after an NDE it doesn't scare anymore, yes meat eating is not good anymore and so on but induced NDEs don't really teach how to live better as if God keep some sort of separation between Him and someone that is not ready to improve his-her life.
This is what i understand after reading hundreds of NDEs experiences.
If you think otherwise you are free to believe so.

Quote:You should really understand what the burden of proof means. The person contering your claim doesn't have to prove the opposite claim. The person just has to show your claim doesn't hold up.

But Sherman in his book counters the claim and when you counter a claim you got to have something that make sense.
He doesn't that is why i said that he is a nutcase.

Quote:You didn't read the article at all. You didn't even read the title, "Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven." The title itself contradicts your statement.

Actually i did read that article.
The nutter rely on Oliver Sacks study not on his own practical study.
Sacks study the body and the mind.
There is no indication that he ever practice self-awareness so how it is possible for someone who never enter the Arena of spirituality to understand something outside body and mind?

Quote:Is there a way to disprove the existence of any spiritual entity? This is very important question, and I want you take some time to think it through.

For anyone not interested in spirituality this question doesn't make any sense.
For anyone which instead is practicing spirituality there is no question that each and every creature come with body-mind and spirit which vary from creature to creature.
So no you can't disprove because as you practicing you know you are a spiritual entity and therefore everybody else is as well but again if you don't practicing spirituality you would never know that the package of every entity is composed of body-mind and spirit.