If

[Surgenator]

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.

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.

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.

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.

??? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.