If

[Little Rik]

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.

And you got the original from where?

From a real Guru like P.R.Sarkar.

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?

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.