If

[Surgenator]

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.

I quoted the dictionary. If you don't like the definition of spirituality, create your own word with the definition you want. I hink we do have a word for what your selling, woo-woo. You don't get to decide what definitions are for religion and spirituality. Deal with it.

And you got the original from where?

From a real Guru like P.R.Sarkar.

How do you know the guru didnt sold you bullshit?

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?

Evidence please. I want to see evidence for these spirits each of us suppose to have.

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?

It is not a diversion. It was meant to point out how simplistic your view is that it doesn't make any sense under closer inspection.

And your whining about people's "mind has become materialistic" has no bearing on the evidence.

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.

Pointing out flaws in your simplified thinking is not a diversion. It shows that you haven't think about this too deeply.

And I state again, the difficulty of obtaining evidence is not the same as no evidence.

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:

No spirits have been shown to exist. No other space has been shown to exist. You might as well be saying hogsworth instead of spiritual arena. Both are equally valid.

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.

Reincarnation is bullshit. The population of the world has varied greatly, and I'm including human and non-human life. Just imagine how many living things there were during the ice age to how many are living now.

Plus, you are ignoring the people's psycology in making your assesment of the truth of these claims. One group knows that the feelings are not real. So those people will not take the feelings seriously. The other group doesn't know that the feelings are not real. So there would be a lot more people willing to take whatever derived "message" they got to heart.

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.

I've never read Sherman's book. I've only pointed out the article to you that specifically talks about NDE's.

Plus, you have to be more specific about what didn't make sense to you.

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?

First off, Sherman is not a researcher of NDEs that is why he relies on Oliver Sacks, a neurologist, study's. Second, a person's beliefs do not affect on the evidence. That is why you can have christians, buddhist, muslims, etc do great science; even though, they believe in wacky things.

Plus, we all know the mind exist. If we can explain easily explain an effect with something we know to exist. There is no need to introduce something new to existence. We all know the mind exist. And Oliver Sacks has shown these experiences can be explained through the 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.

So we are in agreement that you can't disprove the spiritual beings exist. Here is the very important follow up questions. What can you prove to exist? What can you not disprove to exist (exclude spiritual beings and anything in the spiritual arena)?