If

[Surgenator]

I know surgen that you try your very best but sometime your best it is not enough.
Spirituality is the system to reduce the distance that separate you from God like suppose the planet earth reduce the distance that separate itself from the sun or a drop of water reduce the distance that separate itself from the ocean in order to unite with the ocean and become the ocean.
Religion on the other hand has lost this way of working and it is engaged in pretending that God is something external.
In this way they will never get there but more important things could be said to explain in detail how the system works.

Sorry, but the definitions don't agree with your descriptions.

How do you know the guru didnt sold you bullshit?

By the results.
If after sometime the practice does not give results you understand that it is not the real thing.

What results? How do you know the results aren't placebo? How do you know you didn't become delusional?

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

When you dig in order to find a nugget of gold and you find it you will get the evidence that the nugget is there.
The same thing happen in the spiritual world.
If you never dig you will never find any evidence.
Do you really think that i can dig in your life or third eye and find the gold and the evidence for you?

So, I first have to believe the spirit world exist before I can get the evidence for it? Thats delusional.

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.

It is a question of priorities.
We humans can not be in two places at the same time so you decide whether you priorities are materialistic or spiritual.
Why should i be whining?
It is their lives after all.
Just look around and see where people priorities are.
It is not that difficult to find out.

Pointing out your lazy reasoning shows you prioritize your happy feelings for truth. Then you follow up with non sequitur, something to do with "two places at once."

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.

I leave the last word to you.
To me it all seems to circle around a post at infinitum and getting nowhere.

For once I agree. Do you what they call when you argue in circles?

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.

Externally there are no spirits to be found anywhere.
It is when you look within that you will find you own spirit.

Bullshit.

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.

Your dogma is that you think in a physical way so space and other physical phenomena are the only think that exist but again according to yoga this universe is God mental projection so in a mental projection you can create as much space and dimension as you like.
In this way the space to put whatever you like is there.

My dogma, . You mean my skepticism to your claim. You should also notice the difference between our statements. I present a counter argument through reasoning, and you present more claims.

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.

It happen all the time.
There may be a group of children that grow up loved and looked after by their parents.
These kids think that the reality is very good, on the other hand there are children that grow in a dreadful situation. They have no one to look after them and they realize that the real reality is quite bad.
So who is right and who is wrong?

Easy, both are partically right and wrong.

Your response has nothing to do with my point.

They can both be right and wrong if you judge in this way and this type of judgement doesn't make much sense at all.
It is all about karma.
You get what you deserve but the ultimate truth is that at the very end the price will be won.

No, it's has nothing to do with karma. A person doesn't determine which environment (good or bad) he is born into.

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.

If i recalled correct you said that Sherman doesn't make the claim therefore it is up to the one who make the claim to show evidence.
Well well dear surgen Mr Sherman did point to the evidence (with no evidence of course) that NDEs that point to God are more or less bullshit but at the same time he doesn't back up his claim with evidence that is why i said that what Sharman said doesn't make any sense.
Capisci?

You misunderstood me. When someone makes a claim, the person countering doesn't have to make the opposite claim. What Sherman claimed (and backed up) was that these NDE's could be explained with the mind doing funny things. What he also exposed the assumptions NDE's researchers use haven't been demonstated to be true. For example, absolutely no brain activity in NDE.

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.

Sherman and Sacks do not have believes, they clearly state that NDEs that lead to God are all bullshit.
Can't you see the differences between have a belief and come up with the so called evidence?
What about doing great science?
Of course they can do that but for God sake leave alone what you can not understand like spirituality.

So Sherman have to first accept the conclusion before they can prove the conclusion. There is a difference between leading the evidence and the evidence leading you. The former is what pseudoscientist do. The latter is what real scientist do.

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.

I beg your pardon!!!
Oliver Sacks has explained what?
You show me that Sacks has explained the role of the pineal gland and i will cover you in 24 carat gold.

There you go again, indirectly claiming something that doesn't necessary follow or true. Before I make any further assumptions, please explain to me what you think the significance of the pineal gland.

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)?

The nugget of spiritual gold is there waiting for you to be discovered.
Nobody will discover for you.
Until you discover it you will not know that it exist.
All the rest it is like going around a pole tight with a rope at infinitum and getting nowhere.

Avoiding the question I see. Personally, I don't care if you don't answer my other questions, but these importants ones I would prefer to focus on.