If

[Surgenator]

Today i define something.
Tomorrow my vision of that particular item get better so i give a different definition.
This could go on and on for long time until it reach the perfection so the real definition get perfected when the arrow hit the target right in the middle.

Tomorrow, you use a different word. Definitions change only when the overwhelming majority use the word in a differently. They do not change because you want them to change.

First feeling can be deceptive.
It is when the water become calm that you can see the reality.

Yes, feelings are deceptive. That is why I don't accept your feelings on the topics as evidence.

Oh, I'm the delusional one, and lifes a game now. Please amuse me with your "more consciousness" logic on how this is so.

The life is all about learning.
It is when you put obstacles in front of you that you slow down or stop your progress.

Does your "more consciousness" logic comes from fortune cookies?

Reasoning based on presented evidence is not a claim. That is called thinking.

After few weeks of talking i still have to see any of your evidence.
As granny said.........IS NEVER TOO LATE.

After few weeks of talking, I still have to see any of your evidence for afterlifes, spirits, god, etc... You still think because I reject your claims, then I have the prove you wrong. You fail at logic my friend.

FYI, truth is truth. There is no temporary truth or ultimate truth.

Everything in this universe is moving and changing.
The truth of yesterday end up in the rubbish bin of history to be replaced by a new truth but again this new truth will also end up in the rubbish bin of history and this is a clear sign that the ultimate truth can not be found in this universe.
If (and i leave to you the word HYPOTHETICALLY) can be found somewhere that truth belong to the creator of this universe and to no one else.

If I slept in on December 21st, 2015, I still slept in on December 21st, 2015 no matter how much time has passed. It doesn't require anyone to witness it or remember it to be still be true.

Because there is no reincarnation. A baby cannot have commited a crime that is paying for.

Again you keep on making claims without evidence. hock:

I provided a logical argument based on observed data on why reincarnation is bullshit. You didn't address the argument. So it was reasonable to assume you couldn't find any fault with it. If you are ignorant of my argument because you didn't read it, (which is very likely) then it is not my fault but yours.

Did they put these people in fMRI machines to check if they're brains actually had no activity? No, none of them did. So the doctors thought the person was dead and assumed there was no brain activity.

You are missing the point.
It was all about Sacks that believe that if it is not from the brains it is all bullshit so NDEs that relate to God are all bullshit.
This goes against thousand of NDE experimentators that say that when the brain is off the consciousness take over.

You missed the point. They cannot claim that consciousness takes over is the brain is off until they check that the brain is off. They didn't do a proper check, hense the skepticism.

So he has to accept the conclusion before the conclusion can be proven to him. Thanks for clarifing that you want us to accept pseudoscience philosophy.

You are running too much with your fantasy.
I didn't say that surgen.
I instead say that he should try or experiment before he come up with judgments.

Sherman is not a researcher, nor does he have to repeat an experiment to be skeptical of one. Pointing out flaws in an experiment is very common and encouraged in the scientific community. The only place it is not encourage is the pseudoscience community.

The other major point you can't understand is that evidence for something doesn't change on a person's prior beliefs. For example, ibuprofen has been shown to be a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Using ibprofen for a headache works whether or not you think it. Your whole argument here is that the evidence would change if he just believed in the conclusion.

I know that the pituitary gland exist. I just don't believe you on the function you claim it has. This is the function that I got from the first medical site I got. It mentions nothing about spirits. Also, science changes over time with better information. So "since the beginning" means nothing in a scientific standpoint. For an example, science believed that everything is made out of four things: earth, fire, wind, and water since the beginning. It doesn't anymore.

1) I am talking about the pineal gland not the pituitary.

My mistake.

2) Today science study physical science not intuitional science so it is obvious that so far they are not getting anywhere spiritually speaking.

Please observe the scientific method and explain how the verification stage would be done in "intuitional science."

What you don't understand is that what is not physical like the consciousness
can not be detected with physical means or physical science.
The gland in question may be as sick as you want but this has nothing to do with the fact that the third eye is there.

What makes you think consciousness cannot be detected by physical means? It is NOT a fact "that the third eye is there." That has to be shown, not just claimed.