God said this...God said that......

[Silver]

God supposedly states a great deal, and He obviously does absolutely nothing.

[Little Rik]

Meaningless waffle.

Bring hard facts.

You want me to do the HARD work for you?
Sorry it does not work like this.
Even if i wish to help you i could not do that and is fair that other can not do that for you.
If there is no desire in you for that thing is fair that you never get it.
As far as hard facts you can see the aura as i already point out in previous posts.

http://www.thiaoouba.com/seeau.htm

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Asking for evidence is not dogmatic

Please point out to what you are referring.

Don't be evasive.

You indicated that atheism has a choral of dogma[s] associated with it.

neither is lacking a belief in deities.

I already stated that i do not believe in Jesus, Buddha or other as saviors sent by God.
The only savior is yourself and the divine entity is within.
Lacking a belief in deities is not a dogma however is a dogma believing that this physical-material dimension is all there is.
It is like to say that there is no gold under ground when you never attempt to dig up the soil.
You can say that you are not interested in finding out something but you can not say that that thing does not exist.

Verbose. I've highlighted the only thing that marginally deals with what I was rejecting in red.

I also lack a belief in any sort of spiritual realm because I have seen no evidence to indicate that any such thing exists. I can refute everything you say regarding this based on that single notion (that you bring no evidence aside assertion and belief) because that is what logic and, moreover, common sense dictates I do. There is nothing dogmatic about that.

And in addition, you keep using the word/description 'dogmatic'; I don't think it means what you think it means.

And finally, issues with 'spiritualism' are mutually exclusive to 'atheism'. There is nothing preventing an atheist from believing in 'spiritualism' in of itself.

[

Please desist in the sleight of hand re-branding of positions held by those who disagree with your sentiments/feelings/emotions/beliefs.

A forum is a place in which people gather to discuss all sort of things.
At least it was in the roman time.
When i enter this forum i noted a lot of words bashing and swearing.
Now you may say that is not you and that is ok but if you really care about correctness then i invite you to read some of the posts and not only those from the Minimalist and then come back to me so we can discuss the problem.

I fail to see how your reply has a single relevance to my issue with your stance regarding the re-branding of positions that are in opposition to yours.

I don't care one iota about other people's replies to you as they bare no relevance whatsoever to your rebranding of the stances those who disagree with you hold.

[

Just because you believe what you're saying doesn't mean any of us have to agree or additionally follow them. Implying that we're wrong using nothing more than your own belief is circular, and can hence be (rightly) disregarded.

Actually my information are based on practical experience not by reading books written and rewritten hundreds of times like the bible (religion) or based only on what the the physical science say (physical reality).
Now when you think that i implying that you are wrong to me is like to judge that guy that say that there is no gold to be found under the ground when he never attempt to dig the soil.
If you say that God does not exist when you never attempt to dig within is a bit too ambitious.

Your experience, which just so happens to be impossible to replicate on a universal level (based on the [lack of] evidence for your claims). Your dismissal of physical reality is fine, but you can't expect those of us who ask for evidence of such claims to fall for yours hook line and sinker based purely on your own experiences.

Your gold analogy is tired and (again) verbose. It makes the assumption that our behaviour mirrors that which you believe to be true (that people reject your claims prima facie without exploration). This, again, is false. You will have seen us asking for evidence of your claims (not dogmatic), to which you have either refused to, or been unable to, provide. This is us 'digging for gold', and finding nothing but soil.

[little_monkey]

Ok, define spirituality.

When a drop of water merge into the ocean she will become the ocean herself.
At the same time when the spirit within will merge in the cosmic consciousness (God) then you will become God yourself.
So spirituality is the effort to merge yourself into the vast ocean of cosmic consciousness.
How you do?
By practicing yoga and i mean the real yoga (tantric meditation, exercises, veg diet, fasting ect).
Spirituality is not the only way to reach the ultimate goal of life but is the most practical.

So basically, to give meaning to your life, you want to believe your god-like.

Whatever rocks your boat.

[Little Rik]

Please point out to what you are referring.

Don't be evasive.

Why should i be? I have no problem in answering your questions.

You indicated that atheism has a choral of dogma[s] associated with it

Anyone focusing entirely on the physical-material side of the whole is living in the corral of dogma.
I give you an example.
Take the water which is composed by oxygen and hydrogen.
Now you focus entirely on the water and not at the fact that is composed by those two element.
Would this make any sense?
If you study chemistry or if you would need those two elements separately for scientific purpose or for running a business in which you need oxygen or hydrogen then you would have a big problem and in reality in the earthly world physics and chemistry are taken in serious consideration.
The problem start when we do not take in any consideration where this physical universe come from or better say where the matter, water, light, air and space come from.
You see the people care to know the composition of the most crude and primitive elements like minerals and water but do not care much where everything else started from or is composed by.
Why a person that pretend to be intelligent care only for the most primitive things and neglect those much more important?
Simple.......because their mind is stuck in the corral of dogma.

I already stated that i do not believe in Jesus, Buddha or other as saviors sent by God.
The only savior is yourself and the divine entity is within.
Lacking a belief in deities is not a dogma however is a dogma believing that this physical-material dimension is all there is.
It is like to say that there is no gold under ground when you never attempt to dig up the soil.
You can say that you are not interested in finding out something but you can not say that that thing does not exist.

Verbose. I've highlighted the only thing that marginally deals with what I was rejecting in red.
I also lack a belief in any sort of spiritual realm because I have seen no evidence to indicate that any such thing exists. I can refute everything you say regarding this based on that single notion (that you bring no evidence aside assertion and belief) because that is what logic and, moreover, common sense dictates I do. There is nothing dogmatic about that

You must have a lot of expectations.
You got to conquer the achievements not expect that someone bring these to you in a silver plate.
Everything in life come after a lot of struggle.
If you want to get a job you must go around and around, if you want a lover you also got to go around and around and the same for every other achievement.
The good thing about spirituality is that you do not have to go around and around because the spirit is within but nevertheless you still need something in order to achieve that thing and that is a strong desire something that at the moment you do not have and that is the main reason why you can not perceive anything.

And in addition, you keep using the word/description 'dogmatic'; I don't think it means what you think it means.

Dogmatic like someone who give the utmost importance to something very primitive like the physical-material world and give no importance at all at the most subtle things in life.

And finally, issues with 'spiritualism' are mutually exclusive to 'atheism'. There is nothing preventing an atheist from believing in 'spiritualism' in of itself.

Again you strike one more dogma or false truth.
The spirit within is God therefore you can not not believe in God and believe at the same time.
The moon reflect her image in the lake.
From different position you can see a myriad of moon but the moon is only one.
At the same time you can see a myriad of people and things but they are all reflection of the same entity.
The spirit within is just one of the many reflection of the same entity so if you really understand how all the system works then you would know that you can not believe in the two opposite at the same time.

[
A forum is a place in which people gather to discuss all sort of things.
At least it was in the roman time.
When i enter this forum i noted a lot of words bashing and swearing.
Now you may say that is not you and that is ok but if you really care about correctness then i invite you to read some of the posts and not only those from the Minimalist and then come back to me so we can discuss the problem.

I fail to see how your reply has a single relevance to my issue with your stance regarding the re-branding of positions that are in opposition to yours.
I don't care one iota about other people's replies to you as they bare no relevance whatsoever to your rebranding of the stances those who disagree with you hold.

Very very intellectual stance in order to say nothing new.

[
Actually my information are based on practical experience not by reading books written and rewritten hundreds of times like the bible (religion) or based only on what the the physical science say (physical reality).
Now when you think that i implying that you are wrong to me is like to judge that guy that say that there is no gold to be found under the ground when he never attempt to dig the soil.
If you say that God does not exist when you never attempt to dig within is a bit too ambitious.

Your experience, which just so happens to be impossible to replicate on a universal level (based on the [lack of] evidence for your claims). Your dismissal of physical reality is fine, but you can't expect those of us who ask for evidence of such claims to fall for yours hook line and sinker based purely on your own experiences.

When i mention other experiences like the NDE then you guys dismiss the lot like a load of manure. Even when mr Abe Alexander point out that the brain is totally out of action therefore drugs or chemical reactions can not work even then you reject these experiences outright.
In other words you reject everything that does not go along with your belief even when thousand of people contradict you with scientific evidence.

Your gold analogy is tired and (again) verbose. It makes the assumption that our behaviour mirrors that which you believe to be true (that people reject your claims prima facie without exploration). This, again, is false. You will have seen us asking for evidence of your claims (not dogmatic), to which you have either refused to, or been unable to, provide. This is us 'digging for gold', and finding nothing but soil.

Your word EXPLORATION is the right word to describe someone interested in finding out something.
The problem with you is that without EXPLORING you would like to see the gold brought to you in a silver plate.

[Tonus]

Unproven to you not to me.

Yeah, we definitely got that part.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Don't be evasive.

Why should i be? I have no problem in answering your questions.

You're not answering anything though.

I can sum up your entire retort, indeed, your replies to everyone, as 'I'm right because I believe I'm right'. Circular reasoning aside, that kind of stance is just not conducive to good debate, or good reasoning per se.

You indicated that atheism has a choral of dogma[s] associated with it

Anyone focusing entirely on the physical-material side of the whole is living in the corral of dogma.
I give you an example.
Take the water which is composed by oxygen and hydrogen.
Now you focus entirely on the water and not at the fact that is composed by those two element.
Would this make any sense?
If you study chemistry or if you would need those two elements separately for scientific purpose or for running a business in which you need oxygen or hydrogen then you would have a big problem and in reality in the earthly world physics and chemistry are taken in serious consideration.
The problem start when we do not take in any consideration where this physical universe come from or better say where the matter, water, light, air and space come from.
You see the people care to know the composition of the most crude and primitive elements like minerals and water but do not care much where everything else started from or is composed by.
Why a person that pretend to be intelligent care only for the most primitive things and neglect those much more important?
Simple.......because their mind is stuck in the corral of dogma.

Again, you keep using the word dogma, and I don't think it means what you think it means.

I asked earlier what was dogmatic about asking for evidence. You didn't reply, rather, you continued on an errand of verbose assertions with precisely nothing to back it up.

You have your own beliefs, which are fine. But again, you cannot expect us to swallow everything you say because you say it's true.

In fact, I can provide evidence of this because you're doing the exact same thing in reverse; rejecting everything that doesn't fit in with your world view (analysis of what one means by 'world view' aside).

Your reply to me doesn't really say anything about anything except for more verbose dialogue. People don't care about where things came form or what they're composed of? I have no idea what you're on about but I can only assume this comment is not directed at me.

I already stated that i do not believe in Jesus, Buddha or other as saviors sent by God.
The only savior is yourself and the divine entity is within.
Lacking a belief in deities is not a dogma however is a dogma believing that this physical-material dimension is all there is.
It is like to say that there is no gold under ground when you never attempt to dig up the soil.
You can say that you are not interested in finding out something but you can not say that that thing does not exist.

Verbose. I've highlighted the only thing that marginally deals with what I was rejecting in red.
I also lack a belief in any sort of spiritual realm because I have seen no evidence to indicate that any such thing exists. I can refute everything you say regarding this based on that single notion (that you bring no evidence aside assertion and belief) because that is what logic and, moreover, common sense dictates I do. There is nothing dogmatic about that

You must have a lot of expectations.
You got to conquer the achievements not expect that someone bring these to you in a silver plate.
Everything in life come after a lot of struggle.
If you want to get a job you must go around and around, if you want a lover you also got to go around and around and the same for every other achievement.
The good thing about spirituality is that you do not have to go around and around because the spirit is within but nevertheless you still need something in order to achieve that thing and that is a strong desire something that at the moment you do not have and that is the main reason why you can not perceive anything.

As above, meaningless assertion without evidence to back it up. This conversation will go around in circles because you refuse to give evidence to what spirituality even is. You need to start using that thing called empathy. I can empathise that you believe what you're saying is right, but you seem incapable of empathising Or indeed sympathising with others who cannot accept your claims because there is nothing but your assertion to back it up.

Again, empathy with the fact that, to everyone but you, your assertions are meaningless.

I don't need an anonymous Internet forum goer to tell me about life when they nothing about me. I'm not sitting here in a postal telling you how to live your life, so I ask you why you're doing it to me/us? And I ask further why you are surprised when people reject your claims as nonsense?

I can perceive a lot, as much as you in fact because I was born exactly the same as you (the same species). You are adding super-powers to your lot however, and I am not so egotistical.

And in addition, you keep using the word/description 'dogmatic'; I don't think it means what you think it means.

Dogmatic like someone who give the utmost importance to something very primitive like the physical-material world and give no importance at all at the most subtle things in life.

You're running before you can walk. You're condemning people for not believing in your subjective experience of 'life' or even 'spirituality' when really it's your inability to provide evidence that should be subject to criticism.

I know that you don't understand this, but let me say that it is this reason alone why every conversation with you comes to an impasse.

And finally, issues with 'spiritualism' are mutually exclusive to 'atheism'. There is nothing preventing an atheist from believing in 'spiritualism' in of itself.

Again you strike one more dogma or false truth.
The spirit within is God therefore you can not not believe in God and believe at the same time.
The moon reflect her image in the lake.
From different position you can see a myriad of moon but the moon is only one.
At the same time you can see a myriad of people and things but they are all reflection of the same entity.
The spirit within is just one of the many reflection of the same entity so if you really understand how all the system works then you would know that you can not believe in the two opposite at the same time.

Verbose.

There is nothing of substance in the above that lends anything further to the conversation. Ignored.

My original point stands; there is nothing stopping an atheist from believing in spiritualism in of itself.

[
A forum is a place in which people gather to discuss all sort of things.
At least it was in the roman time.
When i enter this forum i noted a lot of words bashing and swearing.
Now you may say that is not you and that is ok but if you really care about correctness then i invite you to read some of the posts and not only those from the Minimalist and then come back to me so we can discuss the problem.

I fail to see how your reply has a single relevance to my issue with your stance regarding the re-branding of positions that are in opposition to yours.
I don't care one iota about other people's replies to you as they bare no relevance whatsoever to your rebranding of the stances those who disagree with you hold.

Very very intellectual stance in order to say nothing new.

Again, nothing of substance added through your reply. Ignored.

[
Actually my information are based on practical experience not by reading books written and rewritten hundreds of times like the bible (religion) or based only on what the the physical science say (physical reality).
Now when you think that i implying that you are wrong to me is like to judge that guy that say that there is no gold to be found under the ground when he never attempt to dig the soil.
If you say that God does not exist when you never attempt to dig within is a bit too ambitious.

Your experience, which just so happens to be impossible to replicate on a universal level (based on the [lack of] evidence for your claims). Your dismissal of physical reality is fine, but you can't expect those of us who ask for evidence of such claims to fall for yours hook line and sinker based purely on your own experiences.

When i mention other experiences like the NDE then you guys dismiss the lot like a load of manure. Even when mr Abe Alexander point out that the brain is totally out of action therefore drugs or chemical reactions can not work even then you reject these experiences outright.
In other words you reject everything that does not go along with your belief even when thousand of people contradict you with scientific evidence.

You are echoing your own stance here.

We do not reject anything outright (or at least I don't). If you're going to start talking about something as thoroughly debunked as NDE's though you're going to have to rely on more than a few spurious testimonies or spurious reasearch methodologies. DBT's would be a good start, and a controlled sample of many thousands of people over several years (decades preferably). I much the same way I know that the anti-biotic I take to resolve any bacterial infection I contract (within reason) works, I know that the 'evidence' you forward for NDEs is bogus.

You need to realise that what you're posting isn't contradicting our 'worldview (????)', it's confirming it. People who espouse nonsense like NDEs do so becuase they believe its real, not becuase there's any tangible, reinforced and testable evidence to back up.

And, as an aside, why are you able to provide 'evidence' for NDEs but not for spirituality?

Your gold analogy is tired and (again) verbose. It makes the assumption that our behaviour mirrors that which you believe to be true (that people reject your claims prima facie without exploration). This, again, is false. You will have seen us asking for evidence of your claims (not dogmatic), to which you have either refused to, or been unable to, provide. This is us 'digging for gold', and finding nothing but soil.

Your word EXPLORATION is the right word to describe someone interested in finding out something.
The problem with you is that without EXPLORING you would like to see the gold brought to you in a silver plate.

Sorry but this is false.

Asking for evidence of claims is the first step for others to explore the reasoning and methodologies of others in order to replicate their findings and either confirm or reject them.

I'm truly sorry that this is lost on you.

---

Enrico, you may of course reply to my post, but we both know that your reply will be compromised of much the same as every other reply, which is to say, not much of anything aside from that you're right.

So let me finish by saying this. The main difference between us (you and 'us') is that you believe that you're right and insist on telling others you are right. We on the other hand (or rather, I) do not believe we are right. We accept fully that we don't have the answers to everything, and that we can be wrong about a many things.

A couple of days ago I was informed by a person who I now know to be a consultant endocrinologist that my usage of the insulin flexipen was wrong (I am a T1 diabetic). I was not injecting the correct amount for a certain foodstuff because I believed that the knowledge I had on this was true, and I refused to believe this guy because, hell, why should I? He was jut a guy at the pub.

However, after giving me evidence (in the form of a reasoned and detailed explanation of the interaction between synthetic human insulin and glucose) I was corrected, and accepted my error. In short, I learned something becuase I was given evidence that supported his notion and rejected mine.

This is the same situation I find myself in with your claims. However, whilst I dont accept that you're right, I am willing to be corrected and shown the error of my ways, much like any pragmatist or indeed reasonable person would be. I am left lacking, becuase you have provided nothing to back up your assertions except your own belief.

I know this is lost on you and that you will simply say I am closed minded, but meh, I don't really care either way, it doesn't really have any effect on my life one way or the other.

Enjoy whatever it is that you believe you follow. I don't see any real further need to converse as it will simply go in circles.

[Cyberman]

This thread is like a box of chocolates - you're spoiled for choice, it's hard to know when to stop and all the experts tell you it plays havoc with your blood pressure.

Nonetheless, I shall indulge myself. Caution: the following is likely to leave a sticky mess on your fingers (and it's been years since I last used that phrase).

Now when you think that i implying that you are wrong to me is like to judge that guy that say that there is no gold to be found under the ground when he never attempt to dig the soil.
If you say that God does not exist when you never attempt to dig within is a bit too ambitious.

This is a fascinating bit of misdirection. By swapping out the concept of gold, which we can all agree exists, with "God" which has nothing like as much certainty, you apparently think you have made the two things sound equally likely to be discovered. We can see gold, feel it, measure it, taste it if that's your thing. When you can do even a fraction of any of these things with "God", then we can talk.

To illustrate, as well as to demonstrate how unreasonable all this equivocation looks, what if I told you there's a million dollars under your bed?

Don't be evasive.

Why should i be? I have no problem in answering your questions.

Then perhaps you should. Easy answers to difficult questions invariably end up being exposed as sterile air, utterly bereft of useful information. This is particularly true of platitudes masquerading as answers.

Ooh look at me, being all mystical and deep!

The spirit within is God therefore you can not not believe in God and believe at the same time.
The moon reflect her image in the lake.
From different position you can see a myriad of moon but the moon is only one.
At the same time you can see a myriad of people and things but they are all reflection of the same entity.
The spirit within is just one of the many reflection of the same entity so if you really understand how all the system works then you would know that you can not believe in the two opposite at the same time.

That you are forced to rely on poetic imagery and sophistry is fascinatingly revealing.

You will have seen us asking for evidence of your claims (not dogmatic), to which you have either refused to, or been unable to, provide. This is us 'digging for gold', and finding nothing but soil.

Your word EXPLORATION is the right word to describe someone interested in finding out something.
The problem with you is that without EXPLORING you would like to see the gold brought to you in a silver plate.

Other than artfully skirting Fidel's beautifully incisive point, the real problem is that you are imposing onto him - and by extension, all sceptical inquirers - the desire to see not gold but "God" presented on a silver platter. The real irony is that even if you stacked up all the "God"-ness and all the evidence for it on a silver platter, all you would have to show is the silver platter. At least we know for certain that's real.