If

[Tonus]

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.

They would say the same about you, and they would have exactly as much evidence as you do. You cannot --by your own definition-- differentiate yourself from them, nor they from you.

You (and they) created this situation by insisting that the material or natural world cannot detect nor explain the supernatural (or mystic, or spiritual, etc). But that means that you have no way to show that their claims are wrong and yours are correct, except by making the exact same arguments, which cannot be falsified. They have their proof, and you have yours, and if we mix them up in a bowl we end up with a bowl full of nothing. Exactly as you would predict.

[IATIA]

WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OR SAY IF YOU DIE AND FIND OUT THAT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL AND GOD IS THERE?

I can create anything in my mind I so desire, as can anyone. So, is it god or a creation of the mind. If it were god, what makes that awareness anymore powerful or special than me. Would we be dealing with a head god scenario? I think not, as the temptations and desires of the material body would not follow the awareness so there would be no need for competition. Nothing to gain.

[Cyberman]

Dictionaries record usage of language, and often give citations for that usage. They don't dictate definitions. If the usage changes, so does the definition.

[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)?

[Little Rik]

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.

They would say the same about you, and they would have exactly as much evidence as you do. You cannot --by your own definition-- differentiate yourself from them, nor they from you.

You (and they) created this situation by insisting that the material or natural world cannot detect nor explain the supernatural (or mystic, or spiritual, etc). But that means that you have no way to show that their claims are wrong and yours are correct, except by making the exact same arguments, which cannot be falsified. They have their proof, and you have yours, and if we mix them up in a bowl we end up with a bowl full of nothing. Exactly as you would predict.

Now it not clear whether you refer to Sherman which take for granted what Oliver Sacks says or to some religious people.
In both cases these people never got to the third eye or the pineal gland which is the point which lead to spirituality so how it is possible to talk about something that they haven't got a clue about but again you are free to think that the bowl is full of nothing.
Only by practicing you will know or as you may say not know.

[Tonus]

I never referred to Sherman or Sacks, I assume you are thinking of Surgenator.

The rest of your answer does not address what I am saying: that you admit that you cannot produce tangible evidence for your beliefs, and therefore you are in no position to determine if another person's beliefs --defended in the same manner-- are correct or not. If everyone's "third eye" detected the spiritual world in the same way and found the same things, you would have a basis for your claims, but that's obviously not the case, and you don't even pretend that it is. You say that we can only know by practicing, but if our practice leads us to a different conclusion, who is right and who is wrong?

[Little Rik]

WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OR SAY IF YOU DIE AND FIND OUT THAT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL AND GOD IS THERE?

I can create anything in my mind I so desire, as can anyone. So, is it god or a creation of the mind. If it were god, what makes that awareness anymore powerful or special than me. Would we be dealing with a head god scenario? I think not, as the temptations and desires of the material body would not follow the awareness so there would be no need for competition. Nothing to gain.

Suppose (hypothetically) that you are God.
You create in your imagination this universe with all things inside.
Now some of these things called human beings imagine something.
This would be imagination of the first imagination so this later imagination can not possibly be as strong as the first imagination therefore what you perceive is not the real thing but again you may think that your imagination is the real thing and you see this material reality as the ultimate.
It is up to you as you are free to decide your life.

---

I never referred to Sherman or Sacks, I assume you are thinking of Surgenator.

The rest of your answer does not address what I am saying: that you admit that you cannot produce tangible evidence for your beliefs, and therefore you are in no position to determine if another person's beliefs --defended in the same manner-- are correct or not. If everyone's "third eye" detected the spiritual world in the same way and found the same things, you would have a basis for your claims, but that's obviously not the case, and you don't even pretend that it is. You say that we can only know by practicing, but if our practice leads us to a different conclusion, who is right and who is wrong?

Wait a minute.
You are running too fast with your fantasy.
Who is the EVERYONE who get into the third eye?
Surgenator does not, Sherman and Sacks do not, religious people do not.
As far as i know only those who practice spirituality or intuitional science or the real yoga do get into the third eye and all these people that are serious about it agree that God is there and you are God and you are heading there like a drop of water that enter the ocean and become one with the ocean.
You show me that anyone else is seriously getting into intuitional practices and can understand how the system works and i can agree with you.
At the moment all you evidence is worthless.

---

Dictionaries record usage of language, and often give citations for that usage. They don't dictate definitions. If the usage changes, so does the definition.

Oh, please Stim don't make me suffer anymore.
Why don't you give to me your definition of reality.
You seem to know what reality means so please help the small Rik to understand this
important meaning.
I will shower you with an abundance of KUDU.

[Little Rik]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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?
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Tonus]

At the moment all you evidence is worthless.

I am not offering any evidence. I am pointing out that your evidence is worthless. And your response still did not even attempt to address my point, which is: if your evidence can only be achieved in a manner that cannot be demonstrated to anyone outside of the self, then the only way to give it any merit is if everyone who went "the spiritual route" would report the same experiences and discoveries. And it's pretty clear that this isn't the case.

Your response to this appears to be the old "well, anyone who comes to a different conclusion didn't do it right" argument. But since they can offer up the same argument to dismiss your experiences and discoveries, you're still at square one. None of you are able to provide any credible evidence of what you believe, and you demand a courtesy that you will not extend to one another. Which was the basis of Steven Roberts comment that we are both non-believers; I simply subscribe to one fewer 'god' than you do.

[Cyberman]

Oh, please Stim don't make me suffer anymore.
Why don't you give to me your definition of reality.
You seem to know what reality means so please help the small Rik to understand this
important meaning.
I will shower you with an abundance of KUDU. 

Go and play under a train. Come back tomorrow and tell me how reality went.

Troll.