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.

[Angrboda]

this has nothing to do with the fact that the third eye is there.

How do we know this?

[Little Rik]

this has nothing to do with the fact that the third eye is there.

How do we know this?

I would say........this is a claim for you and a reality for me.
Yogi are always innovative while non yogi rely on what they can perceive mainly with body-mind.
Yogi after realizing that peace of mind can not be found anywhere in the material-physical-mental side of ourselves they come to the conclusion that it can only be found in the spiritual side so how can be found then?
Again yogi study how the body-mind works.
Glands in the body control a specific part of body or mind and along the spinal cord there are the most important glands with the pineal gland at the very top.
The pituitary gland control the mind but over the mind there is something else and this is not something physical-mental.
How do we know this?
We know this by practicing and cleaning up the dirt that prevent the gland to operate in a perfect way.
As the clouds prevent the sun to shine also the dirt prevent the pineal gland to let the divine flow to shine.
It is by practicing that we can understand how the system works.
The same thing is valid for everything else.
The practice is everything while the theory is nothing and the issue will stay as a claim for ever or until one decide to do something about it.

[Little Rik]

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.

Is not the majority that change the course of history.
If we relay on the majority we would be all dead by now.
All the great inventions and changes in ways of life came by individuals that often had to go against the mainstream that is why we should always keep our ears open for what make more sense rather that rely on the established definition.

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

So you already know that a feeling is no evidence.
How do you know that?
So if somebody tell you that he-she is in love with somebody you dismiss that just because it is a feeling even before you get any evidence on the contrary?
Very smart surgen.

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

Merry Christmas and happy new year.

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.

After hundred years i still haven't seen any evidence that a nugget of gold can be found anywhere.
I have heard many people who said that it can be found but until i found myself i will not believe anyone.
Oh, i forgot to mention that i never bother to find it but i still believe that can not be found.
Silly of me.

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.

Suppose your mind wonder around and start thinking about an elephant.
The elephant is an illusion that your mind created so an illusion can not possibly be real and think that he is the truth.
You see yourself as the creator of that illusion so you are the ultimate truth but this is wrong as somebody create you so you are the illusion of an illusion and therefore you are not in a position to dictate what the truth is but again this is my personal opinion and you are free to believe the opposite.

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.

I already explained that your logic is not logic at all.
Without justice nothing make any sense at all.
Consciousness is something that doesn't fall from the sky.
Everything in life must be conquer.
Fortune and misfortune are not casual.
But again you are free to believe that everything is casual.

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.

You call......SKEPTICISM?
Sacks debunks that NDEs allow to see God and that is a lot more than SKEPTICISM.

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.

Gee, i need a translator to understand what you try to tell!

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.

In most cases it would but only temporary.
Unless you are a total idiot your brain would later on discover the trick and would react accordingly.

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

If you read my previous post in which i reply to rasu you would have the answer.
The sun is there all the time but if there are clouds on the sky you can not possibly see it shining.
The same thing happen with the pineal gland.
This gland allow the divine flow but if the gland is dirty you can not possibly perceive this divine flow so it is all about cleaning this gland by practicing intuitional science.

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.

When you need a plumber to fix your water pipes you call a plumber not an electrician or a carpenter.
In the same way when you want to deal with spirituality you work on the gland that relate to the spiritual world not the physical world.
As in the army there is a hierarchy of command.
The general is in charge and everybody else will have to act according to his command.
Physical science can possibly understand what spirituality is all about until it grows in consciousness and this is only possible by practicing spirituality or intuitional science.

[IATIA]

There have been many scientists, philosophers and other professionals, along with everyday laymen that have pursued various levels 'spiritual intellectuality' and not one, after thousands of years, has come up with a single shred of evidence that there is even a possibility of a god.

One would think that the 'great and powerful OZ' would at least make it possible to be known. Ergo, there is no god.

[Angrboda]

this has nothing to do with the fact that the third eye is there.

How do we know this?

. . . . .

How do we know this?
We know this by practicing and cleaning up the dirt that prevent the gland to operate in a perfect way.
As the clouds prevent the sun to shine also the dirt prevent the pineal gland to let the divine flow to shine.

The pineal gland is buried deep inside your skull. How do you know you're not operating on some other part of the brain? How can you possibly know this?

First of all it is important to understand what a dogma is.
A dogma is not only a false truth but is also a false truth that people confine in an enclosure preventing anyone to challenge it.

Kinda like the dogma about the pineal gland being associated with spirituality.

[Surgenator]

Is not the majority that change the course of history.
If we relay on the majority we would be all dead by now.
All the great inventions and changes in ways of life came by individuals that often had to go against the mainstream that is why we should always keep our ears open for what make more sense rather that rely on the established definition.

Trying to relate two unrelated things.

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

So you already know that a feeling is no evidence.
How do you know that?
So if somebody tell you that he-she is in love with somebody you dismiss that just because it is a feeling even before you get any evidence on the contrary?
Very smart surgen.

Such an epic fail. Her/his actions are the evidence.

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.

After hundred years i still haven't seen any evidence that a nugget of gold can be found anywhere.
I have heard many people who said that it can be found but until i found myself i will not believe anyone.
Oh, i forgot to mention that i never bother to find it but i still believe that can not be found.
Silly of me.

As I said, failed at logic.

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.

Suppose your mind wonder around and start thinking about an elephant.
The elephant is an illusion that your mind created so an illusion can not possibly be real and think that he is the truth.
You see yourself as the creator of that illusion so you are the ultimate truth but this is wrong as somebody create you so you are the illusion of an illusion and therefore you are not in a position to dictate what the truth is but again this is my personal opinion and you are free to believe the opposite.

So.... You agree with me. Truth is independent of anybody's opinion.

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.

I already explained that your logic is not logic at all.
Without justice nothing make any sense at all.
Consciousness is something that doesn't fall from the sky.
Everything in life must be conquer.
Fortune and misfortune are not casual.
But again you are free to believe that everything is casual.

Me arguing against your worldview doesn't make it illogical.

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.

You call......SKEPTICISM?
Sacks debunks that NDEs allow to see God and that is a lot more than SKEPTICISM.

What was sacks exact words, please?

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.

Gee, i need a translator to understand what you try to tell!

You can find a translator in a logic class.

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.

In most cases it would but only temporary.
Unless you are a total idiot your brain would later on discover the trick and would react accordingly.

You consistently miss the point and try to change the subject. The point is "evidence for something doesn't change on a person's prior beliefs."

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

If you read my previous post in which i reply to rasu you would have the answer.
The sun is there all the time but if there are clouds on the sky you can not possibly see it shining.
The same thing happen with the pineal gland.
This gland allow the divine flow but if the gland is dirty you can not possibly perceive this divine flow so it is all about cleaning this gland by practicing intuitional science.

That is not an explanation of how you would verify if you are right or not. How do you verify a claim in "intuitional science?"

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.

When you need a plumber to fix your water pipes you call a plumber not an electrician or a carpenter.
In the same way when you want to deal with spirituality you work on the gland that relate to the spiritual world not the physical world.
As in the army there is a hierarchy of command.
The general is in charge and everybody else will have to act according to his command.
Physical science can possibly understand what spirituality is all about until it grows in consciousness and this is only possible by practicing spirituality or intuitional science.

Claims, claims, claims and more claims but no answers. I'll make the claim that the devil is in charge and god is his little bitch (whipped and crucified jesus because he could). The whole karma is an illusion perputrated by the devil so that he can snuff the hope out of us. The happy NDE are illusions the devil gives to people because he loves to see peoples hopes disappear when they realize the truth. PROVE ME WRONG!

[robvalue]

I think the human mind gets bored with the repetitive experiences of everyday life so tries to add more meaning to it via the imagination. It's easy to allow bits of imagination into what you consider real, if it makes you feel good to do so.

Also, crystals and such.

[Surgenator]

I think the human mind gets bored with the repetitive experiences of everyday life so tries to add more meaning to it via the imagination. It's easy to allow bits of imagination into what you consider real, if it makes you feel good to do so.

Also, crystals and such.

Not just any crystals, you must have the Atlantian crystals.

[Tonus]

I think the human mind gets bored with the repetitive experiences of everyday life so tries to add more meaning to it via the imagination.

Which is awesome, since it's where stories come from, and those enrich our lives. But I don't think religion was born of boredom as much as it was a way of explaining things before we had the means to investigate and understand them fully. It would be truly fascinating to see how religious tales evolved over time to become the canon we have today. Which stories had the most versions? Which were initially more popular, and were the final versions completely new or just a matter of revision? And so on.

They do tend to add more meaning by making each person the star of the show, and that might be the most important factor in keeping religion going for so long: it appeals to the ego in ways both overt and very subtle, and that is a very powerful allure.