CDZ Conservatism and why it's not dead

[GaryDog]

I don't find human behavior to be baseless and imaginary. I find your description of spirituality to be unsupported. And I'm right. "Spirituality" is a lazy conclusion that ends the discussion and relies on the mystical, or fantastic (just like theism ends the discussion of the origins of the universe with "god did it" and robs us of further inquiry).

Studies of human behavior are very much scientific, and ongoing. There's nothing "mystical" about it.

I never said "god did it" and so we shouldn't inquire further. Where did that come from?

It's not a lazy conclusion because it's observational fact. The oldest human civilization ever unearthed shows evidence of ritual ceremonial burial using red ocher. There is no pragmatic physical purpose for ritual ceremonies or red ocher. It is evidence of spiritual belief. It's not a lazy conclusion, it's the only rational one.

There is absolutely nothing about human spirituality that precludes physical science. The man who mapped the human genome was a Christian. Sir Isaac Newton was educated in a religious university and actually spent part of his life writing what would eventually become the foundation of the Protestant Church. He is considered the greatest scientific mind of all time.

Indeed, it is a very UN-scientific viewpoint to dismiss possibilities you cannot disprove. So it is YOU who is drawing the "lazy" conclusion. When you have adopted a conclusion you have adopted a faith and stopped practicing science. That's truth whether you throw up your hands and say "god did it" or if you proclaim "god doesn't exist!"

LMAO, you first lay claim that you're not bringing religion into the argument, and give me the shrug emoji, and then you go on to list the religious curriculum vitae for scientists you admire. Really? You wonder why I spy a religious agenda to your constant harping on "spirituality?"

People have been burying their dead and having rituals to deal with grief for eons, that's true. Elephants also honor their dead when they come upon corpses. There goes the "unique" aspect of our supposed "spirituality".

Science isn't about NOT dismissing items you CANNOT disprove....it's about only accepting theories that are supported strongly by evidence. That's why spirituality will probably forever be confined to church pews and philosophy works, because there's simply no evidence of it. It's a nebulous construct we use to describe myriad other behaviors having to do with grief, fear, happiness, etc.

 

[GaryDog]

True, and that is why I have such trouble with people using the words "worker", and "labor" when referring to people who do work. It de-humanizes them. I find it interesting that the first use of these terms, that I am aware of, in "modern times" was in the former Soviet Union, and now they have become mainstream here in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with the words themselves, just the context they are often used in. I am not a "worker", but I am a person who does work. I am not "labor", but I am a part of the labor force. Maybe it's semantics, but it bothers me when people take the humanity out of the equation.

You're absolutely right, it's part of the Marxist rhetoric and propaganda. It bugs the piss out of me too... I love it when one of them drones on about "the poor workers" ...I always ask why these people choose to continue being workers if that's so bad? Become a BOSS!!

Right, everyone just become a boss. Hell, we don't need workers!

I didn't think you could say something more absurdly ignorant and wistful than you already have, but you surprised me.

Well I didn't say everybody just become a boss. Obviously, some people are content being workers. But if you're not content, if being a worker is such a terrible thing for you... be a boss! You live in a free country where you have the liberty to do that. Start your own business, be your own boss.

You see... here's the deal.... all of this progressive bullshit you yammer is old stuff... it comes from many years ago in the hopeless days of feudalism and dictatorships under kings and lords of Europe and Asia, long before anything resembling America existed. In those systems, you were (and still are) born into your class and that's where you remained for your entire life. If you happened to be born into the class of "worker" that's just what you were. There was nothing you could do about it, you just had to live with that. So along comes Marx and he proposes a "better life" for the "worker" and everyone cheered. It never worked, but they've kept re-inventing it over and over. Hundreds of millions have died trying to make it work, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Meanwhile, some truly great men devised a system predicated on the principle that men are endowed with the inalienable right to govern themselves and they don't need a king or ruler, they don't need to be divided into class, they can be free and be their own boss. It worked brilliantly! It has lifted more people from poverty and created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.

Progressivism is tantamount to feudalism? I think you might be insane. Karl Marx has been dead for 133 years, I have absolutely ZERO clue why he should fall into the discussion about progressive politics of today. Just because people support workers' rights and dignity for the middle class doesn't mean we support the extinguishing of liberty to pursue dreams. On the contrary, progressive politics support the kind of public works and infrastructure and investment that ALLOW people to move up. You think the framers in 1776 or 1787 came up with some glorious free market, and you ignore the 150 years hence where the country was rife with a glorified caste system of slavery, indentured servitude and poverty. Millions of blacks were slaves, all women were slaves to the desires of men, and most poor people were slaves to the political whims of our corporate masters. What changed that was the progressive politics of Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Johnson, allowing those born in a poor station in life to work their way out of it thanks to public schooling, and allowing those suffering from grinding poverty to give their kids a better shot with TANF, food stamps, free school lunch programs, etc.

And your theory about conservatism being the ideal that lifts us out of poverty -- or that it was even conservatism that was the ideological plurality of the framers -- is dead wrong. Right now, upward mobility is far greater in countries in Socialist western Europe than in the United States. So much for your theory.

 

[oldsoul]

Maybe your morality does not (not sure where it would come from), but most peoples' does trace it's roots back to a religion of some sort.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.


"Morality" evolved along with everything else in human culture, generally beginning with the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. It was economically advantageous for us to form peaceful coexistence with lots of other people for the first time, ever. Before that, we fought with pretty much everyone who was not in our immediate tribal band.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.

I am not sure what book you refer to, but I imagine you are attempting to refer to the Christian Bible, of which you can take lots of things out of context and create what ever story you wish. That does not mean that what you say is the meaning of things is correct, or even plausibly interpreted as so.

Uh, okay, find the context in THIS:
1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Or this: Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Romans 1:27: "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

or

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord";

Or:

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."


It's filled with this crap. Are there uplifting, positive verses? Of course. But by and large this is just a document of the times, where violence reigned and men with privilege ruled over women and those less fortunate.

That's not morality. That's a flawed grouping of documents written by deeply flawed men.

Seriously? I've already done that for you on the 2 Timothy verse. I will not indulge you further until you find some semblance of intellectual honesty.

More to the point, however, is: Why do you HATE Christianity so much? Did your pastor/priest harm you in some way when you where a child? I mean really, why do you show zero tolerance for religion in any form? I understand you are an Atheist, but to condemn religion in the ways you do shows just how closed-minded you are.

*sigh* Why do religious people always play this canard when someone dares to question their fairy tale?

I don't "hate" Christianity. I believe it's based on a myth. Just like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several thousand other theist beliefs.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.


As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

I do not know enough about either of them to form an opinion, therefore, I say nothing about their validity.

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.

No, we are not both atheists, I do believe there is a "god", or at least a higher power we as humans can do little but consider in the abstract.

As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

I never said I am a Christian, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. And you never addressed my question about why you see the need to attack what other people believe. You have your beliefs, others have theirs. Why does that seem to be so offensive to you?

 

[GaryDog]

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.


"Morality" evolved along with everything else in human culture, generally beginning with the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. It was economically advantageous for us to form peaceful coexistence with lots of other people for the first time, ever. Before that, we fought with pretty much everyone who was not in our immediate tribal band.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.

I am not sure what book you refer to, but I imagine you are attempting to refer to the Christian Bible, of which you can take lots of things out of context and create what ever story you wish. That does not mean that what you say is the meaning of things is correct, or even plausibly interpreted as so.

Uh, okay, find the context in THIS:
1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Or this: Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Romans 1:27: "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

or

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord";

Or:

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."


It's filled with this crap. Are there uplifting, positive verses? Of course. But by and large this is just a document of the times, where violence reigned and men with privilege ruled over women and those less fortunate.

That's not morality. That's a flawed grouping of documents written by deeply flawed men.

Seriously? I've already done that for you on the 2 Timothy verse. I will not indulge you further until you find some semblance of intellectual honesty.

More to the point, however, is: Why do you HATE Christianity so much? Did your pastor/priest harm you in some way when you where a child? I mean really, why do you show zero tolerance for religion in any form? I understand you are an Atheist, but to condemn religion in the ways you do shows just how closed-minded you are.

*sigh* Why do religious people always play this canard when someone dares to question their fairy tale?

I don't "hate" Christianity. I believe it's based on a myth. Just like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several thousand other theist beliefs.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.


As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

I do not know enough about either of them to form an opinion, therefore, I say nothing about their validity.

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.

No, we are not both atheists, I do believe there is a "god", or at least a higher power we as humans can do little but consider in the abstract.

As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

I never said I am a Christian, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. And you never addressed my question about why you see the need to attack what other people believe. You have your beliefs, others have theirs. Why does that seem to be so offensive to you?

When beliefs do damage to society, I can attack them. Attacking the eugenics beliefs of the 1930s was worthwhile. Attacking McCarthyism was worthwhile. Attacking jihadism (you'll no doubt agree) is worthwhile.

Your beliefs do not deserve special protection. Hell, they don't deserve ANY protection. And religious beliefs are, on balance, harmful. Religious beliefs have, for millennia, stifled scientific inquiry, been used to justify slavery, been used to justify misogyny, been used to justify genocide, etc. Teachers have to "undo" the religious indoctrination of children who come to school believing dinosaurs aren't real, or that evolution is made up. Praying is, for many, a substitute for medical care for their sick children. Religious thought was behind every homophobic protest of the past 100 years. We have U.S. soldiers putting bible verses on bombs. Good people do good. Bad people do bad. But only with religion can we get good people to do evil. I'm entitled to attack religion for those reasons. Bad ideas deserve no quarter, and it's antithetical to everything "free speech" stands for to believe that religion deserves shelter from criticism.

I know you never said you're a Christian, it was a lucky guess.

 

[oldsoul]

I am not sure what book you refer to, but I imagine you are attempting to refer to the Christian Bible, of which you can take lots of things out of context and create what ever story you wish. That does not mean that what you say is the meaning of things is correct, or even plausibly interpreted as so.

Uh, okay, find the context in THIS:
1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Or this: Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Romans 1:27: "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

or

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord";

Or:

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."


It's filled with this crap. Are there uplifting, positive verses? Of course. But by and large this is just a document of the times, where violence reigned and men with privilege ruled over women and those less fortunate.

That's not morality. That's a flawed grouping of documents written by deeply flawed men.

Seriously? I've already done that for you on the 2 Timothy verse. I will not indulge you further until you find some semblance of intellectual honesty.

More to the point, however, is: Why do you HATE Christianity so much? Did your pastor/priest harm you in some way when you where a child? I mean really, why do you show zero tolerance for religion in any form? I understand you are an Atheist, but to condemn religion in the ways you do shows just how closed-minded you are.

*sigh* Why do religious people always play this canard when someone dares to question their fairy tale?

I don't "hate" Christianity. I believe it's based on a myth. Just like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several thousand other theist beliefs.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.


As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

I do not know enough about either of them to form an opinion, therefore, I say nothing about their validity.

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.

No, we are not both atheists, I do believe there is a "god", or at least a higher power we as humans can do little but consider in the abstract.

As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

I never said I am a Christian, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. And you never addressed my question about why you see the need to attack what other people believe. You have your beliefs, others have theirs. Why does that seem to be so offensive to you?

When beliefs do damage to society, I can attack them. Attacking the eugenics beliefs of the 1930s was worthwhile. Attacking McCarthyism was worthwhile. Attacking jihadism (you'll no doubt agree) is worthwhile.

Your beliefs do not deserve special protection. Hell, they don't deserve ANY protection. And religious beliefs are, on balance, harmful. Religious beliefs have, for millennia, stifled scientific inquiry, been used to justify slavery, been used to justify misogyny, been used to justify genocide, etc. Teachers have to "undo" the religious indoctrination of children who come to school believing dinosaurs aren't real, or that evolution is made up. Praying is, for many, a substitute for medical care for their sick children. Religious thought was behind every homophobic protest of the past 100 years. We have U.S. soldiers putting bible verses on bombs. Good people do good. Bad people do bad. But only with religion can we get good people to do evil. I'm entitled to attack religion for those reasons. Bad ideas deserve no quarter, and it's antithetical to everything "free speech" stands for to believe that religion deserves shelter from criticism.

I know you never said you're a Christian, it was a lucky guess.

Oh, I get it now. Everything bad came from religion, everything good came despite religion. That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Boss]

LMAO, you first lay claim that you're not bringing religion into the argument, and give me the shrug emoji, and then you go on to list the religious curriculum vitae for scientists you admire. Really? You wonder why I spy a religious agenda to your constant harping on "spirituality?"

Uhm... no, I responded to your contention that spirituality somehow precludes spirituality. I gave you an example of the greatest scientific mind to ever live to counter your contention. I have no religious agenda, I am not a subscriber of any organized religion. Religions are simply proof that humans experience a profound spiritual connection.

People have been burying their dead and having rituals to deal with grief for eons, that's true. Elephants also honor their dead when they come upon corpses. There goes the "unique" aspect of our supposed "spirituality".

Well no, elephants don't perform ceremonial rituals using red ocher. That is an intentional spiritual action and there isn't another way to justify it. They obviously believed there was a spiritual importance to perform such rituals using red ocher... and I keep mentioning the red ocher because we can trace that to early religious customs where red ocher was sacredly used in ceremonial rituals. Science is great when you pay attention to it.

Science isn't about NOT dismissing items you CANNOT disprove....it's about only accepting theories that are supported strongly by evidence. That's why spirituality will probably forever be confined to church pews and philosophy works, because there's simply no evidence of it. It's a nebulous construct we use to describe myriad other behaviors having to do with grief, fear, happiness, etc.

Science isn't about NOT dismissing items you CANNOT disprove.

Exactly my point! When YOU dismiss spirituality as made up nonsense and fantasy, that's exactly what you are doing... abandoning science! Science doesn't dismiss spirituality, you do. Science has a problem exploring spiritual nature because it's not physical and that's what science deals with.

Now the evidence clearly shows that human beings have always been spiritual... or at least, for as long as humans have been civilized creatures. You maintain this is something humans "constructed" or made up... I argue that makes it even MORE incredible. Our fascinating brains somehow conjured up the very thing our species needed and depended upon for survival and it worked. My viewpoint is a little less incredible, I humbly admit. I simply think we were bestowed with spiritual awareness. Neither of us can prove or disprove our theories with physical science.

As for your "no evidence" claim, I admit there is no physical evidence of spiritual nature. In fact, the presence of any physical evidence for spiritual nature would make it physical and not spiritual, so it's a paradoxical argument. However, there is loads of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature and billions of humans could give their testimonies and examples.

 

[Boss]

Progressivism is tantamount to feudalism?

Why do you continue to form absolute lies out of things I say? When did I say this???

Karl Marx has been dead for 133 years, I have absolutely ZERO clue why he should fall into the discussion about progressive politics of today.

Because, everything your modern progressive movement is based upon is written in a book by Marx called The Communist Manifesto.

What changed that was the progressive politics of Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Johnson, allowing those born in a poor station in life to work their way out of it thanks to public schooling, and allowing those suffering from grinding poverty to give their kids a better shot with TANF, food stamps, free school lunch programs, etc.

None of your programs worked, you're still whining about the same exact problems. To the extent anyone makes it out of poverty it's through hard work, free enterprise and free market capitalist principles. Do you think Oprah Winfrey credits a welfare check for her success? Did Obama achieve greatness because a government program helped him get into college? Why hasn't the "War on Poverty" worked at reducing poverty?

Right now, upward mobility is far greater in countries in Socialist western Europe than in the United States.

This is just flat out false.

 

[GaryDog]

Progressivism is tantamount to feudalism?

Why do you continue to form absolute lies out of things I say? When did I say this???

Karl Marx has been dead for 133 years, I have absolutely ZERO clue why he should fall into the discussion about progressive politics of today.

Because, everything your modern progressive movement is based upon is written in a book by Marx called The Communist Manifesto.

What changed that was the progressive politics of Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Johnson, allowing those born in a poor station in life to work their way out of it thanks to public schooling, and allowing those suffering from grinding poverty to give their kids a better shot with TANF, food stamps, free school lunch programs, etc.

None of your programs worked, you're still whining about the same exact problems. To the extent anyone makes it out of poverty it's through hard work, free enterprise and free market capitalist principles. Do you think Oprah Winfrey credits a welfare check for her success? Did Obama achieve greatness because a government program helped him get into college? Why hasn't the "War on Poverty" worked at reducing poverty?

Right now, upward mobility is far greater in countries in Socialist western Europe than in the United States.

This is just flat out false.

No, it's not false:

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility

Apology accepted.

Moreover, you claimed war on poverty hasn't reduced poverty? haha:

Our poverty rate is 33% lower than it was when LBJ took office.

And claiming that the modern progressive movement has its basis in a Karl Marx book is like claiming the Origin of the Species is the modern work on evolution. It's not. FAR more thinking has gone into both theories to the point they'd be unrecognizable to their authors.

You're clearly an ideologue, and you don't put much stock in facts. Do you?

 

[GaryDog]

Uh, okay, find the context in THIS:
1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Or this: Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Romans 1:27: "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

or

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord";

Or:

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."


It's filled with this crap. Are there uplifting, positive verses? Of course. But by and large this is just a document of the times, where violence reigned and men with privilege ruled over women and those less fortunate.

That's not morality. That's a flawed grouping of documents written by deeply flawed men.

Seriously? I've already done that for you on the 2 Timothy verse. I will not indulge you further until you find some semblance of intellectual honesty.

More to the point, however, is: Why do you HATE Christianity so much? Did your pastor/priest harm you in some way when you where a child? I mean really, why do you show zero tolerance for religion in any form? I understand you are an Atheist, but to condemn religion in the ways you do shows just how closed-minded you are.

*sigh* Why do religious people always play this canard when someone dares to question their fairy tale?

I don't "hate" Christianity. I believe it's based on a myth. Just like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several thousand other theist beliefs.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.


As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

I do not know enough about either of them to form an opinion, therefore, I say nothing about their validity.

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.

No, we are not both atheists, I do believe there is a "god", or at least a higher power we as humans can do little but consider in the abstract.

As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

I never said I am a Christian, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. And you never addressed my question about why you see the need to attack what other people believe. You have your beliefs, others have theirs. Why does that seem to be so offensive to you?

When beliefs do damage to society, I can attack them. Attacking the eugenics beliefs of the 1930s was worthwhile. Attacking McCarthyism was worthwhile. Attacking jihadism (you'll no doubt agree) is worthwhile.

Your beliefs do not deserve special protection. Hell, they don't deserve ANY protection. And religious beliefs are, on balance, harmful. Religious beliefs have, for millennia, stifled scientific inquiry, been used to justify slavery, been used to justify misogyny, been used to justify genocide, etc. Teachers have to "undo" the religious indoctrination of children who come to school believing dinosaurs aren't real, or that evolution is made up. Praying is, for many, a substitute for medical care for their sick children. Religious thought was behind every homophobic protest of the past 100 years. We have U.S. soldiers putting bible verses on bombs. Good people do good. Bad people do bad. But only with religion can we get good people to do evil. I'm entitled to attack religion for those reasons. Bad ideas deserve no quarter, and it's antithetical to everything "free speech" stands for to believe that religion deserves shelter from criticism.

I know you never said you're a Christian, it was a lucky guess.

Oh, I get it now. Everything bad came from religion, everything good came despite religion. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Religion has served some good, but not any novel good. Being good to other people was already ingrained in us. And we no longer take our morals from the bible, hence we don't stone adulterers, or jail people who work on Sunday. That means we base our morals on something else entirely.

 

[GaryDog]

Uhm... no, I responded to your contention that spirituality somehow precludes spirituality. I gave you an example of the greatest scientific mind to ever live to counter your contention. I have no religious agenda, I am not a subscriber of any organized religion. Religions are simply proof that humans experience a profound spiritual connection.

Affiliation with a church was essentially required during Newton's time, so that example doesn't hold water when you're attempting to back up the veracity of spirituality as a scientific discipline. And again, you use religion as proof of spirituality, but you offer zero evidence to back up your claim. It is with zero evidence that I can deny your claim. Religions are simply proof that humans wish to control society, and each other.

Well no, elephants don't perform ceremonial rituals using red ocher. That is an intentional spiritual action and there isn't another way to justify it. They obviously believed there was a spiritual importance to perform such rituals using red ocher... and I keep mentioning the red ocher because we can trace that to early religious customs where red ocher was sacredly used in ceremonial rituals. Science is great when you pay attention to it.

The complexity of the ceremony does not matter. Elephants don't have opposable thumbs, but they do have malleable trunks, which they use to caress and massage the corpse of the lost member of their herd. Humans using other methods is no different. It's remembrance, loss, dealing with emotion. All of which can be proven with science, unlike your claim of "spirituality" which is merely a semantic term for emotion that we "feel."

Science isn't about NOT dismissing items you CANNOT disprove.

Exactly my point! When YOU dismiss spirituality as made up nonsense and fantasy, that's exactly what you are doing... abandoning science! Science doesn't dismiss spirituality, you do. Science has a problem exploring spiritual nature because it's not physical and that's what science deals with.

I don't think you read the bolded portion carefully. I used a double-negative. I said science ISN'T about NOT dismissing items you CANNOT disprove. In other words, science is about studying what we have evidence for, not what we DON'T have evidence for. We have zero tangible evidence for spirituality. There's nothing to study in the scientific field. As in, until there's evidence, you need not apply. Thanks, but no thanks.

That's how science works. Bring the evidence.

Now the evidence clearly shows that human beings have always been spiritual...

No, it doesn't. It shows they've honored what they refer to as "spiritual traditions." Those have a purpose, i.e. conquering grief, expressing happiness, containing anger, etc.

or at least, for as long as humans have been civilized creatures. You maintain this is something humans "constructed" or made up...

Because it is.

I argue that makes it even MORE incredible. Our fascinating brains somehow conjured up the very thing our species needed and depended upon for survival and it worked.

You just admitted that spirituality is a figment of our imaginations. That's what I've been saying from the word go.

My viewpoint is a little less incredible, I humbly admit. I simply think we were bestowed with spiritual awareness. Neither of us can prove or disprove our theories with physical science.

When you get to the word "bestowed", you lose me. Nobody "bestowed" anything. Correct, we can't prove it was bestowed. This goes back to my earlier bolded statement that you misread.

As for your "no evidence" claim, I admit there is no physical evidence of spiritual nature. In fact, the presence of any physical evidence for spiritual nature would make it physical and not spiritual, so it's a paradoxical argument. However, there is loads of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature and billions of humans could give their testimonies and examples.

Yes, there's loads of "magical" evidence for "magic." People have expressed witness to many things, including Bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, Loch Ness Monster, etc. Doesn't make them real. It's merely evidence of the warped nature of perception, and how our brains fool us.

You ever notice how a Christian's near-death experience NEVER mirrors a Muslim's near-death experience? Yeah.

 

[Boss]

Progressivism is tantamount to feudalism?

Why do you continue to form absolute lies out of things I say? When did I say this???

Karl Marx has been dead for 133 years, I have absolutely ZERO clue why he should fall into the discussion about progressive politics of today.

Because, everything your modern progressive movement is based upon is written in a book by Marx called The Communist Manifesto.

What changed that was the progressive politics of Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Johnson, allowing those born in a poor station in life to work their way out of it thanks to public schooling, and allowing those suffering from grinding poverty to give their kids a better shot with TANF, food stamps, free school lunch programs, etc.

None of your programs worked, you're still whining about the same exact problems. To the extent anyone makes it out of poverty it's through hard work, free enterprise and free market capitalist principles. Do you think Oprah Winfrey credits a welfare check for her success? Did Obama achieve greatness because a government program helped him get into college? Why hasn't the "War on Poverty" worked at reducing poverty?

Right now, upward mobility is far greater in countries in Socialist western Europe than in the United States.

This is just flat out false.

No, it's not false:

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility

Apology accepted.

Not so fast. I don't know if your statistics are reliable because we have no way to verify socialist state claims. All we can go by is what they tell us through their ministers of propaganda. They never seem to tell us they are having troubles until bodies start turning up and economies start collapsing. Until then, everything is glorious, they're defeating the capitalist American pigs... all is well. So I simply reject data we cannot verify. You're welcome to accept that if you like, I'm not.

Moreover, you claimed war on poverty hasn't reduced poverty? haha:

Our poverty rate is 33% lower than it was when LBJ took office.

You will notice the number of people in poverty when LBJ introduced his Great Society programs is essentially the same as 2006. The "rate" is down from about 19% to 12.6% but there is no indication of how we've changed the way we define poverty level or the value of the dollar. In any event, the small degree to which policy has diminished poverty is hardly worth the over $20 trillion we've spent. We could literally have given every person in poverty $500,000 in 1965 and saved money!

And claiming that the modern progressive movement has its basis in a Karl Marx book is like claiming the Origin of the Species is the modern work on evolution. It's not. FAR more thinking has gone into both theories to the point they'd be unrecognizable to their authors.

You're clearly an ideologue, and you don't put much stock in facts. Do you?

Oh, I realize that modern progressive socialism is not exactly the same as Marxism. About every 20 years, whenever the latest, greatest version FAILS, the Marxists roll out some "new and improved" version they swear will work this time. The trot it back out under some other name... the most recent, "Democratic Socialism", and they try it on for size again. It always inevitably fails and usually results in thousands or hundreds of thousands dying, either by starvation or by genocide because The State can no longer support them. It is the most deplorable and inhumane economic monstrosity ever created by man, and people who are gullible like you, continue to believe it will work.

 

[Boss]

Affiliation with a church was essentially required during Newton's time, so that example doesn't hold water when you're attempting to back up the veracity of spirituality as a scientific discipline. And again, you use religion as proof of spirituality, but you offer zero evidence to back up your claim. It is with zero evidence that I can deny your claim. Religions are simply proof that humans wish to control society, and each other.

But you're taking me grossly out of context here. I never made any claims regarding the veracity of spirituality as a scientific discipline. I specifically said science can't evaluate the spiritual. I didn't "use religion as proof of spirituality" either. I simply pointed out that's where religions came from... our intrinsic awareness of something spiritual. Have some religions been exploited to control societies? YES! I never claimed they haven't. But if humans didn't have intrinsic spiritual awareness, religions couldn't be used as such. They would be meaningless to the masses.

The complexity of the ceremony does not matter. Elephants don't have opposable thumbs, but they do have malleable trunks, which they use to caress and massage the corpse of the lost member of their herd. Humans using other methods is no different. It's remembrance, loss, dealing with emotion. All of which can be proven with science, unlike your claim of "spirituality" which is merely a semantic term for emotion that we "feel."

I'm sorry you don't get this but a ritual ceremony is far more than massaging a corpse. How does a ritual ceremony aid in emotion or loss? It has no physical effect or reason. It is purely a spiritual thing, and yes... connecting with the spiritual does seem to have a calming and reassuring effect. There are currently several studies being conducted with regard to "spiritual healing" in medicine, with documented successful results. In fact, this has proven SO successful the Cancer Treatment Centers of America include "spiritual treatment" as part of their regimen. Guess what? IT WORKS!

You just admitted that spirituality is a figment of our imaginations. That's what I've been saying from the word go.

No, I didn't just admit that... I summarized YOUR position that it's made up and said that IF that's true, it's even MORE incredible than my own theory that we were simply bestowed with spiritual awareness.

When you get to the word "bestowed", you lose me. Nobody "bestowed" anything.

I never said "somebody" did.

Yes, there's loads of "magical" evidence for "magic." People have expressed witness to many things, including Bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, Loch Ness Monster, etc. Doesn't make them real. It's merely evidence of the warped nature of perception, and how our brains fool us.

Well, apparently, you believe our brains fooled us into believing we make a spiritual connection with something greater than self and we've relied on this for all our existence as a civilized species as a vital behavioral attribute we couldn't have survived without. There's nothing "magic" about human spirituality. Just because physical science cannot explain something at this time, doesn't make it magical.

At the subatomic level, we've discovered through colliding atoms at the large hadron colliders, that electrons revolving around the nucleus of every atom are popping into and out of existence constantly. They can also occupy two places in space at the same time. We simply cannot measure them and know their location at the same time... it's called the Uncertainty Principle... do you think that's "magic" or is it science? Because, basic physical nature says things can't exist yet not exist and things can't exist in two places at the same time.... but they do... inside of every atom in our universe.

Light is both a particle and wave depending on whether they are being observed. How can anything be both a wave AND a particle? Magic? How does the light particle know if we're observing it? Magic? Quantum entanglement... one particle's direction change can change it's entangled particle's direction instantly across billions of light years... how can information travel faster than the speed of light? Magic?

These are thing physical science cannot explain but we are aware they happen all the time. So again... whenever you adopt this notion that things science cannot explain must be "magic" it is adoption of a FAITH... a belief in something without evidence. You've abandoned science for a belief in your faith that Spiritual Nature is a fantasy. You have ZERO proof.

 

[GaryDog]

Not so fast. I don't know if your statistics are reliable because we have no way to verify socialist state claims. All we can go by is what they tell us through their ministers of propaganda. They never seem to tell us they are having troubles until bodies start turning up and economies start collapsing. Until then, everything is glorious, they're defeating the capitalist American pigs... all is well. So I simply reject data we cannot verify. You're welcome to accept that if you like, I'm not.

TRANSLATION: None of this fits my firmly set preconceived bias about the word "socialism" and my belief that nothing about the political system has changed since the siege of Leningrad. I'm going back to my bunker lair filled with laser-disc copies of "Red Dawn" and "Reefer Madness" and I'm never coming out again because I have thinky pain.

You will notice the number of people in poverty when LBJ introduced his Great Society programs is essentially the same as 2006.

Uh, the number of people in the United States has gone from 179 million at the time of LBJ's legislation to 310 million now. You aren't very good with numbers, are you?

Oh, I realize that modern progressive socialism is not exactly the same as Marxism. About every 20 years, whenever the latest, greatest version FAILS, the Marxists roll out some "new and improved" version they swear will work this time. The trot it back out under some other name... the most recent, "Democratic Socialism", and they try it on for size again. It always inevitably fails and usually results in thousands or hundreds of thousands dying, either by starvation or by genocide because The State can no longer support them. It is the most deplorable and inhumane economic monstrosity ever created by man, and people who are gullible like you, continue to believe it will work.

And your robber-baron capitalist theories have not changed since before Henry Ford invented the assembly line. Let's go back to 9-year-olds in factories because 'Merica! Free Market!

You've officially lost any credibility you might've had on this issue.

 

[GaryDog]

Well, apparently, you believe our brains fooled us into believing we make a spiritual connection with something greater than self and we've relied on this for all our existence as a civilized species as a vital behavioral attribute we couldn't have survived without.

Our brains indeed have fooled us, and you have zero evidence to support the claim that we would've died without spiritual "connections."

There's nothing "magic" about human spirituality. Just because physical science cannot explain something at this time, doesn't make it magical.

Indeed, it's not magical, because it's not real. At least a magician puts on a good show.

At the subatomic level, we've discovered through colliding atoms at the large hadron colliders, that electrons revolving around the nucleus of every atom are popping into and out of existence constantly. They can also occupy two places in space at the same time. We simply cannot measure them and know their location at the same time... it's called the Uncertainty Principle... do you think that's "magic" or is it science? Because, basic physical nature says things can't exist yet not exist and things can't exist in two places at the same time.... but they do... inside of every atom in our universe.

Light is both a particle and wave depending on whether they are being observed. How can anything be both a wave AND a particle? Magic? How does the light particle know if we're observing it? Magic? Quantum entanglement... one particle's direction change can change it's entangled particle's direction instantly across billions of light years... how can information travel faster than the speed of light? Magic?

Nothing has been proven to travel faster than light. Some have postulated that they've measured waives that do, but once subject to peer review, those claims have been debunked.

We once thought women's periods were evidence of demonic possession, but eventually we figured it out. This is on par with that. Science, for hundreds of years, has narrowed the gap between the unexplainable and the explained. Religion and "spirituality" struggles to fill the ever-narrowing gaps. That's the history of science.

These are thing physical science cannot explain but we are aware they happen all the time. So again... whenever you adopt this notion that things science cannot explain must be "magic" it is adoption of a FAITH... a belief in something without evidence. You've abandoned science for a belief in your faith that Spiritual Nature is a fantasy. You have ZERO proof.

Yes, science cannot explain everything. That's not proof of something unexplainable. "We are aware they happen" means our brains have filled in gaps to make sense of the world for us.

Take an example:

Ths sentce is misng al or mst of te letrs in almst evy wrd yt yu cn rad it. Why? Because your brain fills in the gaps, refusing to accept what's unreadable and translating it into a "theory" in your head. That's how our brains work. Once something is explained by science, we know the truth. Until then, the brain translates it into something legible for us.

That's neurological science, not spirituality.

 

[GaryDog]

Somehow my response to your cancer remark was deleted:

I'm sorry you don't get this but a ritual ceremony is far more than massaging a corpse. How does a ritual ceremony aid in emotion or loss? It has no physical effect or reason. It is purely a spiritual thing, and yes... connecting with the spiritual does seem to have a calming and reassuring effect. There are currently several studies being conducted with regard to "spiritual healing" in medicine, with documented successful results. In fact, this has proven SO successful the Cancer Treatment Centers of America include "spiritual treatment" as part of their regimen. Guess what? IT WORKS!

"Spiritual healing" is not a medical discipline and it's not performed by doctors. It's merely a service offered at the CTCA for "faith based individuals". This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Spiritual Support During Cancer Treatment | CTCA

"If requested, a member of our pastoral care team will meet with you within the first 48 hours of your first visit to the hospital."

It's not a replacement for any part of treatment. And if it were, this organization would be sued out of the ass for malpractice.

Moreover, prayer has been proven to have zero effect on medical outcomes, time and time again.

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62794-8/abstract

And in fact one study showed deleterious effects of prayer on those who KNEW THEY WERE BEING PRAYED FOR:

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(05)00649-6/abstract

It showed zero beneficial results for those who were prayed for, but didn't know. Prayer simply doesn't work. If it does, it's a coincidence. For those who pray, and feel better, there is a quantifiable psychiatric reason for this, just as those who do yoga and meditate find calm as well.

 

[Boss]

TRANSLATION: None of this fits my firmly set preconceived bias about the word "socialism" and my belief that nothing about the political system has changed since the siege of Leningrad. I'm going back to my bunker lair filled with laser-disc copies of "Red Dawn" and "Reefer Madness" and I'm never coming out again because I have thinky pain.

I'll remind you this is the CDZ and subject to certain rules against insulting. Let's keep it clean, I'm not insulting you even though I am tempted to. In the very post you are quoting me from and claiming that I'm saying what I didn't say, I pointed out that Socialism changes about every 20 years. It is still predicated on the philosophies of Karl Marx and others.

Uh, the number of people in the United States has gone from 179 million at the time of LBJ's legislation to 310 million now. You aren't very good with numbers, are you?

The population was 191 million in 1964 and 320 million in 2015. But that wasn't my point. The same number (36 mil) are living in poverty. Plus, we've changed the way we define poverty through the years. The poverty rate has declined from around 19% to 12%, a reduction of 7%. In this time, we have spent $20 trillion fighting the "War on Poverty." Take that amount and divide it by 36 million and it comes to over $500k per person. So we've spent $500k per person and you're STILL whining about the dismal shape pf those in poverty and STILL wanting to continue these massive endless government entitlements to solve the problem.

And your robber-baron capitalist theories have not changed since before Henry Ford invented the assembly line. Let's go back to 9-year-olds in factories because 'Merica! Free Market!

You've officially lost any credibility you might've had on this issue.

Wait... so now you are denying we've established anti-trust and child labor laws along with a myriad of regulations on safety, establishment of OSHA, the EPA and the FTC a half-dozen other federal regulatory agencies? I've not suggested we eliminate those and they have nothing to do with the principles of free market capitalism... neither do so-called "robber barons" which are big business corporatists in collusion with big government. I don't like corporatism or big government... I hate that more than Socialism.

You want MORE big government which simply means MORE power to be influenced and bought by crony corporatists. I assume you're supporting Clinton who is bought and paid for by the modern day "robber barons" and has made her fortune selling favors to them.

 

[GaryDog]

I'll remind you this is the CDZ and subject to certain rules against insulting. Let's keep it clean, I'm not insulting you even though I am tempted to. In the very post you are quoting me from and claiming that I'm saying what I didn't say, I pointed out that Socialism changes about every 20 years. It is still predicated on the philosophies of Karl Marx and others.

How did I insult you? And you keep repeating that lie about Marx. You're wrong. Again, comparing Marx's ideas to modern-day socialism is akin to claiming that we have relationships to cavemen because they, too, used the wheel. If you don't want to be "insulted", stop spouting lies and ridiculous comments.

The population was 191 million in 1964 and 320 million in 2015. But that wasn't my point. The same number (36 mil) are living in poverty. Plus, we've changed the way we define poverty through the years. The poverty rate has declined from around 19% to 12%, a reduction of 7%. In this time, we have spent $20 trillion fighting the "War on Poverty." Take that amount and divide it by 36 million and it comes to over $500k per person. So we've spent $500k per person and you're STILL whining about the dismal shape pf those in poverty and STILL wanting to continue these massive endless government entitlements to solve the problem.

That's $10,000 per year, per person, for 50 years. That's not a bad investment considering that people with low income recycle all of their money back into the economy. The real problem is corporate welfare that we'll never get back because the cash is stashed in interest-bearing accounts, or overseas.

Wait... so now you are denying we've established anti-trust and child labor laws along with a myriad of regulations on safety, establishment of OSHA, the EPA and the FTC a half-dozen other federal regulatory agencies?

No, I'm hitting you with a dose of your own medicine. You've made the absurd claim that places like modern-day Denmark have "ministers of propaganda" and are akin to totalitarian dictatorships, and would spit out incorrect figures about GDP, people's incomes, etc.. That would be like me making the comments I made regarding republicans/capitalism and robber barons. Of course we have the FTC, OSHA, EPA, etc. Similarly, ALL of the countries on the list regarding upward mobility are democracies with no "ministry of propaganda" that is worse than our corporate media. The study was scientific, and the data was there for you to review, and you dismissed it without inquiry (as is your habit).

I've not suggested we eliminate those and they have nothing to do with the principles of free market capitalism... neither do so-called "robber barons" which are big business corporatists in collusion with big government. I don't like corporatism or big government... I hate that more than Socialism.

Robber barons simply used their corporate profits to keep a stranglehold on their industries. That's an inevitable outcome of unchecked capitalism, which is what you support. And as much as you hate socialism, I bet you love public schools, roads, national parks, the military, etc. All of those are socialist ideals, and contrary to what you might claim, they're quite new.

You want MORE big government which simply means MORE power to be influenced and bought by crony corporatists. I assume you're supporting Clinton who is bought and paid for by the modern day "robber barons" and has made her fortune selling favors to them.

No, in many respects I want less government. If we were true Constitutionalists we wouldn't have a standing army, much less 800 military bases worldwide. I'd probably be on board with means-tested social security though it may cost more than it saves. What I'm not for is slashing the EPA, Dept of Education, NEA, etc. First, cutting those small-potatoes govt programs will not get us out of debt. 2nd, they do a helluva lot of good, considering that, in the instance of the EPA, we'd be helpless against corporate pollution that ends in the corporate bankruptcy, with all of us footing the bill. Government isn't perfect, but in fact corporate masters are even WORSE. Check out Chile under Pinochet, or Argentina following the fall of Peron. The corporatist state can be 10x as brutal and far more damaging to an economy.

 

[Boss]

Our brains indeed have fooled us, and you have zero evidence to support the claim that we would've died without spiritual "connections."

Well, all the other hominids didn't make it. Something made us different and as I see it, that seems to be the only thing it could have been. Not only did we survive, we thrived and achieved... did things that no other species has ever done.

Indeed, it's not magical, because it's not real. At least a magician puts on a good show.

You've shown no evidence it's not real. When you believe in something without evidence, that is NOT science... that's FAITH.

Nothing has been proven to travel faster than light. Some have postulated that they've measured waives that do, but once subject to peer review, those claims have been debunked.

No, quantum entanglement has not been debunked.

Science, for hundreds of years, has narrowed the gap between the unexplainable and the explained.

It doesn't do it by proclaiming things are magic, fantasy or impossible without any evidence. The aforementioned quantum entanglement was thought by Einstein to be impossible, he called it "spooky action at a distance." But you see, math doesn't lie. So while nothing in classical physics can travel faster than speed of light, entangled particles somehow interact instantaneously across billions of light years.

And I notice you completely avoided my point about electrons at the subatomic level. Can you explain the Uncertainty Principle? How can an electron exist yet not be present? How can it exist in two places at the same time? Why can we not measure both it's speed and location simultaneously?

These are quandaries science hasn't answered and they contradict common physical principles but we know they happen. Now... we can throw up our hands and say that's "magic" or we can continue to examine and ask questions. One is practicing faith and one is practicing science.

"Spiritual healing" is not a medical discipline and it's not performed by doctors. It's merely a service offered at the CTCA for "faith based individuals". This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

It's not a replacement for any part of treatment.

I didn't say it was a medical discipline or replaced anything, I said it was offered as part of the treatment regimen. That is true. If it weren't effective it wouldn't be offered. And you're really good at pulling up links to discredit this but I can pull just as many links showing it is credible.

Spiritual Healing Principles | SSRF English

Spiritual Medicine

Spirituality and Medicine: Ethical Topic in Medicine

College of Medicine – Spiritual Health

About Wellness - National Wellness Institute

Now please don't insult me by taking what I am saying out of context. I am not arguing that "spiritual medicine" should replace traditional care or that it's better or more effective. My only point was to illustrate "science" doesn't dismiss the power of human spirituality. You are free to do that but it's YOUR faith-based belief.

 

[Boss]

Robber barons simply used their corporate profits to keep a stranglehold on their industries. That's an inevitable outcome of unchecked capitalism, which is what you support. And as much as you hate socialism, I bet you love public schools, roads, national parks, the military, etc. All of those are socialist ideals, and contrary to what you might claim, they're quite new.

I've never said I support unfettered capitalism. I want the free market capitalist system our founders established. Free market capitalism, free enterprise, constitutionally enumerated power of government and minimal government interference.

Public schools are a disaster. Public roads other than post roads are the responsibility of states. I'm fine with national parks and the military but these are NOT socialist ideals. I know you Marxists love to claim that but you're wrong. The military is specifically enumerated in the constitution as a power of government.

 

[GaryDog]

Our brains indeed have fooled us, and you have zero evidence to support the claim that we would've died without spiritual "connections."

Well, all the other hominids didn't make it. Something made us different and as I see it, that seems to be the only thing it could have been. Not only did we survive, we thrived and achieved... did things that no other species has ever done.

Indeed, it's not magical, because it's not real. At least a magician puts on a good show.

You've shown no evidence it's not real. When you believe in something without evidence, that is NOT science... that's FAITH.

Nothing has been proven to travel faster than light. Some have postulated that they've measured waives that do, but once subject to peer review, those claims have been debunked.

No, quantum entanglement has not been debunked.

Science, for hundreds of years, has narrowed the gap between the unexplainable and the explained.

It doesn't do it by proclaiming things are magic, fantasy or impossible without any evidence. The aforementioned quantum entanglement was thought by Einstein to be impossible, he called it "spooky action at a distance." But you see, math doesn't lie. So while nothing in classical physics can travel faster than speed of light, entangled particles somehow interact instantaneously across billions of light years.

And I notice you completely avoided my point about electrons at the subatomic level. Can you explain the Uncertainty Principle? How can an electron exist yet not be present? How can it exist in two places at the same time? Why can we not measure both it's speed and location simultaneously?

These are quandaries science hasn't answered and they contradict common physical principles but we know they happen. Now... we can throw up our hands and say that's "magic" or we can continue to examine and ask questions. One is practicing faith and one is practicing science.

"Spiritual healing" is not a medical discipline and it's not performed by doctors. It's merely a service offered at the CTCA for "faith based individuals". This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

It's not a replacement for any part of treatment.

I didn't say it was a medical discipline or replaced anything, I said it was offered as part of the treatment regimen. That is true. If it weren't effective it wouldn't be offered. And you're really good at pulling up links to discredit this but I can pull just as many links showing it is credible.

Spiritual Healing Principles | SSRF English

Spiritual Medicine

Spirituality and Medicine: Ethical Topic in Medicine

College of Medicine – Spiritual Health

About Wellness - National Wellness Institute

Now please don't insult me by taking what I am saying out of context. I am not arguing that "spiritual medicine" should replace traditional care or that it's better or more effective. My only point was to illustrate "science" doesn't dismiss the power of human spirituality. You are free to do that but it's YOUR faith-based belief.

Your claim that the only thing that could've allowed homo sapiens to evolve and other hominids to die off is spirituality is very, very odd, and almost certainly wrong. There are scientific reasons for why certain traits of other species of hominids didn't survive. Spirituality has proven to have nothing to do with it.

Ultimately, in your crusade to demand others accept spirituality as concrete, you're left with the same argument that those who argue for existence of Yaweh, Vishnu, Mohammed and Jesus have: Evidence. I.e., there is none. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as proclaiming it impossible. You're misunderstanding all of my remarks in this regard. But it also puts "spirituality" in the same column as the easter bunny and santa claus. They're childish, as-of-now pretend notions until proven otherwise. They can be dismissed -- AGAIN, FOR NOW -- without evidence, because you've provided no evidence FOR their existence.

Your argument is entirely circular: "Spirituality is proven to exist because humans FEEL spirituality and have acted spiritually!" That's like the kid being asked to use a tough word in a sentence to prove he understands it, and he says " ____ is a hard word to understand." You're not advancing the inquiry. You're just repeating your unsupported hypothesis.

All of your links have to do with people using concrete methods to make THEMSELVES feel better. They have no medical value, but they do have psychological value. That's not the same as claiming "spirituality heals". Again, you may as well be making an enthusiastic argument for yoga, and meditation. Sure, they help. Prayer (magic), however, does not.